Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

[saiah, Jeremiah, and the

T I and lal bets at olifF<:

periods, rai m the ninth century r if th; so that in these pro; we have not only the earliest and inter, fjuia prolixa volnmina cond'uh nnit.'' Compare with this the notice from I. Bathm 1 I.~ch on Isaiah, vol i. o. 25. translation.

elopment of this t> tken, I essentials of tl whi Lord equip] r the coi; tnes of arrangen ciple has so far dete:

tivii and Ifalachi), arrange | -order ts — namely, thai »phets, in whose books feted if';hesied under the tame beta, whose books precede theirs with the date of composition inserted" (/V > — does not rest

Darius H aspes, as his two predecessors ■ be sb' hronologi-

CtDj,1 adiah did not »phesy under Uzziah of Judah and Jeroboam n of Israel, but comlaboars before that I and Obadiah prophesied bd *1, as is h from the fact that Joel (in words used by Obtdiai in wm and in Mount Zion shall

.' roboam u. Hosea continu the possess the r tit of I i>1-

A and D M ah did not ■] till the

In the ease of the prophets of the

to the collectors, and consequently this alone determined the akknk, the date of composition is not mentioned; but it from the nature of their prophecies, that Nahum, who predicted the destruction of Nineveh, the capital of the captivity, in the case i •:gai and Zed kgical so for a* it can be gathered with tolerabi from ti. ta of

.•n of Jeroboam it. of Iara

•he mgn of Minaaafh or Jo* bel i

of all, from tli« I rose into an

•nal | and assumed a threatening aspc I

• ness and \ 1 in the with tl. and il i to

-chambers by th< who was mm

I the high p: T ise was in not th- 1. id pratei i it an f the

I n n of J only did Edom revolt fi

. and that with such success, that it could never be rit of the Philistines and 1'- t:;<:m Arabians, M that they forced their way into Jerusalem, and carried off the treasures of the palace, as well as the wives and sons of the king, with the exception of Ahaziah, the youngest son (2 King! viii. 20- '11:

2 Chron. xxi. 8-10, 16, 17). Joram himself was very soon afflicted with a painful and revolting disease (2 Chron. xxi.

aliah were otm-t. 1 moral diss* was

1 iuJ bur^t upon t ful kingdom ■ fter th who was related t house of Ahab and iralked in

I to the Israel iti-.li k doubtless di foundation fur the nidi nitncta was twi inin tigdom*, that

■ thoroop: t arise out of the ivs* anatior. phets I it was in onler that. fulfilled, the generations the righteoosDea* and faithfulness of

I and laboumi. the extf ji on ll m mv regard him as a is favoured D I ict that lii.s but alto by th lage of fa the northern kingd •it in m sages *s ' which even px?s so far tl tish k i, viii. 11, x. 11, xii 1. 8), furnish any proof that he was a Judxan Kv hirth, as Jahn ai suppose. The allusion to the kings of Judah (ch. i. 1), and l' Utah's am, was murdereil vallum after e

»a lit own the reigns uf the I to assign its c cement to tl the d the k il\ l».-. ruin could be f appearance as a paining kin J l of tl the ten tril!., in from the fa '. i he ship of Baal - which Jehu r the it upon the thr i the y help to the trn ti il 7. 1 the kin. tribes reached i' After

Zechariah was only able to I. half a year. The kings who followed fell, one after another

!*• accounted for incc. also in connection with it»; romiacs in tbe poasesaion of t ned a firm. r godly men in all rd co nis, which would burst upon Judah also on ace* ta apostasy nded to warn the ungodly against falae trost in the gracioos promises • and earnestness of the l the Miration of the loo tribe* dependent Jehu\.ih thru Q and I.heir \ and

♦—log with Israel ■ on the was not till a later peri after bo i the northern part ngdom ti i also agrees wii ntents of his hook.

the overthrow of the boose < of the Israel it ish kings, is mentioned i already taken

•\ whilst a fresh tension of the Assyrians whi be an\ in tin- capture of fi a three years' sie/.f I the destruction of the k i of the ten ti

