The section chap. i.-iii. is distinguished from the other prophecies by
this,--that, in it, the relation of the Lord to the [Pg 198] people of
Israel Is represented, _throughout_, under the figure and symbol of
marriage, whilst this same mode of representation is soon relinquished
wherever else it occurs in the book. By this closer limitation, the
objections of _Böckel_ and _Stuck_ to the common division of the
collection into two parts, are set aside. This first portion may be
divided into three parts, which are, in one respect, closely connected,
as is shown by the _Fut._ with the _Vav Conv._ in iii. 1, and likewise
by the fact that this chapter requires to be supplemented from the two
preceding ones, while, in another respect, they may be considered as
wholes, complete in themselves. They do not, by any means, so
distribute the contents among themselves, as that the first describes
the apostasy; the second, the punishment; and the third, the return and
restoration; but each of them contains all these three features, and
yet in such a manner, that here the one feature, and there the other,
is more fully expanded; so that the whole description is complete, only
when all the three parts are taken together. In the portion now before
us, the covenant relation into which the Lord entered with Israel is
typified by a marriage which the prophet contracted at the command of
the Lord; the apostasy of the people, and especially of the ten tribes,
to whom the prophet was sent in the first instance, is typified by the
adultery of the wife, by the divine punishment, and the unpropitious
names which he gives to the children born by the adulterous wife. In
chap. ii. 1-3, there follows the announcement of salvation more
directly, and only with a simple allusion to the symbol.
* * * * *
Ver. 1. "_The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri,
in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in
the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel._ Ver. 2. _At
the beginning when the Lord spake to Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea: Go
take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, and children of whoredoms; for the
land is whoring away from the Lord._" דִּבֶּר is never a noun--not even in
Jer. v. 13--but always the 3d pers. _Pret. Piel_. The _status constr._
תחלת is explained by the fact, that the whole of the following sentence
is treated as one substantive idea: the beginning "of the Lord hath
spoken," [Pg 199] etc., for "the beginning of speaking." יום דבר יהוה,
_the day of_ "_the Lord spoke_," instead of, "the day on which the Lord
spoke." Similar constructions occur also in Is. xxix. 1, and Jer.
xlviii. 6.--The _Fut._ with _Vav Conv._, ויאמר, "and then He spoke,"
carries forward the discourse, as if there had preceded: the Lord began
to speak to Hosea. There is here a _constructio ad sensum_. It is
intentionally, and in order the more distinctly to point out the idea
of the beginning, that the prophet has made use of the noun תחלת, not
of the verb. The construction of דבר with ב, with the signification "to
speak to some one," may be explained thus:--that the words are, as it
were, put into the mind of the hearer in order that they may remain
there. Several interpreters erroneously translate, "spoke through:"
others, following _Jerome_ (the last is _Simson_), "spoke in;" as if
thereby the act of speaking were to be designated as an inward one. The
difference between outward and inward speaking disappears in the
vision; and, for this reason, we cannot imagine that there is any
intention of here noticing it particularly. Everything which takes
place in the vision is substantially, indeed, internal, but in point of
form it is external. Moreover, דבר with ב several times occurs in other
passages also, where the signification, "to speak to some one," is
alone admissible. Thus 1 Sam. xxv. 39, where _Simson's_ explanation,
"David sent and _ordered_ to speak _about_ Abigail," is set aside by
ver. 40. The analogy of the construction of the verbs of hearing and
seeing with ב is likewise in favour of our explanation.[1]--A wife of
_whoredoms_ and _children of whoredoms_. The wife belongs to whoredoms
in so far as she is _devoted to them_; the children, in [Pg 200] so far
as they _proceed_ from them. For we cannot suppose that the children
themselves are described as given to whoredom. Such a thought would
here be altogether out of place. For whoredom is here only the general
designation of adultery, as, by way of applying it to the case in
question, it is immediately subjoined, "away from Jehovah." The subject
of consideration is only the relation of the wife and children to the
prophet, as the type of the Lord; and with this view, it is only the
origin of the children from an adulterous wife which can be of
importance. That this alone is regarded, appears from ii. 6 (4),
compared with ver. 7 (5). That the children, as children of whoredoms,
deserve no compassion, is founded upon the fact that their mother plays
the harlot. אשת זנונים is stronger than זונה; it expresses the idea
