CHAP. II. 4-25 (2-23).

"The significant couple"--_Rückert_ remarks--"disappears in the thing

signified by it; Israel itself appears as the wife of whoredoms." This

is the only essential difference between this and the preceding

sections; and it is the less marked, because even there, in the last

part of it, the symbolical action passed over into a mere figure. With

this exception, this section also contains the alternation of

punishment and threatening, and of promise,--the latter beginning with

ver. 16 (14). The features of the image, which were less attended to in

the preceding portion, but are here more carefully portrayed, are the

rejection of the unfaithful wife, and her gradual restoration. _Calvin_

says: "After God has laid open their sins before men. He adds some

consolation, and tempers the severity, lest they should despair. But

then He returns again to threatenings, and He must do so necessarily;

for though men may have been terrified by the fear of punishment, yet

they do not recover, and become wise for ever." "By a new impetus as it

were," says _Manger_, "he suddenly returns to expand the same argument,

and sets out again from things more sad."

Ver. 4. "_Contend with your mother, contend; for she is not my wife,

and I am not her husband: and let her put away her whoredoms from her

face, and her adultery from her breasts._"

_Calvin_ is of opinion that a contrast is here intended, inasmuch as

the Israelites were striving with God, and attributed to Him the cause

of their misfortune: "Do not contend with Me, but rather with your

mother, who, by her adultery, has brought down _righteous_ punishment

upon herself and upon you." But this interpretation is inadmissible;

because it proceeds [Pg 231] from the unfounded supposition that the

divorce is to be considered as having already taken place outwardly,

whilst the contending here clearly appears as one by which divorce may

yet be averted. The words, "Contend with your mother," rather mean, on

the contrary, that it is high time to call her to account, if they

would not go to destruction along with her. From this, however, we are

not entitled to infer that the moral condition of the children was

better than that of the mother. Without any regard to their moral

condition, the prophet only wishes to say that their interest required

them to do this. If it were not his intention just to carry out the

image of adultery, he might as well have called upon the mother to

contend against the children, as it is said in Is. li. 1: "Behold, for

your iniquities you have been sold, and for your transgression your

mother has been put away." In point of fact, the mother has no

standing-place apart from the children. _Vitringa_ says: "One and the

same people is called 'mother' when viewed in their collective

character; and 'children' when viewed in the individuals who are born

of that people. For a people is born from the people. For the whole

people is considered according to that which is radical in it, which

constitutes its nature and substance,--and, in this respect, it is

called the 'mother of its citizens.'" But we are as little entitled to

infer from this exhortation, that a reform, and an averting of the

threatened judgments, may still be hoped for. This is opposed by what

follows, where the wife appears as incorrigible, and her rejection

as unavoidable. The fundamental thought is, on the contrary, only

this:--that a reform is necessary if the threatened judgments are to be

averted. That this necessity, however, would not become a reality, the

prophet foresaw; and for this reason he speaks unconditionally in the

sequel. But from this again it must not be inferred that, in that case,

his exhortations and threatenings would be altogether in vain. Though

no reform was to be expected from the people, single individual

might, nevertheless, be converted. At the same time, it was of great

importance for the future, that before the calamity should break in, a

right view of it should be opened up to the whole people. It is of

great importance, that if any one be smitten, he should know for what

reason. The instructions in the doctrines of Christianity, which a

criminal has received in childhood, may [Pg 232] often seem for a long

series of years to have been altogether in vain; but afterwards,

notwithstanding, when punishment has softened his heart, they bring

forth their fruits.--In the words, "For she is not my wife, and I am

not her husband," the ground of the exhortation is stated. Even for

this reason, the words cannot be referred to the _external_ dissolution

of the marriage, to the punishment of the wife; they signify rather the

_moral_ dissolution of the marriage--the guilt of the wife--and are

equivalent to: "our marriage is dissolved _de facto_." But in the case

of the spiritual marriage, this dissolution _de facto_ is always,

sooner or later, according to the greater or smaller measure of God's

forbearance, followed by the dissolution _de jure_; or, to speak

without figure, wherever there is sin, punishment will always follow.

God bears with much weakness on the part of His people; but wherever,

through this weakness, the relation to Him is essentially dissolved, He

there annuls the relation altogether. The παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας

applies to spiritual marriages also. The surrender of the main

faculties and powers of our nature to something which is not God,

stands on a par with carnal adultery. Thus, then, the connection

betwixt "contend" and "for" clearly appears.--Many interpreters,

viewing the clause beginning with כי as parenthetical, would connect

the last words of the verse with ריבו: "Contend with your mother that

she may put away." But the words are rather to be considered as

parallel with the first member; for "contend," etc., is equivalent to:

"seek to bring your mother to a better way," or: "let your mother

reform herself." Her crime is designated first as whoredom, and then as

adultery. The relation in which the two stand to one another is plainly

seen from chap. i. 2, where the notion of adultery is paraphrased by:

"whoring away from the Lord." By "whoredom," the _genus_--carnal crimes

in general--is designated; by "adultery," the _species_, or carnal

crime by which the sacred rights of another person are, at the same

time, violated. The idea of whoredom, when transferred to a spiritual

relation, implies chiefly the worldliness of those with whom God has

not entered into any special relation; whilst the idea of adultery

implies the worldliness of individuals and communities with whom God

has entered into a special marriage, and whose apostasy is, for this

reason, far more culpable. Leaving out of [Pg 233] view the more

aggravating circumstance, the prophet first speaks of whoredom in the

case of the children of Israel also.--The reason why the whoredom is

here attributed to the face, and the adultery to the breasts, is well

given by _Manger_: "We need not have any difficulty about seeing

adultery attributed to the very face and breasts. There is a certain

expressiveness in this conciseness which demonstrates, as it were

before our eyes, that, in her whole deportment, the wife was given over

to sensuality, and that her whole aim was only to excite to it, and to

practise it. For the face is, with women, the sign of dissolute

lasciviousness--as _Horace_ expresses it in his Odes, I. 19:--

Urit grata protervitas

Et vultus nimium lubricus aspici.

Ezekiel, too, in chap. xxiii. 3, speaks of 'the pressed breasts of

Israel in Egypt.'" _Schmid_ states as the reason why just the face and

breasts are mentioned, "that Scripture, in order not to offend modesty,

forbears to mention the worse and grosser deeds of fornication." But

this is very little in harmony with the manner of Scripture--as may be

seen from a comparison of Ezek. xvi. and xxiii., and of ver. 12 of the

chapter before us. The reason rather is, that those parts are here

specially to be mentioned, in which the whoring nature openly manifests

itself; so that the highest degree of impudence is thereby expressed.

This then shows that there is no longer any halting, no longer any

struggle of the better against the evil principle. Such an impudent

whore he resembles who, without shame or concern, publicly exhibits his

devotedness to the world. In this way has _Calvin_ also explained it.

"There is no doubt," says he, "that the prophet here expresses the

impudence of the people, who in their hardihood, in their contempt of

God, in their sinful superstitions, and in every kind of wickedness,

had gone to such lengths, that they were like whores who do not conceal

their turpitude, but publicly prostitute themselves, yea, try to

exhibit the signs of their wickedness in their eyes, as well as in

their whole body."

Ver. 5. "_Lest I strip her naked and expose her as in the day of her

birth, and make her like the wilderness, and set her like dry land, and

slay her by thirst._"

In the marriage here spoken of, there was this peculiarity, that the

husband first redeemed the wife from a condition the [Pg 234] most

wretched and miserable, before he united himself to her; and hence

became her benefactor, before he became her husband. Compare iii. 2,

where the Lord redeems the wife from slavery; and Ezek. xvi. 4, where

the people appear as a child exposed, naked, and covered with filth,

upon whom the Lord has mercy,--whom He provides with precious clothing

and splendid ornaments, and destines for His spouse. During the

marriage, the husband continues his liberality towards his wife. But

now, the gifts, all of which had been bestowed upon her only with a

view to the marriage which was to take place or was already entered

upon, are to cease, because the marriage-tie has been broken by her

guilt. She now returns to the condition of the deepest misery in which

she had been sunk before her union to the Lord.--There is, in this, an

allusion to that which, in the case of actual marriage, the husband was

bound to give to his wife, viz., clothing and food; compare Is. iv. 1.

If God withdraws His gifts, the consequences are infinitely awful,

because, altogether unlike the natural husband, He has everything in

His possession; if He does not give anything to drink. He then slays

by thirst. If we keep in view this aggravation of the punishment,

which has its ground only in the person of the husband, it is evident

that we have here before us only a reference to the withdrawal of the

marriage-gifts which is the consequence of the divorce, and not, as

several interpreters--_e.g._, _Manger_--suppose, to a punishment of

adultery, alleged by them to have been common at that time, "that the

wife was stripped of her clothes, exposed to public mockery, and killed

by hunger and thirst." The eternal and universal truth which, in the

verse before us, is expressed with a special reference to Israel, is,

that all the gifts of God are bestowed upon individuals, as well as

upon whole nations, either in order to lead them to the communion of

life with Him, or because this communion already exists; just as our

Saviour says that to him who has successfully sought for the kingdom of

heaven, all other things shall be added, without any labour on his

part. If we overlook the truth that the gifts of God have this

object--if they be not received and enjoyed as the gifts of God--if the

spiritual marriage be refused, or if, having been already entered into,

it be broken,--sooner or later the gifts will be withdrawn.--The word

"naked" properly includes a whole clause: "I shall strip [Pg 235] her

so that she shall become naked." The verb הצּיג, "to place," "to set,"

has the secondary signification of public exhibition; compare Job xvii.

6. The literal translation ought to be, "I shall expose her as _the

day_ of her birth;" and we must assume that there is here the

occurrence of one of those numerous cases, in which the comparison is

merely alluded to, without being carried out; compare, _e.g._, "Like

the day of Midian," Is. ix. 3; "Their heart rejoiceth like wine," Zech.

x. 7. The _tertium comparationis_ between the day of her birth and her

future condition is only the entire nakedness; compare Job i. 21. Any

allusion to the filth, etc., is less obvious; the prophet would have

been required to give an intimation of this in some manner. The two

parts of the first hemistich of the verse correspond with each other;

just as do the three parts of the second hemistich. In the first, the

withdrawal of clothing, and nakedness; in the second, the withdrawal of

food, and hunger and thirst. It is questionable whether the mention of

the birth-day here belongs merely to the imagery, is a mere designation

of entire nakedness, because man is never more naked than when he comes

into the world; or whether it is to be understood as belonging to the

thing itself, and refers to the condition of the people in Egypt to

which they are now to be reduced. In favour of the latter explanation,

there is not only the comparison of the parallel passage in Ezekiel,

but, still more, the purely matter-of-fact character of the entire

description. Israel is, in this section, not _compared_ to a wife, so

that _figure_ and _thing_ would be co-ordinate, but appears as the wife

herself. Ver. 17 also is in favour of this interpretation.--The words,

"I make her like the wilderness," which, by _Hitzig_ and others, are

erroneously referred to the country instead of the people, are

pertinently explained by _Manger_: "The prophet depicts a horrible and

desperate condition, where everything necessary for sustaining life is

awanting,--where she has to endure a thirst peculiar to an altogether

uncultivated and sunburnt wilderness." The comparison appears so much

the more suitable, when we remark that wilderness and desert are here

personified, and appear as hungry and thirsty. This, however, was too

poetical for several prosaic interpreters. Hence they would in both

instances supply a ב after the כ, "as in the wilderness" = "I place her

in the condition in which she was formerly, in the [Pg 236]

wilderness." But it is self-evident that such a supplying of the ב is

inadmissible. If we were to receive this interpretation, we must rather

assume that here also there is merely a comparison intimated: "as the

wilderness,"--for, "as she was in the wilderness." But even then, the

interpretation cannot, for another reason, be admitted. The impending

condition of the people did not, in the least, correspond to what it

was in the wilderness. The natural condition of the wilderness was not

then seen in all its reality; the people of the Lord received bread

from heaven, and water from the rock. It has its antitype rather in

such a condition as that which is to follow upon the punishment, ver.