.th the Assyrians, and oil is carried into

1 The traditional accouau. o«*fT*, and altogetiMr aaMpporUvi hostilities at well a* secret plots, a-* I of the ftni and ahon deepest anguish, tod t in al

•n under Joash the ' had h.< II- root out the name of Israel n II ire th re tbl an as tl to the 1 >ead Sea, the word of I servant I Bnt thi revive] eti of ael was only I of di%. through whi is said to hare died and been t - to a t rent among the inhabitant* of Thessalonica, found in r far from T. in the city of. i; whilst the Arabs also p out a grave, which is supposed to be his, in the land to the east r U\n, on the site of Raraoth GHead; cf. Simson, der Pro; eay the Lord sought to bring back His people from their evil ways, and lead them to repentance. For the roots of corruption, which the kingdom of Israel had within it from its very commencement, were not exterminated either by Joash or Jeroboam. These kings did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, who had caused Israel to sin, any more than their predecesso: I Kings xiii. 11, xiv. 24). Jehu, the founder of this dynasty, had indeed rooted out Baal from Israel: but he had not departed from the golden calves at Bethel and Dan, through the Betting up of which Jeroboam the son of Nebat had led Israel into sin (2 Kings x. 28, 29). Nor did his successors take any more caiv to walk in the law of Jehovah, the God "1, with all their heart. Neither the severe chastisements which the Lord inflicted upon the people and the kingdom, by delivering Israel up to the power of Hazael king of Syria and his BOD Ben! •' In and Jeho- ahaZj causing it to be smitten in all ita b orders, and beginning to cut off [sraeJ (2 Kin. the love and grace which He manii a in tl

Jo and.Jeroboam, by liberating them from the oppression and restoring the former greatness of I kin nt to induce the king or the people to relinquish thi i no of Jeroboam, hov. although it w. Jehoi ih who was worshipped under the symbol of the calf, was a trail »n of the fundamental law of the covenant, which the Lord had made with Israel, and therefore was • formal departure from Jehovah the true God. An i Jeroboam tl: Nebat was not content with simply introducing images or symbols of Jehovah, but had even banished from his kingdom the Levites, who opposed this innovation, and had taken men out of the great body of the people, who were not sons of Levi, and made them priests, and had gone so far as to chance the time of celebrating the feast of tabornacles from the seventh month to the eighth (1 Kings xii. 31, 32), merely for the purpose of making the religious gulf which separated the two kingdoms as wide as possible, and moulding the religious institutions of his kingdom entirelv according to his own caprice. Thus the worship of the people became a political institution, in direct opposition to the idea of the kingdom of God; and the sanctuary of Jehovah was changed into a king's sanctuary (Amos. vii. 13). But the consequences of this image-worship were even worse than these. Through the representation of the invisible and infinite God under a visible and earthly symbol, the glory of the one true4 God was brought down within the limits of the finite, and the God of Israel was placed on an equality with the gods of the heathen. This outward levelling was followed, with inevitable necessit}*, by an inward levelling also. The Jehovah worshipped under the symbol of an ox was no longer essentially different from the Baals of the heathen, by whom Israel was surrounded; but the difference was merely a formal one, consisting simply in a peculiar mode of worship, which had been prescribed in His revelation of Himself, but which could not lay the foundation of any permanently tenable party-wall. For, whilst the heathen were accustomed to extend to the national Deity of Israel the recognition which thev accorded to the different Baals, as various modes of revelation of one and the same Deity; the Israelites, in their turn, were also accustomed to grant toleration to the Baals; and this speedily passed into formal worship. u Outwardly, the Jehovah-worship still continued to predominate; but inwardly, the worship of idols rose almost into exclusive supremacy. "When once the boundary lines between the two religions were removed, it necessarily followed that that religion acquired the strongest spiritual force, which was most in accordance with the spirit of the nation. And from the very corruptions of human nature this was not the strict Jehovah religion, which being given by God did not bring down God to the low level of man, but sought to raise man up to its own lofty height, placing the holiness of God in the centre, and founding upon this the demand for holiness which it made upon its professors; but the voluptuous, sensual teaching of idolatry, pandering as it did to human corruption, just because it was from this it had originally sprung" (Hengstenberg's Christology). This seems to explain the fact, that whereas, according to the prophecies of Amos and Hosea, the worship of Baal still prevailed in Israel under the kings of the house of Jehu, according to the account given in the books of Kings Jehu had rooted out Baal along with the royal house of Ahab (2 Kings x. 28). Jehu had merely broken down the outward supremacy of the Baal-worship, and raised up the worship of the state-religion. Bat thii worship of Jeh vah was its If ■