that the woman is given, soul and body, to whoredoms. The same emphasis
is expressed also by the analogous designations: man of blood, of
deceit, etc.--Calvin says, "She is called a wife of whoredoms, because
she was long accustomed to them, gave herself over to the lusts of all
indiscriminately, did not prostitute herself once, or twice, or to a
few, but to the debauchery of every one." It is not without reason that
"_take_" is connected with the children also. The prophet shall, as it
were, receive and take, along with the wife, those who, without his
agency, have been born of her. It is self-evident, and has been,
moreover, formerly proved, that we cannot speak of children who were
previously born of the prophet's wife; but that, on the contrary, the
children are they whose birth is narrated in ver. 4 seqq. And that we
cannot consider these children as children of the prophet, as is done
by several interpreters (_Drus._: "_Accipe uxorem et suscipe ex eâ
liberos_"), is obvious from their being designated "children of
whoredoms;" from the word "take" itself, which is expressive of the
passive conduct of the prophet; from the fact that, in the subsequent
verses, the conceiving and bearing of the wife are alone constantly
spoken of, but never, as in Is. viii. 3, the begetting by the prophet;
and, _finally_, from the relation of the type to the thing typified. By
the latter, it is absolutely required that children and mother stand in
the same relation of alienation from the legitimate husband and father.
The words in ver. 3, "She bare him a son," are not indeed in opposition
to it, for these words are only intended to mark the deceit of the wife
who [Pg 201] offers to her husband the children begotten in adultery,
as if they were his, and, at the same time, to bring out the patience
and forbearance of the husband who receives them, and brings them up as
if they were his, although he knows that they are not. In like manner,
the Lord treated, for centuries, the rebellious Israelites as if they
were His children, and granted to them the inheritance which was
destined only for the children, along with so many other blessings,
until at length He declared them to be bastards, by carrying them away
into captivity. The last words state the ground of the symbolical
action. The causal כי is explained from the fact that the import of a
symbolical action is also its ground. The _Inf. absol._ preceding the
_tempus finitum_ gives special emphasis to the verbal idea. The prophet
thereby indicates that, in using the expression "to whore," he does so
deliberately, and because it corresponds exactly to the thing, and
wishes us to understand it in its full strength and compass. In calling
the thing by its right name, he silences, beforehand, every attempt at
palliating and extenuating it. Of such palliations and extenuations the
Jews had abundance. They had not the slightest notion that they had
become unfaithful to their God, but considered their intercourse
with idols as trifling and allowable attentions which they paid to
them.--_Manger_ understands by whoredoms, their placing, at the same
time, their confidence in man; but from what follows, where idolatry
alone is constantly spoken of, it is obvious that this is inadmissible.
If this special thing be reduced to its idea, it is true that trusting
in men is, then, not less comprehended under it than idolatry, inasmuch
as this idea is the turning away from God to that which is not God.
And, from this dependence of what is special upon the idea, it follows
that the description has its eternal truth, and does not become
antiquated, even where the folly of gross idolatry has been long since
perceived.--הארין, the definite land, the land of the prophet, the land
of Israel.--Concerning the last words, Ps. lxxiii. 27 may be compared,
where זנה מן occurs with a similar signification. This phrase contains
an allusion to the common expression, "to walk with, or after, God;"
compare 2 Kings xxiii. 3. According to _Calvin_, the spiritual chastity
of the people of God consists in their following the Lord.
Ver. 3. "_And he went and took Gamer the daughter of Dibhlaim, and she
conceived and bare him a son._"
[Pg 202]
Many interpreters suppose that, by the three children, three different
generations are designated, and the gradual degeneracy of the people,
which sinks deeper and deeper. But this opinion must certainly be
rejected. There is no gradation perceptible. On the contrary, the
announcement of the total destruction of the kingdom of Israel is
connected immediately with the name of the first child, ver. 4. Nor is
it legitimate to say, as _Rückert_ does, that the three children are a
designation of the "conditions" in which the Israelites would be placed
in consequence of their apostasy from the Lord. For, how could mercy be
shown to _conditions_? The right view rather is, that the wife and
children are both the people of Israel, viewed only in different
relations. In the first designation, they are viewed as a unity; in the
latter, as a plurality proceeding from, and depending upon, this unity.
