Isa. xix. 13, Jer. ii. 16, xliv. 1, Ezek. xxx. 13, 16, probably contracted from 532, answers rather to the Coptic Membe, Memphe, than to the old Egyptian Men-nefr, i.e. mansto bona, the profane name of the city of Memphis, the ancient capital of Lower Egypt, the ruins of which are to be seen on the western bank of the Nile, to the south of Old Cairo. The sacred name of this city was Ha-ha-ptah, i.e. house of the worship of Phtah (see Brugsch, Geogr. Inschriften, i. pp. 234-5). In their own land thorns and thistles would take the place of silver valuables. The suffix attached to DY refers, ad sensum, to the collective maps? 12M, the valuables in silver. These are not “ silver idols,” as Hitzig imagines, but houses ornamented and filled with the precious metal, as pmonNa in the parallel clause clearly shows. The growth of thorns and thistles presupposes the utter desolation of the abodes of men (Isa. xxxiv. 13).
Ver. 7. “ The days of visitation are come, the days of retribution are come; Israel will learn: a fool the prophet, a madman the man of spirit, for the greatness of thy guilt, and the great enmity. Wer. 8. A spy is Ephraim with my God: the prophet a snare of the bird-catcher in all his ways, enmity in the house of his God. Ver. 9. They have acted most corruptly, as in the days of Gibeah: He remembers their iniquity, visits their sins.” The perfects in ver. 7 are prophetic. The time of visitation and retribution is approaching. Then will Israel learn that its prophets, who only predicted prosperity and good (Ezek. xiii. 10), were infatuated fools. 3) ON introduces, without ki, what Israel will experience, as in ch. vii. 2, Amos v.12. It does not follow, from the use of the expression ’7sh radch, that the reference is to true prophets. “/sh radéch (a man of spirit) is synonymous with the ’ish holékh vaach (a man walking in the spirit) mentioned in Mic. i. 11 as prophesying lies, and may be explained from the fact, that even the false prophets stood under the influence of a superior demoniacal power, and were ence by a wuidich sheger (“ a lying spirit,” 1 Kings XXI. 22). The words which follow, viz. “a fool is the prophet,” etc., which cannot possibly mean, that men have treated, despised, and persecuted the prophets as fools and madmen, are a decisive proof that the expression does not refer to true prophets. iY 34 by is attached to the principal clauses, pbyin... 83, The punishment and retribution oceur because of the greatness of the guilt of Israel. In 72% the preposition by continues in force, but as a conjunction: “ and because the enmity is great” (cf. Ewald, § 351, a). Mastémah, enmity, not merely against their fellowmen generally, but principally against God and His servants the true prophets. This is sustained by facts in ver. 8. The first clause, which is a difficult one and has been interpreted in very different ways, “spying is Ephraim Pa dy” (with or by my God), cannot contain the thought that Ephraim, the tribe, is, according to its true vocation, a watchman for the rest of the people, whose duty it is to stand with the Lord upon the watch-tower and warn Israel when the Lord threatens punishment and judgment (Jerome, Schmidt); for the idea of a prophet standing with Jehovah upon a watch-tower is not only quite foreign to the Old Testament, but irreconcilable with the relation in which the prophets stood to Jehovah. The Lord did indeed appoint prophets as watchmen to His people (Ezek. il. 17); but He does take His own stand upon the watch-tower with them. Zsdphdh in this connection, where prophets are spoken of both before and after, can only denote the eager watching on the part of the prophets for divine revelations, as in Hab. ii. 1, and not their looking out for help; and vos my cannot express their fellowship or agreement with God, if only on account of the suffix “ my God,” in which Hosea contrasts the true God as His own, with the God of the people. The thought indicated would require WON, a reading which is indeed met with in some codices, but is only a worthless conjecture. DY denotes outward fellowship here: “ with” = by the side of. Israel looks out for prophecies or divine revelations with the God of the prophet,.e. at the side of Jehovah; in other words, it does not follow or trust its own prophets, who are not inspired by Jehovah. These are like snares of a bird-catcher in its road, ze. they cast the people headlong into destruction. 8°23 stands at the head, both collectively and absolutely. In all its ways there is the trap of the bird-catcher: 7.e. all its projects and all that it does will only tend to ensnare the people. Hostility to Jehovah and His servants the true prophets, is in the house of the God of the Israclites, ze. in the temple erected for the calf-worship; a fact of which Amos (vii. 10-17) furnishes a practical example. Israel has thereby fallen as deeply into abornination and sins as in the days of Gibeah, ie. as at the time when the abominable conduct of the men of Gibeah in connection with the concubine of a Levite took place, as related in Judg. xix. sqq., in consequence of which the tribe of Benjamin was almost exterminated. The same depravity on the part of Israel will be equally punished by the Lord now (cf. ch. viii. 13).
In this section the arrangement of the contents in strophes becomes very apparent. Three times (viz. ch. ix. 10, x. 1, and xi. 1) does the prophet revert to the early days of Israel, and show how Israel has been unfaithful to its divine calling, and from time immemorial has responded to all the manifestations of the love and grace of God by apostasy and idolatry, so that the Lord is obliged to punish the degenerate and obstinate nation with banishment into exile and the destruction of the kingdom. Nevertheless, as the Holy One, and for the sake of His own unchangeable covenant faithfulness, He will not utterly eradicate it.
Chap. ix. 10-17. © Ver. 10. “I found Israel like grapes in the desert, I saw your fathers like early fruit on the fig-tree in the first shooting; but they came to Baal-Peor, and consecrated themselves to shame, and became abominations like their lover.” Grapes in the desert and early figs are pleasant choice fruits to whoever finds them. This figure therefore indicates the peculiar pleasure which Jehovah found in the people of Israel when He led them out of Egypt, or the great worth which they had in His eyes when He chose them for the people of His possession, and concluded a covenant with them at Sinai (Theod., Cyr.). Bammidbdr (in the desert) belongs, so far as its position is concerned, to ‘wndbhim: grapes in the dry, barren desert, where you do not expect to find such refreshing fruit; but, so far as the fact is concerned, it also refers to the place in which Israel was thus found by God, since you can only find fruit in the desert when you are there yourself. The words, moreover, evidently refer to Deut. xxxii. 10 (“I found him (Israel) in the wilderness,” ete.), and point implicite to the helpless condition in which Israel was when God first adopted it. The suffix to b’ré’shithah (at her beginning) refers to 728M, the first-fruit, which the fig-tree bears in its first time, at the first shooting, But Israel no longer answered to the good pleasure of God. They came to Baal-Peor. “ipE"oya without the preposition PN is not the idol of that name, but the place where it was worshipped, which was properly called Beth-Peor or Peor (see at Num. xxiii. 28 and xxv. 3). 13" is chosen instead of 7x! (Num. xxiii. 3, 5), to show that Israel ought to have conseerated itself to Jehovah, to have been the nazir of Jehovah. Bosheth (shame) is the name given to the idol of Baal-Peor (cf. Jer. ili. 24), the worship of which was a shame to Israel. *Ohabh, the paramour, is also Baal-Peor. Of all the different rebellions on the part of Israel against Jehovah, the prophet singles out only the idolatry with Baal-Peor, because the principal sin of the ten tribes was Baal-worship in its coarser or more refined forms.
It is very evident that this is what he has in his mind, and that he regards the apostasy of the ten tribes as merely a continuation of that particular idolatry, from the punishment which is announced in vers. 11, 12, as about to fall upon Ephraim in consequence. Ver. 11. “ Ephraim, its glory will Sly away like a bird; no birth, and no pregnancy, and no conception. Ver. 12. Yea, though they bring up thew sons, I make them bereft, without a man; for woe to them when I depart from them!” The glory which God gave to His people through great multiplication, shall vanish away. The licentious worship of luxury will be punished by the diminution of the numbers of the people, by childlessness, and the destruction of the youth that may have grown up. API, so that there shall be no bearing. 02, the womb, for pregnancy or the fruit of the womb. Even (ki emphatic) if the sons (the children) grow up, God will make them bereft, DIN, so that there shall be no men there. The grown-up sons shall be swept away by death, by the sword (cf. Deut. xxxii. 25). The last clause gives the reason for the punishment threatened. 5) adds force; it usually stands at the head of the sentence, and here belongs to nn; Yea, woe to them, if I depart from them, or Sidon my favour from them! “1% stands for 73D, according to the interchangeableness of ¥ and D (Aquila and Vulg.). This view has more to support it than the supposition that 1 is an error of the pen for "¥ (Ewald, Hitzig, ete.), since Ww, to look, construed with 9, in the sense of to look away from a person, is never met with, although the meaning is just the same.
The vanishing of the glory of Ephraim is carried out still further in what follows. Ver. 13. “ phraim as I selected it for a Tyre planted in the valley; so shall Ephraim lead out its sons to the murderer. Ver. 14. Give them, O Jehovah: what shalt Thou give him? Give them a childless womb and dry breasis.” In ver. 138 Ephraim is the object to "Ms (I have seen), but on account of the emphasis it is placed first, as in ver. 11; and 787 with an accusative and 5 signifies to select anything for a purpose, as in Gen. xxii. 8. The Lord had selected Ephraim for Himself to be a Tyre planted in the meadow, %.e. in a soil adapted for growth and prosperity, had intended for it the bloom and glory of the rich and powerful Tyre; but now, for its apostasy, He would give it up to desolation, and dedicate its sons, i.e. its people, to death by the sword. The commentators, for the most part, like the LX X., have overlooked this meaning of mn, and therefore have not only been unable to explain /*tsor (for a Tyre), but have been driven either to resort to alterations of the text, like l’tsarah, “ after the form” (Ewald), or to arbitrary assumptions, e.g. that tsor signifies “palm” after the Arabic (Arnold, Hitzig), or that Visor means “as far as Tyre” (5 = 1), in order to bring a more or less forced interpretation into the sentence. The Vav before ‘Ephraim introduces the apodosis to WN3: “as I have selected Kiphraim, so shall Ephraim lead out,” ete. On the construction sryine, see Ewald, § 237, c. In ver. 14 the threat rises into an appeal to God to execute the threatened punishment. The excited style of the language is indicated in the interpolated mah-tittén (what wilt Thou give?). The words do not contain an intercessory prayer on the part of the prophet, that God will not punish the people too severely but condemn them to barrenness rather than to the loss of the young men (Ewald), but are expressive of holy indignation at the deep corruption of the people.
The Lord thereupon replies in ver. 15: “ All their wickedness is at Glgal; for there I took them into hatred: for the evil of thew doings will I drive them out of my house, and not love them any more; all their princes are rebellious.” How far all the wickedness of Ephraim was concentrated at Gilgal it is impossible to determine more precisely, since we have no historical accounts of the idolatrous worship practised there (see at ch. iv. 15). That Gilgal was the scene of horrible human sacrifices, as Hitzig observes at ch. xii. 12, cannot be proved from ch. xiii. 2. s2%” is used here in an inchoative sense, viz. to conceive hatred. On account of their wickedness they should be expelled from the house, z.e. the congregation of Jehovah (see at ch. viii. 1). The expression “T will drive them out of my house” (mzbbethi ‘agar’shém) may be explained from Gen. xxi. 10, where Sarah requests Abraham to drive (gdérash) Hagar her maid out of the house along with her son, that the son of the maid may not inherit with Isaac, and where God commands the patriarch to earry out Sarah’s will. The expulsion of Israel from the house of the Lord is separation from the fellowship of the covenant nation and its blessings, and is really equivalent to loving. it no longer. There is a play upon words in the last clause Orynd BMW,
Ver. 16. “ Liphraim is smitten: their root is dried up; they will bear no fruit: even if they beget, I slay the treasures of their womb. Wer. 17. My God rejects them: for they have not hearkened to Him, and they shall be fugitives among the nations.” In ver. 16a Israel is compared to a plant, that is so injured by the heat of the sun (Ps. cxxi. 6, cil. 5), or by a worm (Jonah iv. 7), that it dries up and bears no more fruit. The perfects are a prophetic expression, indicating the certain execution of the threat. This is repeated in ver. 16d in figurative language; and the threatening in vers. 11, 12, is thereby strengthened. Lastly, in ver. 17 the words of threatening are rounded off by a statement of the reason for the rejection of Israel; and this rejection is described as banishment among the nations, according to Deut. xxvii. 65.
