Ver. 9. "_And He said, Call his name, Lo-Ammi_ (_i.e._, not [Pg 215] my
people); _for you are not My people, and I, not will I be yours._"
As the prophet everywhere else adheres closely to his subject-matter,
as, indeed, he allows the figure to recede behind the subject of his
discourse, but never the opposite, we cannot well imagine that the
weaning is mentioned merely for the purpose of making the description
more graphic. Calvin says, "I do not doubt that the prophet intends
here to commend the Lord's long-continued mercy and forbearance towards
that people." The unfaithfulness of the wife, and the forbearance of
the prophet, do indeed continue for years. But it is better to suppose
that the mention of the weaning is intended to separate the territory
of Lo-Ruhamah from the following birth, and to call forth the idea
that, now, there may follow one of better import.--The literal
translation of the close of the verse is, "And I will not be to
you"--equivalent to, "I will not any longer belong to you." We cannot
assume, as _Manger_ does, that לאלהים has been here left out, nor, as
others do, that it must be supplied. Since it is God who speaks, "to
you," or "yours," is sufficiently definite. Similar is Ezek. xvi. 8:
"And I entered into a covenant with thee, and thou becamest Mine,"
ותהיי לי; Ps. cxviii. 6: "The Lord is mine, יהוה לי, I will not fear."
The explanation given by some, "I shall not be among you," is too
limited. It is the highest happiness to possess God Himself, with all
His gifts and blessings, and the greatest misery to lose Him. The
fulfilment of this threatening is reported in 2 Kings xvii. 18: "And
the Lord was very angry with Israel, and removed them out of His sight;
and there was none left but the tribe of Judah alone;" comp. also Is.
vii.
The first three verses of the following chapter ought to have been
connected with the first chapter; for they contain the announcement of
salvation which is necessary to complete the first prophecy.
Chap. ii. 1. "_And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the
sand of the sea, which is not measured nor numbered. And it shall come
to pass, in the place where it was said unto them, Not my people ye, it
shall be said unto them. Sons of the living God._"
The first point which requires to be determined, is the subject of the
verse. Every other reference except that to the [Pg 216] ten tribes is
here out of the question; inasmuch as the same who, in the preceding
verse, were called Lo-Ammi, are now to be called sons of the living
God. Several of the ancient expositors here assume a sudden transition
to the Christian Church; but such would be a _salto mortale_. Nor are
we to understand by the children of Israel, all the descendants of
Jacob; for the children of Judah are distinguished from them in ver. 2.
Substantially, however, those too are included, as appears from this
very verse; for both shall then form one nation of brethren. But here
the prophet views only one portion, because to this only did the
preceding threatening, and the mission of the prophet in general,
refer. From this, also, it may be explained how the prophet may apply
to the _part_ the promises of Genesis, which there refer to the
_whole_. The reference to these promises, in the first part of the
verse, cannot be at all mistaken. Compare especially, as agreeing most
literally, the passage in Gen. xxii. 17: "I will multiply thy seed as
the stars of heaven, and as the sand which is on the shore of the sea;"
and xxxii. 13 (12): "I make thy seed as the sand of the sea, which is
not numbered for multitude." A similar literal reference is in Jer.
xxxiii. 22: "As the host of heaven is not numbered, neither the sand of
the sea measured; so will I multiply the seed of David My servant."
Now, the reference here cannot be accidental. It supposes that these
promises were at that time generally known in the kingdom of Israel.