16. The Article indicates that, by "the wilderness," we are here to

understand, specially, the Desert of Arabia,--the desert κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν.

But that this comes into consideration only as one especially desolate,

and not as the former abode of the Israelites, appears from the

following--"in dry land," without the Article, and not, as otherwise we

would expect, "in _the_ dry land." _Finally_,--We have a parallel to

this in the threatening in Deut. xxviii. 48: "And thou servest thine

enemy whom the Lord thy God will send upon thee, in hunger, and in

thirst, and in nakedness, and in great want."

Ver. 6. "_And I will not have mercy upon her children, for they are

children of whoredoms._"

It appears from ver. 7, that the children are to be repudiated on

account of their origin (compare the remarks on i. 2), and not on

account of their morals. _Michaelis_ says, "They have the same

disposition, and follow the same course as their adulterous mother; for

a viper bringeth forth a viper, and a bad raven lays a bad egg." The

cause of their rejection is, that they are children of whoredoms. That

they are such, is proved by the circumstance that their mother is

whoring. Compare also v. 7: "They have become faithless to the Lord,

for they have born strange children." In point of fact, however, a

sinful origin and a sinful nature are identical.

Ver. 7. "_For their mother has been whoring, she who bore them has been

put to shame; for she has said, I will go after my lovers, the givers

of my bread and my water, of my wool and my flax, of my oil and my

drink._"

הובישה is explained in a two-fold way. The common explanation is: "She

has practised what is disgraceful, she has acted [Pg 237] shamefully."

Others, on the contrary, explain: "She has been put to shame, she has

been disgraced." In this latter way it is explained by _Manger_, who

remarks, "that this word is stronger than זנה; that it implies not only

an accusation of vile whoredom, but also that she has been convicted of

this crime, and as it were apprehended _in flagranti_; so that, even if

she were yet impudent enough, she could no longer deny it, but must

sink down in confusion and perplexity." This latter exposition is,

without doubt, the preferable one; for, 1. הוביש never occurs in the

first-mentioned signification. _Winer_ contents himself with quoting

the passage before us. _Gesenius_ refers, moreover, to Prov. x. 5. But

the בן מביש of that passage is evidently a son bringing disgrace upon

his parents,--in xxix. 15 אמּו is added,--or making them ashamed,

disappointing their hopes. On the other hand, the signification, "to be

put to shame," "to be convicted of a disgraceful deed," is quite an

established one. Compare, _e.g._, Jer. ii. 26: "As the disgrace of a

thief when he is found, thus the whole house of Israel is _put to

shame_;" Jer. vi. 15: "They are put to shame, for they have committed

abomination; they shamed not themselves, they felt no shame;" compare

also Jer. viii. 9. In all these passages, הוביש signifies the shame

forced upon those who have no sense of shame.--2. The signification,

"to act disgracefully," does not admit of a regular grammatical

derivation. _Gesenius_ refers to analogies such as הרע ,היטיב; but

these would be admissible only if the _Kal_ בוש signified, "to be

infamous," while it means only "to be ashamed." Being derived from בוש,

the verb can mean only "to put to shame," in which signification it

occurs, _e.g._, in 2. Sam. xix. 6. But, on the other hand, the

signification, "to be put to shame," can be well defended. As the

_Hiphil_ cannot have an intransitive signification, it must, with this

signification, be considered as derived from בשת, "_pudorem, ignominiam

contraxit_,"--a view which is favoured by Jer. ii. 26.--The "lovers"

are the idols; compare the remarks on Zech. xiii. 6. The כי confirms

the statement, that she who bare them has been whoring, and has been

put to shame by a further exposure of the crime and its origin. The

same delusion which appears here as the cause of the spiritual

adultery, is stated as such also in Jer. xlix. 17, 18. Jeremiah there

warns the people not to contract sin by idolatry, because that was the

cause of all their present misery, and would bring upon them [Pg 238]

greater misery still. But they answer him, that they would continue to

offer incense and drink-offerings to the Queen of heaven, as they and

their fathers had formerly done in their native land; for, "since we

left off to do so, we have wanted all things, and were consumed by

hunger and sword." The antithesis in Jer. ii. 13 of the fountain of

living waters, and the broken cisterns that hold no water, has

reference likewise to this delusion. But that which is the _cause_ of

the gross whoredom, is the _consequence_ of the refined one. The inward

apostasy must already have taken place, when one speaks as the wife

does in the verse before us. As long as man continues faithfully with

God in communion of life, he perceives, by the eye of faith, the hand

in the clouds from which he receives everything, which guides him, and

upon which everything--even that which is apparently the most

independent and powerful--depends. As soon as, through unbelief, he has

lost this communion with God, and heaven is shut against him, he allows

his eye to wander over every visible object, looks out for everything

in the world which appears to manifest independence and superior power,

makes this an object to which he shows his love, soliciting its favour,

and making it his god. In thus looking around, the Israelites would,

necessarily and chiefly, have their eyes attracted by the idols. For

they saw the neighbouring nations wealthy and powerful; and these

nations themselves derived their power and wealth from the idols. To

these also the Israelites now ascribed the gifts which they had

hitherto received; and this so much the rather, because it was easier

to satisfy the demands of these idols, than those of the true God, who

requires just that which it is most difficult to give--the heart, and

nothing else. And, being determined not to give it to Him, they felt

deeply that they could expect no good from Him. Whatever good He had

still left to them, they could consider as only a gift of unmerited

mercy, and destined to lead them to repentance,--a consideration which

makes a natural man recoil and draw back, inasmuch as, in his relation

to God, he always thinks only of merit. That which we thus perceive in

them is even now repeated daily. We need only put in the place of

idols, the abstract God of the Rationalists and Deists, man's own

power, or the power of other men, and many other things besides, and it

will at once be seen that the words, "I will go after my lovers that

give me my [Pg 239] bread," etc., are, up to the present moment, the

watch-word of the world.--"Bread and water" signify the necessaries of

life; "oil and (strong) drink," those things which serve rather for

luxuries.--"My bread," etc., is an expression of affection, indicating

that she regards these as most necessary, and to be sought after, in

preference to everything else.

Ver. 8. "_Therefore, behold, I hedge up thy way with thorns, and I wall

her wall, and her paths she shall not find._"

The apostate woman is first addressed: "_thy_ way;" but the discourse

then passes to the third person,--"her wall, her paths." We must not

conceive of this, as if the wife were to be shut up in a two-fold

way:--first, by a hedge of thorns, and then, by a wall; but the same

thing is expressed here by a double figure, as is also done in Is. v.

5. First, the shutting up is alone spoken of; it is afterwards brought

into connection with the effects to be thereby produced; and because

she is enclosed by a wall, she cannot find her path. "I wall her wall"

is tantamount to, "I make a wall for her." The words of the husband in

the verse under consideration form an evident contrast to those of the

wife in the preceding verse. _Schmid_ says: "The punishment is by the

law of retaliation. She had said, 'I will go to my lovers;' but God

threatens, on the contrary, that He will obstruct the way so that she

cannot go." The הנני points to the unexpectedness of the result. The

wife imagined that she would be able to carry out her purpose with

great safety and ease; it does not even occur to her to think of her

husband, who had hitherto allowed her, from weakness, as she imagines,

to go on her way undisturbed; but she sees herself _at once_ firmly

enclosed by a wall.--There can be no doubt, that, by the hedging and

walling about, severe sufferings are intended, by which the people are

encompassed, straitened, and hindered in every free movement. For

sufferings regularly appear as the specific against Israel's apostasy

from their God. Compare, _e.g._, Deut. iv. 30: "In the tribulation to

thee, and when all these things come upon thee, thou returnest in the

end of the days to the Lord thy God, and hearest His voice;" Hosea v.

15: "I will go and return to My place till they become guilty; in the

affliction to them, they will seek Me." The figure of enclosing has

elsewhere also, undeniably, the meaning of inflicting sufferings. Thus

in Job iii. 23: "To the man whose way is hid, [Pg 240] and whom God has

hedged in round about;" xix. 8: "He hath fenced up my way and I cannot

pass, and upon my paths He sets darkness;" Lam. iii. 7: "He hath hedged

me about, and I cannot get out; He hath made my chain heavy;" compare

also ibid. ver. 9; Ps. lxxxviii. 9.--The object of the walling about is

to cut her off from the lovers; the infliction of heavy sufferings is

to put an end to idolatrous tendencies.--The words, "thy way," clearly

refer to, "I will go after my lovers," in ver. 7; and by "her paths

which she cannot find," her whole previous conduct in general is indeed

to be understood, but chiefly, from the connection with ver. 7, her

former intercourse with idols. But here the question arises:--How far

is the remedy suited for the attainment of this end? We can by no

means think of an external obstacle. Outwardly, there was, during the

exile, and in the midst of idolatrous nations, a stronger temptation to

idolatry than they had in their native land. Hence, we can think of an

internal obstacle only; and then again we can think only of the

absolute incapacity of the idols to grant to the people consolation and

relief in their sufferings. If this incapacity has been first

ascertained by experience, we begin to lose our confidence in them, and

seek help where alone it can be found. As early as in Deut. xxxii. we

are told how misery proves the nothingness of false gods, and shows

that the Lord alone is God; compare especially ver. 36 sqq. Jeremiah

says in ii. 28, "And where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? Let

them arise and help thee in the time of trouble." That which the gods

cannot turn away, they cannot have sent; and if the suffering be sent

by the Lord, it is natural that help should be sought from Him also.

Compare vi. 1: "Come and let us return unto the Lord, for He hath torn

and He healeth us, He smiteth and He bindeth us up."

Ver. 9. "_And she runs after her lovers and shall not overtake, and she

seeks them and shall not find; then she saith: I will go and return to

my first husband, for it was better with me then than now._"

רדף has, in _Piel_, not a transitive, but an intensive meaning.