Ch. x. In a fresh turn the concluding thought of the last strophe (ch. ix. 10) is resumed, and the guilt and punishment of Israel still more fully described in two sections, vers. 1-8 and 9-15. Ver.1. “Israel is a running vine; tt set fruit for itself: the more of tts fruit, the more altars did it prepare; the better tis land, the better pillars did they make. Ver. 2. Smooth was their heart, now will they atone. He will break in pieces their altars, desolate their pillars. Ver. 3. Yea, now will they say, No king tous! for we feared not Jehovah; and the king, what shall he do to us?” Under the figure of a vine running luxuriantly, which did indeed set some good fruit, but bore no sound ripe grapes, the prophet describes Israel as a glorious plantation of God Himself, which did not answer the expectations of its Creator. The figure is simply sketched in a few bold lines. We have an explanatory parallel in Ps. lxxx. 9-12. The participle bogeg does not mean “ empty” or “ emptying out” here; for this does not suit the next clause, according to which the fruit was set, but from the primary meaning of bdégaq, to pour out, pouring itself out, overflowing, i.e. running luxuriantly. It has the same meaning, therefore, as ND ‘3 in Ezek. xvii. 6, that which extends its branches far and wide, that is to say, grows most vigorously. The next sentence, “it set fruit,” still belongs to the figure; but in the third sentence the figure passes over into a literal prophecy. According to the abundance of its fruit, Israel made many altars; and in proportion to the goodness of its land, it made better Mix, Baal’s pillars (see at 1 Kings xiv. 23); i.e. as Israel multiplied, and under the blessing of God attained to prosperity, wealth, and power in the good land (Ex. iii. 8), it forgot its God, and fell more and more into idolatry (cf. ch. i. 10, viii. 4, 11). The reason of all this was, that their heart was smooth, i.e. dissimulating, not sincerely devoted to the Lord, inasmuch as, under the appearance of devotedness to God, they still clung to idols (for the fact, see 2 Kings xvil. 9). The word chdldq, to be smooth, was mostly applied by a Hebrew to the tongue, lip, mouth, throat, and speech (Ps. v. 10, xii. 3, lv. 22; Prov. v. 3), and not to the heart. But in Ezek. xii. 24 we read of smooth, 7.e. deceitful prophesying; and there is all the more reason for retaining the meaning “smooth” here, that the rendering “ their heart is divided,” which is supported by the ancient versions, cannot be grammatically defended. For chdlaq is not used in kal in an intransitive sense; and the active rendering, “ He (de. God) has divided their heart” (Hitzig), gives an unscriptural thought. They will now atone for this, for God will destroy their altars and pillars. 5, “to break the neck of the altars,” is a bold expression, applied to the destruction of the altars by breaking off the horns (compare Amos iii. 14). Then will the people see and be compelled to confess that it has no longer a king, because it has not feared the Lord, since the king who has been set up in opposition to the will of the Lord (ch. viii. 4) cannot bring either help or deliverance (ch. xiii. 10). HWY, to do, ze. to help or be of use to a person (cf. Eccles. ii. 2).
The thoughts of vers. 2, 3 are carried out still further in vers. 4-7. Ver. 4. “ They have spoken words, sworn falsely, made treaties: thus right springs up like darnel in the furrows of the field. Ver. 5. For the calves of Beth-Aven the inhabitants of Samaria were afraid: yea, tts people mourn over it, and its sacred ministers will tremble at it, at its glory, because it has strayed from them. Ver. 6. Men will also carry it to Asshur, as a present for king Jareb: shame will seize upon Ephraim, and Israel will be put to shame for tts counsel.’ The dissimulation of heart (ver. 3) manifested itself in their speaking words which were nothing but words, é.e. in vain talk (cf. Isa. lviii. 13), in false swearing, and in the making of treaties. nics, by virtue of the parallelism, is an infin. ae, for rows, fosined like M52, analogous to nin’ (Isa. xxii. 13; see Ewald, § 240, b). m3 nn3, in connection with false swearing, must signify the making of a covenant without any truthfulness in it, ze. the conclusion of treaties with foreign nations—for example, with Assyria—which they were inclined to observe only so long as they could promise themselves advantages from them. In consequence of this, right has become like a bitter plant growing luxuriantly (Ws = win; see at Deut. xxix.17). Mishpdt does not mean judgment here, or the punitive judgment of God (Chald. and many others), for this could hardly be compared with propriety to weeds running over everything, but right in its degeneracy into wrong, or right that men have turned into bitter fruit or poison (Amos vi. 12). This spreads about in the kingdom, as weeds spread luxuriantly in the furrows of the field (TY a poetical form for mv, like Deut. xxxii. 13, Ps. viii. 8). Therefore the judgment cannot be delayed, and is already approaching in so threatening a manner, that the inhabitants of Samaria tremble for the golden calves. The plural ‘egloth is used with indefinite generality, and gives no warrant, therefore, for the inference that there were several golden calves set up in Bethel. Moreover, this would be at variance with the fact, that in the sentences which follow we find “the (one) calf” spoken of. The feminine form ‘egloth, which only occurs here, is also probably connected with the abstract use of the plural, inasmuch as the feminine is the proper form for abstracts. Béth-dven for Béthél, as in ch. iv. 15. Shdakhén is construed with the plural, as an adjective used in a collective sense. ‘3 (ver. 5) is emphatic, and the suffixes attached to 1®¥ and 3 do not refer to Samaria, but to the idol, z.e. the calf, since the prophet distinctly calls Israel, which ought to have been the nation of Jehovah, the nation of its calf-idol, which mourned with its priests (k’marim, the priests appointed in connection with the worship of the calves: see at 2 Kings xxiii. 5) for the carrying away of the calf to Assyria. 53 does not mean to exult or rejoice here, nor to tremble (applied to the leaping of the heart from fear, as it does from joy), but has the same meaning as Syn in Pseexevis 0. yoy is still further defined by iiaD-by, “for its glory,” 2.e. not for the temple-treasure at Bethel (Hitzig), nor the one glorious image of the calf, as the symbol of the stategod (Ewald, Umbreit), but the calf, to which the people attributed the glory of the true God. The perfect, gdldh, is used prophetically of that which was as good as complete and certain (for the fut ewact., cf. Ewald, § 348, a). The golden calf, the glory of the nation, will have to wander into exile. This cannot even save itself; it will be taken to Assyria, to king Jareb (see at ch. v. 13), as minchaéh, a present or tribute (see 2 Sam. vill. 2,6; 1 Kings y.1). For the construing of the passive with N&, see Ges. § 143, 1, a. Then will Ephraim (= Israel) be seized by reproach and shame. Boshndh, a word only met with here; itis formed from the masculine bdshen, which is not used at all (see Ewald, § 163, 164).
With the carrying away of the golden calf the kingdom of Samaria also perishes, and desert plants will grow upon the places of idols. Vers. 7, 8. “ Destroyed is Samaria; her king like a splinter on the surface of the water. And destroyed are the high places of Aven, the sin of Israel: thorn and thistle will rise up on their altars; and they will speak to the mountains, Cover us! and to the hills, Fall onus!” 3320 ¥ is not an asyndeton, “ Samaria and its king;” but Shom’ron is to be taken absolutely, “as for Samaria,” although, as a matter of fact, not only Samaria, the capital of the kingdom, but the kingdom itself, was destroyed. For malkéh does not refer to any particular king, but is used in a general sense for “ the king that
Samaria had,” so that the destruction of the monarchy is here predicted (cf. ver. 15). The idea that the words refer to one particular king, is not only at variance with the context, which contains no allusion to any one historical occurrence, but does not suit the simile: like a splinter upon the surface of the water, which is carried away by the current, and vanishes without leaving a trace behind. Qetseph is not “ foam” (Chald., Symm., Rabb.), but a broken branch, a fagot or a splinter, as g’tsdphah in Joel i. 7 clearly shows. Béamoth ’dven are the buildings connected with the image-worship at Bethel (dven = Beth-él, ver. 5), the temple erected there (beth bamoth), together with the altar, possibly also including other illegal places of sacrifice there, which constituted the chief sin of the kingdom of Israel. These were to be so utterly destroyed, that thorns and thistles would grow upon the ruined altars (cf. Gen. iii. 18). “ The sion of extreme solitude, that there are not even the walls left, or any traces of the buildings” (Jerome). When the kingdom shall be thus broken up, together with the monarchy and the sacred places, the inhabitants, in their hopeless despair, will long for swift death and destruction. Saying to the mountains, “ Cover us,” etc., implies much more than hiding themselves in the holes and clefts of the rocks (Isa. ii. 19, 21). It expresses the desire to be buried under the falling mountains and hills, that they may no longer have to bear the pains and terrors of the judgment. In this sense are the words transferred by Christ, in Luke xxiii. 30, to the calamities attending the destruction of Jerusalem, and in Rev. vi. 16 to the terrors of the last judgment.,
Vers. 9-15. After the threatening of punishment has thus been extended in ver. 8, even to the utter ruin of the kingdom, the prophet returns in ver. 9 to the earlier times, for the purpose of exhibiting in a new form the deeply rooted sinfulness of the people, and then, under cover of an appeal to them to return to righteousness, depicting still further the time of visitation, and (in vers. 14, 15) predicting with still greater clearness the destruction of the kingdom and the overthrow of the monarchy. Ver. 9. “ Since the days of Gibeah hast thou sinned, O Israel: there have they remained: the war against the sons of wickedness did not overtake them at Gibeah. Ver. 10. According to my desire shall I chastise them; and nations will be gathered together against them, to bind them to their two transgressions.” Just as in ch. ix. 9, the days of Gibeah, te. the days when that ruthless crime was committed at Gibeah upon the concubine of the Levite, are mentioned as a time of deep corruption; so are those days described in the present passage as the commencement of Israel’s sin. For it is as obvious that ‘2 is not to be understood in a comparative sense, as it is that the days of Gibeah are not to be taken as referring to the choice of Saul, who sprang from Gibeah, to be their king (Chald.). The following words, 3 12Y OY, which are very difficult, and have been variously explained, do not describe the conduct of Israel in those days; for, in the first place, the statement that the war did not overtake them is by no means in harmony with this, since the other tribes avenged that crime so severely that the tribe of Benjamin was almost exterminated; and secondly, the suffix attached to D7°¥A evidently refers to the same persons as that appended to DIDS in ver. 10, ze. to the Israelites of the ten tribes, to which Hosea foretels the coming judgment. These are therefore the subject to ‘2¥, and consequently 3»y signifies to stand, to remain, to persevere (cf. Isa. xlvii. 12, Jer. xxxii. 14). There, in Gibeah, did they remain, that is to say, they persevered in the sin of Gibeah, without the war at Gibeah against the sinners overtaking them (the imperfect, in a*subordinate clause, used to describe the necessary consequence; and my transposed from nowy, like MYT in Deut. xxviii. 25 for Yt), The meaning is, that since the days of Gibeah the Israelites persist in the same sin as the Gibeahites;. but whereas those sinners were punished and destroyed by the war, the ten tribes still live on in the same sin without having been destroyed by any similar war. Jehovah will now chastise them for it. ‘T4832, in my desire, equivalent to according to my wish,—an anthropomorphic description of the severity of the chastisement. O78) from 1D’ (according to Ewald, § 139, a), with the Vav of the apodosis. ‘The chastisement will consist in the fact, that nations will be gathered together against Israel] DIDN3, lit. at their binding, z.e. when I shall bind them. The chethib anny cannot well be the plural of }Y, because the plural my is not used for the eyes; and the rendering, “ before their two eyes,” in the sense of “without their being able to prevent it”
(Ewald), yields the unheard-of conception of binding a person before his own eyes; and, moreover, the use of ivy ony instead of the simple dual would still be left unexplained. We must therefore give the preference to the keri nny, and regard the chethib as another form, that may be accounted for from the transition of the verbs *y into 1y, and nijy as a contraction of M3iy, since 21¥ cannot be shown to have either the meaning of “furrow” (Chald., A. E.), or that of the severe labour of “tributary service.” And, moreover, neither of these meanings would give us a suitable thought; whilst the very same objection may be brought against the supposition that the doubleness of the work refers to Ephraim and Judah, which has been brought against the rendering “to bind to his furrows,” viz. that it would be non solum ineptwm, sed locutionis monstrum. onsiy Awe, “to their two transgressions” to bind them: ie. to place them in connection with the transgressions by the punishment, so that they will be obliged to drag them along like beasts of burden. By the two transgressions we are to understand neither the two golden calves at Bethel and Dan (Hitzig), nor unfaithfulness towards Jehovah and devotedness to idols, after Jer. ii. 13 (Cyr., Theod.); but their apostasy from Jehovah and the royal house of David, in accordance with ch. iii. 5, where it is distinctly stated that the ultimate conversion of the nation will consist in its seeking Jehovah and David their king.