The circumstance that the prophet mentions the birth of children at
all, and the birth of three only, is accounted for by their names. The
children exist only that they may receive a name. The three names must,
therefore, not be considered separately, but must be viewed together.
In that case they present a corresponding picture of the fate impending
upon Israel. The circumstance that the mother and sons are
distinguished in Hosea, rests upon the Song of Solomon. (Compare the
more copious remarks in my commentary on the Song of Sol. iii. 4: "By
the mother, the people is designated according to its historical
continuity,--by the daughter or sons, according to its existence at any
moment.")
Ver. 4. "_And the Lord said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a
little_ (while), _and I visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of
Jehu, and cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel._"
The name "Jezreel" is, by most expositors, explained in this passage as
meaning: "God disperses." This they maintain to be its real
signification, according to the etymology, and that all the rest is
only an allusion. But this exposition is erroneous, as _Manger_ has
correctly perceived. For, 1. No instance occurs where the verb זרע has
this signification. When applied to men, it is always used only in a
good sense: compare ii. 25, Ezek. xxxvi. 9, and the subsequent remarks
on Zech. x. 9. The idea of _scattering_ is not at all the fundamental
one; so that the signification, to _disperse_, is much further from the
fundamental [Pg 203] signification than might, at first sight, appear.
2. The subsequent words must be considered as an explanation of the
name Jezreel, as is obvious from the corresponding explanations of the
names Lo-Ruhamah in ver. 6, and Lo-Ammi in ver. 9, which are intimately
connected with these names. But in this explanation, not even a single
word is said on the subject of the dispersion of the people of
Israel. The circumstance that, in this explanation, Jezreel occurs
as a proper name, without any regard being paid to its appellative
signification[2]--an allusion to which occurs only in the announcement
of the salvation--shows that here too it must be viewed in the same
way. The correct view is this. Jezreel was the place where the last
great judgment of God upon the kingdom of Israel had been executed. The
apostasy from the Lord, and the innocent blood of His servants, shed by
Jezebel and the whole house of Ahab, had been there avenged upon them
by Jehu, the founder of the dynasty which was reigning at the time of
the prophet. At the command of God, Jehu is anointed as king by one of
the sons of the prophets sent by Elisha, 2 Kings ix. In vers. 6-9 the
Lord says to him through the latter: "I anoint thee king over the
people of the Lord, over Israel. And thou shalt smite the house of Ahab
thy master; and _I avenge the blood of My servants the prophets, and
the blood of all the servants of the Lord at the hand of Jezebel, and
the whole house of Ahab shall perish._ And I give the house of Ahab
like the house of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, and like the house of
Baasha the son of Ahijah." The execution corresponded with the command.
When Jehu approached Jezreel, Joram the son of Ahab went out against
him, and met him in the portion of Naboth the Jezreelite, ver. 21.
Appealing to the declaration of the Lord, [Pg 204] "Surely I have seen
the blood of Naboth, and the blood of his sons, and I will requite thee
in this portion of ground" (ver. 26), Jehu orders the corpse of the
slain king to be cast thither. At Jezreel, Jezebel too found a
disgraceful death. Thither, as to the central point of vengeance, were
sent the heads of the seventy royal princes, who had been slain, x.
1-10, and there Jehu slew all that remained of the house of Ahab, ver.