. although it v,.1 rah that gal

1, and although His name was outwardly

:i called Him their Baal II a. iL 16), and observed

Thii inward ■ from the Lord, notwithstanding which the | worship Bim outwardly and relj flii*: »n the nati ma] life. With ti icfa of the fundamental law of the int, via. of the prohibition against illy in consequ the manner in which this prohibition was boon 1 up with the divine authority of the law. only for the holit I the law of ( but for the holy God Himself, I tithful- men. With I God with all the iption. hing the worship of 1 he would haw rendered the I ingdom the kit 1 rael and the kingdom of.Judah had I removed, the p litical distinction d in danger of following. And thiol" the ten tri ired (1 Kings xii 27), inasmuch as th family that occupied the throne I ved no promi

I of permanent continuance. Founded as it was in rebellion against the royal house of David, which God Himself had chosen, it bore within itself from the very first the spirit of rebellion and revolution, and therefore the germs of internal self-destruction. Under these circumstances, even die long, and in outward respects very prosperous, reign of.Jeroboam II.

COnld not possibly Ileal the deep-seated evils, but only helped to increase the apostasy and immorality; since the people, whilst despising the riches of the goodness and mercy of* God, looked upon their existing prosperity as simply a reward for their righteousness before Gfod, and were therefore confirmed in their self-security and sins. And this was a delusion which false prophets loved to foster by predictions of continued prosperity (of. ch. ix. 7). The consequence vras, that when.Jeroboam died, the judgments of God began to burst npon the incorrigible nation. There followed, first of all, an anarchy of eleven or twelve years; and it was not till after this that his son Zechariah succeeded in ascending the throne. But at the end of no more than six months lie was murdered by Shallum, whilst lie in his turn was put to death after a reign of one month by Menahem, who reigned ten years at Samaria (2 Kings xv. 14, 17). In his reign the Assyrian king Phul invaded the land, and was only induced to leave it by the payment of a heavy tribute (2 Kings xv. 19, 20). Menahem was followed by his son Pekachiah in the fiftieth year of Uzziah's reign; but after a reign of hardly two years he was murdered by his charioteer, Pekah the son of Remaliah, who held the throne for twenty years (2 Kings xv. 22-27), but who accelerated the ruin of his kingdom by forming an alliance with the king of Syria to attack the brother kingdom of Judah (Isa. vii.). Por king Ahaz, when hard pressed by Pekah and the Syrians, called to his help the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser, who not only conquered Damascus and destroyed the Syrian kingdom, but took a portion of the kingdom of Israel, viz. the whole of the land to the east of the Jordan, and carried away its inhabitants into exile (2 Kings xv. 29). Hoshea the son of Elah conspired against Pekah, and slew him in the fourth year of the reign of Ahaz; after which, an eight years' anarchy threw the kingdom into confusion, so that it was not till the twelfth year of Ahaz that Hoshea obtained possession of the throne. Very shortly afterwards, however, he came into subjection to the Assyrian king Shalmanezer, and paid him tribute. But after a time, in reliance upon the help of Egypt, he broke his oatfi of fealty to

Shalmmnoer returned, i qnered the entu. including I mel plei that he should turn that He i: n to ■ win ilessncss, and seeks which

• livi mant of grace, and however, would not dl but woui that which was lost. This iuve bursts out in the flume of holy wrath, which thai t!. ith but th< ili snguisb