They served to strengthen the ungodly in their false security. Relying
on them, they charged the prophets with making God a liar in thus
announcing the impending destruction of the kingdom, inasmuch as the
prophecy had not yet been fulfilled in all its extent. The prophet,
however, by his almost literal repetition of the promise, shows that
thereby his threatenings are not excluded--"teaches that the visitation
of which he had spoken would be such that, nevertheless, God would not
forget His word; that the rejection of the people would be such that,
nevertheless, its election should stand firm and sure,--and, finally,
that the adoption should not be invalid by which He had chosen
Abraham's progeny as His people" (_Calvin_).--The case is quite
analogous, when corrupted Christian churches harden themselves in
trusting in the promise that the Lord would be with them all the days,
and that the gates of hell should not prevail against His Church. The
[Pg 217] Lord knoweth how to execute His judgments so that His promises
shall not suffer thereby, yea, that their fulfilment is thereby
rendered possible. The relation of our passage to Is. x. 22 requires
_further_ to be considered: "For though thy people Israel be as the
sand of the sea, the remnant only shall return." Here, too, the
reference to the promises in Genesis cannot be mistaken. But there is
this difference,--that in the time of Isaiah, the people, viewing the
partial fulfilment of the promises of God in their then prosperous
condition, as a sure pledge of divine mercy, founded thereupon their
false security. To this, however, the prophet replies, that even the
perfect fulfilment would give no warrant for it. In Hosea, however,
they rely on the perfect fulfilment, which had, as yet, no existence at
all. But Hosea has in view the godly as much as the ungodly. To the
former he shows that here also there would be a fulfilment of what is
written in Num. xxiii. 19: "God is not a man, that He should lie;
neither the son of man, that He should repent. Should He say, and not
do it; and speak, and not fulfil it?" Moreover, we cannot fail to see
that, in the verse under review, as also in ver. 2, there is an
allusion to the first child, Jezreel,--that in the second member of the
verse there is an allusion to Lo-Ammi, and in ver. 3, to Lo-Ruhamah.
But the name Jezreel is now taken in a good sense, probably in the
sense in which it was first given to the valley (compare remarks on i.
4), and also to the town by its founders. Jezreel means "God sows." The
founders of the town thereby expressed the hope that God would cause an
abundant harvest to proceed from a small sowing--a glorious end from a
small beginning. Thus God will now sow the small seed of Israel, and an
infinitely rich harvest shall be gained from this sowing; compare
remarks on ver. 25.--But if now we seek for the historical reference of
the announcement, we are compelled to go back to the sense of those
declarations in Genesis. By many, these are referred merely to the
bodily descendants of the Patriarchs; by many, also, to their spiritual
descendants, their successors in the faith. But the latter reference is
altogether arbitrary; and the former could be well-founded only, if the
Congregation of the Lord had been destined solely for the natural
descendants, and if all the Gentiles had been refused admittance into
it. But that such is not the case, is evident from the command to
circumcise every bondservant; [Pg 218] for, by circumcision, a man was
received among the people of God. This appears, _further_, from the
command in Exod. xii. 48, that every stranger who wished to partake of
the Passover must be previously circumcised; and this implies that
strangers might partake in the sign and feast of the covenant if they
wished; compare _Michaelis_, _Mos. Recht._ Th. iv. § 184. This appears,
_moreover_, from Deut. xxiii. 1-8, where the Edomites and Egyptians are
expressly declared to be capable of being received into the
Congregation of the Lord. It appears, _still further_, from the
circumstance that, in the same passage, the command to exclude the
Ammonites and Moabites is founded upon a special reason. And,
_finally_, it appears from the Jewish practice at all times. But the
heathens who were received among the people of God were considered as
belonging to the posterity of the Patriarchs, as their sons by
adoption. How indeed could it be otherwise, since, by intermarriage,
every difference must have very soon disappeared? They were called
children of Israel, and children of Jacob, no less than were the
others. It now appears to what extent the promise to the Patriarchs
refers to the Gentiles also--viz., in so far as they became believers
in the God of Israel, and joined themselves to Israel. Compare Is.
xliv. 5: "One shall say, I am Jehovah's, and another shall call the
name of Jacob, and another shall write with his hand. Unto the Lord!