In the next verse the punishment is still further defined, and also extended to Judah. Ver. 11. “And Ephraim is an instructed cow, which loves to thresh; and I, [ have come over the beauty of her neck: I yoke Ephraim; Judah will plough, Jacob harrow itself.’ M‘lummddah, instructed, trained to work, received its more precise definition from the words “loving to thresh” (ohabhti, a participle with the connecting Yod in the constructive: see Ewald, § 211, b), not as being easier work in comparison with the hard task of driving, ploughing, and harrowing, but because in threshing the ox was allowed to eat at pleasure (Deut. xxv. 4), from which Tsrael became fat and strong (Deut. xxxii. 15). Threshing, therefore, is a figurative representation not of the conquest of other nations (as in Mic. iv. 13, Isa. sli. 15), but of pleasant, productive, profitable labour. Israel had accustomed itself to this, from the fact that God had bestowed His blessing upon it (ch. xiii. 6). But it would be different now. by IY, a prophetic perfect: I come over the neck, used in a hostile sense, and answering to our “rushing in upon a person.” The actual idea is that of putting a heavy yoke upon the neck, not of putting a rider upon it. 2308, not to mount or ride, but to drive, or use for drawing and driving, i.e. to harness, and that, as the following clauses show, to the plough and harrow, for the performance of hard field-labour, which figuratively represents subjugation and bondage. Judah is also mentioned here again, as in ch. vill. 14, vi. 11, etc. Jacob, in connection with Judah, is not a name for the whole nation (or the twelve tribes), but is synonymous with Ephraim, i.e. Israel of the ten tribes. ‘This is required by the correspondence between the last two clauses, which are simply a further development of the expression ‘BX DIN, with an extension of the punishment threatened against Ephraim to Judah also.
The call to repentance and reformation of life is then appended in vers. 12, 13, clothed in similar figures. Ver. 12 “ Sow to yourselves for righteousness, reap according to love; plough for yourselves virgin soil: for it is time to seek Jehovah, till He come and rain righteousness upon you. Ver.13. Ye have ploughed wickedness, ye have reaped crime: eaten the fruit of lying: because thou hast trusted in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men.” Sowing and reaping are figures used to denote their spiritual and al conduct. mote, for righteousness, 1s parallel to TOM Dd;; 1.e. sow that onieomnene may be able to spring up like seed, Z.¢. righteousness towards your fellow-men. The fruit of this will be chesed, condescending love towards the poor and wretched. Nir nir, both here and in Jer. iv. 3 to plough virgin soil, i.e. to make land not yet cultivated arable. We have an advance in this figure: they are to give up all their previous course of conduct, and create for themselves a new sphere for their activity, i.e. commence a new course of life. Ny}, and indeed it is time, equivalent to, for it is high time to give up your old sinful ways and seek the Lord, till (7¥) He come, ie. till He turn His grace to you again, and cause it to rain upon you. Tsedeq, righteousness, not salvation, a meaning which the word never has, and least of all here, where tsedeg corresponds to the ts°’daqdah of the first clause. God causes righteousness to rain, inasmuch as He not only gives strength to secure it, like rain for the growth of the seed (cf. Isa. xliv. 3), but must also generate and create it in man by His Spirit (Ps. li. 12). The reason for this summons is given in ver. 13, in another allusion to the moral conduct of Israel until now. Hitherto they have ploughed as well as reaped unrighteousness and sin, and eaten lies as the fruit thereof,—lies, inasmuch as they did not promote the prosperity of the kingdom as they imagined, but only led to its decay and ruin. For they did not trust in Jehovah the Creator and rock of salvation, but in their way, zc. their deeds and their might, in the strength of their army (Amos vi. 13), the worthlessness of which they will now discover.
Ver. 14. “A tumult will arise against thy peoples, and all thy Jortijications are laid waste, as Shalman laid Beth-Arbeel waste in the day of the war: mother and children are dashed to pieces. Ver. 15. Thus hath Bethel done to you because of the wickedness of your wickedness: in the morning dawn the king of Israel is cut off, cut of.” Ooxp with & as mater lect. (Ewald, § 15, e), construed with 1: to rise up against a person, as in Ps. xxvii. 12, Job xvi, 8. fik¥, war, tumult, as in Amos ii. 2. TYR: against thy people of war. ‘The expression is chosen with a reference to robh gibborim (the multitude of mighty men), in which Israel put its trust. The meaning, countrymen, or tribes, is restricted to the older language of the Pentateuch. The singular 1H refers to 53, as in Isa. Ixiv. 10, contrary to the ordinary language (cf. Ewald, § 317, c). Nothing is known concerning the devastation of Beth-Arbeel by Shalman; and hence there has always been great uncertainty as to the meaning of the words. Shalman is no doubt a contracted form of Shalmanezer, the king of Assyria, who destroyed the kingdom of the ten tribes (2 Kings xvii. 6). Betharbé’l is hardly Arbela of Assyria, which became celebrated through the victory of Alexander (Strab. xvi. 1, 3), since the Israelites could scarcely have become so well acquainted with such a remote city, as that the prophet could hold up the desolation that befel it as an example to them, but in all probability the Arbela in Galilea Superior, which is mentioned in 1 Mace. ix. 2, and very frequently in Josephus, a place in the tribe of Naphtali, between Sephoris and Tiberias (according to Robinson, Pal. iii. pp. 281-2, and Bibl. Researches, p. 343: the modern Irbid). The objection offered by Hitzig,—viz. that shéd is a noun in ch. ix. 6, vil. 13, xii, 2, and that the infinitive construct, with 5 prefixed, is written Tp in Jer. xlvii. 4; and lastly, that if Shalman were the subject, we should expect the preposition M& before N’3,—is not conclusive, and the attempt which he makes to explain Salman-Beth-Arbel from the Sanscrit is not worth mentioning. The clause “mother and children,” etc. a proverbial expression denoting inhuman cruelty (see at Gen. xxxu. 12), does not merely refer to the conduct of Shalman in connection with Beth-Arbel, possibly in the campaign mentioned in 2 Kings xvii. 3, but is also intended to indicate the fate with which the whole of the kingdom of Israel was threatened. In ver. 16 this threat concludes with an announcement of the overthrow of the monarchy, accompanied by another allusion to the guilt of the people. The subject to MY H23 is Beth-el (Chald.), not Shalman or Jehovah. Bethel, the seat of the idolatry, prepares this lot for the people on account of its great wickedness. vy is a perf. proph.; and O2n)7 ny, wickedness in its second potency, extreme wickedness (cf. Ewald, § 313, ¢). Basshachar, in the morning-dawn, 7.e. at the time when prosperity is once more apparently about to dawn, tempore pacts alluscente (Cocc., Hest.). The gerund 7973 adds to the force; and 5 is not this or the other king, but as in ver. 7, the king generally, 1.0. the monarchy of Israel.