* the divin by the friendlin<

This snguisb of love at the faith! of In apletely the mind of the propb 1 lively imaginary 1 lh turns of th n the eyet of the sinful nation to the landing in order if for th I irt he merely hint I In the brief* ri i imile to another, and d ward in short i icular Qtteran ithcr than in a calmly finished sddi fre- quently obscure, and hardly intelligible.1

His b i k dues d otain ■ collection of ite addrei ral summary of the leading thong] I in his public addresses. The look is divisible into two parts, viz. eh. i. hi. and iv.-xiv., which give the kernel of his prophetic labours, the one I more condensed, and the other in a more elaborate form. In tkejirst part, which contains the u beginning of the word of

1 Jerome ssya of him, " eommatir ■ quari per tententuu loquent;"

- in his style u a kernel-like fulness of Ian and, not withstanding many strong figures, which indicate not only poetical bold- and originality but also the tolerably upright thought of those tin a very great tenderness and warmth of language."' His diction is distinied by many peeuliar words and forms, such as D'ElEfcO (ch. ii. 4), the r The the religious a brad ii rxliil.it. 1 in all tin* bfjSjb of this corruption; and it t

In thf second at. 11, the ibility of the of Israel in they are lla terril thirdly, I that the faithful covenant ( - I will lay the fulness of His loi 8 who return to them the riches of II

This division of the book differs, mpts that have previoi en made; but it has the warrant of its correctness in the three times repeated promise (vL l-o\ -\i. 9-11, and xiv. 2 9), by which each of the supposed sections is rounded off. And within these sections we also meet with pauses, by which they are broken up into smaller groups, r- - sembling strophes, although this further grouping of the prophet's words is not formed into uniform strophes.1 For further remarks on this point, see the Exposition.

All attempts that have been made to break up the book into different prophecies, belonging to different periods, are wrecked upon the contents contracted *ith Israel, the fall i ibes of Israel 1 ted as whoredom and i:ie jirst s« oredon chil iioredoms, an to the posed to refer to the reijj m OOBJMd tO BO r:.a.i« isjto DNOlMlii xl the period of their origin being tars and aMomption*. or by far >*A, or new moor r. 7, * I dium, who only reigned one month once more ■ wif I her husband, I who sacrifi I without divine, l>ut tli.it they will end of the days. < msequently ti. tribe the I rad the: I. j mbolically in all tl whilst in the tin: visibly let forth in a mbolical act.

In both th.' ad third sections, t1 innounc menl lied in a here, Whether ti. i the prophet with an adnltei woman, which is tw unnanuY i by G yarded marriage that was actually consummal y as an internal occurrei. a parabolical representation.1 The

>nipare on this point the fuller discussion of tho question by John k\ Diatribe de mulierc fornicationum, Lngd. I>. 1696, reprinted in hi.s Comment in 12 ]>roph. Mm., ed. PfafT. 1734. p. 214 sqq.; and II

<* prooouoced An ataolut'

Beauty does ysicalJ/ outwar Me, any mmand, that pi iken a thai 1 as tl. nd to imi

Lssampti it any foundation in the t C redom," neither implies that the \ ie prophet marry was li that time in virgin chastity, and

- called a wife of whop te that, as the prophet's lawful wife, she would fall into adultery; nore that the children of whoredom whom the proph to take along with the wife of whoredom are the three children whose birth is recorded in ch. i. 3, 6, 8. The meaning ifl rath 1 that the prophet is to take, along with the wife, the children whom she already had, and whom she had born as a harlot her marriage with the prophet. If, therefore, we assume that the prophet was commanded to take this woman and her children,

I thy wife, it any purchase of the tho, that mer iril who bai been unfaithful, and hai ran mei:' in c}\. i. hah without the in, nor by the examples ad fix, - 1 in ch.