and boast of the name of Israel." Such an eager desire of the Gentiles
towards the kingdom of God regularly took place, either when the God of
Israel had revealed Himself by specially distinguishing manifestations
of His omnipotence and glory, as, _e.g._, in the deliverance from the
Egyptian and Babylonish captivities, in both of which events we find a
number of those who had previously been heathens, ערב, in the train of
the Israelites;--or when a feeling of the vanity of the idols of the
heathen world had been awakened with special vividness, as in the times
after Alexander the Great, in which Roman and Greek heathenism became
more and more _effete_, and rapidly hastened on towards ruin. In the
time of Christ, both of these causes co-operated. If there were
soundness in the opinion now generally prevalent, according to which
the Church of the New Testament stands quite independent of the
Congregation of Israel, having originated from a free and equal union
of believers from Israel, and of those from among the Gentiles, [Pg
219] then indeed the promise now before us would have no longer any
reference to New Testament times. The New Testament Church would be a
generation altogether different, and no longer acknowledge Abraham,
Isaac, and Jacob as their fathers. But, according to the constant
doctrine of the Old as well as of the New Testament, there is only one
Church of God from Abraham to the end of the days--only one house under
two dispensations. John the Baptist proceeds upon the supposition that
the members of the New Testament also must be children of Abraham, else
the covenant and promise of God would come to nought. But as the bodily
descent from Abraham is no security against the danger of exclusion
from his posterity--of which Ishmael was the first example--and as, so
early as in the Pentateuch, it is said, with reference to every greater
transgression, "This soul is cut off from its people," so, on the other
hand, God, in the exercise of His sovereign liberty, may give to
Abraham, in the room of his degenerate children after the flesh,
adopted children without number, who shall sit down with him, and
Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of God, whilst the sons of the kingdom
are cast out.--After these remarks on the promise to the Patriarchs,
there can be no longer any difficulty in making out the historical
reference of the announcement before us. It cannot refer to the bodily
descendants of Abraham, as such, any more than the promise of a son to
Abraham was fulfilled in the birth of Ishmael, or than the Arabs stand
related to the promise of the innumerable multitude of his
descendants,--a promise which is repeated, in the same extent, to Isaac
and Jacob, although they were not the ancestors of the Arabs.
Degenerate sons are not a blessing; they are no objects of promise, no
sons in the full sense. Every one is a son of Abraham, only in so far
as he is a son of God. For this reason the phrases "sons of Israel" and
"sons of the living God" are, in the passage before us, connected with
each other. Not as though the corporeal descent were altogether a
matter of indifference. The corporeal descendants of the Patriarchs had
the nearest claims to becoming their children in the full sense. It was
to them that the means of becoming so were first granted. To them
pertained the covenants, the promises, and the adoption, Rom. ix. 4.
But all these external advantages were of no avail to them when they
allowed them to [Pg 220] remain unused; in these circumstances, neither
the promise to Abraham, nor the announcement before us, had any
reference to them. Both of them would have remained to this day
unfulfilled, although the unconverted children of Israel had increased
so as to have become the most populous nation on the face of the whole
earth. It thus appears that the announcement before us was first truly
realized in the time of the Messiah; inasmuch as it was at that time
that the family of the Patriarchs was so mightily increased; and that
it will yet be more fully realized, partly by the reception of an
innumerable multitude of adopted sons, and partly by the elevation of
those who were sons only in a lower sense, to be sons in the highest.
That which occurred at the time after the Babylonish captivity, when
the Lord stirred up a number of Israelites to return to Palestine, we
can regard as only an insignificant prelude; partly because this number
was too small to correspond, even in any degree, to the infinite extent
of the promise, and partly because there were among them certainly a
few only who, in the fullest sense, deserved the name of "Children of
Israel." "Israel"--which is the higher name, and has reference to the
relation to God--is here used emphatically, as appears especially from
a comparison with ver. 4, where it is taken from the degenerate
children, and exchanged for the name "Jezreel."--In the second part of
the verse, we must first set aside the false interpretation of במקום
אשר by "instead of," which is given by _Grotius_ and others. It has
arisen from an inappropriate reference to the Latin, which has,
however, no support in the Hebrew _usus loquendi_. The words can only
mean (compare Lev. iv. 24, 33; Jer. xxii. 12; Ezek. xxi. 35; Neh. iv.
14): "in the place where," or, more literally still, "in the place
that"--the wider designation instead of the narrower. The _status
constr._ is explained by the circumstance that the whole succeeding
sentence together expresses only one substantive idea, equivalent to:
"in the place of the being said unto them." The place may here be,
either that where the people first received the name Lo-Ammi, _i.e._,
Palestine, or the place of the exile, where they first felt the full
meaning of it,--the misery being a _sermo realis_ of God. Decisive in
favour of the latter reference is the following verse, where the הארץ,
the land of the exile, corresponds with מקים in the verse before us.
(According to _Jonathan_, the sense is: "In the place to [Pg 221] which
they have been carried away among the Gentiles.") It is intentionally
that both times the Future יֵאָמֵר is used, which is to be understood as
the Present. The difference of time being thus disregarded, the
contrast becomes so much the more striking.--By "people" and "children"
of God, the same thing is expressed according to different relations.
The Israelites were the people of God, inasmuch as He was their King;
and children of God, in as far as He was their Father,--their Father,
it is true, in the first place, not, as in the New Testament (John i.