Ch. xi. The prophet goes back a third time (cf. ch. x. 1, ix. 10) to the early times of Israel, and shows how the people had repaid the Lord, for all the proofs of His love, with nothing but ingratitude and unfaithfulness; so that it would have merited utter destruction from off the earth, if God should not restrain His wrath for the sake of His unchangeable faithfulness, in order that, after severely chastening, He might gather together once more those that were rescued from among the heathen. Ver. 1. “ When Israel was young, then I loved him, and I called my son out of Lgypt. Ver.2. Men called to them; so they went away from their countenance: they offer sacrifice to the Baals, and burn incense to the idols.” Ver. 1 rests upon Ex. iv. 22, 23, where the Lord directs Moses to say to Pharaoh, “ Israel is my first-born son; let my son go, that he may serve me.” Israel was the son of Jehovah, by virtue of its election to be Jehovah's peculiar people (see at Ex. iv. 22). In this election lay the ground for the love which God showed to Israel, by bringing it out of Egypt, to give it the land of Canaan, promised to ihe fathers for its tihentancal The adoption of Israel as the son of Jehovah, which began with its deliverance out of the bondage of Egypt, and was completed in the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai, forms the first stage in the carrying out of the divine work of salvation, which was completed in the incarnation of the Son of God for the redemption of mankind from death and ruin. The development and guidance of Israel as the people of God all pointed to Christ; not, however, in any such sense as that the nation of Israel was to bring forth the Son of God from within itself, but in this sense, that the relation which the Lord of heaven and earth established and sustained with that nation, was a preparation for the union of God with humanity, and paved the way for the incarnation of His Son, by the fact that Israel was trained to be a vessel of divine grace. All essential factors in the history of Israel point to this as’ their end, and thereby become types and material prophecies of the life of Him in whom the reconciliation of man to God was to be realized, and the union of God with the human race to be developed into a personal unity. It is in this sense that the second half of our verse is quoted in Matt. il. 15 as a prophecy of Christ, not because the words of the prophet refer directly and immediately to Christ, but because the sojourn in Egypt, and return out of that land, had the same significance in relation to the development of the life of Jesus Christ, as it had to the nation of Israel. Just as Israel grew into a nation in Keypt, where it was out of the reach of Crit ways, so was the child Jesus hidden in Egypt from the hostility of Herod. But ver. 2 is attached thus as an antithesis: this love of its God was repaid by Israel with base apostasy. WP, they, viz. the prophets (cf. ver. 7; 2 Kings xvii. 133; Jer. vii. 25, xxv. 4; Zech. 1. 4), called to coon! called the Israelites to the Lord and to obedience to Him; but shee (the Israelites) went away from their countenance, would not hearken to the prophets, or come to the Lord (Jer. ii. 31). The thought is strengthened by {3, with the W895 of the protasis omitted (Ewald, § 360, a): as the prophets called, so the Israelites drew back from them, and
Nevertheless the Lord continued to show love to them. Vers. 8, 4, “ And I, I have taught Ephraim to walk: He took them in His arms, and they did not know that I healed them. I drew them with bands of a man, with cords of love, and became to them like a lifter up of the yoke upon their jaws, and gently towards him did I give (him) food.” meNA, a hiphil, formed after the Aramean fashion (cf. Ges. § 55, 5), by hardening the m into n, and construed with 5, as the hdphil frequently is (e.g. ch. x. 1; Amos viii. 9), a denom. of m7, to teach to walk, to guide in leading-strings, like a child that is being trained to walk. It isa figurative representation of paternal care for a child’s prosperity. O92, per apheresin, for DN, like OP for npe in Ezek. xvii. 5. The sudden change from the first person to the third seems very strange to our ears; but it is not uncommon in Hebrew, and is to be accounted for here from the fact, that the prophet could very easily pass from speaking in the name of God to speaking of God Himself. MP cannot be either an infinitive or a participle, on account of the following word nyint, his arms. The two clauses refer chiefly to the care and help afforded by the Lord to His people in the Arabian desert; and the prophet had Deut. i. 31 floating before his mind: “in the wilderness the Lord thy God bare thee, as a man doth bear his son.” ‘The last clause also refers to this, D°DND" pointing back to Ex. xv. 26, where the Lord showed Himself as the physician of Israel, by making the bitter water at Marah drinkable, and at the same time as their helper out of every trouble. In ver. 4, again, there is a still further, reference to the manifestation of the love of God to Israel on the journey through the wilderness. O78 ban, cords with which men are led, more especially children that are weak upon their feet,. in contrast with ropes, with which men control wild, unmanageable beasts (Ps. xxxii. 9), are a figurative representation of the paternal, humane guidance of Israel, as explained in the next figure, “ cords of love.” This figure leads on to the kindred figure of the yoke laid upon beasts, to harness them for work. As merciful masters lift up the yoke upon the cheeks of their oxen, i.e. push it so far back that the animals can eat their food in comfort, so has the Lord made the yoke of the law, which has been laid upon His people, both soft and light. As dy Sy on does not mean to take the yoke away from (oy) the cheeks, but to lift it above the cheeks, i.e. to make it easier, by pushing it back, we cannot refer the words to the liberation of Israel from the bondage of Egypt, but can only think of what the Lord did, to make it easy for the people to observe the commandments imposed upon them, when they were received into His covenant (Ex. xxiv. 3, 7), including not only the many manifestations of mercy which might and ought to have allured them to reciprocate His love, and yield a willing obedience to His commandments, but also the means of grace provided in their worship, partly in the institution of sacrifice, by which a way of approach was opened to divine grace to obtain forgiveness of sin, and partly in the institution of feasts, at which they could rejoice in the gracious gifts of their God. 8) is not the first pers. imperf. hiphil of ny3 (“LT inclined myself to him;” Symm., Syr., and others), in which case we should expect 08), but an adverb, softly, comfortably; and pers belongs to it, after the analogy of 2 Sam. xviii. 5. D218 is an anomalous formation for MONK, like 38 for TANS in Jer. xlvi. 8 (cf. Ewald, § 192, d; Ges. §68, 2, Anm. 1). Jerome has given the meaning quite correctly: “and I gave them manna for food in the desert, which they enjoyed.”
By despising this love, Israel brings severe punishment upon itself. Ver. 5. “ Tt will not return into the land of Egypt; but Asshur, he is its king, because they refused to return. Ver. 6. And the sword will sweep round in its cities, and destroy its bolts, and devour, because of their counsels. Ver. 7. My people is bent upon apostasy from me: and if men call it upwards, it does not raise itself at all.” The apparent contradiction between the words, “It will not return into the land of Egypt,” and the threat. contained in ch. viii. 13, ix. 3, that Israel should return to Egypt, ought not to lead us to resort to alterations of the text, or to take ND in the sense of #5, and connect it with the previous verse, as is done by the LX X., Mang., and others, or to make an arbitrary paraphrase of the words, either by taking x5 in the sense of Non, and rendering it as a question, “ Should it not return?” equivalent to “it will certainly return” (Maurer, Ewald, etc.); or by understanding the return to Egypt as signifying the longing of the people for help from Egypt
(Rosenmiiller). The emphatic sin of the second clause is at variance with all these explanations, since they not only fail to explain it, but it points unmistakeably to an antithesis: “ Israel will not return to Egypt; but Asshur, it shall be its king,” ce. it shall come under the dominion of Assyria. The supposed contradiction is removed as soon as we observe that in ch. vill. 13, ix. 3, 6, Egypt is a type of the land of bondage; whereas here the typical interpretation is precluded partly by the contrast to Asshur, and still more by the correspondence in which the words stand to ver. 1d. Into the land from which Jehovah called His people, Israel shall not return, lest it should appear as though the object, for which it had been brought out of Egypt and conducted miraculously through the desert, had been frustrated by the impenitence of the people. But it is to be brought into another bondage. “HWS! is appended adversatively. oe shall rule over it as king, because they refuse to return, sc. to Jehovah. The recerc will wage war against the land, and conquer it. The sword (used as the principal weapon, to denote the destructive power of war) will circulate in the cities of Israel, make the round of the cities as it were, and destroy its bolts, i.e. the bolts of the gates of the fortifications of Ephraim. Baddim, poles (Ex. xxv. 13 sqq.), cross-poles or cross-beams, with which the gates were fastened, hence bolts in the literal sense, as in Job xvii. 16, and not tropically for “princes” (Ges.), elect? (Jer., Chald., ete.). “On account of their counsels:” this is more fully defined in ver. 7. ‘Di, and my people (= since my people) are harnessed to ee Gas me (mshibhathi, with an objective suflix). dD SR, lit. suspended on apostasy, ae. not “swaying about in consequence of apostasy or in constant danger of falling away”
(Chald., Syr., Hengst.), since this would express too little in the present context and would not suit the second half of the verse, but impaled or fastened upon apostasy as upon a stake, so that it cannot get loose. Hence the constructing of non with 5 instead of by or 2 (2 Sam. xviii. 10), may be accounted for from the use of the verb in a figurative sense. dy7> on, upwards (oy as in ch. vii. 16), do they (the prophets: see ver. 2) call them; but it does not rise, sc. to return to God, or seek help from on high. O%1 piled, with the meaning of the kal intensified, to make a rising, i.e. to rise up. This explana-
They deserved to be utterly destroyed for this, and would have been if the compassion of God had not prevented it. With this turn a transition is made in ver. 8 from threatening to promise. Ver. 8. “ How could I give thee up, O Ephraim! surrender thee, O Israel! how could I give thee up like Admah, make thee like Zeboin! My heart has changed within me, my compassion is excited all at once. Ver.9. Iwill not execute the burning heat of my wrath, I will not destroy Ephraim again: jor Iam God, and not man, the Holy One in the midst of thee: and come not into burning wrath.” “ How thoroughly could I give thee up!” sc. if I were to punish thy rebellion as it deserves. Nathan, to surrender to the power of the enemy, like miggén in Gen. xiv. 20. And not that alone, but I could utterly destroy thee, like Admah and Zeboim, the two cities of the valley of Siddim, which were destroyed by fire from heaven along with Sodom and Gomorrha. Compare Deut. xxix. 22, where Admah and Zeboim are expressly mentioned along mun the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha, which stand alone in Gen. xix. 24. With evident reference to this passage, in which Moses threatens idolatrous Israel with the same punishment, Hosea simply mentions the last two as quite sufficient for his purpose, whereas Sodom and Gomorrha are generally mentioned in other passages (Jer. xlix. 18; cf. Matt. x. 15, Luke x. 12). The promise that God will show compassion is appended here, without any adversative particle. My heart has turned, changed in me (°%, lit. upon or with me, as in the similar ramen in 1 Sam. xxv. 36, Jer. viii. 18). 993) 74), in a body have my feelings of compassion gathered themselves together, ze. my whole compassion is ex coi Compare Gen. xlili. 80 and 1 Kings ili. 26, where, instead of the abstract nichamim, we find the more definite rachdmim, the bowels as the seat of the emotions. *X fi YY, to carry out wi rath, to execute it as judgment (as in 1 Sam. xxviii. 18). In the expression nw aw Nd, I will not return to destroy, 21% may be explained from the previous "22 7272. After the heart of God has changed, it will not return to wrath, to destroy Ephraim; for Jehovah is God, who does not alter His purposes like a man (cf. 1 Sam. xv. 29, Num. xxiii. 19, Mal. iii. 6), and He shows
Himself in Israel as the Holy One, i.e. the absolutely pure and. perfect one, in whom there is no alternation of light and darkness, and therefore no variableness in His decrees (see at Ex. xix. 6; Isa. vi. 3). The difficult expression YY2 cannot mean “into a city,” although it is so rendered by the ancient versions, the Rabbins, and many Christian expositors; for we cannot attach any meaning to the words “I do not come into a city” at all in harmony with the context. Y signifies here estus ire, the heat of wrath, from wy, effervescere, just as in Jer. xv. 8 it signifies the heat of alarm and anxiety, estus animi.
Ver. 10. “ They will go after Jehovah; like a lion will He roar; for He will roar: and sons will tremble from the sea. Ver. 11. Tremble like birds out of Egypt, and like doves out of the land of Asshur: and I cause them to dwell in their houses, is the saying of Jehovah.” When the Lord turns His pity towards the people once more, they will follow Him, and hasten, with trembling at His voice, from the lands of their banishment, and be reinstated by Him in their inheritance. The way for this promise was opened indeed by ver. 9, but here it is introduced quite abruptly, and without any logical particle of connection, like the same promise in ch. iii. 5. “* 08 720, to walk after the Lord, denotes not only “ obedience to the gathering voice of the Lord, as manifested by their drawing near” (Simson), but that walking in true obedience to the Lord which follows from conversion (Deut. xiii. 5; 1 Kings xiv. 8), so that the Chaldee has very properly rendered it, “They will follow the worship of Jehovah.” This faithfulness they will exhibit first of all in practical obedience to the call of the Lord. This call is described as the roaring of a lion, the point of comparison lying simply in the fact that a lion announces its coming by roaring, so that the roaring merely indicates a loud, far-reaching call, like the blowing of the trumpet in Isa. xxvii. 13. The reason for what is affirmed is then given: “for He (Jehovah) will really utter His call,” in consequence of which the Israelites, as His children, will come trembling (chdred synonymous with pdchad, ch. ii. 5). 0©%9, from the sea, te. from the distant islands and lands of the west (Isa. xi. 11), as well as from Egypt and Assyria, the lands of the south and east. These three regions are simply a special form of the idea, “out of all quarters of the globe;” compare the more complete enumeration of the several remote countries in Isa. xi. 11... The comparison to birds and doves expresses the swiftness with which they draw near, as doves fly to their dovecots (Isa. Ix. 8). Then will the Lord cause them to dwell in their houses, z.e. settle them once more in their inheritance, in His own land (cf. Jer. xxxii. 37, where nap is added). On the construing of Win with oY, of. 1 Kings xx. 43, and the German auf der Stube sein. The expression "* D8 affixes the seal of confirmation to this promise. The fulfilment takes place in the last days, when Israel as a nation shall enter the kingdom of God. Compare the remarks on this point at ch. ii. 1-3 (pp. 49, 50).