understand it as meaning any adnlteresa whatever; but it receives no such definition as would refer back to ch. i. A woman beloved of her friend, i.e. of her husband, and committing adultery, is a woman who, although beloved by her husband, or notwithstanding the love shown to her by her husband, commits adultery. Through the participles rontt and nsxjD, the love of the friend (or husband), and the adultery of the wife, are represented as contemporaneous, in precisely the same manner as in the explanatory clauses which follow: a as possibility of the impotai II i by tl. i as his wit'.-, hut in hicfa tin* prophet gave to 1 the period of her detention, daring which si i with

:. Bat '.'.binary nature <»f this explanation is appai bonght tl).n to hi and an

then said to her, " Thou slialt sit for me many days; thou shalt HOt play the ha: tc. Then nly not a word in ch. iii. about his having; d her the amount for her maintenance: but it cannot be inf< From ch. ii. 9, 11, e there it is not the prophet's wife who is referred to, but

.el personified as a harlot and adulteress. And that what is there affirmed concerning Israel cannot be applied without rve to explain the symbolical description in ch. iii., is evident from the simple fact, that the conduct of Jehovah towards Israel is very differently described in ch. ii., from the course which the prophet is said to have observed towards his wife in ch. iii. 3.

. marriage aa this, con image.

Hose* had no soon roceeii a tecoi. b a person kt-ii the • ild tweak isUmding her hathai

■ •i the pose of impretii i propb n in a - die puq>08e of Ullpl Cling upon with the holiness of God; whereas the com- • commit God, as the II the laws of morality, or command anything actually immoral, without contradict in _ i, or denying His own nature.

ipon tl. het as simply:" [ inward expei which took place in his iritnal intuit' with the words the phrase. 1 as much r ind

■ which follows in ch. i.-

. I van • evil fruits of tl.

marriage which the prophet is c imnanded to contract, i- forth 1 * that the kingdom of alien v m the Lord it inken in idolatry, Hoses

• his pro] by exhibiting tl.

il the eommenoement of Jehovah's speaking (dibber u an infinitive, bnt i peri i&xtf an i time and through the llowing wwnrta than n-;*. A. woman ofwl woman whose busin< livelihood a in prostitution. Along with the woman, II to take children of ititution as welL The meaning of this is, of course, not that he is first of all to take the woman, and then I • children of prostitutii n by her, which would require that the two objects should be connected with *"\ yma, in the sense of tibijMosf? (Vulg.), The children gotten by the prophet fn.m a married harlot-wife, could not be called vallc z'nfnum, since thi • not illegitimate children, but legitimate children of the prophet himself; nor is the assumption, that the three children born by the woman, according to vers. 3, 6, 8, were born in adultery, and that the prophet was not their father, in harmony with ver. 3, " lie took Gomer, and she conceived and bare him a son."1 Nor can this mode of escaping from the difficulty, which is quite at variance with the text, be vindicated by an appeal to the connection between the figure and the fact. For though this connection " necessarily requires that both the children and the mother should stand in the same relation of estrangement from the lawful husband and father," as Hengstenberg argues; it neither requires that we should assume that the mother had been a chaste virgin before her marriage to the prophet, nor that the children whom she bare to her husband were begotten in adultery, and merely palmed off upon the prophet as his own. The marriage which the prophet was to contract, was simply in t ibolize the relation already existi]

n Jehovah and Israel, and not tl in which it I of the cuv', hut the nation of the ten tribe* in relation to Jehovah al the time of the prophet himself, when dom. I hihlren of wl m, along with tin Lord their God. " for the land ch. iii. 1, vi -1 The symbolical inl i of that I ned, like those of I 'diis

1 This is essentially the interprets me: 4*

■ wife taken om Hosea, as I i fornication, and a \ ij'tatia), winch seems so sweet and plcannt to those who enjoy it."

fcccoun simply from tin- circum that, the woman not now receive til— names for the first time, bat that she had thrui at tip- time when the prophet married her* \ proph by G la to tin- names to b d to him' the chil Ireil, as tin- fruit of the 111:11 ri the mania instructive signs for the idola- after the fruitful plain of Jezreel on the north side of the

0 the appellative meaning of the nan ' which is first of all alio in the annonncemenl <»f salvation in eh. ii. 24, 25, but, as ilw explanation which follows clearly