12, 13), in reference to the spiritual generation, but in relation to
heart-felt love, similar to the love of a father for a son. With regard
to the Old Testament idea of son ship to God, compare the remarks on
Ps. ii. 7. In this relation, sometimes all Israel is personified as the
son of God; thus, _e.g._, Exod. iv. 22: "Thus thou shalt say unto
Pharaoh: My son. My first-born is Israel." Sometimes the Israelites are
also called the _children_ or _sons_ of God; _e.g._, Deut. xiv. 1: "Ye
are children to the Lord your God" (compare also Deut. xxxii. 19),
although not every single individual could on this account be called
"son of God." In this sense, that designation is never used, evidently
because the sonship under the Old Testament does not rest so much on
the personal relation of the single individual to God,--as is the case
in the New Testament,--but the individual rather partakes in it only as
a part of the whole. But there is an easy transition from the sonship
as viewed in the Old Testament, to the sonship as seen in the New. The
former, in its highest perfection, cannot exist at all without the
latter. It is only when its single members are born of God, that the
Congregation can be regarded and treated as the child of God in the
full sense of the word, and that the whole fulness of His love can be
poured out upon it; for this is the only way of attaining to likeness
with God, which is the condition of admission to the rights of
children. Hence it appears that the υἱοθεσία under the Old Testament
was an actual prophecy of the times of the New Testament; and from it,
it follows also that the announcement under consideration has its
ultimate reference to these times. Earlier fulfilments--especially at
the return from the Babylonish captivity--are not to be excluded,
inasmuch as the idea comprehends in it everything in which it is, even
in the least degree, realized; but they can be considered [Pg 222] only
as a slight prelude to Its real fulfilment, which takes place only when
the reality fully coincides with the idea; so that we are not at
liberty to limit ourselves to the commencement of the Messianic time,
but must include the Messianic time in its last consummation.--Another
question still remains:--Why is God here called the "_living_?"
Plainly, to point out the antithesis of the true God to dead idols,
which cannot love, because they do not live; and thus to bring out the
greatness of the privilege of being the child of such a God. The same
antithesis is found in Deut. xxxii. 3 seqq.: "Where are now their gods,
the rock in whom they trusted, which did eat the fat of their
sacrifices, and drank the wine of their drink-offerings? Let them rise
up and help you; let it be a covering to you. See now that I, I am He,
and not is a God beside Me. I kill and I make alive. I wound and I
heal." This antithesis still continues; the world has only changed its
idols. It still always seeks the life from the dead, from the gross
idol of sin up to the refined idol of a self-made abstract god, whether
he be formed from logical notions or from emotions and feelings. But
how much soever they may strive to give life to their idols, they
remain dead, although they should even attain to a semblance of life.
The true God, on the contrary, lives and continues to live, how much
soever they may strive to slay Him. He manifests Himself as the living
one, either by smiting and killing them, if they continue in their
impenitence, or by healing and quickening them, if they become His
children.--_Finally_,--we must still consider the two citations, in
the New Testament, of the passage before us. One in 1 Pet. ii. 10, οἱ
ποτὲ οὐ λαὸς, νῦν δὲ λαὸς Θεοῦ· οἱ οὐκ ἠλεημένοι, νῦν δὲ ἐλεηθέντες,
must certainly strike us, inasmuch as this epistle, on conclusive
grounds (compare _Steiger_ S. 14 ff.), cannot be considered as being
addressed to Jewish Christians exclusively. But still more striking is
the second quotation in Rom. ix. 25, 26: ὡς καὶ ἐν τῷ Ὡσηὲ λέγει·
Καλέσω τὸν οὐ λαόν μου, έν μου· καὶ τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην, ἠγαπημένην. Καὶ
ἔσται, ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐῤῥήθη αὐτοῖς οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται
υἱοὶ Θεοῦ ζῶντος. Here our passage is not only alluded to, but
expressly quoted, and, in opposition to the Jews, the calling of the
Gentiles is proved from it. But how can a passage which, according to
the whole context, can refer to Israel only, be applied [Pg 223]
directly to the Gentiles? The answer very readily suggests itself when
we reduce the prophecy to its fundamental idea. This is none other than
that of divine mercy, which may indeed, by apostasy and unfaithfulness,
be prevented from manifesting itself, but can never be extinguished,
because it has its foundation in God's nature. Compare Jer. xxxi. 20:
"Is Ephraim a dear son to Me, a child of joy? For as often as I speak
of him, I must still remember him. Therefore My bowels sound for him,
_I will have mercy_ upon him, saith the Lord." Now, in the same manner
as this truth was realized in the restoration of the children of Israel
to be again the children of God, so it is in the reception of the
Gentiles. It is not at all a mere application, but a real proof which
here forms the question at issue. It is _because_ God had promised to
receive again the children of Israel, that He must receive the Gentiles
also; for otherwise that divine decree would have its foundation in
mere caprice, which cannot be conceived to have any existence in God.