11.--The royal house, and, along with it, all Israel, are now anew to
become a Jezreel; _i.e._, the same divine punitive justice which, at
that time, was manifested at Jezreel, is to be exhibited anew. The
reason why this should be, is stated in the explanation. The house of
Jehu, and all Israel, shall become a Jezreel, in as far as punishment
is concerned, because they have become a Jezreel with respect to guilt,
and because, as in former times at Jezreel, so now again, blood that
has been shed cries to the Lord for vengeance. Where a new carcase is,
there the eagles must anew be gathered together.--It must have, already
appeared from this, how we understand the words, "I visit the blood of
Jezreel," used in the explanation of the name of Jezreel, in the verse
under consideration. According to the prophet's custom of designating,
by the name of an old thing, any new thing which is substantially
similar to it, the new guilt is marked by the name of the old; and it
is marked as _blood_, because the former guilt was pre-eminently
blood-guiltiness;[3] and as the blood of Jezreel, because the former
blood-guiltiness had been especially contracted there, and it was there
where the punishment was executed. The deep impression, which just this
mode of representation must have produced, must not be overlooked. The
sins formerly committed at Jezreel were acknowledged as such by the
whole people, and especially by the royal house, whose whole rights
were based upon this acknowledgment. The recollection of the fearful
punishment was still in the minds of all; but they did not by any means
imagine that they were implicated in the same guilt, and had to expect
the same punishment. That which they considered as already [Pg 205]
absolutely past, the prophet, by a single word, brings again into the
present, and the immediate future. By a single word of dreadful sound
he terrified and aroused them out of their self-deception (which will
not recognise its own sin in the picture of the sins of others), and
out of their carnal security. Entirely analogous are 2 Kings ix. 31,
where Jezebel says to Jehu, "Hast thou peace, Zimri, murderer of his
master?" which _Schmid_ well explains by--"It is time for thee to
desist, that thou mayest not experience the same punishment as Zimri;"
Zech. v. 11, where the prophet mentions Shinar as the place of Israel's
future banishment; and x. 11, where he calls their future oppressors by
the names of Asshur and Egypt, and describes a new passing through the
Red Sea. In Revelation, the degenerate church is called by the names of
Sodom and Egypt (xi. 18); the true Church, by Jerusalem; Rome, by
Babylon.--The explanation which we have given will be its own defence
against the current, and evidently erroneous, expositions. Many
interpreters understand, by the blood of Jezreel, the slaughter of the
family of Ahab which was accomplished there by Jehu. It is, indeed,
quite correct to say that a deed objectively good does not thereby
become one which is subjectively so. That which has been willed and
commanded by God may itself become an object of divine punishment, if
it be not performed from love and obedience to God, but from culpable
selfishness. But that Jehu was actuated by motives so bad, is
sufficiently obvious from the circumstance, that he himself did the
very thing which he had punished in the house of Ahab. _Calvin_ rightly
remarks: "That slaughter is, as far as God is concerned, a just
vengeance; but, as far as Jehu is concerned, it is open murder." But
yet, this deed cannot be regarded as the principal crime of Jehu and
his family. We must not overlook other crimes far more heinous, and
consider the guilty blood shed by them as the sole ground of their
punishment. That this was indeed considered as guilt, but only as a
lower degree of it, is clearly seen from 1 Kings xvi. 7, where
destruction is announced to Baasha, who had destroyed the house of
Jeroboam I., "on account of all the evil which he did in the sight of
the Lord, in provoking Him to anger with the works of his hands, so
that he may be like the house of Jeroboam, and because he killed him."
The main crime is, that Baasha had become like the house of Jeroboam.
[Pg 206] What he perpetrated against this house is the minor crime, and
becomes a crime only through the former.--It is worthy of notice that
"the blood of Jezreel" exactly corresponds, according to our
explanation, with the expression, "so that he may be like the house of
Jeroboam." It may be further noticed, that, in the deed of Jehu, every
better feeling cannot be excluded. If the command of God had been used
by him merely as a pretext, we could not account for the praise and the
promises given to him on account of this very deed, 2 Kings x. 30. It
is true that the limitation of the promise shows that pure motives
alone did not prevail with him.[4]--"The bloody deed to which the house
of Jehu owed its elevation" nowhere else appears as the cause of the
catastrophe which befell this house. That which he had done against the
house of Ahab, whose sins were crying to heaven for vengeance far more
than those of Baasha, is, in 2 Kings x. 30, 31, represented as his
_merit_. His _guilt_ consisted in his not departing from the ways of
Jeroboam, and in his making Israel to sin. It is this guilt alone
which, in the Book of Kings, is charged against all the members of his
family,--against Jehoahaz, the son of Jehu, in 2 Kings xiii. 2; against
Jehoash, in 2 Kings xiii. 11; against Jeroboam, in 2 Kings xiv. 24;
against Zechariah, under whom the catastrophe took place, in 2 Kings
xv. 9: "And he did that which was evil in the eyes of the Lord, as his
fathers had done, and departed not from the sins of Jeroboam the son of
Nebat, who had made Israel to sin." According to the context, we must,
in the first place, think of the _religious guilt_; the blood of
Jezreel, in the verse under consideration, must correspond with the
_whoredoms_ in ver. 2.--Moreover, the extension of the punishment to
all Israel could not, according to this explanation, be understood; for
the deed was only that of Jehu and his assistants. How, then, could not
only the house of Jehu be punished, but also [Pg 207] the kingdom of
the house of Israel be destroyed, and its bow broken in the valley of
Jezreel?