_Calvin_ remarks: "By the verb, insane fervour is indicated, as indeed

we see that idolaters are like madmen; it shows that such is the

perverseness of their hearts, that they will not at once return to a

sound mind." The distress at first only increases [Pg 241] the zeal in

idolatry; compare Jer. xliv. 17. Every effort is made to move the idols

to help. But if help be, notwithstanding, refused--and how could it be

otherwise, since they from whom it is sought are _Elilim_, _i.e._,

nothings?--they by and by begin to bethink themselves, and to recover

their senses. They discover the nothingness of their idols, and return

to the true God. This apostasy and return are in a touching manner

described by our prophet in xiv. 2-4 also. The words, "I will go and

return to my first husband," form a beautiful contrast to, "I will go

after my lovers," in ver. 7. This statement of the result shows that

God's mercy is then greatest and most effective, just when it seems to

have disappeared altogether, and when His punitive justice seems alone

to be in active exercise. For the latter is by no means to be excluded,

inasmuch as there is no suffering which does not, at the same time,

proceed from it, and no punishment which is inflicted solely on account

of the reformation.

Ver. 10. "_And she, she does not know that I gave her the corn, and the

must, and the oil, and silver I multiplied unto her, and gold which

upon Baal they spent._"

The prophet, starting anew, here returns to a description of her guilt

and punishment; and it is only from ver. 16 that he expands what, in

ver. 9, he had intimated concerning her conversion, and her obtaining

mercy. The words, "She saith," in that verse, belong thus to a period

more remote than the words, "She does not know," in the verse before

us. The things which are here enumerated were, in the case of Israel,

in a peculiar sense, the gift of God. He bestowed them upon the

Congregation as her Covenant-God, as her husband. They are thus

announced as early as in the Pentateuch; compare, _e.g._, Deut. vii.

13: "And He loveth thee, and blesseth thee, and multiplieth thee, and

blesseth the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn,

thy must, and thy oil;" xi. 14: "And I give the rain of your land in

due season, and thou gatherest in thy corn, thy must, and thy oil."

It is certainly not accidental that Hosea enumerates the three

objects, just in the same order in which they occur in these two

passages. By the celebration of the feasts, and by the offering

of the first-fruits, the Israelites were to give expression to the

acknowledgment, [Pg 242] that they derived these gifts of God from His

special providence--from the covenant relation. The relative clause עשו

לבעל is subjoined, as is frequently the case, without a sign of its

relation, and without a _pron. suff._, which is manifest from the

preceding substantive. Several interpreters, from the Chaldee

Paraphrast down to _Ewald_, give the explanation, "which they have made

for a Baal," _i.e._, from which they have made images of Baal, and

appeal to viii. 4: "Their silver and their gold they have made into

idols for themselves." But we must object to this opinion on the

following grounds. 1. עשה, with ל following, is a religious _terminus

technicus_, with the sense of, "to make to any one," "to appropriate,"

"to dedicate," as appears from its frequent repetition in Exod. x. 25

sqq., and also from the fact that ליהוה is frequently omitted. The

phrase is used with a reference to idolatry in 2 Kings xvii. 32; 2

Chron. xxiv. 7.--2. It cannot be proved that הבעל, in the singular and

with the Article, could be used for "statues of Baal."--3. By this

explanation we lose the striking contrast between that which the

Israelites _were doing_, and that which they _were to do_. That which

the Lord gave to them, they consecrated to Baal, instead of to Him, to

whom alone these embodied thanks were due. And, not satisfied in

withdrawing from the true God the honour and thanks which were due to

Him, they transferred them to His enemy and worthless rival,--a

proceeding which bears witness to the deep corruption of human nature,

and which, up to the present day, is continually repeated, and must be

so, because the corruption remains the same. It is substantially the

same thing that the Israelites dedicated their gold to Baal, and that

our great poets consecrate to the world and its prince the rich

intellectual gifts which they have received from God. The words, "and

she knew not," in both cases show that they are equally guilty and

equally culpable. He who bestows the gifts has not concealed Himself;

but they on whom they are bestowed have shut their eyes, that they may

not see Him to whom they are unwilling to render thanks. They would

fain wish that their liberal benefactor were utterly annihilated, in

order that they may not be disturbed in the enjoyment of His gifts by a

disagreeable thought of Him,--in order that they may freely use and

dispose of them, without being obliged to fear their loss,--and in

order that they may be able to devote them, without any [Pg 243]

obstruction, to a god who is like themselves, who is only their own

self viewed objectively (_ihr objectivirtes Ich_). Parallel to the

passage before us, and, it may be, formed after it, is Ezek. xvi. 17,

18: "And thou didst take thy ornament of My gold and of My silver which

I gave thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit

whoredom with them. And thou tookest thy broidered garments, and

coveredst them, and My fat and Mine increase thou gavest before them."

_Hitzig_ understands, by the Baal here, the golden calf, appealing to

the fact that the real worship of Baal had been abolished by Jehu. But

no proof at all can be adduced for the assertion that the name of Baal

had been transferred to the golden calf. It is self-evident, and is

confirmed by 2 Kings xiii. 6, xvii. 16 (in the latter of which passages

the worship of Baal appears as a continuous sin in the kingdom of the

ten tribes), that the destruction of the heathenish worship by Jehu was

not absolute. But so much is certain, that by the mention of Baal, the

sin is here designated only with reference to its highest point, and

that, in substance, the service of the calves is here included. In 1

Kings xiv. 9, it is shown that the sin of worshipping Jehovah under the

image of calves is on a par with real idolatry; and in 2 Chron. xi. 15,

the calves are put on a footing with the goat-deities of Egypt.

Ver. 11. "_Therefore I return, and take My corn in its time, and My

must in its season, and take away My wool and My flax to cover her

nakedness._"

לכן stands here with great emphasis. It points to the eternal law of

God's government of the world, according to which He is sanctified

_upon_ them, _in_ whom He has not been sanctified; and this so much the

more, the closer was His relation to them, and the greater were His

gifts. From him who is not thereby moved, they will be taken away; and

nothing but his natural poverty and nakedness is left to him who was

formerly so richly endowed. And well is it with him if they be taken

from him at a time when he is able still to recognise the giver in Him

who taketh away, and may yet deeply repent of his unthankfulness, and

return to Him, as is said of Israel in iii. 5. If such be done, it is

seen that the ungrateful one has not yet become an object of divine

justice alone, but that divine mercy is still in store for him. The

longer God allows His [Pg 244] gifts to remain with the ungrateful, the

darker are their prospects for the future. That which He gave in mercy,

He, in such a case, allows to remain only in anger. The words אשוב

ולקחתי are commonly explained by expositors, "I shall take again,"

inasmuch as two verbs are frequently found together which, in their

connection, are independent of each other--the one indicating only an

accessory idea of the action. But this mode of expression occurs in

general far more rarely than is commonly assumed; and here the

explanation, "I will return and take," is to be preferred without any

hesitation. Scripture says, that God appears even when He manifests

Himself only in the effects of His omnipotence, justice, and love,--a

mode of expression which is explained by that large measure of faith

which perceives, behind the visible effect, the invisible Author of it;

compare, _e.g._, Gen. xviii. 10, where the Lord says to Abraham, that

He would return to him at the same period in the following year;

whereas He did not return in a visible form, as then, but only in the

fulfilment of His promise. Thus God had formerly appeared to Israel as

the Giver; and now that they did not acknowledge Him as such. He

returns as the God that takes away. "She did not know that I gave,

therefore I shall return and take." That the words were to be thus

understood, the prophet, as it appears, intended to indicate by the

change of the tenses. It is quite natural that a verb, used as an

adverb, should be as closely as possible connected with that verb which

conveys the principal idea; and it would scarcely be possible to find a

single instance--at all events there are not many instances--where, in

such a case, a difference of the tense takes place. Altogether

analogous is Jer. xii. 15: "And it shall come to pass after I have

destroyed them, אשוב ורחמתים, I will return and have compassion on

them;" where the sense would be very much weakened if we were to

translate, "I shall _again_ have compassion." There appears to be the

same design in the change of the tenses in iii. 5 also. What is there

said of Israel forms a remarkable parallel to what is here said of

God. God had formerly come, giving--Israel, taking; God now returns,

taking--Israel giving,--a relation which opens up an insight into the

whole economy of the sufferings.--"_My_ corn," etc., forms a contrast

to ver. 7, where Israel had spoken of all these things as _theirs_.

Whatever God gives, always remains [Pg 245] His own, because He gives

only as a loan, and on certain conditions. If any one should consider

himself as the absolute master of it, He makes him feel his error by

taking it away.--"In its time" and "in its season" are added, because

it was _then_, ordinarily, that God had appeared as _giving_, and

because _then_ they therefore confidently expected His gifts. But now

He appears at once as _taking_, because they were already so sure of

the expected gifts that they held them, as it were, already in their

hands; just as if, at Christmas--which corresponds to the harvest, the

ordinary season of God's granting gifts--parents should withdraw from

their children the accustomed presents, and put a rod in their place.

It is better thus to understand the expression, "in its time, etc.,"

than to follow _Jerome_, who remarks, that "it is a severe punishment,

if at the time of harvest the hoped-for fruits are taken away, and

wrested from our hands;" for if, even at the time of the harvest, there

be a want of all things, how will it be during the remaining time of

the year.--The words, "to cover, etc.," are very concise, but without

any grammatical ellipsis, instead of, "which hitherto served to cover

her nakedness." As to the sense, the LXX. are correct in translating,

τοῦ μὴ καλύπτειν τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην αὐτῆς. For that which had _hitherto_

been, is mentioned by the prophet only for the purpose of drawing

attention to what _in future_ will _not_ be.--It is the Lord who must

cover the nakedness; and this leads us back to the natural poverty of

man, who has not, in the whole world, a single patch or shred--not even

so much as to cover his shame, which is here specially to be understood

by nakedness. The same thought which is so well calculated to humble

pride--what have we that we have not received, and that the Giver might

not at any moment take back?--occurs also in Ezek. xvi. 8: "I spread

out My wings over thee, and covered thy nakedness."

Ver. 12. "_And now I will uncover her shame before the eyes of her

lovers, and none shall deliver her out of My hands._"

The ἅπαξ λεγόμενον נבלות is best explained by "decay," "_corpus multa

stupra passum_." Being a femin. of a Segholate-form, its signification

can be derived only from the _Kal_; but נבל always signifies "to be

faded, weak, feeble;" in _Piel_ it means, "to make weak," "to declare

as weak," "to disgrace," "to despise." As the signification of _Kal_

does not [Pg 246] imply the Idea of ignominy, we cannot explain the

noun, as several interpreters do, by "_turpitudo_, _ignominia_." The

ἀκαθαρσία of the LXX. is probably a free translation of the word

according to our view.--לעיני is constantly used for "_coram,

inspectante aliquo_," properly, "belonging to the eyes of some one,"

and cannot therefore be explained here by "to the eyes," as if she were

uncovered to, or for, the lovers alone; these, on the contrary, are

mentioned only as fellow-witnesses. But in what respect do they come

into consideration here? Several interpreters are of opinion that their

powerlessness, and the folly of trusting in them, are intended to be

here pointed out. Thus _Calvin_ says: "The prophet alludes to the

impudent women who are wont, even by terror, to prevent their husbands

from using their rights. He says, therefore, this shall not prevent me

from chastising thee as thou deservest." Thus also _Stuck_, who

subjoins to the phrase "her lovers:" "who, if they had the strength,

might be a help to her." But it is altogether erroneous thus to

understand the verse. The words, "Before the eyes of the lovers,"

rather mean, that the Lord would make her an object of disgust and

horror even to those who formerly sought after her. The idea is this:

Whosoever forsakes God on account of the world, shall, by God, be put

to shame, even in the eyes of the world itself, and all the more, the

more nearly he formerly stood to Him. This idea is here expressed in a

manner suited to the figurative representation which pervades the whole

section. _Jerome_ says: "All this is brought forward under the figure

of the adulterous woman, who, after she has been taken in the very act,

is exposed and disgraced before the eyes of all." The uncovering, as

guilt, is followed by the uncovering, as punishment; and every one (and

her lovers first) turns away with horror from the disgusting spectacle.