Although the Gentiles are not so near as Israel, yet He must satisfy
the claims of those who are more remote, just because He acknowledges
the claims of those who are near. The necessity of going back to the
fundamental idea appears in the promises as well as in the
commandments. We cite only one instance which is especially fitted to
serve as a parallel to the case before us. There is no doubt, and
prejudice alone could have denied, that in the Pentateuch, by _friend_
and _brother_ the Israelite is to be understood throughout; it is in
the New Testament that the command of Christian brotherly love is
given. After having commended truthfulness, Paul adds: "Because ye are
members of one another"--a reason which can refer to those only who
have Christ as their common head. From this limitation, can anything be
inferred to the prejudice of love towards the whole human race, or of
the duties towards all without any distinction? Just the reverse. It is
just because the Israelite is bound to love the Israelite, and the
Christian the Christian, that he should embrace all men in love. If the
special relation to God as the common Redeemer afford the foundation
for the _special_ love, then the _general_ relation to God as the
Creator and Preserver must also afford the foundation of _universal_
love; just as from the command to honour father and mother, it
necessarily follows that we must also [Pg 224] honour uncle and aunt,
king and magistrate. This is the only correct view of the laws and
prophecies; and if it be consistently followed out, it will make water
to flow out of the rock, and will create streams in the wilderness.
Ver. 2. "_And the children of Judah and the children of Israel assemble
themselves together, and set over themselves one head, and go up out of
the land; for great is the day of Jezreel._"
The words, "They appoint themselves a king," appear strange at first
sight. For it is not, in general, the union of Judah and Israel which
the prophet expects from better times;--a _perverse_ union of both,
one, it may be, in which the house of Judah shall also give up Jehovah
his God, and David his King, only in order to be able to live on a
right brotherly footing with Israel, would have been anything but a
progress and a blessing;--but such a union as has for its foundation
the return of Israel to the true God, and to the Davidic dynasty. This
appears clearly from iii. 5. The difficulty is removed by a comparison
with the passage of the Pentateuch to which the prophet seems to
allude: "Thou shalt set over thee a king, whom the Lord thy God shall
choose," Deut. xvii. 15. The prophet seems to have these words before
his eyes, as it appears elsewhere also, where he describes the hitherto
opposite conduct of the Israelites; compare the remarks on iii. 4. From
these it appears that the election of the king by God, who had promised
eternal dominion to the house of David, and his election by the people,
do not in the least exclude one another. On the contrary, it is
_because_ God had elected the king, that now the people also elect him.
_Calvin_ remarks: "There appears to be transferred to men what properly
belongs to God alone--viz., the appointment of a king; but the prophet
expresses, by this word, the obedience of faith; for it is not enough
that Christ be given, and placed before men as a King, but they must
also acknowledge and reverently receive Him as a King. From this we
infer, that when we believe the Gospel, we choose, as it were by our
own vote, Christ as our King." That the prophet understands the
"setting of a head" in this sense, appears also from the circumstance
that the whole verse is based upon the reference to the Exodus from
Egypt, which is now to be repeated. To this the words, "They assemble
themselves together," likewise refer; for the departure from Egypt was
preceded by the assembling together of the [Pg 225] whole people. The
mention of a "head" refers back to Moses. In his case, as well as that
of David subsequently, the election by the people was only the
acknowledgment of his having been divinely called.--Another question
is, How are the words, "They go up out of the land," to be understood?