For the purpose of proving that the predicted destruction of the kingdom is just and inevitable, the prophet now shows, in this last division, first that Israel has not kept the ways of its father Jacob, but has fallen into the ungodly practice of Canaan (ch. xii.); and secondly, that in spite of all the manifestations of love, and all the chastisements received from its God, it has continued its apostasy and idolatry, and therefore perfectly deserves the threatened judgment. Nevertheless the compassion of God will not permit it to be utterly destroyed, but will redeem it even from death and hell (ch. xili—xiv. 1). To this there is appended, lastly, in ch. xiv. 2—9, a call to conversion, and a promise from God of the forgiveness and abundant blessing of those who turn to the Lord. With this the book closes (ch. xiv. 10). Thus we find again, that the contents of this last division fall very evidently into three parts (ch. xii. 13, 14, and xiv. 2-10), each of which is still further divisible into two strophes.
Israels Degeneracy into Canaanitish Ways.—Chap. xii. Wo War arin (Eng. Ver. x1. 12 Xil.)
The faithlessness of Israel and Judah’s resistance to God bring righteous punishment upon the entire posterity of Jacob (xi. 12-xii. 2); whereas the example of their forefather ought to have led them to faithful attachment to their God (vers. 3-6).
But Israel has become Canaan, and seeks its advantage in deception and injustice, without hearkening to its God or to the voice of its prophets, and will be punished for its idolatry (vers. 7-11). Whereas Jacob was obliged to flee, and to serve for a wife in Aram, Jehovah led Israel out of Egypt, and guarded it by prophets. Nevertheless this nation has excited His wrath, and will have to bear its guilt (vers. 12-14). The two strophes of this chapter are Xi. Lett 6 and 7-14.
Ch. xi. 12 (Heb. Bib. xii. 1). “ Ephraim has surrounded me with lying, and the house of Israel with deceit: and Judah is moreover unbridled against God, and against the faithful Holy One. Ch. xii. 1 (Heb. Bib. 2). Hphraim grazeth wind, and hunteth after the east: all the day it multiplies lying and desolation, and they make a covenant with Asshur, and oil is carried to Egypt. Ver. 2. And Jehovah has a controversy with Judah, and to perform a visitation upon Jacob, according to his ways: according to his works will He repay him.” In the name of Jehovah, the prophet raises a charge against Israel once more. Lying and deceit are the terms which he applies, not so much to the idolatry which they preferred to the worship of Jehovah (revd} Kai dvoceB)} Natpetav, Theod.), as to the hypocrisy with which Hsrael, in spite of its idolatry, claimed to be still the people of Jehovah, pretended to worship Jehovah under the image of a calf, and turned right into wrong.’ Bath Yisrael ilies house of Israel) is the nation of the ten tribes, and is synonymous with Ephraim. The statement concerning Judah has been interpreted in different ways, because the meaning of 77 is open to dispute. lLuther’s rendering, “ but Judah still holds fast to its God,” is based upon the rabbinical interpretation of 4, in the sense of "1, to rule, which is decidedly false. According to the Arabic ol, the meaning of rad is to ramble about (used of cattle that have broken loose, or have not yet been fastened up,
1 Calvin explains ‘932D correctly thus: ‘“ that He (i.e. God) had aa rienced the manifold faithlessness of the rs in all kinds of ways.” He interprets the whole sentence as follows: ‘‘The Israelites had acted unfaithfully towards God, and resorted to deceits, and that not in one way only, or of only one kind; but just asa man might surround his enemy with a great army, so ned they gathered together innumerable frauds, with which they attacked God on every side.”
as in Jer. ii. 31); hiphil, to cause to ramble about (Gen. xxvii. 40; Ps. ly. 3). Construed as it is here with 5%, it means to ramble about in relation to God, i.e. to be unbridled or unruly towards God. OY, as in many other cases where reciprocal actions are referred to, standing towards or with a person: see Ewald, §217,h.?O82 Ow, the faithful, holy God. Q°doshim is used of God, as in Proy, ix. 10 (cf. Josh. xxiv. 19), as an intensive pluralis majestatis, construed with a singular adjective (cf. Isa. xix. 4; 2 Kings xix. 4). 082, firm, faithful, trustworthy; the opposite of rdd. Judah is unbridled towards the powerful God (£7), towards the Holy One, who, as the Faithful One, also proves Himself to be holy in relation to His people, both by the sanctification of those who embrace His salvation, and also by the judgment and destruction of those who obstinately resist the leadings of His grace. In ver. 1 the lying and deceit of Israel are more fully described. 1 FY" is not to entertain one’s self on wind, i.e. to take delight in vain things; but ny) means to eat or graze spiritually; and radch, the wind, is equivalent to emptiness. The meaning therefore is, to strive eagerly after what is empty or vain; synonymous with radaph, to pursue. OP, the east wind, in Palestine a fierce tempestuous wind, which comes with burning heat from the desert of Arabia, and is very destructive to seeds and plants (compare Job xxvii. 21, and Wetzstein’s Appendix to Delitzsch’s Commentary on Job). It is used, therefore, as a figurative representation, not of vain hopes and ideals, that cannot possibly be reached, but of that destruction which Israel is bringing upon itself. “ All the day,” i.e. continually, it multiplies lying and violence, through the sins enumerated in ch. iv. 2, by which the kingdom is being internally broken up. Added to this, there is the seeking for alliances with the powers of the world, viz. Assyria and Egypt, by which it hopes to secure their help (ch. v. 13), but only brings about its own destruction. Oil is taken to Egypt from the land abounding in olives (Deut. vill. 8; 1 Kings v. 25), not as tribute, but as a present, for the purpose of securing an ally in Egypt. This actually took place during the reign of Hoshea, who endeavoured to liberate himself from the oppression of Assyria by means of a treaty with Egypt (2 Kings xvii. 4)."
1 Manger has given the meaning correctly thus: “ He is looking back to the ambassadors sent by king Hoshea with splendid presents to the king
The Lord will repay both kingdoms for such conduct as this. But just as the attitude of Judah towards God is described more mildly than the guilt of Israel in ch. xi. 12, so the punishment of the two is differently described in ver. 2. Jehovah has a trial with Judah, i.e. He has to reprove and punish its sins and transgressions (ch. iv. 1). Upon Jacob, or Israel of the ten tribes (as in ch. x. 11), He has to perform a visitation, i.e. to punish it according to its ways and its deeds (cf. ch. iv. 9). “pB?, it is to be visited, i.c. He must visit.
Ver. 3. “ He held his brother's heel in the womb, and in his man’s strength he fought with God. Ver. 4. He fought against the angel, and overcame; wept, and prayed to Him: at Bethel he found Him, and there He talked with us. Ver. 5. And Jehovah, God of hosts, Jehovah is His remembrance.’ The name Jacob, which refers to the patriarch himself in ver. 3, forms the link between vers. 2 and 3. The Israelites, as descendants of Jacob, were to strive to imitate the example of their forefather. His striving hard for the birthright, and his wrestling with God, in which he conquered by prayer and supplication, are types and pledges of salvation to the tribes of Israel which bear his name." apy, a denom. from PY, “to hold the heel” = 3p¥2 108 in Gen. xxv. 26, which the prophet has in his mind, not “to overreach,” as in Gen. xxvii. 36 and Jer. ix. 3. For the wrestling with God, mentioned in the second clause of the verse, proves most indisputably that Jacob’s conduct is not held up before the people for a warning, as marked by cunning or deceit, as Umbreit and Hitzig suppose, but is set before them for their imitation, as an eager attempt to secure the birthright and the of Egypt, to bring him over to his side, and induce him to send him assis¢- ance against the king of Assyria, although he had bound himself by a sacred treaty to submit to the sovereignty of the latter.” Compare also Hengstenberg’s Christology, vol. i. p. 164 transl., where he refutes the current opinion, that the words refer to two different parties in the nation, viz. an Assyrian and an Egyptian party, and correctly describes the circumstances thus: ‘‘ The people being severely oppressed by Asshur, sometimes apply to Egypt for help against Asshur, and at other times endeavour to awaken friendly feelings in the latter.”
1“ He shows what good Jacob received, and the son is named in the father: he calls to remembrance the ancient history, that they may sce both the mercy of God towards Jacob, and his resolute firmness towards the Lord.” —JEROME, blessing connected with it. This shows at the same time, that the holding of the heel in the mother’s womb is not quoted as a proof of the divine election of grace, and, in fact, that there is no reference at all to the circumstance, that “ even when Jacob was still in his mother’s womb, he did this not by his own strength, but by the mercy of God, who knows and loves those whom He has predestinated” (Jerome). 3iN3, in his manly streneth (cf. Gen. xlix. 3) he wrestled with God (Gen. XXXil. 25-29). This conflict (for the significance of which in relation to Jacob’s spiritual life, see the discussion at Gen. l.c.) is more fully described in ver. 4, for the Israelites to imitate. AND Is the angel of Jehovah, the revealer of the invisible God (see the Conumentary on the Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 126 transl.). 231 is from Gen. xxsii. 29. The explanatory clause, “ he wept, and made supplication to Him” (after Gen. xxxii. 27), gives the nature of the conflict. It was a contest with the weapons of prayer; and with these he conquered. These weapons are also at the command of the Israelites, if they will only use them. The fruit of the victory was, that he (Jacob) found Him (God) at Bethel. This does not refer to the appearance of God to Jacob on his flight to Mesopotamia (Gen. xxviil. 11), but to that recorded in Gen. xxxv. 9 sqq., when God confirmed his name of Israel, and renewed the promises of His blessing. And there, continues the prophet, He (God) spake with us; i.e. not there He speaks with us still, condemning by His prophets the idolatry at Bethel (Amos v. 4, 5), as Kimchi supposes; but, as the imperfect 127 corresponds to NSD’, “ there did He speak to us through Jacob,” i.e. what He ee said to Jacob applies to us.’ The explanation of this is given in ver. 5, where the name is recalled in which God revealed Himself to Moses, when He first called him (Ex. iii. 15), i.e. in which He made known to him His true nature. Y‘Aovdh zikhro is taken literally from “3 75> “IAT; but there the name Jehovah is still further defined by o ihe God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,” here by
1“ Tet it be carefully observed, that God is said to have talked at Bethel not with Jacob only, but with all his posterity. That is to say, the things which are here said to have been done by Jacob, and to have happened to him, had not regard to himself only, but to all the race that sprang from him, and were signs of the good fortune which they either would, or certainly might enjoy” (Lackemacher in Rosenmiiller’s Scholia).
“the God of hosts.” This difference needs consideration. The Israelites in the time of Moses could only put full confidence in the divine call of Moses to be their deliverer out of the bondage of Egypt, on the ground that He who called him was the God who had manifested Himself to the patriarchs as the God of salvation; but for the Israelites of Hosea’s time, the streneth of their confidence in Jehovah arose from the fact that Jehovah was the God of hosts, ze. the God who, because He commands the forces of heaven, both visible and invisible, rules with unrestricted omnipotence on earth as well as in heaven (see at 1 Sam. i. 3).
To this God Israel is now to return. Ver. 6. “ And thou, to thy God shalt thou turn: keep love and right, and hope continually in thy God.” 2 with 2 is a pregnant expression, as in Isa. x. 22: “so to turn as to enter into vital fellowship with God;” i.e. to be truly converted. The next two clauses, as the omission of the copula before chesed and the change in the tense clearly show, are to be taken as explanatory of 2Wh, The conversion is to show itself in the perception of love and right towards their brethren, and in constant trust in God. But Israel is far removed from this now. This thought leads the way to the next strophe (vers. 8-15), which commences afresh with a disclosure of the apostasy of the people.