They now at once see her who, hitherto, had made a show with the

apparel and goods of her lawful husband, in her true shape as a

withered monster. That this explanation is alone the correct one,

appears from the parallel passages: compare, _e.g._, Nah. iii. 5:

"Behold, I come upon thee, saith the Lord of hosts, and uncover thy

skirts upon thy face, and make the heathen to see thy nakedness, and

kingdoms thy shame. And it cometh to pass, all that see thee shall flee

from thee:" Lam. i. 8: "Jerusalem hath committed sin, therefore she has

[Pg 247] become a reproach; all that honoured her, despise her, for

they have seen her nakedness; she sigheth and turneth away;" Jer. xiii.

26: "And I also (as thou hast formerly uncovered) uncover thy skirts

over thy face, and thy shame shall be seen;" Ezek. xvi. 37, 41; Is.

xlvii. 3.--But now, it might seem that, according to this explanation,

not the idols, but only the nations serving them, can be understood by

the lovers. But this is only in appearance. In order to make the

scene more lively, the prophet ascribes to the אלילים, to them

who are nothing, life and feeling. If they had these, they would act

just as it is here described, and as their worshippers really acted

afterwards.--The second member of the verse, "And none shall deliver,"

etc., is in so far parallel to the first, as both describe the

dreadfulness of the divine judgment. Parallel is v. 14: "For I will be

as one who roars to Ephraim, and as a lion to the house of Judah: I

will tear and go away, I will take away, and there is no deliverer."

Ver. 13. "_And I make to cease all her mirth, her feast, and her

new-moon, and her sabbath, and all her festival time._"

The feasts served a double purpose. They were days of sacred

dedication, and days of joy; compare Num. x. 10. Israel had violated

them in the former character--just as at present the sacred days have,

throughout the greater part of Christendom, the name only by way of

_catachresis_--and, as a merited punishment, they were taken away by

God in the latter character. They had deprived the festival days of

their sacredness; by God, they are deprived of their joy fulness. The

prophet, in order to intimate that he announces the cessation of the

festival days as days of gladness, premises "all her mirth," to which

all that follows stands in the relation of _species_ to _genus_. משוש

does not here denote "joyful time:" it might, indeed, according to its

formation, have this signification: but it is never found with it. It

here means "joy" itself. (Compare the parallel passages, Jer. vii. 34;

Lam. i. 4: "The ways of Zion do mourn, because none come to the

feasts;" Amos viii. 10: "And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and

all your songs into lamentation;" Lam. v. 15; Is. xxiv. 8, 11.) The

three following nouns were very correctly distinguished by _Jerome_.

חג, "feast," is the designation of the three annual principal

festivals. In addition to these, there was in every month the [Pg 248]

feast of the new-moon; and in every week, the Sabbath. This connection

is a standing one, which, even in the New Testament (compare Col. ii.

16), still reverts. The words, "all her festival time," comprehend the

single _species_ in the designation of the _genus_. That מועד properly

signifies "appointed time," then, more specially, "festival time,"

"feast," appears from Lev. xxiii. 4: "These are the מועדי of the Lord,

the sacred assemblies which you shall call במועדם, in their appointed

time." That the _feasts_ are not a single species co-ordinate with the

new-moons and Sabbaths, but the genus, appears from the fact that in

Lev. xxiii. the Sabbath opens the series of the מועדים. In a wider

sense, the new-moons also belonged to the מועדים, although they are not

enumerated among them in Lev. xxiii. on account of their subordinate

character. In Num. x. 10, Is. i. 14, Ezra iii. 5, the new-moons are

mentioned along with the מועדים only as the species by the side of the

genus. But we are at liberty to think only of the feasts appointed by

God; for, otherwise, there would be no room for the application of the

_lex talionis_:--God takes from the Israelites only what they had taken

from Him. The days of the Baalim are afterwards specially mentioned in

ver. 15. The days of God are taken from them; for the days of the

Baalim they are punished. This much, however, appears from the passage

before us--and it is placed beyond any doubt by several other passages

in Hosea as well as in Amos--that, outwardly, the worship, as regulated

by the prescriptions of the Pentateuch, had all along continued. (For

the arguments in proof of this assertion, the author's _Dissertations

on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, vol. i., are to be compared.)

Ver. 14. "_And I make desolate her vine and fig-tree, whereof she said,

They are the wages of whoredom to me, that my lovers have given me; and

I make them a forest, and the beasts of the field eat them._"

The vine and fig-tree, as the two noblest productions of

Palestine--_Ispahan_, in the "_Excerpta ex vita Saladini_," p. 10,

calls them "_ambos Francorum oculos_"--are here also connected with

each other, as is commonly done in threatenings and promises, as the

representatives of the rich gifts of God, wherewith He has blessed this

country.--אשר is often placed before an entire sentence, to mark it out

as being relative in general. [Pg 249] It is the looser, instead of the

closer connection, = "of which."--אתנה "wages of prostitution," instead

of which, in ix. 1 and other passages, the form אתנן occurs, requires a

renewed investigation. It is commonly derived from תנה, to which the

signification "_largiter donavit, dona distribuit_," is ascribed. But

opposed to this, there is the fact that the root תנה is, neither in

Hebrew, nor in any of the dialects, found with this signification. It

has in Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac, the signification "to laud," "to

praise," "to recount." But besides this תנה, there occurs another תנה,

not with the general signification "to give," but in the special one,

"to give a reward of whoredom;" in which signification it cannot be a

primitive word, but derived from נתן אתנה = אתנה, in the passage under

consideration, and in Ezek. xvi. 34. The supposition of a primitive

verb תנה, with the signification "to give," is also opposed by the

circumstance that the noun which is said to be derived from it never

occurs with the general signification "gift," but always with the

special one, "reward of prostitution." אתנה is rather derived from the

first pers. Fut. Kal of the verb נתן, a "I will-give-thee," similar to

our "forget-me-not." The whore asks, in Gen. xxxviii. 16, מה־תתן לי

("what wilt thou give me?"), and the whoremonger answers, אתן־לך ("I

will give thee"), ver. 18. From this there originated, in the language

of the brothel, a base word for such base traffic. The sacred writers

are not ashamed or afraid to use it. They speak, throughout, of common

things in a common manner; for the vulgar word is the most suitable for

the vulgar thing. The morality of a people, or of an age, may be

measured by their speaking of vulgar things in a vulgar manner, or the

reverse. Wherever, in the language, the "_fille de joie_" or

"_Freudenmädchen_" has taken the place of the "whore," a similar change

will, in reality, have taken place. Whatsoever the people of Israel

imagined that they received from their idols, they certainly will not

have designated as a "reward of prostitution," but as a "reward of true

love." But the prophet at once destroys all their pleasant imaginings

by putting into their mouths the corresponding expression,--an

expression which must certainly have sounded very rudely and vulgarly

in their tender ears; for the tongue and the ear become more tender, in

the same degree in which the heart becomes more vulgar. She who

imagined herself so tender and affectionate sees herself [Pg 250] at

once addressed as a common prostitute. The sweet proofs of the

heartfelt mutual love which her "lovers" gave her are called "wages of

whoredom." This is indeed a good corrective for our language, for our

whole view of things, for our own hearts, which are so easily befooled.

All love of the world, all striving after its favour, every surrender

to the spirit of the age, is whoredom. A reward of whoredom, which must

not be brought into the temple of the Lord (for it is an _abomination_

unto the Lord thy God, Deut. xxiii. 19), is everything which it offers

and gives us in return. Like a reward of whoredom, it will melt away;

"of wages of whoredom she has collected, and to wages of whoredom it

shall return."--This derivation from the Future has a great many

analogies in its favour; among others, the whole class of nouns with ת

prefixed, in which it is quite evident (although this has been so often

overlooked) that they have arisen from the Fut. If the ת in these forms

originated from the _Hiphil_, how could it be explained that they are

more frequently connected with _Kal_? Even the very common occurrence

of the formation from the Future in the case of proper names, induces

us to expect, _a priori_, that it will be more frequent in appellative

names than is commonly supposed. The occurrence of the phrase נתן אתנה,

in the passages quoted, is also in favour of this derivation. By it,

the interchange of the two forms אתנה and אתנן is easily accounted for.

In the latter of these forms, the _Nun_ which prevails in נתן, but

which had been dropped at the beginning, again reappears. A variation

in the form is, moreover, quite natural in a word which originated from

common life, which is entirely destitute of accurate analogies, and is

therefore, as it were, without a model; for the other nouns of this

class are formed from the 3d pers. of the _Fut._--As regards, now, the

substance:--Egotism, and selfishness arising out of it, are the ground

of all desire for the love of that which is not God, especially in the

case of those who have already known the true God; for where this is

not the case, there may be, even in idolatry, a better element, which

seeks for a false gratification only because it does not know the true

one. From this, however, it appears, that the idolatry of the

Israelites (and this is only a species of the idolatry of all those who

have had opportunity to know the true God, and of whom it is true that

"the last is worse than the first") was [Pg 251] much lower than that

of the Gentiles, whose poets and philosophers, in part, zealously

opposed the dispositions which are here expressed; compare the passages

in _Manger_. Egotism is here, as it always is, folly; for it trusts in

him who himself possesses only borrowed and stolen goods, which the

lawful owner may, at every moment, take away from him. And in order

that such folly may appear as such, and very glaringly too. He appears

here indeed, and takes what He had in reality given out of His mercy,

but what, according to their imagination, they had received from

the idols as a reward.--The suffix in שמתים refers to the vine and

fig-tree. The gardens of vines and fig-trees carefully tended, hedged

and enclosed round about, are to be deprived of hedges, enclosures, and

culture (καθυλομανεῖ γὰρ μὴ κλαδευομένη ἡ ἄμπελος, _Clem. Alex. Paed._

i. 1, p. 115 Sylb.), to be changed into a forest, and given over to the

ravages of wild beasts; for the words "and eat them" are by no means to

be referred to the fruits only. The same image of an entirely

devastated country is found in Is. vii. 23 ff.; Mic. iii. 12.