According to another interpretation still more prevalent, "the blood of
Jezreel" denotes "all the evil deeds committed by the Israelitish kings
in Jezreel." But this interpretation is sufficiently invalidated by the
single circumstance, that the residence of the family of Jehu, which,
after all, alone comes into consideration in this place, was, from the
very beginning, not Jezreel, but Samaria; compare 2 Kings x. 36, xiii.
10, xiv. 23.
Two particulars are contained in the announcement of punishment.
_First_,--The whole house of Jehu, and _then_ all Israel, are to become
a Jezreel as regards punishment, as they are even now in point of
guilt; and, in this announcement, the significant _paronomasia_ must
not be overlooked between _Israel_--the designation of the dignity of
the people, and _Jezreel_--that which is base in deeds and condition.
Calvin makes prominent the last-mentioned feature only: "You are," he
explains, "a degenerate people, you differ in nothing from your king
Ahab." We cannot, however, follow him in this explanation; the words,
"I cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel," cannot, as
several interpreters suppose, mean merely, "I will put an end to the
dominion of the family of Jehu over Israel." That these words rather
announce the cessation of every native regal government, and hence of
the entire national independence, is so evident, that it stands in need
of no proof. Both of these features are, in their fulfilment, separated
indeed by a long period of time (see the Introduction); but they are
nevertheless closely connected. With the ruin of the house of Jehu, the
strength of the kingdom of Israel was broken; from that time it was
only a living corpse. The fall of the house of Jehu was the beginning
of the end,--the commencement of the process of putrefaction. The
omission, in the inscription, of all mention of any of the kings after
Jeroboam, coincides with the circumstance that the fall of the house of
Jehu is connected with the fall of the kingdom. With regard, however,
to the former event, Hosea had an earlier prophecy before him. It had
been prophesied to Jehu (2 Kings x. 30) that his children should sit on
the throne until the fourth generation. Now, since Jeroboam was the
great-grandson of Jehu, the glory of [Pg 208] this family must come to
an end with his son. But at no period did the house of Jehu, and the
kingdom of Israel, seem to be so far from destruction as under the
reign of Jeroboam; and, hence, it was time that the forgotten prophecy
should be revived, and, at the same time, expanded.
Ver. 5. "_And it shall come to pass at that day, that I break the bow
of Israel in the valley of Jezreel._"
Of this, Calvin gives the following paraphrase: "Ye are puffed up with
pride; ye oppose your fierceness to God, because ye excel in weapons
and strength; because ye are warlike men, ye believe that God can do
nothing against you. But surely your bows shall not prevent His hands
from destroying you."--In the valley of Jezreel, Israel shall become,
as to punishment, what they already are, as to guilt, viz., a
"Jezreel." The verse is a further expansion of the last words of the
preceding one, to which the words, "at that day," refer. He whose bow
is broken is defenceless and powerless; compare Gen. xlix. 24; 1 Sam.
ii. 4; Jer. xlix. 35. It is evident that we can here think only of the
defeat of Israel by the Assyrians, the consequence of which was the
total overthrow of the kingdom of Israel. But it is not to be
overlooked, that the Assyrians, who in the second section of Hosea are
frequently mentioned in express terms, as the instruments of God's
punishment, are not spoken of at all as such in the first section,
which belongs to the reign of Jeroboam. Amos likewise abstains from
mentioning any name of the enemies. The Assyrians had not at that time
appeared on the historical horizon. But the prophecy was to evince
itself as such, by the fact of the announcement of the judgment at a
time when its instruments were not as yet prepared; just as Elijah, in
1 Kings xviii. 41, hears the rushing of the rain before there was even
a cloud in the sky.--We are not told in the historical books at what
place Israel was defeated by the Assyrians. _Jerome_, in his remarks on
our passage, says that it took place in the valley of Jezreel. It is
very probable, however, that this is only an inference clothed in the
garb of history. But even apart from the passage under review, the
matter is very probable. The valley of Jezreel or Esdrelon "is the
largest, and at the same time the most fertile, plain of Palestine. The
brook of Kishon, which is, next to Jordan, the most important river of
Palestine, waters and fructifies it, and, [Pg 209] with its
tributaries, flows through it in all directions." (_Ritter_, S. 689.)