Ver. 7. “ Canaan, in his hand is the scale of cheating: he loves to oppress. Ver. 8. And Ephraim says, Yet I have become rich, have acquired property: all my exertions bring me no wrong, which would be sin.” Israel is not a Jacob who wrestles with God; but it has become Canaan, seeking its advantage in deceit and wrong. Israel is called Canaan here, not so much on account of its attachment to Canaanitish idolatry (cf. Ezek. xvi. 3), as according to the appellative meaning of the word K*na‘an, which is borrowed from the commercial habits of the Canaanites (Pheenicians), viz. merchant or trader (Isa. xxill. 8; Job xl. 30), because, like a fraudulent merchant, it strove to become great by oppression and cheating; not “ because it acted towards God like a fraudulent merchant, offering Him false show for true reverence,” as Schmieder supposes. For however thoroughly this may apply to the worship of the Israelites, it is not to this that the prophet refers, but to fraudulent weights, and the love of oppression or violence. And this points not to their attitude towards God, but to their conduct towards their fellow-men, which is the very opposite of what, according to the previous verse, the Lord requires (chesed amishpat), and the very thing which He has forbidden in the law, in Lev. xix. 86, Deut. xxv. 13-16, and also in the case of ‘dshag, violence, in Lev. vi. 2-4, Deut. xxiv. 14. Ephraim prides itself upon this unrighteousness, in the idea that it has thereby acquired wealth and riches, and with the still greater self-deception, that with all its acquisition of property it has committed no wrong that was sin, ¢.e. that would be followed by punishment. jis does not mean “ might” here, but wealth, opes, although as a matter of fact, since Ephraim says this as a nation, the riches and power of the state are intended. yarrd3 is not written at the head absolutely, i in the sense of * so far as ae I have acquired is concerned, men find no fe in this;” for if that were the case, ‘2 would stand for; but it is really the subject, and 383!" is to be taken in the sense of acquiring = bringing in (cf. Lev. v. 7, xii. 8, etc.). Ver. 9. “ Yet am I Jehovah thy God, fromthe land of Egypt hither: I will still cause thee to dwell in tents, as in the days of the feast. Ver. 10. I have spoken to the prophets; and I, L have multiplied visions, and spoken similitudes through the prophets. Ver.11. If Gilead (is) worthlessness, they have only come to nothing: in Gilgal they offered bullocks: even their altars are like stone-heaps in the furrows of the field.” The Lord meets the delusion of the people, that they had become great and powerful through their own exertion, by reminding them that He (°2381 is adversative, yet I) has been Israel’s God from Egypt hither, and that to Him they owe all prosperity and good in both past and present (cf. ch. xiii. 4). Bevause they do not recognise this, and because they put their trust in unrighteousness rather than in Him, He will now cause them to dwell in tents again, as in the days of the feast of Tabernacles,.e. will repeat the leading through the wilderness. It is evident from the context that mod (the feast) is here the feast of Tabernacles. ‘vid ‘1° (the days of the feast) are the seven days of this festival, during which Israel was to dwell in booths, in remembrance of the fact that when God led them out of Egypt He had caused them to dwell in booths (tabernacles, Ley. xsiii. 42, 48). ADVIN “¥ stands in antithesis to ‘AWN in Lev. xxiii. 43. “The preterite is changed into a future through the ingratitude of the nation” (Hengstenberg). The ae “as in the days of the feast,” shows that the repetition of Hey leading through the desert is not thought of here merely as a time of punishment, such as the prolongation of the sojourn of the Israelites in the wilderness for forty years really was (Num. xiv. 33). For their dwelling in tents, or rather in booths (sukkoth), on the feast of Tabernacles, was intended not so much to remind the people of the privations of their unsettled wandering life in the desert, as to call to their remembrance the shielding and sheltering care and protection of God in their wandering through the great and terrible wilderness (see at Lev. xxiii. 42, 43). We must combine the two allusions, therefore: so that whilst the people are threatened indeed with being driven out of the good and glorious land, with its large and beautiful cities and houses full of all that is good (Deut. vi. 10 sqq.), into a dry and barren desert, they have also set before them the repetition of the divine guidance through the desert; so that they are not threatened with utter rejection on the part of God, but only with temporary banishment into the desert. In vers. 10 and 11 the two thoughts of ver. 9 are still further expanded. In ver. 10 they are reminded how the Lord had proved Himself to be the God of Israel from Egypt onwards, by sending prophets and multiplying prophecy, to make known His will and gracious counsel to the people, and to promote their salvation. 37 with ¥, to speak to, not because the word is something imposed wpon a person, et because the inspiration of God came down to the prophets from above. M718, not “TI destroy,” for it is only the kal Ee occurs in this sense, and not the piel, but “to compare,” i. ee in similes; as, for example, in ch. i. and iii., Isa. v.1 sqq., Ezek. xvi. etc.: “T have left no means of admonishing them untried” (Rosenmiiller). Israel, however, has not allowed itself to be admonished and w aid but has given itself up to sin and idolatry, the punishment a which cannot be delayed. Gilead and Gilgal represent the two halves of the kingdom of the ten hese Gilead the land to the east of the Jordan, and Gilgal the territory to the west. As Gilead is called Sa: City; (i. e. a rendezvous) of evil-doers” (8 *yb) i in ch. vi. 8, so is it here called distinctly px, worthlessness, wickedness;
aud therefore it is to be utterly brought to nought. {% and SY are synonymous, denoting moral and physical nonentity (compare Job xv.31). Here the two notions are so distributed, that the former denotes the moral decay, the latter the physical. Worthlessness brings nothingness after it as a punishment. 48, only = nothing, but equivalent to utterly. The perfect?7 is used for the certain future. Gilgal, which is mentioned in ch. iv. 15, ix. 15, as the seat of one form of idolatrous worship, is spoken of here as a place of sacrifice, to indicate with a play upon the name the turning of the altars into heaps of stones (Gallim). The desolation or destruction of the altars involves not only the cessation of the idolatrous worship, but the dissolution of the kingdom and the banishment of the people out of the land. OW, which only occurs in the plural here, cannot of course be fie dative (to sacrifice to oxen), but only the accusative. The sacrifice of oxen was reckoned as a sin on the part of the people, not on account of the animals offered, but on account of the unlawful place of sacrifice. The suffix to mizb°chothadm (their sacrifices) refers to Israel, the subject implied in zibbécha.
This punishment Israel well deserved. Ver. 12. “And Jacob fled to the fields of Aram; and Israel served for a wife, and for a wife did he keep guard. Ver. 13. And through a prophet Jehovah brought Israel out of Egypt, and through a prophet was he guarded. Ver. 14. Ephraim has stirred up bitter wrath; and his Lord will leave his blood upon him, and turn back his shame upon him.” In order to show the people still more impressively what great things the Lord had done for them, the prophet recals the flight of Jacob, the tribefather, to Mesopotamia, and how he was obliged to serve many years there for a wife, and to guard cattle; whereas God had redeemed Israel out of the Egyptian bondage, and had faithfully guarded it through a prophet. The flight of Jacob to Arama, and his servitude there, are mentioned not “to give prominence to his zeal for the blessing of the birthright, and his obedience to the commandment of God and his parents” (Cyr., Theod., Th. v. Mops.); nor “to bring out the double servitude of Israel,—the first the one which the people had to endure in their forefather, the second the one which they had to endure themselves in Egypt” (Umbreit); nor “to lay stress upon the manifestation of the divine care towards Jacob as well as towards the people of Israel” (Ewald); for there is nothing at all about this in ver. 12. The words point simply to the distress and affliction which Jacob had to endure, according to Gen. xxix.-xxxi., as Calvin has correctly interpreted
them. “Their father Jacob,” he says, “who was he? what, was his condition?... He was a fugitive from his country. Even if he had always lived at home, his father was only a stranger in the land. But he was compelled to flee into Syria. And how splendidly did he live there? He was with his uncle, no doubt, but he was treated quite as meanly as any common slave: he served for a wife. And how did he serve? He was the man who tended the cattle.” Shdmar, the tending of
cattle, was one of the hardest and lowest descriptions of servitude (cf. Gen. xxx. 31, xxxi. 40; 1 Sam. xvii. 20). S%dzh dram (the field of Aram) is no doubt simply the Hebrew rendering of the Arameean Paddan-drdm (Gen. xxviil. 2, xxxi. 18: see at Gen. xxv. 20). Jacob’s flight to Aramzea, where he had to serve, is contrasted in ver. 10 with the leading of Israel, the people sprung from Jacob, out of Egypt by a prophet, ze. by Moses (cf. Deut. xviii. 18); and the guarding of cattle by Jacob is placed in contrast with the guarding of Israel on the part of God through the prophet Moses, when he led them through the wilderness to Canaan. The object of this is to call to the nation’s remembrance that elevation from the lowest condition, which they were to acknowledge with humility every year, according to Deut. xxvi. 5 sqq., when the first-fruits were presented before the Lord. For Ephraim had quite forgotten this. Instead of thanking the Lord for it by love and faithful devotedness to Him, it had provoked Him in the bitterest manner by its sins (O'Y3i1, to excite wrath, to provoke to anger: tamrivim, an adverbial accusative = bitterly). For this should its blood-guiltiness remain upon it. According to Lev. xx. 9 sqq., démim denotes grave crimes that are punishable by death. Natash, to let a thing alone, as in Ex. xxiii. 11; or to leave behind, as in 1 Sam. xvii. 20, xxii. 28. Leaving blood-guiltiness upon a person, is the opposite of taking away (NW) or forgiving the sin, and therefore inevitably brings the punishment after it. Cherpatho (its reproach or dishonour) is the dishonour which Ephraim had done to the Lord by sin and idolatry (cf. Isa. xv. 7). And this would be repaid to it by its Lord, i.e. by Jehovah.