Ver. 15. "_And I visit upon her the days of the Baalim, to whom she

burnt incense, and put on her ring and her ornament, and went after her

lovers, and forgat Me, saith the Lord._"

The days of the Baalim are the days consecrated to their worship,

whether they were specially set apart for that purpose, or whether they

were originally devoted to the worship of the Lord, whom they sought to

confound with Baal. _Manger_, and with him, most interpreters, are

wrong in understanding by the days of Baal, "all the time--certainly a

very long one--in which that forbidden worship flourished in this

nation." Such would be too indefinite an expression. When days of

the Baalim are spoken of, every one must think of days specially

consecrated to them,--their festivals. To this must be added, moreover,

the reference to the days of the Lord in ver. 13. In ver. 10, however,

only one Baal, הבעל, is spoken of; here there are several. This may be

reconciled by the supposition that one and the same Baal was worshipped

according to his various modes of manifestation which were expressed by

the epithets. But the plural may also be explained--and this seems to

be preferable--from 1 Kings xviii. 18, where Baalim is tantamount to

Baal and his associates (compare _Dissertations on the Gen. of the

Pent._ vol. i. p. 165); or from Lev. xvii. 7, where שעירים denotes the

Goat-idol, [Pg 252] and others of his kind. The calves, the worship of

which was, at the time of Hosea, the prevailing one throughout the

kingdom of the ten tribes, are, in that case, comprehended in the

Baalim.--In the words, "And she put on her ring and ornament," the

figurative mode of expression has been overlooked by most interpreters.

Misled by the תקטיר, which refers directly to the spiritual adulteress,

they imagined that the wearing of nose-rings, and other ornaments, in

honour of the idols, was here spoken of. A more correct view was held

by the Chaldee who thus paraphrases: "The Congregation of Israel was

like a wife who deserted her husband, and adorned herself, and ran

after her lovers. Thus the Congregation of Israel was pleased to

worship idols, and to neglect My worship." A great many false

interpretations have had their origin in the circumstance, that they

could not comprehend this liberty of the sacred writers, who at one

time speak plainly of the spiritual antitype, and at another time

transfer to it the peculiarities of the outward type. Had this been

kept in view, it would not, _e.g._, have been asserted, that David had,

in Ps. xxiii. 5, relinquished the image of the good shepherd, because

he does not speak of a trough which the actual good shepherd places

before his sheep, but of a table, placed before them by the spiritual

good Shepherd. In the passage under consideration, the תקטיר denotes an

action performed by her who is an adulteress in a spiritual point of

view. In the words, "She puts on," etc., her conduct is described under

the figure of that of her outward type. The actual correspondence is to

be found in her efforts of making herself agreeable,--in the employing

of every means in order to gain her spiritual lovers. The putting on of

precious ornaments comes into view, only in so far as it is one of

these efforts, and, indeed, a very subordinate one. The burning of

incense, the offering of sacrifices, etc., are, in this respect, of far

greater importance. The correctness of our interpretation is confirmed

by those parallel passages also, in which the same figurative mode of

expression occurs. Thus, _e.g._, Is. lvii. 9: "Thou lookest upon the

king (the common translation, "thou goest to the king," cannot be

defended on philological grounds) in oil (_i.e._, smelling of

ointment), and multipliest thy perfume,"--evidently a figurative

designation, taken from a coquetish woman, to express the employing of

all means in, order to gain favour;--Is. iv. 30: [Pg 253] "And thou

desolate one, what wilt thou do? For thou puttest on thy purple, for

thou adornest thyself with golden ornaments, for thou rentest thine

eyes with painting. In vain thou makest thyself fair; the lovers

despise thee, they seek thy life." In Ezek. xxii. 40-42, Jerusalem

washes and paints herself, expecting her lovers, and decks herself with

ornaments; then she sits down upon a stately couch; a table is prepared

before her, upon which she places the incense of the Lord, and His oil.

In this last feature in Ezekiel, the type disappears behind the thing

typified, although not so completely as is the case in the passage

under consideration, in the words, "She burns incense."--From what has

been remarked, it appears that, in substance, Hos. iv. 13, "They

sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains and bum incense upon the

hills," is entirely parallel. The two clauses, "She went after her

lovers," and "she forgat Me," both serve to represent the crime in a

more heinous light. Sin must certainly have already poisoned the whole

heart, if occasion for its exercise be spontaneously sought after. In

reference to the latter, _Calvin_ remarks: "Just as when a wife has for

a long time lived with her husband, and has been kindly and liberally

treated by him, and then prostitutes herself to lovers, and does not

entertain or retain any more love for him; such a depravity is nothing

less than brutish."

Ver. 16. "_Therefore, behold, I allure her, and lead her into the

wilderness and speak to her heart._"

The consolation and promise here begin with as great abruptness as in

the first section. It is reported how the Lord gradually leads back His

unfaithful wife to reformation, and to reunion with Him, the lawful

husband. Great difficulty has been occasioned to interpreters by the

לכן at the commencement. Very easily, but at the same time very

inconsiderately, the difficulty is got over by those who give it the

signification, "_utique_, _profecto_;" but this cannot be called

interpreting. It must be, above all, considered as settled and

undoubted, that לכן can here have that signification only which it

always has; and this all the more, that in vers. 8 and 15 it occurred

in the same signification. This being taken for granted, the

"therefore" might be referred to the words of the wife in ver. 9, "I

will go and return to my first husband," and all which follows be

considered as only a kind of parenthesis. That the Lord begins again to

show Himself [Pg 254] kind to His wife would then have its foundation

in this:--that in her the first symptoms of a change of character

manifested themselves. But this supposition is, after all, too forced.

These words are too far away as that the prophet could have expected to

be understood, in thus referring to them in a manner so indefinite.

Several interpreters follow the explanation of _Tarnovius_: "Therefore,

because she is not corrected by so great calamities, I will try the

matter in another and more lenient way, by kindness." But the prophet

could not expect that his hearers and readers should themselves supply

the thought, which is not indicated by anything,--the thought, namely,

"because that former method was of no avail, or rather, because it

_alone_ did not suffice;" for it was by no means wholly in vain. When

the Lord had hedged up her way with thorns, the woman speaks: "I will

go and return;" and where tribulations are of no avail--tribulations

through which we must enter the kingdom of God--nothing else will. The

severity of God must precede His love. And even though this train

of thought should have occurred to them, they had no guarantee for

its correctness. It is most natural to take the לכן as being simply

co-ordinate with the לכן in vers. 8 and 11. The "_because_," which, in

all the three places, corresponds to the _therefore_, is the wife's

apostasy. Because she has forgotten God, He recalls Himself to her

remembrance, first by the punishment, and then, after this has attained

its end,--after the wife has spoken: "I will go and return,"--by proofs

of His love. The leading to Egypt, into the wilderness, into the land

of Canaan, rests on her unfaithfulness as its foundation. Without it,

the Congregation would have remained in undisturbed possession of the

promised land. By it, God is induced, both according to His justice and

His mercy, to take it from her, to lead her back into the wilderness,

and thence to the promised land.--פתה, in the _Piel_, is a _verbum

amatorium_; it signifies "to allure by tender persuasion." There is to

be a repetition of the proceeding of God, by which He formerly, in

Egypt, allured the people to Himself, and induced them to follow Him

into the wilderness, from the spiritual and bodily bondage in Egypt.

After the sufferings, there always follows the alluring. God first

takes away the objects of sinful love, and then He comes alluring and

persuading us that we should choose, for the object of our love. Him

who alone is worthy of, and entitled to, love. He is not [Pg 255]

satisfied with the strict prosecution of His right, but endeavours to

make duty sweet to us, and, by His love, to bring it about that we

perform it from love. After He has thus allured us. He leads us

from Egypt into the wilderness.--The words, "I lead her into the

wilderness," have been very much misunderstood by interpreters.

According to _Manger_, the wilderness here is that through which the

captives should pass on their return from Babylon. But one reason alone

is sufficient to refute this opinion,--namely, that on account of the

following verse, by the wilderness (the article must not be

overlooked), only that wilderness can be understood which separates

Egypt from Canaan. Others (_Ewald_, _Hitzig_), following _Grotius_,

understand by the wilderness, the Assyrian captivity. _Kuehnöl_ has

acquired great merit for this exposition, by proving from a passage

in _Herodotus_, that there were, at that time, uncultivated regions

in Assyria! The same reason which militates against the former

interpretation is opposed to this also. To this it may be further

added, that, according to it, we can make nothing of the _alluring_.

The Israelites were not _allured_ into captivity by kindness and

love; they were driven into it _against_ their will, by God's wrath.

_Moreover_, what according to this interpretation is to be done with

the משם in ver. 17? Did, perhaps, the vineyards of Canaan begin

immediately beyond Assyria, or does not even this rather lead us to the

Arabian desert? It is certain, then, that this desert is the one to be

thought of here, and, in addition, that it can only be as an image and

type that the prophet here represents the leading through the

wilderness, as a repetition of the former one in its individual form;

inasmuch as it was, substantially, equal with it. For they who returned

from the Assyrian captivity could not well pass through the literal

Arabian desert; and the comparison expressed in the following verse,

"As in the day when she went up from the land of Egypt," shows that

here also a _decurtata comparatio_ must take place. But, now, all

depends upon determining the essential feature, the real nature and

substance, of that first leading through the wilderness; because the

leading spoken of in the verse before us must have that essential

feature in common with it. The principal passage--which must guide us

in this investigation, and which is proved to be such by the

circumstance that the Lord Himself referred [Pg 256] to it when He was

_spiritually_ led through the wilderness, an event which, for a sign,

_outwardly_ also took place in the wilderness--is Deut. viii. 2-5: "And

thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these

forty years in the wilderness, to afflict thee and to prove thee, to

know what was in thy heart, whether thou wouldst keep His commandments,

or no. And He afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee

with the manna which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know,

that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but

by everything which proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man

live. Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell

these forty years. And thou knowest in thine heart, that as a father

chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy God chasteneth thee." The essential

feature in the leading through the wilderness is, accordingly, the

_temptation_. By the wonderful manifestations of the Lord's omnipotence

and mercy, on the occasion of Israel's deliverance from Egypt, a

heartfelt love to Him had been awakened in the people. (Compare the

tender expression of it in the Song in Exod. xv.; and also the passage

in Jer. ii. 2: "I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of

thine espousals, thy going after Me in the wilderness in a land not

sown,"--which cannot but refer to the very first time of the abode in

the wilderness, before the giving of the law on Sinai, as is evident

from the mention of the youth and espousals; for the latter ceased on

Sinai, where the marriage took place.) The whole conduct of the people

at the giving of the law,--their great readiness in promising to do all

that the Lord should command,--likewise bear testimony to this love.

The Lord's heartfelt delight in Israel during the first period of their

marching through the wilderness, of which Hosea speaks in ix. 10,

likewise presupposes this love. Thus the first station was reached. The

people now hoped to be put in immediate possession of the inheritance

promised to them by the Lord. But, because the Lord knew the condition

of human nature. His way was a different one. A state of temptation and

trial succeeded that of entire alienation from God. The first love is

but too often--nay, it is, more or less, always--but a flickering

flame. Sin has not been entirely slain; it has been only subdued for a

moment, and only wants a favourable opportunity [Pg 257] to regain its

old dominion. It would never be thoroughly destroyed, if God allowed

this condition always to continue; if by always putting on new fuel, if

by uninterrupted proofs of His love. He were to keep that fire burning

continually. If the love of the feelings and imagination is to become a

cordial, thorough moral love, it requires to be tried, in order that

thus it may recognise its own nothingness hitherto, and how necessary

it is that it should take deeper root. The means of this trial are

God's afflicting us, concealing Himself from us, leading us in a way

different from that which we expected, and, apparently, forsaking vis.