In all the wars which were carried on within the territories of the ten
tribes, especially when the enemies came from the North, it was the
natural battle-field. "It was, in the first centuries, the station of a
legion (μέγα πεδίον λεγεῶνος); it is the place where the troops of
Nebuchadnezzar, Vespasian, Justinian, the Sultan Saladdin, and many
other conquering armies were encamped, down to the unsuccessful
expedition of _Buonaparte_, whose success in Syria here terminated.
_Clarke_ found erected here the tents of the troops of the Pacha of
Damascus. In later times, it was the scene of the skirmishes between
the parties of hostile hordes of Arabs and Turkish pachas. In the
political relations of Asia Minor, it is to this locality that there
must be ascribed the total devastation and depopulation of Galilee,
which once was so flourishing, full of towns, and thickly populated."
(_Ritter_, _Erdk._ 1 _Ausg._ ii. S. 387.) We may add, that, in the same
plain also, the battle was fought in which Saul and Jonathan perished
(for the plain of Esdrelon is bounded on the south-east by the
mountains of Gilboa), and so likewise was the battle between Ahab and
the Syrians. To it also belonged the plain near the town of Megiddo,
where Josiah, in the battle against Pharaoh-Necho, was mortally
wounded. Compare _Rosenmüller_, _Alt._ ii. 1, p. 149.
Ver. 6. "_And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And He said to
him, Call her name Lo-Ruhamah_ (_i.e._, one who has not obtained
mercy): _for I will not continue any more to have mercy upon the house
of Israel; for I will take away from them._"--Interpreters ask why
the second child was a female; and this question is by no means an
idle one, since the prophet everywhere else adheres closely to the
subject-matter, and adds no feature, merely for the sake of giving
vividness to the picture. We cannot for a moment suppose, as _Jerome_
and others do, that the female child denotes a more degraded
generation. For why, then, is the third again a male child? The
supposition proceeds from the altogether unfounded notion that the
three children denote different generations. The reason must, on the
contrary, be sought for in the name. _Schmid_ says: "It seems to have
reference to the weakness of the sex. For the female sex [Pg 210] finds
greater sympathy than the male." The verb רחם does not denote any kind
of love, but only the love of him who is high to him who is low, of the
strong to the weak; and hence the LXX., whom Peter follows in 1 Pet.
ii. 10 (οὐκ ἠλεημένη), render the word more accurately than Paul, in
Rom. ix. 25 (οὐκ ἠγαπημένη). Hence it is never used of man's love to
God, but only of the love of God to man,--of His mercy. The only
passage which seems to contradict this, Ps. xviii. 2, is not to the
purpose, as, there, the _Kal_ is used. But the female sex, being
weaker, stands in greater need of the compassion of men, than does the
male. Is. ix. 16. The female child places the neediness and
helplessness of the people in more striking contrast with the refusal
of help from Him who alone can bestow it. The רחמה is either
_Participle_ in _Pual_ which has cast off the מ, or the 3d fem. _Pret.
in pause_; thus _Cocceius_, who explains it by: "She has not obtained
mercy." It is in favour of the latter view, that according to _Ewald_,
§ 310 b, לא does not often stand before a _Participle_. The words, "_I
will not continue_," refer to the former great manifestations of divine
mercy, and especially the last under Jeroboam, which the people still,
at that time, enjoyed; compare 2 Kings xiii. 23: "And the Lord was
gracious unto them, and had _mercy_ upon them, and turned towards them
because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not
destroy them, neither cast them from His presence." Upon this contrast,
also, rests the mild expression, "I will not have mercy,"--an
expression which, in virtue of this contrast, becomes stronger than any
other. Several interpreters here lay peculiar stress upon the
circumstance, that "the _house_ of Israel" is spoken of. This, the
kingdom of Israel, they say, as an independent state, is given over to
everlasting destruction; it is only single individuals who shall obtain
mercy after they have joined the house of David. But the supposition
that "house of Israel" is used in this sense, is altogether unfounded.