There can be no doubt that by "land," the land of captivity is
designated. For the words are borrowed from Exod. i. 10, where Pharaoh
says, "When there falleth out any war, they will join our enemies, and
fight against us, and go up out of the land," ועלה מן הארץ. The
prophet, moreover, is his own interpreter in ii. 17, where he expressly
compares this new going up to the promised land with the former going
up from Egypt: "_As in the day when she went up out of the land of
Egypt_;" just as, in other passages, he describes their being carried
away, under the figure of their being carried away to Egypt--Assyria
being considered as another Egypt. Compare viii. 13: "Now will He
remember their iniquity and visit their sins; they shall return
to Egypt;" ix. 3: "They shall not dwell in the Lord's land, and
Ephraim returns to Egypt." (Compare, on this passage, the Author's
_Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, vol. i. p. 121
ff.) Moreover, in the other prophets also, the going up from, or
deliverance out of, Egypt, forms throughout the basis of the second
great deliverance. And this is quite natural; for both of those events
stand in the closest actual connection with each other;--both proceeded
from the same Divine Being; and the former was a prophecy _by fact_,
and a pledge of the latter. The deliverance of the people of God from
Egypt sealed their election; and from the latter the new deliverance
necessarily followed;--a relation which repeats itself in individuals
also. From this we may explain the fact that in the Psalms, they who
celebrate God's former mercies, prove from them to Him and to
themselves, throughout, that He must now also be their helper. It is
then by no means a mere external similarity which induces the prophets
ever and anon to refer to the deliverance from Egypt (compare the
passages Mic. ii. 12, 13; Jer. xxiii. 7, 8, which bear so close a
resemblance to the passage before us), any more than that the Passover
is a mere memorial. Such cannot occur in the true religion which has a
living God, and hence knows nothing of anything absolutely past.
_Ewald's_ [Pg 226] exposition, that they go up out of the country for
the purpose of further conquest, and that of _Simson_, that they go up
to Jerusalem, sever the three events which, as the example of previous
history shows, are evidently so closely allied; and these expositors,
moreover, give, by an addition of their own, that definiteness to the
words, "And they shall go up out of the land," which they can obtain
only by a reference to the history of the past. In their ambiguity,
they almost expressly point to such a commentary.--The article in הארץ,
_the_ (_i.e._, the definite) land, is explained from the circumstance
that, in the previous context, there had been an indirect allusion to
their being carried away into a strange land. If Israel was no more the
people of God,--if they no longer enjoyed His mercy, then it is
supposed that they could not remain in the land which they had received
only as the people of God, and had hitherto retained only through His
mercy. But, primarily, the article refers to "the place where it was
said unto them," in the preceding verse.--That along with the children
of Israel, the children of Judah also assemble themselves and go up,
implies a fact which the prophet had not expressly mentioned, because
it did not stand immediately connected with his purpose--viz., that
Judah too should be carried into captivity. It thus supplements chap.
i. 7, by showing that the mercy there promised to the inhabitants of
Judah is to be understood relatively only. Such suppositions, indeed,
show very plainly how distinctly the future lay before the eyes of the
prophet.[5]--With regard, now, to the historical reference,--it must,
in the first place, be remarked, that whatever is here determined
concerning it, must be applicable to all other [Pg 227] parallel
passages also, in which a future reunion of Israel and Judah, and their
common return to the promised land, are announced; _e.g._, Jer. iii.