Because Israel would not desist from its idolatry, and entirely forgot the goodness of its God, He would destroy its might and glory (vers. 1-8). Because it did not acknowledge the Lord as its help, its throne would be annihilated along with its capital; but this judgment would become to all that were penitent a regeneration to newness of life. Ver. 1. “ When Ephraim spake, there was terror; he exalted himself in Israel; then he offended through Baal, and died. Ver. 2. And now they continue to sin, and make themselves molten images out of their stlver, idols according to their understunding: manufacture of artists is tt all: they say of them, Sacrificers of men: let them kiss calves.’ In order to show how deeply Israel had fallen through its apostasy, the prophet points to the great distinction which the tribe of Ephraim formerly enjoyed among the tribes of Israel. The two clauses of ver. la cannot be so connected together as that %2 should be taken as the continuation of the infinitive 123. The emphatic sin is irreconcilable with this. We must rather take NM (a7. Xey., in Aramean = 001, Jer. xlix. 24, terror, tremor) as the apodosis to k’dabber ’ Ephraim (when Ephraim spake), like ns’ in Gen. iv. 7: “ As Ephraim spake there was terror,” @.e. men listened with fear and trembling (cf. Job xxix. 21). W is used intransitively, as in Nahum i. 5, Ps. Ixxxix. 10. Ephraim, «we. the tribe of Ephraim, “ exalted itself in Israel,’—not “it was distinguished among its brethren” (Hitzig), but “ it raised itself to the government.” The prophet has in his mind the attempts made by Ephraim to get the rule among the tribes, which led eventually to the secession of the ten tribes from the royal family of David, and the establishment of the kingdom of Israel by the side of that of Judah. When Ephraim had secured this, the object of its earnest endeavours, it offended through Baal; ¢.e. not only through the introduction of the worship of Baal in the time of Ahab (1 Kings xvi. 31 sqq.), but even through the establishment of the worship of the calves under Jeroboam (1 Kings xii. 28), through which Jehovah was turned into a Baal. nid", used of the state or kingdom, is equivalent to “was given up to destruction” (cf. Amos ii. 2). The dying commenced with the introduction of the unlawful worship (cf. 1 Kings xii. 30). From this sin Ephraim (the people of the ten tribes) did not desist: they still continue to sin, and make themselves molten images, etc., contrary to the express prohibition in Lev. xix. 4 (cf. Ex. xx. 4). These words are not merely to be understood as signifying, that they added other idolatrous images in Gilgal and Beersheba to the golden calves (Amos vill. 14); but they also involve their obstinate adherence to the idolatrous worship introduced by Jeroboam (compare 2 Kings xvii. 16), D52n2 from 23m, with the feminine termination dropped on account of the suffix (according to Ewald, § 257, d; although in the note Ewald regards this formation as questionable, and doubts the correctness of the reading): “ according to their understanding,” 7.e. their proficiency in art. The meaning of the second hemistich, which is very difficult, depends chiefly upon the view we take of O38 ‘N3t, viz. whether we render these words “ they who sacrifice men,” as the LX X., the fathers, and many of the rabbins and Christian expositors have done; or “the sacrificers of (among) men,” as Kimchi, Bochart, Ewald, and others do, after the analogy of DTS °3128 in Isa, xxix. 19. Apart from this, however, 2dbh’ché ’@ddm cannot possibly be taken as an independent sentence, such as “ they sacrifice men,” or “ human sacrificers are they,” unless with the UX -X. we change the participle ‘nar arbitrarily into the perfect Hat, As the words read, they must be connected either with what follows or with what precedes. But if we connect them with what follows, we fail to obtain any suitable thought, whether we render it “ human sacrificers (those who sacrifice men) kiss calves,” or “ the sacrificers among men kiss calves.” The former is open to the objection that human sacrifices were not offered to the calves (i.e. to Jehovah, as worshipped under the symbol of a calf), but only to Moloch, and that the worshippers of Moloch did not kiss calves. The latter, “men who offer sacrifice kiss calves,” might indeed be understood in this sense, that the prophet intended thereby to denounce the great folly, that men should worship animals; but this does not suit the preceding words 82% D7, and it is impossible to see in what sense they could be employed. There is no other course left, therefore, than to connect zobh'ché ’ddém with what precedes, though not in the way proposed by Ewald, viz. “ even to these do sacrificers of men say.” This rendering is open to the following objections: (1) that 07 after pnp would have to be taken as an emphatic repetition of the pronoun, and we cannot find any satisfactory ground for this; and, (2) what is still more important, the fact that ’émar would be used absolutely, in the sense of “ they speak in prayer,” which, even apart from the “prayer,” cannot be sustained by any other analogous example. These difficulties vanish if we take cabh*ché ’dddm as an explanatory apposition to hg: “of them (the ‘atsabbim) they say, viz. the sacrificers from among men (te. men who sacrifice), Let them worship calves.” By the apposition zobh*ché ’dddém, and the fact that the object ‘aydlim is placed first, so that it stands in immediate contrast to ’dddm, the absurdity of men kissing calves, 2.e. worshipping them with kisses (see at 1 Kings xix. 18), is painted as it were before the eye.
hey prepare for themselves swift destruction in consequence. Ver. 3. “ Therefore will they be like the morning cloud, and like the dew that passes early away, as chaff blows away from the threshing-floor, and as smoke out of the window.” Lakhén, therefore, viz. because they would not let their irrational idolatry go, they would quickly perish. On the figures of the morning cloud and dew, see at ch. vi. 4. The figure of the chaff occurs more frequently (vid. Isa. xvii. 18, xli. 15,16; Ps. i. 4, xxxv. 5, etc.). Yd’ is used relatively: which is stormed away, ie. blown away from the threshing-floor by a violent wind. The threshing-floors were situated upon eminences (compare my Bibl. Archéol. ti. p. 114). “ Smoke out of the window,” te. smoke from the fire under a saucepan in the room, which passed out of the window-lattice, as the houses were without chimneys (see Ps, Ixvili. 3).
Ver. 4. “ And yet I am Jehovah thy God from the land of Egypt hither; and thou knowest no God beside me, and there is no helper beside me. Ver. 5. 1 knew thee in the desert, in the land of burning heats.” As in ch. xii. 10, a contrast is drawn here again between the idolatry of the people and the uninterrupted self-attestation of Jehovah to the faithless nation. From Egypt hither Israel has known no other God than Jehovah, i.e. has found no other God to be a helper and
Saviour. Even in the desert He knew Israel, 7.¢. adopted it in love. 3, to know, when applied to God, is an attestation of His love and care (compare Amos iii. 2; Isa. lviii. 3, etc.). The burning heat, in which men famish with thirst (for the fact, compare Deut. viii. 15).
But prosperity made Israel proud, so that it forgot its God. Ver. 6. “ As they had their pasture, they became full; they became full, and their heart was lifted wp: therefore have they forgotten me.” This reproof is taken almost word for word from Deut. viii. 11 sqq. (cf. ch. xxxi. 20, xxxil. 15 sqq.). OMYI09, answering to their pasture, i.e. because they had such good pasture in the land given them by the Lord. The very thing of which Moses warned the people in Deut. vii. 11 has come to pass. Therefore are the threats of the law against the rebellious fulfilled upon them.
Ver. 7. “ And I became like a hon to them; as a leopard by the wayside do I le in watt. Ver. 8. I fall upon them as a bear robbed of its young, and tear im pieces the enclosure of their heart, and eat them there like a lioness: the beast of the field will tear them in pieces.” The figure of the pasture which made Israel full (ver. 6) is founded upon the comparison of Israel to a flock (cf. ch. iv. 16). The chastisement of the people is therefore represented as the tearing in pieces and devouring of the fattened flock by wild beasts. God appears as a lion, caer; etc., which fall upon them (cf. ch. v. 14). ‘08! does not stand for the future, but is the preterite, giving the consequence of forgetting God. The punishment has already begun, and will still continue; we have therefore from WS onwards imperfects or futures. “SW, from Av, to look round, hence to lie in wait, as in Jer. v. 26. It is not to be changed into’ Asshur, as it is by the LX X. and Vulgate. nap iD, the enclosure of ‘their heart, ze. their breast. Sham (there) points back to ‘al-derekh (by the way).
Ver. 9 commences a new strophe, in which the prophet once more discloses to the people the reason for their corruption (vers. 9-13); and after pointing to the saving omnipotence of the Lord (ver. 14), holds up before them utter destruction as the just punishment for their guilt (ver. 15 and ch. xiv. 1).
Ver. 9. “ O Israel, it hurls thee into destruction, that thou (art) against me, thy help. Wer.10. Where is thy king? that he may help thee in all thy cities: and (where) thy judges? of whom thou saidst, Give me king and princes! Ver. 11. I give thee kings in my anger, and take them away in my wrath.” nnw does not combine together the verbs in ver. 8, as Hitzig supposes; nor does ver. 9 give the reason for what precedes, but shichethkhé is explained by ver. 10, from which we may see that a new train of thought commences with ver. 9. Shichéth does not mean to act corruptly here, as in Deut. xxxii. 5, ix. 12, and Hix. xxxii. 7, but to bring into corruption, to ruin, as in Gen. vi. 17, ix. 15, Num. xxxti. 15, ete. The sentence ‘0 ‘2 ‘3 cannot be explained in any other way than by supplying the pronoun 178, as a subject taken from the suffix to Wnv (Marck, and nearly all the modern commentators). “ This throws thee into distress, that thou hast resisted me, who am thy help.” 772: as in Deut. xxxili. 26, except that 2 is used in the sense of against, as in Gen. xvi. 12, 2 Sam. xxiv. 17, ete. This opposition did not take place, omen when all Israel demanded a king of Samuel (1 Sam. viii. 5). For although this desire is represented there (ver. 7) as the rejection of Jehovah, Hosea is speaking here simply of the Israel of the ten tribes. The latter rebelled against Jehovah, when they fell away from the house of David, and made Jeroboam their king, and with contempt of Jehovah put their trust in the might of their kings of their own choosing (1 Kings xii. 16 sqq.). But these kings could not afford them any true help. The question, “ Where” (eit only occurs here and twice in ver. 14, for *s or Mx, possibly simply from a dialectical variation —vid. Ewald, § 104, c—and is strengthened by SIDS, as in Job xvii. 15), “ Where is thy king, that he may help thee?” does not presuppose that Israel had no king at all at that time, and that the kingdom was in a state of anarchy, but simply that it had no king who could save it, when the foe, the Assyrian, attacked it in all its cities. Before shdph*teykhd (thy judges) we must repeat ’¢ht (where). ‘The shoph’tim, as the use of the word sdrim (princes) in its stead in the following clause clearly shows, are not simple judges, but royal counsellors and ministers, who managed the affairs of the kingdom along with the king, and superintended the administration of justice. The saying, “ Give me a king and princes,” reminds us very forcibly of the demand of the people in the time of Samuel; but they really refer simply to the desire of the ten tribes for a king of their own, which manifested itself in their dissatisfaction with the rule of the house of David, and their consequent secession, and to their persistence in this secession amidst all the subsequent changes of the government. We cannot therefore take the imperfects Tas Ee nps in ver. 11 as pure preterites, ie. we cannot understand them as referring simply to the choice of Jeroboam as king, and to his death. The imperfects denote an action that is repeated again and again, for which we should use the present, and refer to all the kings that the kingdom of the ten tribes had received and was receiving still, and to their removal. God in His wrath gives the sinful nation kings and takes them away, in order to punish the nation through its kings. This applies not merely to the kings who followed one another so rapidly through conspiracy and murder, although through these the kingdom was gradually broken up and its dissolution accelerated, but to the rulers of the ten tribes as a whole. God gave the tribes who were discontented with the theocratical government of David and Solomon a king of their own, that He might punish them for their resistance to His government, which came to light in the rebellion against Rehoboam. He suspended the division of the kingdom not only over Solomon, as a punishment for his idolatry, but also over the rebellious ten tribes, who, when they separated themselves from the royal house to which the promise had been given of everlasting duration, were also separated from the divinely appointed worship and altar, and given up into thepower of their kings, who hurled one another from the throne; and God took away this government from them to chastise them for their sins, by giving them into the power of the heathen, and by driving them away from His face. it is to this last thought, that what follows is attached. The removal of the king in wrath would occur, because the sin of Ephraim was reserved for punishment.
Ver. 12. “ The guilt of Ephraim is bound together: his sin is preserved. Wer. 13. The pains of a travailing woman come upon him: hers an unwise son; that he does not place himself at ihe time in the breaking forth of children.” Ver. 12 is a special application of Deut. xxxii. 34 to the ten tribes. Tsériir, bound up in a bundle, like a thing which you wish to take great care of (compare Job xiv. 17; 1 Sam. xxv. 29). The same thing is applied in tséphin, hidden, carefully preserved, so as not to be lost (Job xxi. 19). “All their sins are preserved for punishment” (Chald.). Therefore will pains overtake Ephraim like a woman in labour. The pains of childbirth are not merely a figurative representation of violent agony, but of the sufferings and calamities connected with the refining judgments of Ged, by which new life was to be born, and a complete transformation of all things effected (cf. Mic. iv. 9, 10; Isa. xiii. 8, xxvi. 17; Matt. xxiv. 8). He cannot be spared these pains, for he is a foolish son (cf. Deut. xxxii. 6, 28 sqq.). But in what respect? This is explained in the words 3) ny °3, “ for at the time,” or as MY cannot stand for ny, more correctly “when it is time,’ he does not place himself in, z.e. does not enter, the opening of the womb. Mishbar bdnim is to be explained as in 2 Kings xix. 3 and Isa. xxxvii. 3; and 722 ¢. 3 as in Ezek. xxii. 80. If the child does not come to the opening at the right time, the birth is retarded, and the life of both mother and child endangered. ‘The mother and child are one person here. And this explains the transition from the pains of the mother to the behaviour of the child at the time of birth. Ephraim is an unwise son, inasmuch as even under the chastening judgment he still delays his conversion, and will not let himself be new-born, like a child, that at the time of the labour-pains will not enter the opening of the womb and so come to the birth.