.-hows, on account of the historical importance which this plain ■ d fur. and that not merely as the place where the last penal jud God? ted in the kingdom of

■1, a- Ih Dgsteni, hut on account of the bloodguiltiness of 3 1, i.e. because Israel had there contracted such blood-guilt! - was D eedily to be avenged upon the house of Jehu. At the city of J>:/• \ which stood in this plain, Ahab had previously filled up the measure of his sin by the ruthless murder of Naboth, and had thus brought upon himself that blood-<iuiltiness for which lie had been threatened with the extermination of all his house (1 Kings xxi. 19 sqq.). Then, in order to avenge the blood of all His servants the prophets, which Ahab and Jezebel had shed, the Lord directed Elisha to anoint Jehu king, with a commission to destroy the whole of Ahab's house (2 Kings ix. 1 sqq.). Jehu obeyed this command. Not only did he slay the son of Ahab, viz. king Joram, and cause his body to be thrown upon the portion ef land belonging to Naboth the Jezreelite, appealing at the same time to the word of the Lord (2 Kings ix. 21-26), but he also executed the divine judgment upon Jezebel, upon the seventy sons of Ahab, and upon all the rest of the house of Ahab (ch. ix. 30-x. 17), and received the following promise from Jehovah in consequence: " Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eves, because thou hast done to the grafl in thine of • 1 sit u the royal family of Aha) ' ■ an ler himself criminal. 1 1 that he did not 1 God with all his heart, hut continued th< that fundamental sin of all the kingfl of the ton t: For this I triction to sons of the fourth On the other hand, it is no argument against this, that;- the act referred to cannot be regarded as the chief crime of Jehu and his house," or that "the bloody act, to which the house of Jehu owed its elevation, never appears elsewhere as the cause of the catastrophe which befell this house; but in the case of all the members of his family, the only sin to which prominence is given in the books of Kings, is that they did not depart from the sins of Jeroboam (2 Kings xiii. 2, 11, xiv. 24, xv. 9)." (Hengstenberg). For even though this sin in connection with

] 'al wea i in wi to denot tinued existence of th- led v.»li mL lh«' paronomasia between Israel and Jezi ti any allusion to its appel lut iiti;iti:

te tl)«' dispersion or up of the nation, hut -.imply with reference ter, as thfl great pluin in which, from tfflM nnm-morial, even down to th. all tin* gl battles have been fought: • possession of the 1 t. v.

Banmer, Pal. pp. 40, 41). The nation which the Lord had ■inted to be the in>trument of h not men- it the fnltilui intended] although b the

Qed the r hra<l | and the statement made me, to t1 thai it was in of JexreeJj is an int • in this passa:

With the HUM of the first child,./. the prophet had, as it w\re with a si king and the kingdom illy the <; tioo t: raited them. In order, however, to give further keenness to this threat, and cut off every hope of deliv- -ran ances two other

II no mort w tki house of, that I should tht m." The second birth is a female one, not in order to symbolize a more degenerate race, or the greater need of help on the part of the naticn, but to get a name answering to the idea, and to set forth, under the figure of sons and daughters, the totality of the nation, both men and women. Lu ruchdmdh, lit. she is not favoured; for ruchdmdh is hardly a participle with the D dropped, since tCp is never found in close connection with the participle (Ewald, § 320, c), but rather the third pers. perf. fern, in the pausal form. The child receives this name to indicate that the Lord will not continue (1*?^) to show compassion towards the rebellious nation, as He hitherto has done, even under Jeroboam II. (2 Kings xiii. 23.) For the purpose of strengthening Drn« ^, the clause "W #&) *3 is added. This can hardly be understood in any other way than in the sense of f py Kt?3, viz. to take away sin or guilt, i.e. to forgive it (cf.

Gen. xviii. 24, 26, etc.). The explanation, " I will take away from them, sc. everything" (Hengstenberg), has no tenable support in ch. v. 14, because there the object to be supplied is contained in the context, and here this is not the case.