18: "In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of
Israel, and they come together out of the land of the north to the land
that I have given to their fathers;" l. 4: "In those days the children
of Israel shall come, they and the children of Judah together, weeping
shall they come and seek the Lord their God." Compare also Is. xi.;
Ezek. xxxvii. 19, 20. In the passage under consideration, several
interpreters, as _Theodoret_, think of the return from Babylon, and
refer the "one head" to Zerubbabel. Now we certainly cannot deny that,
in that event, there is a small beginning of the fulfilment. But if
that had been the entire fulfilment, Hosea would more resemble a
dreamer and an enthusiast than a true prophet of the living God. The
objection which immediately presents itself--viz., that, after all, the
greatest portion of the ten tribes, and a very considerable part of
Judah, remained in captivity--is by no means the strongest. Although
the whole both of Judah and Israel had returned, the real and final
fulfilment could not be sought for in that event. It is not the renewed
possession of the country, as such, which the prophet promises, but
rather a certain kind of possession,--such a possession as that the
land is completely the land of God, partaking in all the fulness of His
blessings, and thus a worthy residence for the people of God, and for
their children. One may be in Canaan, and yet, at the same time, in
Babylon or in Assyria. Had not the threatened punishment of God been
indeed as fully executed upon those who, during the Assyrian and
Babylonish captivities, wandered about the country in sorrow and
misery, as upon those who were carried away? Can the circumstance that
Jews are even now living in Jerusalem in the deepest misery, be adduced
as a proof that the loss of the promised land, with which the people
were threatened, had not been completely fulfilled? It is true that,
during the times of the Old Covenant, there existed a certain
connection betwixt the lower and the higher kinds of possession. As
soon as the people ceased to be the people of the Lord, they lost with
the former, after being often previously warned by the decrease of it,
the latter also. As soon as they obtained again the lower kind of
possession, which could happen only in the case of a [Pg 228] return to
the Lord, they recovered, to a certain degree, in proportion to the
earnestness and sincerity of their conversion, the higher kind of
possession also. A commencement of the fulfilment must, therefore, be
at all events assumed in the return from the Babylonish captivity; but
a very feeble commencement only. Just as the conversion was very
superficial, so was the degree of the higher kind of possession but a
very small one. The manifestations of mercy were very sparing; the
condition of the new colony was, upon the whole, very poor; they did
not possess the land as a free property, but only under the dominion of
a foreigner. That which was, in one respect, the termination of the
captivity, was, in another, much rather a continuation of it. It was
certainly not the true Canaan which they possessed, any more than one
still possesses the beloved object while he embraces only his corpse.
Where the Lord is not present with His gifts and blessings, there
Canaan cannot be. It was just as the land of the presence of the Lord,
that it was so dear and valuable to all believers.--From what has now
been said, it appears that, as regards the historical reference, we
need not limit ourselves to the times of the Old Covenant, nor dream of
a return of Israel to Canaan to take place at some future time.
Luther's explanation, "They will go up from this place of pilgrimage to
the heavenly father-land," is quite correct,--not indeed according to
the letter, but according to the spirit. It is not the form, but the
essence of the divine inheritance, which the prophet has in view. The
form is a different one under the New Covenant, where the whole earth
has become a Canaan; but the essence remains. To cling here to the
form, would be just as absurd as if one, who, for Christ's sake, has
forsaken all, were to upbraid Him because he had not received again,
according to the letter of His promise, precisely an hundred-fold,
lands, brothers, sisters, mothers, etc., Mark x. 30. The words of
God, which are spirit and life, must be understood with spirit and
life.--Suppose that the children of Israel were, at some future time,
to return to Canaan, this would have nothing to do with our prophecy.
In a religious point of view, it would be a matter of no consequence,
and could not serve to prove the Covenant-faithfulness of God. Under
the New Covenant it finds its fulfilment, that "Canaan must, even in
the North, bloom joyfully around the beloved." The three stations
[Pg 229]--Egypt, the wilderness, and Canaan--will continue to exist for
ever; but we go from the one to the other only with the feet of the
spirit, and not, as in the Old Covenant, with the feet of the body at
the same time. The grossly literal explanation which knows not to
separate the thought from its drapery, the essential from the
accidental, agrees, just in the main point, with the allegorical
explanation--viz., in interpolating, instead of interpreting.--The
fulfilment of the prophecy before us is, therefore, a continuous and
progressive one, which will not cease until God's whole plan of
salvation be consummated. It began at Babylon, and was carried forward
at the appearance of Christ, whom many out of Judah and Israel set over
themselves as their head, to be their common leader to Canaan. It is,
even now, realized every day before our eyes in every Israelite who
follows their example. It will, at some future time, find its final
fulfilment in the last and greatest manifestation of God's
Covenant-faithfulness towards Israel, which, happily, is as strongly
guaranteed by the New as it is by the Old Testament.--The last words of
the verse have been already explained, substantially, in ver. 1. The
name "Jezreel" is here used with a reference to its appellative
signification. Israel appears here (compare ver. 25 [23], which serves
as a commentary and as a refutation of differing interpretations) as a
seed which is sown by God in fruitful land, and which shall produce a
rich harvest. The figure appears, with a somewhat different turn, in
Jer. xxxi. 27; Ezek. xxxvi. 9, where the house of Israel, and the house
of Judah, appear as the soil in which the seed is sown by God.
Analogous is also Ps. lxxii. 16: "They of the city shall flourish up
like the grass of the earth."--The כי is explained by the circumstance
that the sowing, which can take place only in the land of the Lord
(compare ver. 25), supposes the going up from the land of the
captivity. But if the day of sowing be great, if it be regarded by God
as high and important, then the going up, which is the condition of
sowing, must necessarily take place.