But because He is the merciful One who will not suffer us to be tempted

above that we are able,--because He Himself has commanded us to pray,

"Lead us not into temptation," _i.e._, into such an one as we are not

able to bear, and would thereby become a temptation inwardly,--He makes

His gifts to go by the side of His chastisements. He who suffered

Israel to hunger, gave them also to eat. He who suffered them to

thirst, gave them also to drink. He who led them over the burning sand,

did not suffer their shoes to wax old. But this counterpoise to

tribulation becomes, in another aspect, a new temptation. As Satan

tries to overthrow us by pleasure as well as by pain; so God proves us

by what He gives, no less than by what He takes away. In the latter

case, it will be seen whether we love God _without_ His gifts; in the

former, whether we love Him in His gifts. This second station is, to

many, the last; the bodies of many fall in the wilderness. But while a

multitude of individuals remain there, the Congregation of God always

passes over to the third station,--the possession of Canaan. The state

of temptation is, to her, always a state of sifting and purification at

the same time. That which is to the individual a calamity, is to her a

blessing.--That we have thus correctly defined the nature and substance

of the leading through the wilderness, is confirmed by the temptation

of Christ also, which immediately succeeded the bestowal of the Spirit,

which again corresponded to the first love. That this temptation of

Christ corresponded to the leading through the wilderness--in so far as

it could do so in the case of Him who was tempted in all things,

yet without sin; while in our case, there is no temptation, even

when resisted [Pg 258] victoriously, that is without sin--appears

sufficiently from its two external characteristics, viz., the stay

in the wilderness, and the forty days; but still more so, from the

internal feature,--the fact that the Saviour, in order to show the

tempter that He recognised in His own case a repetition of the stay in

the wilderness, opposed Him with a passage taken from the _locus

classicus_ concerning it, already quoted.--We now, moreover, cite the

parallel passages which serve as an explanation of the passage under

consideration, and as a confirmation of the explanation which we have

given. The most important is Ezek. xx. 34-38: "And I bring you _out

from the nations_, and gather you out of the countries wherein ye are

scattered, with a mighty hand and with a stretched-out arm, and with

fury poured out. And I bring you into the _wilderness of the nations_,

and there will I plead with you face to face; like as I pleaded with

your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead

there with you, saith the Lord God. And I cause you to pass under the

rod, and bring you into the bond of the covenant, and purge out from

among you the rebels, and them that transgress against Me; out of the

land of your pilgrimage (the standing designation of Egypt in the

Pentateuch) I will bring them forth, and into the land of Israel they

shall not come, and ye shall know that I am the Lord." Here also, the

stay in the wilderness appears as a state of trial, lying in the middle

between the abode among the nations (corresponding to the bondage in

Egypt, which was so not merely bodily, but spiritual also), and the

possession of Canaan. And the result of this trial is a different one,

according to the different condition of the individuals. Some shall be

altogether destroyed; even the appearance of the communion with the

Lord, which they hitherto maintained by having come out of the land of

pilgrimage along with the others, shall be taken away; whilst the

others, by the very means which brought about the destruction of the

former, shall be confirmed in their communion with the Lord, and be

more closely united to Him. Hosea, who, in consequence of the

personification of the Congregation of Israel, has the whole more in

view, regards chiefly the latter feature. A very remarkable

circumstance in Ezekiel, however, requires to be still more minutely

considered; because it promotes essentially the right understanding of

the passage before us. What is meant [Pg 259] by the "wilderness of the

nations?" Several interpreters think that it is the wilderness between

Babylon and Judea. Thus, for example, _Manger_: "_I am disposed to

think_ that the desert of Arabia itself is here called the wilderness

of the nations, on account of the different nomadic tribes which are

accustomed to wander through it." _Rosenmüller_ says: "He _seems_ to

speak here of those vast solitudes which the Jews had to pass through,

on their way from Babylon to Judea." But this "I am disposed to think,"

and this "he seems," on the part of these interpreters, show that they

themselves felt the insufficiency of their own explanation. That

nomadic tribes are straying through that wilderness, is not at all

essential, and can therefore not be mentioned here, where only the

essential feature--the nature and substance of the leading through the

wilderness--are concerned. And we cannot at all perceive why just the

wilderness between Babylon and Judea should be called the wilderness of

the nations. It was no more travelled by nomadic tribes than was any

other wilderness. And just as little was it characteristic of it, that

it bordered upon the territories of various nations (_Hitzig_). Such a

designation would throw us upon the territory of mere conjecture, on

which we are, in Holy Scripture, never thrown, except through our own

fault. But it is quite decisive that the words, "I bring you out of the

wilderness of the nations," stand in a close relation to the words, "I

bring you out from the nations." From this it appears that the nations,

to which the Israelites are to be brought, cannot be any other than

those, out of the midst of whom they are to be led. In the first

leading out of the Israelites, the two spiritual conditions were

separated externally also. The first belonged to Egypt; the second, to

the wilderness. But it shall not be thus, in this announced repetition

of the leading. It is only spiritually that the Israelites, at the

commencement of the second condition, shall be led out from among the

nations, in the midst of whom they, outwardly, still continue to be.

The wilderness is in the second Egypt itself. The stay in the

wilderness is repeated as to its essence only, and not as to its

accidental outward form; just as in Zech. x. 12, the words, "And he

passeth through the sea," which apparently might imply a repetition of

the outward form merely, are limited to the substance by the subjoined

"affliction." From this we obtain for our passage (_Hitzig_ likewise

[Pg 260] remarks: Ezek. xx. 34-38 seems to depend on Hosea ii. 16) the

important result, that the leading of God which is here announced, is

not limited to a definite place, and as little, to a definite time. And

what is true of the leading through the wilderness, must necessarily

apply to the leading into Canaan also. Just as Egypt might begin, and

actually did begin, even in Palestine, inasmuch as Israel was there

in a condition of heavy spiritual and bodily bondage;--just as,

spiritually, they might already be in the wilderness, though,

outwardly, they were still under Asshur; so, the stay in the wilderness

might, relatively, have still continued in Canaan, even although--which

did not happen--the whole people should have returned thither with

Zerubbabel. What is it that makes Canaan to be Canaan, the promised

land, the land of the Lord? It is just this:--that the Lord is there

present with all His gifts and blessings. But such was by no means the

case in the new colony. Because the spiritual condition of those who

had returned was in conformity with the second--in part, even with the

first--rather than with. the last station, their outward condition was

so likewise. John the Baptist symbolized this continuation of the

condition of the wilderness, by his appearing _in the wilderness_, with

the preaching of repentance, and with. the announcement, that now the

introduction to the true Canaan was near at hand. By proclaiming

himself as the voice crying in the wilderness, announced by Isaiah, he

showed with sufficient plainness how false was that carnal view which,

without being able to distinguish the thought from its drapery,

understood, and still understands, by the wilderness spoken of

in this prophecy, some piece of land, limited as to space, and then

murmured that the actual limit did not correspond with the fancied

one.--As in the case of Israel, so in ours also, these conditions are

distinguished, not absolutely, but relatively only. Even he who has, in

one respect, been already led through to Canaan, remains, in another

respect, in the wilderness still. Canaan, in the full sense, does not

belong to the present world, but to the future, as regards both the

single individual, and the whole Church.--Another parallel passage is

Jer. xxxi. 1, 2: "At this time, saith the Lord, will I be the God of

all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people. Thus saith

the Lord, The people who have escaped from the sword find mercy

in the wilderness; [Pg 261] I go to give rest to Israel." In Rev. xii.

6, 14, the wilderness likewise designates the state of trial and

temptation.--דבר על־לב, properly "to speak over the heart," because the

words fall down upon the heart, signifies an affectionate and

consolatory address; compare Gen. xxxiv. 3 ("And he loved the damsel,

and spoke over the heart of the damsel"), l. 21; Is. xl. 2. Here they

signify that the wife is comforted after she had been so deeply cast

down by the consciousness of her former unfaithfulness, and by the

experience of its bitter consequences. The view of those who would here

think only of the comforting words of the prophets is much too

limited,--although these words are, of course, included. We must

chiefly think of the _sermo realis_ of the Lord, of all the proofs of

affectionate and tender love, whereby He gives rest to the weary and

heavy-laden, and brings it about, that those who were formerly

unfaithful, but who now suffer themselves to be led by Him out of the

spiritual bondage into the spiritual wilderness, can now put confidence

in Him; just as, formerly. He comforted Israel in the wilderness, in

the waste and desolate land, in the land of drought and of the shadow

of death (Jer. ii. 6), and affectionately cared for all their wants, in

order that they might know that He is the Lord their God, Deut. xxix.

4, 5.

Ver. 17. "_And I give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of

Achor_ (trouble) _for a door of hope; and she answers thither as in the

days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of Egypt._"

The same faithful love which led into the wilderness, now leads into

Canaan also; and the entrance into the promised land is immediately

followed by the possession of all its gifts and blessings, which now

legitimately belong to the _faithful_ wife (_her_ vineyards), whilst,

formerly, they were taken from the unfaithful wife by the giver, ver.

14. נתן with ל of the person, always means "to give to some one." Hence

_Simson_ is wrong in giving the explanation: "And I make her of it,

viz., the wilderness, her vineyards;" for the valley of Achor was not

situated in the wilderness, but in Canaan; compare Is. lxv. 10. The

signification "to give" is here suited to the second member of the

verse also. The valley of Achor is given to her in its quality as a

valley of hope. The _vineyards_ are mentioned with reference to ver.

14, where the devastation of the vine is [Pg 262] threatened. They are

brought under notice as the noblest possession, as the finest ornament

of the cultivated land, in contrast with the barren wilderness. משם,

properly "from thence," is correctly explained by _Manger_: "As

soon as she has come out of that wilderness." The explanation of

_Rödiger_ and others, "From that time," is unphilological; שם is never

an adverb of time.--According to the opinion of many interpreters

(_Calvin_, _Manger_, and others), the valley of Achor here comes into

consideration only because of its fruitfulness, and its situation at

the entrance of the promised land, but not with any reference to the

event which, according to Josh. vii., happened there. But the

circumstance that here, as in the whole preceding context, the prophet,

in almost every word, has before his eyes the former leadings of

Israel, compels us, almost involuntarily, to have respect to that

event. And, in addition, there is a still more decisive argument. It

cannot be denied that there is a contrast between what the valley of

Achor is by nature, and what it is made by the Lord; there is too plain

a contrast between the _hope_ and the _affliction_. But if thus the

meaning of the name is brought into view, then certainly there must

also be a reference to the event to which it owed its name. But in

order to have a right understanding of this reference, we must find out

what was the essential feature in the event, the repetition of which is

here announced. The people, when they were entering into Canaan, were

immediately deprived of the enjoyment of the divine favour by the

transgression of an individual--Achan--which was only a single fruit

from the tree of the sin which was common to all. But God Himself,

in His mercy, made known the means by which the lost favour might

be recovered; and thus the place, which seemed to be the door of

destruction, became the door of hope; compare _Schultens_ on _Harari_

iii. p. 180. The remembrance of this event was perpetuated by the

name of the place; compare ver. 25: "And Joshua said. Why hast thou

troubled us? The Lord shall trouble thee this day. Therefore the name

of the place was called. The valley of Achor, unto this day." This

particular dealing of God, however, is based upon His nature, and

must, therefore, repeat itself when Israel again comes into similar

circumstances,--must be repeated, in general, whensoever similar

conditions arise. Even they who have already entered the [Pg 263]

promised land, who have already come to the full enjoyment of salvation

(_full_, in so far as it is considered as a whole, and designated as

the last station; but as this last station again has several steps and

gradations, this fulness can be relative only. If it were absolute, if

nothing more of the wilderness were left, then, of course, the case

here in question could no more occur; for a salvation absolutely full

presupposes a righteousness absolutely full);--even they who have

already come to the full enjoyment of salvation, and to a degree of

righteousness corresponding to this salvation, require still the mercy

of God; for, without it, they would soon lose their salvation again.