The house is equivalent to the family; and the prophets speak of "a
house of Israel" after the destruction, no less than before it. The
words in ii. 6 (4), "I will not have mercy upon her children," and the
circumstance that she who is here called Lo-Ruhamah is afterwards
called Ruhamah, also militate against referring "house of Israel" to
the state. The right view rather is, that the denial of mercy [Pg 211]
must not be understood absolutely, but relatively. It is not for ever
that mercy shall be denied to them, but for a time,--until God's
punitive justice shall have been satisfied. Just as Israel shall not
always remain Jezreel, Lo-Ammi shall, at some future time, become again
Ammi.--The last words are, by the greater number of recent
interpreters, almost unanimously explained: "That I should forgive
them." But, in that case, we can perceive no reason why the _Inf. abs._
should be placed before the _tempus finitum_. Why should the verbal
idea here be rendered so emphatic? In addition to this, the extreme
feebleness of the sense would be remarkable. Nothing would be said that
would not be already implied in the words, "I will not continue any
more to have mercy." But, on the other hand, we obtain a very suitable
sense if we translate thus: "I will take away from them." The object is
not mentioned, just because _every thing_ is to be understood. The
prominence given to the verbal idea is then accounted for from its
being contrasted with the _having mercy_, which implies _giving_. There
is then, moreover, a very striking contrast with the standing phrase
נשא עון ל, or also simply נשא ל: I shall take away from them, not,
however, as hitherto, their guilt (compare Amos vii. 8), but all that
they have. _Calvin_ had previously directed attention to the
circumstance that the following verse also is in favour of the
translation by _tollere_: "_Servare et tollere inter se opponit
propheta._" Chap. v. 14 may also be compared, where נשא is used in a
similar manner, the object being likewise omitted: "I will tear and go
away, I will take away, and there is none that delivereth."
Ver. 7. "_And I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and I save
them by the Lord their God; and I do not save them by bow, and by
sword, and by war, and by horses, and by horsemen._"
Several interpreters suppose that mercy is here promised to Judah as a
_consolation_ to Israel, inasmuch as the latter should partake in it.
But this view is erroneous. From the antithesis to ver. 6, it is
evident that mercy is here promised to Judah for the time when Israel
shall not find mercy; and we are not at liberty to anticipate the time
described in ii. 1-3, when both become partakers of mercy. This is
apparent also from the circumstance that in vers. 8, 9, the threatening
of punishment [Pg 212] to Israel is still continued. It can then only
be the intention of the prophet, by describing the mercy which Judah
their brethren should experience, to sharpen the goad, more effectually
to rouse Israel from their false security, and to direct their
attention to the bad foundation of the entire constitution of their
political and ecclesiastical affairs, in consequence of which they
considered as legitimate that which, in Judah, was only an abuse. As
the showing of mercy to Judah runs parallel with the withholding of it
from Israel, we can, primarily and chiefly, think only of the different
fates of the two, during the Assyrian dominion. The wonderful
deliverance of Judah on that occasion is foretold by Isaiah, xxxi. 8,
in a similar manner: "And Asshur falls through the sword not of a man,
and the sword not of a man devours him." We must not, however, limit
ourselves to this event; a preference of Judah over Israel, a remnant
of divine mercy appeared, even when they were carried away into
captivity. During its continuance, they were not altogether deprived of
marks of the continuance of the divine election. Prophets continued to
labour among them, as immediate ambassadors of God. Wonderful events
showed them in the midst of the Gentiles the superiority of their God,
and prepared the way for their deliverance. They maintained, in a far
greater degree, their national constitution; and, _lastly_, their
affliction lasted for a far shorter time than did that of the
Israelites. Contrary to all human expectation, their affairs soon took
a favourable turn, in which only a comparatively small number of their
Israelitish brethren partook, while, for the rest, the withholding of
mercy continued. But it is just by means of this contrast with the lot
of Judah, that the announcement of the lot of Israel appears in its
true light. Without this contrast, one might have imagined, that the
announcement of the prophet did not go beyond his human vision. It
would, of course, appear highly probable that a kingdom so weak as that
of Israel,--weak, especially when compared with those great Asiatic
kingdoms which were great already, and yet were continually striving