Ver. 3. "_Say ye unto your brethren, My people_ (Ammi); _and to your
sisters, Who has obtained mercy_ (Ruhamah)."
The words, "My people," are a concise expression for: "You whom the
Lord has called. My people." The mention of the brothers and sisters is
explained by the reference to the [Pg 230] male and female members of
the prophet's family. The phrase, "Say ye," is in substance equivalent
to: "Then will ye be able to say." The prophet sees before him the
people of the Lord who have experienced mercy; and calls upon the
members to salute one another joyfully with the new name given to them
by God. Such is the simple meaning of the verse, which has been
darkened by a multitude of forced interpretations.
Footnote 1: In Hab. ii. 1, where the prophet is standing upon his
watch, and watches to see what the Lord will say _unto_ him, it would
be rather strange to translate "in me." There is nothing else to lead
us to conceive that the apparition of angels in Zech. is internal. But
Num. xii. 8 is quite decisive. The Lord there says, with reference to
His relation to Moses, "Mouth to mouth I speak to him (בו);" and
immediately afterwards it is said, "Wherefore, then, were ye not afraid
to speak to My servant (בעבדי), to Moses?" It is evident that the ב
cannot be explained by "in" in the one case, and by "through" in the
other. It is remarkable, however, that דבר with ב occurs very
frequently when the Lord Himself, or, as in Zechariah, _the_ Angel,
speaks. This may, perhaps, be explained from the circumstance, that the
heavenly discourses have an especially penetrating power, and sink very
deeply into the heart.
Footnote 2: This is very natural, for the proper name has originally a
cheering signification. It is apparent from the remarks of _Schubert_
(_Reise_ iii. S. 164-166), and of _Ritter_ (_Erdkunde_ 16, i. S. 693),
on the natural condition of the plain of Jezreel, how it happened that
it received this name, which means: "God sows." _Schubert_ calls the
soil of Jezreel a field of corn, the seed of which is not sown by any
man's hand, the ripe ears of which are not reaped by any reaper. The
various kinds of corn appeared to him to be wild plants; the mules
walked in them with half their bodies covered by them; the ears of
wheat were sown by themselves. "All travellers," says _Ritter_, "agree
in their descriptions of the extraordinary beauty and fertility of the
plain."
Footnote 3: This transference was so much the more natural, as, under
the government of the house of Jehu, guilt had certainly been
frequently concentrated in the form of blood-guiltiness. Compare Is. i.
21, where the prophet, in order to mark out the reigning sin in its
highest degree, represents Jerusalem as being full of murderers.
Footnote 4: _Hitzig_ is of opinion that "the prophet cannot blame him
for the death of Joram and Jezebel, but may well do so for the murder
of Ahaziah, king of Judah, and of his brethren, and for the carnage
described in 2 Kings x. 11." But Ahaziah was not killed at Jezreel:
compare 2 Kings ix. 27; 2 Chron. xxii. 9. And "the carnage in 2 Kings
xii." likewise took place at Jezreel to a small extent only, in so far,
namely, as it concerned the princes of the house of Ahab, who still
remained in Jezreel. Compare _Thenius_ on this passage.
Footnote 5: That the carrying away of Judah, which is here supposed,
is a total and future one, and not, as _Hofmann_ (_Weiss. u. Erf._
i. S. 210) asserts, one which is partial and already past (Joel
iv. [iii.] 2-8; Amos i. 6, 9), appears from the analogy of the
children of Israel,--from the reference to the type of the Egyptian
conditions,--from a comparison of chap. v. 5, 12, xii. 1-3,--from the
fact that the carrying away is placed in the view of the _whole people_
as early as in the Pentateuch, _e.g._, Deut. xxviii. 36, iv. 26,
27,--and, finally, from the fact, that the other prophets also, even
from the most ancient times, manifest a clear knowledge of the
catastrophe which threatened Judah also; compare, _e.g._, Amos ii. 4,
5. Moreover, in Is. xi. 11, 12, also, the return of Judah is
prophesied, although no express announcement of the carrying away
precedes. In like manner, in Amos ix. 11, the restoration of the fallen
tabernacle of David is foretold, although no express mention is made of
its fall.