This mercy, however, is vouchsafed to them in abundant measure. The

whole manner in which God leads those who have obtained mercy, is a

changing of the valley of trouble into a door of hope. He will order

all things in such a way, that the bond of union betwixt Him and those

for whom all things must work together for good, instead of being

broken by sin--as it would be if He were justice alone--is only the

more strengthened. The same idea occurs again in ver. 21. The new

marriage-covenant is there founded not on justice only, but on mercy

also.--The words וענתה שמה are commonly explained, "She sings there,"

or, "She there raises alternative songs." But both of these

interpretations are unphilological. For 1. שמה does not signify

"there," but "thither." Those passages which have been appealed to for

the purpose of proving that it may also sometimes signify "there," or

"at yonder place," all belong to the same class. The opposite of the

construction of the verbs of motion with ב takes place in them. As, in

these verbs, the idea of rest is, for the sake of brevity, omitted, so

here, that of motion. Thus, _e.g._, Jer. xviii. 2, "Go down to the

potter's house, and _thither_ will I cause thee to hear My voice," is a

concise mode of expression for, "I will send My voice thither, and

cause thee to hear there;" 1 Chron. iv. 41, "Which were found thither,"

instead of, "which were found there when they came thither." We might,

in the case of the passage under consideration, most easily concede

what we are contending against, that שמה is used instead of שם, as a

kind of grammatical blunder; but that the writer knew the difference

between these two forms clearly appears from the close of the verse,

where, certainly, he would not have put שמה for שם. These are the

instances adduced by _Winer_. _Gesenius_, further, refers [Pg 264]to

Is. xxxiv. 15: "_Thither_ makes her nest;" but the making of the nest

implies the placing of it. _Ewald_, moreover, appeals to Ps. cxxii. 5:

"_Thither_ sit the thrones for judgment." It is true that ישב never

signifies "to sit down," but it frequently implies it. He appeals,

further, to the Song of Solomon viii. 5: "_Thither_ thy mother brought

thee forth;" which is tantamount to--there she brought thee forth, and

put thee down. But שמה can so much the less signify "there," that the

instances alleged for the weakening of the ה _locale_ in other

passages, will not stand the test. _Ewald_ appeals to Ps. lxviii. 7:

"God makes the solitary to dwell ביתה;" which, however, does not mean

"_in_ the house," as _Ewald_ translates, but "_into_ the house"--He

leads them thither, and makes them to dwell there. The idea of motion

being sufficiently indicated by the ה itself, no other designation was

required in poetry, which delights in brevity. _Further_--Hab. iii. 11:

"Sun and moon stand זבלה, towards their habitation," _i.e._, go into

their habitation and stand there. 2. The verb ענה signifies neither "to

begin the discourse," nor "to sing," nor "to sing alternately," nor "to

correspond," nor "to be favourably disposed" (_Ewald_), nor "to obey"

(_Hitzig_), but always, and everywhere, "to answer." All these

explanations will lose their plausibility, if we only consider, that it

is not always necessary that a question be expressed by words, but that

it may be implied in the thing itself--especially in the case of the

lively Orientals, for whom things, even the most mute, have a language.

As examples, we cite only 1 Sam. xxi. 12:--"Did they not answer to him

in dances, saying, Saul has slain his thousands, but David his ten

thousands!" Similarly also xxix. 5. That even here, the signification

"to answer" ought to be retained, is plain from xviii. 7, compared with

ver. 6. The coming together of David and Saul was a silent question as

to which was the greater. Ps. cxlvii.: "Answer the Lord with praise."

The real addresses of the Lord were His blessings; compare vers. 2-6, 8

ff. By everything which God gives He asks. What art thou doing to Me,

since I am doing that to thee? ענה is often used of God, although no

formal question or prayer preceded; but the very relation itself

implies prayer and asking. It is in this sense that even the ravens are

said to cry to God. It is in this sense that God _answers_ His people

before they cry to Him. He who has nothing, prays by this very

circumstance, even without words, [Pg 265]yea, even without the

gestures and posture of one who is praying. Since, in these remarks, we

have already refuted the arguments which seemed most plausible, we may

pass over other objections which are less to the purpose. There is only

the passage Exod. xv. 21, which requires to be specially noticed, as it

is in that passage that the signification "to sing alternately" is

supposed, beyond any doubt, to be; and many interpreters assume that

there is a verbal reference to it in the passage under consideration.

"And then Miriam answered to them (להם, _i.e._, to the men), Sing ye to

the Lord," Moses sings first with the children of Israel, ver. 1, "and

then Miriam the prophetess took, etc., and _answered_." The

signification "to answer," is here quite evident. But, on the other

hand, it appears that that passage has not the slightest relation to

the one under consideration, inasmuch as there is not, in the latter,

any mention of a first choir, to which the second answers.--From what

has been hitherto remarked, it is settled that the translation, "And

she answers thither," is alone admissible. But now, since no _verbal_

question or address has preceded here, the question arises:--Which

address by deeds called forth the answer? To this question an answer is

readily suggested by the reference of שמה to the preceding משם. The

address must have come from that place to which the answer is sent;

hence, it can consist only in the giving of the vineyards, and of the

good things of the promised land generally. On entering into it, she is

welcomed by this affectionate address of the Lord, her husband, and

there she answers it. The following words, "As in the days," etc.,

show what that is in which the answer consists. If, at that time,

Israel answered the Lord by a song of praise, full of thanks for the

deliverance from Egypt, now also they will answer Him by a song of

praise, for being led into Canaan. If history had given any report

of a hymn of praise sung by Israel when they entered into Canaan,

the prophet would have referred to it; but as it was, he could only

remind them of that hymn. And although the occasion on which it was

sung did not altogether correspond, it must be borne in mind, that in

this hymn (compare ver. 12 ff.) the passing through the Red Sea is

represented as a preparatory step, and as prefiguring the occupation of

Canaan--the latter being contained in it as in a germ. It is, moreover,

self-evident that the essential fundamental thought is [Pg 266]only

that of the cordial and deep gratitude of the redeemed,--that the form

only is borrowed from the previous manifestation of this thankfulness.

An image altogether similar, and arising from the same cause, is found

in Is. xii. also, where the reference to Moses' hymn of thanks is

manifested by employing the very words; and likewise in Is. xxvi.; and,

further, in Hab. iii. and Rev. xv. 3.--ימי and יום are Nominatives, not

Accusatives; which latter could not be made use of here, because the

discourse is not of an action extending through the whole period, but

of one happening at a particular point of that period. The comparison

is here also merely intimated, because the _tertium comparationis_ is

abundantly evident from what precedes: "As the days of her youth,"

instead of, "As she once answered in the days of her youth."

Ver. 18. "_And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, thou shalt call

Me, My husband, and shall call Me no more, My Baal._"

The full performance of her duties corresponds with the full admission

to her rights. The prophet expresses this thought, by announcing the

removal of the two forms in which the apostasy of the people from the

true God--the violation of the marriage-covenant which rested on

exclusiveness--was at that time manifested. One of these was the mixing

up of the religion of Jehovah with heathenism, according to which they

called the true God "Baal," and worshipped Him as Baal; the other was

still grosser--was pure idolatry. The abolition of the former (compare

above, p. 176 f.) is predicted in this verse; the abolition of the

latter, in the verse following. Both are in a similar way placed beside

each other in Zech. xiv. 9: "In that day shall there be one Lord,

and His name one;" where the first clause refers to the abolition

of polytheism, and the second to the abolition of the mixing of

religion--of the hidden apostasy--which, without venturing to forsake

the true God entirely and openly, endeavours to mix up and identify Him

with the world. To the fundamental thought there are several parallels;

_e.g._, Deut. xxx. 5 ff.: "And the Lord thy God bringeth thee into the

land which thy fathers possessed; and the Lord thy God circumciseth

thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with

all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." This

passage shows that the verse before us, no less than that which

precedes, contains a _promise_, and that the "calling," and the

"calling no more," is a work of divine [Pg 267]grace. To this we are

led also by the words, "I shall take away," in ver. 19, as well as by

the other parallel passages:--Jer. xxiv. 7: "And I give them an heart

to know Me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be a people to Me, and I

will be a God to them, for they shall return to Me with their whole

heart;" Ezek. xi. 19: "And I give them one heart, and a new spirit I

put within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh;" compare

further Zech. xiii. 2. Another interpretation of the verse recommends

itself by its apparent depth. According to it, בעל is to be taken as an

appellative noun, the "marriage-Lord," in contrast with איש, "husband,"

and that the people are henceforth to be altogether governed by love.

But this interpretation must be objected to, for a whole multitude of

reasons. There is, _first_ of all, the relation of this verse to the

following one, which does not allow that בעל, which there occurs as a

proper name, should in this place be taken as an appellative. There is,

_then_, the arbitrariness in defining the relation between איש and בעל,

the former of which as little exclusively expresses the relation of

love, as the latter excludes it. (Compare Is. liv. 5, 6, lxii. 4; 2

Sam. xi. 26.) Further, it is incorrect to say that בעל properly

means "Lord;" it means "possessor." _Still further_,--There is the

unsuitableness of the thought, which would be without any analogy in

its favour throughout Scripture. And, _lastly_, the relation of love to

God cannot, even in its highest consummation, do away with reference to

Him, etc.

Ver. 19. "_And I take away the names of the Baalim out of her mouth,

and they shall no more be remembered by their name._"

The people are to conceive such an abhorrence of idolatry, that they

shall be afraid of being defiled even by pronouncing the name of the

idols. The words are borrowed from Exod. xxiii. 13: "Ye shall not make

mention of the name of other gods, neither shall it be heard out of thy

mouth." The special expression of the idea must, as a matter of course,

be referred back to this idea itself, viz., the abhorrence of the

former sin and, hence, such a mention cannot here be spoken of as, like

that in the passage before us, has no reference to that sin.

Ver. 20. "_And I make a covenant for them in that day with the beasts

of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping

things of the earth; and bow, and sword, and war I break out of the

land, and make them to dwell in safety._"

[Pg 268]

On the expression, "I make a covenant," _Manger_ remarks, "The cause is

here put for the effect, in order to inspire with greater security."