after enlargement,--a kingdom, moreover, placed in the midst between
these kingdoms, and their natural enemy and rival, Egypt--should not
have been able to maintain its existence for any length of time. But
this probability existed in a far higher decree in the case of the
kingdom of [Pg 213] Judah, which was smaller and weaker still, and
which had suffered much through Jehoash the father of Jeroboam (2 Kings
xiv. 13), under the latter of whom, the splendour and glory of Israel
had been so greatly increased. But that which prevented this
probability from becoming a reality lay altogether beyond the sphere of
human calculation, as Hosea himself here so emphatically expresses. And
by _such_ help, the kingdom of Israel would have been delivered, no
less than the kingdom of Judah. It is true that this prediction of
Hosea is no prediction of some accidental event, but has its foundation
in the idea. The lots of Israel and Judah could not be otherwise than
so different, after their different position in reference to the
Covenant-God was once fixed. Nor is this prediction one which has
ceased after its first and literal fulfilment, but is constantly and
anew realizing itself. The proceeding of God towards the different
Churches and States is regulated by their conduct towards Him. The
history of the world is a judgment of the world. But even to know this
truth is, in itself, a supernatural gift; and they only are able to use
it with safety, to whom God has given an insight into the mysteries of
His government of the world. This becomes very evident, if we observe
how often the predictions of those who knew the truth in general, down
to _Bengel_ and his followers, have been put to shame by the result.
God's ways are not our ways. No one knows them except Himself, and
those to whom He will reveal them. The extent to which the prophecy
rests on the idea is, moreover, clearly seen by the words, "And I save
them _by Jehovah their God_." Here we have the ground of their
deliverance. Jehovah is the God of Judah, and, hence, the source of
their salvation, which does not cease to flow although all human
sources be dried up. The reason why Israel does not obtain mercy must
then be, that Jehovah is not their God. That this contrast is implied
here, is confirmed by iii. 5: "Afterwards shall the children of Israel
return and seek the _Lord their God_, and David their king." That which
in aftertimes they shall seek, and thereby obtain salvation, they must
have lost now; and this loss must be the source of their affliction.
Calvin makes the following pertinent remark: "The antithesis between
the false gods and Jehovah must here be kept in mind. Jehovah was the
God of the house of Judah; and hence, it is just as if the prophet had
said, 'Ye [Pg 214] indeed profess the name of God, but ye worship the
devil, and not God. Ye have no part in Jehovah. He resides in His
temple, and has pledged His faithfulness to David when He commanded him
to build Him a temple on Mount Zion; but from you, the true God has
departed!'" (Compare Amos ii. 8, where the prophet speaks of the god of
the ten tribes as one who belongs to them alone, and with whom he has
nothing to do.) In contrast with Him who alone could grant help, and
whom Israel did not possess, but Judah did, the prophet enumerates, in
the remaining part of the verse under consideration, the aids which
could not afford any real help, in which Israel was, at that time, much
richer than Judah, and in which they placed a false confidence. Compare
x. 13: "Thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty
men;" Ps. xx. 8; Mic. v. 9 seqq.; and Deut. xxxiii. 29, where the Lord
is spoken of as the only true bulwark and armour: "Happy art thou,
Israel: who is like unto thee? a people saved by the Lord, the shield
of thy help, thy proud sword: thine enemies shall be liars unto thee,
and thou shalt tread upon their high places." Calvin says, "God does
not require any other aids; His own strength is quite sufficient. The
sum and substance is therefore this, that although the weakness of the
kingdom of Judah excites the contempt of all, this shall be no obstacle
to its deliverance by the grace of God, although there be no help at
all from men."--The prophet has, at the same time, before his eyes the
great events of former history, where, when all human resources failed,
the power of God had shown itself to be alone quite sufficient.--We
cannot assert with _Gesenius_, that "war" should here be quite
identical with "weapons of war;" it rather comprehends everything which
is required for war, viz., the prudence of the commanders, the valour
of the heroes, the strength of the army, etc. "Heroes and horsemen"
are, however, specially mentioned, because in ancient times the main
strength of the armies lay in these. Even Mahommed thought himself
entitled to hold up a victory which he had obtained without cavalry--by
infantry alone--as a miracle wrought immediately by God; comp. _Abulf.
vit. Moh._ pp. 72, 91.