For the benefit of Israel, God makes a covenant with the beasts,

_i.e._, He imposes upon them obligations not to injure them. The phrase

כרת ברית is frequently used of a transaction betwixt two parties,

whereby an obligation is imposed upon only one of the parties, without

the assumption of any obligation by the other. A somewhat different

turn is given to the image in Job v. 23, where, by the mediation of

God, the beasts themselves enter into a covenant with Job after his

restoration. רמש never means "worm," but always "what moves and

creeps," both small and great, as, in Ps. civ. 25, is subjoined by way

of explanation. The three classes stand in the same order in Gen. ix.

2. The normal order there established, "And the fear of you and the

dread of you shall be upon every beast," etc., returns, after the

removal of the disturbance which has been produced by sin. Upon the

words, "I break," etc., _Manger_ makes the very pertinent remark: "It

is an emphatic and expressive brevity, according to which breaking out

of the land all instruments of war, and war itself, means that He will

break them and remove them out of the land." It is self-evident that

"war" can here, as little as anywhere else, mean "weapons of war." The

prophet, as it appears, had in view the passage Lev. xxvi. 3 ff.: "If

ye will walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments and do them, I

will give you your rains in due season, and the land shall yield her

increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.... And I

give peace in the land, and you dwell, and there is none who makes you

afraid; and I destroy the wild beasts out of the land, and the sword

shall not enter into your land." It is so much the more obvious that we

ought to assume a reference to this passage, as Ezekiel also, in xxxiv.

25 ff., copies it almost _verbatim_. On account of the fatal _If_, that

promise had hitherto been only very imperfectly fulfilled; and

frequently just the opposite of it had happened. But now that the

condition is fulfilled, the promise also shall be fully realized. But

we must observe, with reference to it, that, when we look to the

present course of the world, this hope remains always more or less

ideal, because in reference to the condition also, the idea is not yet

reached by the reality. The idea is this:--As evil is, as a [Pg

269]punishment, the inseparable concomitant of sin, so prosperity and

salvation are the inseparable companions of righteousness. This is

realized even in the present course of the world, in so far as

everything must serve to promote the prosperity of the righteous. But

the full realization belongs to the παλινγενεσία, where, along with

sin, evil too (which is _here_ still necessary even for the righteous,

in order to purify them) shall be extirpated. Parallel are Is. ii. 4,

xi.-xxxv. 9; Zech. ix. 10.

Ver. 21. "_And I betroth thee to Me for eternity; and I betroth thee to

Me in righteousness and judgment, and in loving-kindness and mercy._"

Ver. 22. "_And I betroth thee to Me in faithfulness, and thou knowest

the Lord._"

The word ארש, "to espouse" (compare Deut. xx. 7, where it is contrasted

with לקח), has reference to the entrance into a marriage entirely new,

with the wife of youth, and is, for this reason, chosen on purpose.

"Just as if (so _Calvin_ remarks) the people had never violated

conjugal fidelity, God promises that they should be His spouse, in the

same manner as one marries a _virgo intacta_." It was indeed a great

mercy if the unfaithful wife was only received _again_. Justly might

she have been rejected for ever; for the only valid reason for a

divorce existed, inasmuch as she had lived in adultery for years. But

God's mercy goes still further. The old offences are not only

_forgiven_, but _forgotten_. A relation entirely new begins, into which

there enter, on the one side, no suspicion and no bitterness, and on

the other, no painful recollections, such as may pass into similar

human relationships, where the consequences of sin never disappear

altogether, and where a painful remembrance always remains. The same

dealing of God is still repeated daily; every believer may still say

with exultation: "Old things are passed away; behold, all things are

become new." It is the greatness of this promise which occasions the

direct address, whilst hitherto the Lord had spoken of the wife in the

third person. She shall hear face to face, the great word out of His

mouth, in order that she may be assured that it is she whom it

concerns; and in order to express its greatness, its joyfulness, and

the difficulty of believing it, it is repeated three times. _Calvin_

says: "Because it was difficult to deliver the people from fear and

despair, and because they could not but be [Pg 270]aware how grievously

they had sinned, and in how many ways they had alienated themselves

from God, it was necessary to employ many consolations, that thus their

faith might be confirmed. One likes to hear the repetition of the

intelligence of a great and unexpected good fortune which one has some

difficulty in realizing. And what could a man, despairing on account of

his sins, less readily realize than the greatest of all miracles--viz.,

that all his sins should be done away with, at once and for ever? But

the repetition is, in this case, so much the more full of consolation,

that, each time, it is accompanied with the promise of some new

blessing; that, each time, it opens up some new prospect of new

blessings from this new connection. First, there is the eternal

duration,--then, as a pledge of this, the attributes which God would

display in bestowing it,--and, finally, there are the blessings which

He would impart to His betrothed." The לעולם points back to the painful

dissolution of the former marriage-covenant: This new one shall not be

liable to such a dissolution; for "the mountains shall depart, and the

hills be removed, but My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither

shall the covenant of My peace be removed, saith the Lord:" Is. liv.

10. The attributes which God will display towards the wife, and the

conduct which she shall observe towards Him through His mercy, are

connected with ארשתיך לי, "I betroth thee to Me," by means of ב,

which is often used to mark the circumstances on which some action

rests. Thus, in the case before us, the betrothment rests upon

what God vouchsafes along with it, inasmuch as thereby only does it

become a true betrothment. That the accompanying gifts must be thus

distributed--as we have done--first, the faithful discharge of all the

duties of a husband on His part, and then, the inward communication of

strength to her for the fulfilment of her obligations; and that we are

neither at liberty to refer, as do some interpreters, everything

to one of the two parties, nor to assume, as others do, that everything

refers to both at the same time--is proved not only by the intervening

repetition of "I betroth thee to Me," but also by the internal

nature of the gift's mentioned. רחמים, "mercy," cannot be spoken

of in the relation of the wife to God, nor knowledge of God, in the

relation of God to the wife. The four manifestations of God which are

mentioned here form [Pg 271] a double pair,--righteousness and

judgment, loving-kindness and mercy. The two are frequently connected

in a similar way; _e.g._, Is. i. 27: "Zion shall be redeemed in

judgment, and her inhabitants in righteousness." They are distinguished

thus:--the former, צדק, designates the _being just_, as a subjective

attribute, with the dispositions and actions flowing from it; the

latter, משפט, denotes the _objective right_.[1] A man can give to

another his right or judgment, and yet not be righteous; but God's

righteousness, and His doing right in reference to the Congregation,

consists in this:--that He faithfully performs the obligations which

He took upon Himself when He entered into covenant with her. This,

however, is not sufficient. The obligations entered into are

reciprocal. If, then, the covenant be violated on the part of the

Congregation, what hope is left for her? In order the more to relieve

and comfort the wife, who, from former experience, knew full well what

she might expect from righteousness and judgment alone, the Lord adds a

second pair,--loving-kindness and mercy, the former being the root of

the latter, and the latter being the form in which the former manifests

itself, in the relation of an omnipotent and holy God to weak and

sinful man. חסד, properly "love," man may also entertain towards

God; although even this word is very rarely used in reference to man,

because God's love infinitely exceeds human love; but God only can have

רחמים, "mercy," upon man. But still a distressing thought might, and

must be entertained by the wife. God's mercy and love have their

limits; they extend only to the one case which dissolves even human

marriage--the type of the heavenly marriage, the great mystery which

the Apostle refers to Christ and the Church. What, then, if this case

should again occur? Her heart, it is true, is now filled with pure

love; but who knows whether this love shall not cool,--whether she

shall not again yield to temptation? A new consolation is applied to

the new distress. God Himself will bestow what it is not in the power

of man to bestow--viz., faithfulness towards Him (compare אמונה

used of human faithfulness, in Hab. ii. 4; Jer. v. 3, vii. 28;

the faithfulness in this verse forms the contrast to the whoredom in i.

2), [Pg 272]and the knowledge of Him. "Thou knowest the Lord" is

tantamount to--"in My knowledge." The knowledge of God is here

substantial knowledge. Whosoever thus knows God cannot but love Him,

and be faithful to Him. All idolatry, all sin, has its foundation in a

want of the knowledge of God.

Ver. 23. "_And it comes to pass in that day, I will hear, saith the

Lord; I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth;_ Ver. 24.

_And the earth shall hear the corn, and the must, and the oil; and they

shall hear Jezreel_" (_i.e._, him whom God sows).

The promise in this passage forms the contrast to the threatening in

Deut. xxviii. 23, 24: "And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be

brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. The Lord will

give for the rain of thy land, dust, and dust shall come down from

heaven upon thee." The second אענה is, by most interpreters, considered

as a resumption of the first. But we obtain a far more expressive

sense, if we isolate the first אענה, "I shall hear," namely, all

prayers which will be offered up unto Me by you, and for you. Parallel,

among other passages, is Is. lviii. 9, where the reformed people are

promised: "Then shalt thou call, and the Lord shall answer; thou shalt

cry, and He shall say. Here I am." By a bold _prosopopœia_, the prophet

makes heaven to pray that it might be permitted to give to the earth

that which is necessary for its fruitfulness, etc. Hitherto they have

been hindered from fulfilling their _destination_, since God was

obliged to withdraw His gifts from the unworthy people, ii. 11; but

now, since this obstacle has been removed, they pray for permission to

resume their vocation. The prophets in this manner give, as it were, a

visible representation of the idea, that there is in the whole world no

good independent of God,--nothing which, in accordance with its

destination, is not ours, and would indeed be ours, if we stood in the

right relation to Him,--nothing that is not His, and that will not be

taken away from us, if we desire the gift without the Giver. _Calvin_

remarks: "The prophet shows where and when the happiness of men begins,

viz., when God adopts them, when He betrothes Himself to them, after

having put away their sins.... He teaches, also, in these words, that

the heavens do not become dry by some secret instinct; but it is when

God withholds His grace, that there is no rain by which the heavens

water the earth." God, then, here shows [Pg 273]plainly that the whole

_order of nature_ (as men are wont to say) is so entirely in His

hand, that not one drop of rain shall fall from heaven unless by His

will,--that the whole earth would produce no grass,--that, in short,

all nature would be sterile, unless He made it fruitful by His

blessing.

Ver. 25. "_And I sow her unto Me in the land, and I have mercy upon her

'who had not obtained mercy'_ (Lo-Ruhamah); _and I say to 'not My

people'_ (Lo-Ammi), _Thou art My people, and they say to Me, My God._"

The three symbolical names of the children of the prophet here once

more return. The _femin. suffix_ in זרעתיה, referring to יזרעאל, need

not at all surprise us; for, in the whole passage before us, the sign

disappears in the thing signified. In point of fact, however, _Jezreel_

is equivalent to Israel to be sowed anew. (It is not the Israel to be

_planted_ anew, which is a figure altogether different; the sowing has

always a reference to the increase.)

Footnote 1: In our authorized version משפט is almost constantly

rendered by "_judgment_," although evidently in the sense pointed out

by the author,--for which reason, this rendering has been retained

here.--Tr.