But in order to preserve believers from despair, the Lord announces in ver. 14 that He will nevertheless redeem His people from the power of death. Ver. 14. “ Out of the hand of hell will I redeem them; from death will I set them free! Where are thy plaques, O death? where thy destruction, O hell! Repentance is hidden from mine eyes.” The fact that this verse contains a promise, and not a threat, would hardly have been overlooked by so many commentators, if they had not been led, out of regard to vers. 13, 15, to put force upon the words, and either take the first clauses as interrogative, “ShouldI... redeem?” (Calvin and others), or as conditional, “I would redeem them,” with “ si resipiscerent” supplied (Kimchi, Sal.
b. Mel. Ros., ete.). But apart from the fact that the words supplied are perfectly arbitrary, with nothing at all to indicate them, both of these explanation are precluded by the sentences which follow; for the questions, “ Where are thy plagues, O death?” ete., are obviously meant to affirm the conquest or destruction of hell and death. And this argument retains its force even if we take MN as an optative from 7, without regard to ver. 10, since the thought, “I should like te be thy plane O death,” presupposes that deliverance from the power of death is peed in what comes before. But, on account of the style of address, we cannot take ‘8 even as an interrogative, in the sense of “Should I be,” etc. And what would be the object of this gradation of thought, if the redemption from death were only hypothetical, or were represented as altogether questionable? If we take the words as they stand, therefore, it is evident that they affirm something more than deliverance when life is in danger, or preservation from death. To redeem or ransom from the hand (or power) of hell, z.e. of the under world, the realm of death, is equivalent to depriving hell of its prey, not only by not suffering the living to die, but by bringing back to life those who have fallen victims to hell, z.e. to the region of the dead. The cessation or annihilation of death is expressed still more forcibly in the triumphant words: “ Where are thy plagues (pestilences), O death? where thy destruction, O hell?” of which Theodoret has aptly observed, mavavifew kata tod Oavdtov Kedever. 27 is an intensive plural of debher, plague, pestilence, and is to be explained in accordance with Ps. xci. 6, where we also find the synonym 2%? in the form 2p, pestilence or destruction. The Apostle Paul has therefore very properly quoted these words in 1 Cor. xv. 55, in combination with the declaration in Isa. xxv. 8, “ Death is swallowed up in victory,” to confirm the truth, that at the resurrection of the last day, death will be annihilated, and that which is corruptible changed into immortality. We must not restrict the substance of this promise, however, to the ultimate issue of the redemption, in which it will receive its complete fulfilment. The suffixes attached to ’ephdem and ’eg’dlém point to Israel of the ten tribes, like the verbal suffixes in ver. 8. Consequently the promised redemption from death must stand in intimate connection with the threatened destruction of the kingdom of Israel. Moreover, the idea of the resurrection of the dead was by no means so clearly comprehended in Israel at that time, as that the prophet could point believers to it as a ground of consolation when the kingdom was destroyed. The only meaning that the promise had for the Israelites of the prophet’s day, was that the Lord possessed the power even to redeem from death, and raise Israel from destruction into newness of life; just as Ezekiel (ch. xxxvii.) depicts the restoration of Israel as the giving of life to the dry bones that lay scattered about the field. The full and deeper meaning of these words was but gradually unfolded to believers under the Old Testament, and only attained complete and absolute certainty for all believers through the actual resurrection of Christ. But in order to anticipate all doubt as to this exceedingly great promise, the Lord adds, “repentance is hidden from mine eyes,” i.e. my purpose of salvation will be irrevocably accomplished. The am. rey. ndcham does not mean “ resentment” (Hwald), but, as a derivative of nicham, simply consolation or repentance. The former, which the Septuagint adopts, does not suit the context, which the latter alone does. The words are to be interpreted in accordance with Ps. Ixxxix. 36 and Ps. ex. 4, where the oath of God is still further strengthened by the words 073° NP, “and will not repent;” and any yb corresponds to 3338 ON in Ps, Ixxxix. 36 (Marck and Krabbe, Question. de Hos. vatic. spec. p.47). Compare 1 Sam. xy. 29 and Num. xxiii. 19.
Ver. 15. “ Mor he will bear fruit among brethren. Kast wind will come, a wind of Jehovah, rising up from the desert; and his fountain will dry up, and his spring become dried. Ile plunders the treasuries of all splendid vessels.” ‘The connection between the first clause and the previous verse has been correctly pointed out by Marck. “ Ver. 15,” he says, “ adduces a reason to prove that the promised grace of redemption would certainly stand firm.” °2 cannot be either a particle of time or of condition here (when, or if); for neither of them yields a suitable thought, since Ephraim neither was at that time, nor could become, fruit-bearing among brethren. Ewald’s hypothetical view, “Should Ephraim be a fruitful child,” cannot be grammatically sustained, since 47 is only used in cases where a circumstance Is assumed to be real. For one that is merely supposed to be possible, D8 is required, as the interchange of
BN and °D, in Num. v. 19, 20, for example, clearly shows. 'The meaning of N15. is placed beyond all doubt by the evident -play upon the name Ephraim; and this also explains the writing with 8 instead of n, as well as the idea of the sentence itself: Ephraim will bear fruit among the brethren, 7.2. the other tribes, as its name, double-fruitfulness, affirms (see at Gen. xli. 52). This thought, through which the redemption from death set before Israel is confirmed, is founded not only upon the assumption that the name must become a truth, but chiefly upon the blessing which the patriarch promised to the tribe of Ephraim on the ground of its name, both in Gen. xlviii. 4, 20, and Gen. xlix. 22 sqq. Because Ephraim possessed such a pledge of blessing in its very name, the Lord would not let it be overwhelmed for ever in the tempest that was bursting upon it. The same thing applies to the name Ephraim as to the name Israel, with which it is used as synonymous; and what is true of all the promises of God is true of this announcement also, viz. that they are only fulfilled in the case of those who adhere to the conditions under which they were given. Of Ephraim, those only vill bear fruit which abides to everlasting life, who walk as true champions for God in the footsteps of faith and of their forefathers, wrestling for the blessing of the promises. On the other hand, upon the Ephraim that has turned into Canaan (ch. xii. 8) an east wind will come, a tempest bursting from the desert (see at ch. xii, 2), and that a stormy wind raised by Jehovah, which will dry up his spring, é.c. destroy not only the fruitful land with which God has blessed it (Deut. xxxiii. 18-16), but all the sources of its power and stability. Like the promise in ver. 14, the threatening of the judgment, to which the kingdom of Israel is to succumb, is introduced quite abruptly with the word §i2. The figurative style of address then passes in the last clause into a literal threat. sin, he, the hostile conqueror, sent as a tempestuous wind by the Lord, viz. the Assyrian, will plunder the treasure of all costly vessels, i.e. all the treasures and valuables of the kingdom. On k‘li chemdah compare Nah. il. 10 and 2 Chron. xxxii. 27. We understand by it chiefly the treasures of the capital, to which a serious catastrophe is more especially predicted in the next verse (ch. xiy. 1), which also belongs to this strophe, on account of its rebellion against God.
Ver. 16. (Heb. Bib. ch. xiv. 1). “ Samaria will atone, because it has rebelled against its God: they will fall by the sword; their children will be dashed to pieces, and its women with child ripped up.” dW, to atone, to bear the guilt, ie. the punishment. It is not equivalent to shdmém in Ezek. vi. 6, although, as a matter of fact, the expiation consisted in the conquest and devastation of Samaria by Shalmanezer. The subject to yipp‘la (will fall) is the inhabitants of Samaria. The suffix to YNi7 (cts women, etc.) refers to the nation. The form m7 is one derived from 177, for 175 (Ewald, § 189, c). The construction with the diasouliie verb WP, in the pings of the feminine, is an anomaly, which may be explained from the fact that feminine formations from the plur. imperf. are generally very rare (see Ewald, § 191, 2). For the fact itself, compare ch. x. 14; 2 Kings viii. 12, xv. 16; Amos i. 13.
Israels Conversion and Pardon.—Chap. xiv.
After the prophet has set before the sinful nation in various ways its own guilt, and the punishment that awaits it, viz. the destruction of the kingdom, he concludes his addresses with a call to thorough conversion to the Lord, and the promise that the Lord will bestow His grace once more upon those who turn to Him, and will bless them abundantly (vers. 1-8). Ver. 1. (Heb. Bib. ver. 2). “ Return, O Israel, to Jehovah thy God; for thou hast stumbled through thy guilt. Ver.2. Take with you words, and turn to Jehovah; say ye to Him, Forgive all guilt, and accept what ts good, that we may offer our lips as bullocks. Ver. 3. Asshur will not help us: we will not ride upon horses, nor say ‘Our God’ any more to the manufacture of our own hands; for with Thee the orphan jindeth compassion.’ ‘There is no salvation for fallen man without return to God. It is therefore with a call to return to the Lord their God, that the prophet opens the announcement of the salvation with which the Lord will bless His people, whom He has brought to reflection by means of the judgment (cf. Deut. iv. 30, xxx. 1 sqq.). '" 7 2, to return, to be converted to the Lord, denotes complete conversion; ON 3 is, strictly speaking, simply to turn towards God, to direct heart and mind towards Him. By kdshalta sin is represented as a false step, which still leaves it possible to return; so that in a call to conversion it is very appropriately chosen. But if the conversion is to be of the right kind, it must begin with a prayer for the forgiveness of sin, and attest itself by the renunciation of earthly help and simple trust in the mercy of God. Israel is to draw near to God in this state of mind. “ Take with you words,” zc. do not appear before the Lord empty (Ex. xxiii. 15, xxxiv. 20); but for this ye do not require outward sacrifices, but simply words, sc. those of confession of your guilt, as the Chaldee has correctly explained it. The correctness of this explanation is evident from the confession of sin which follows, with which they are to come before God. In }y Nvnn>3, the position of col at the head of the sentence may be accounted for from the emphasis that rests upon it, and the separation of ‘dvon, from the fact that col was beginning to acquire more of the force of an adjective, like our all (thus 2 Sam. i. 9; Job xxvil. 3: cf. Ewald, § 289, a; Ges. §114, 3, Anm.1). Qach tobh means neither “ accept goodness,” i.e. let goodness be shown thee (Hitzig), nor “ take it as good,” sce. that we pray (Grotius, Ros.); but in the closest connection with what proceeds: Accept the only good thing that we are able to bring, viz. the sacrifices of our lips. Jerome has given the correct interpretation, viz.: “For unless Thou hadst borne away our evil things, we could not possibly have the good thing which we offer Thee;” according to that which is written elsewhere (Ps.xxxvii.27), “Turn from evil, and do good.” 37naY.— mopuin, literally, “ we will repay (pay) as young oxen our lips,’ de. present the prayers of our lips as thank-offerings. The expression is to be explained from the fact that shill@m, to wipe off what is owing, to pay, is a technical term, applied to the sacrifice offered in fulfilment of a vow (Deut. xxiii. 22; Ps. xxil. 26, 1. 14, etc.), and that parim, young oxen, were the best animals for thank-offerings (Ex. xxiv. 5). As such thankofferings, i.e. in the place of the best animal sacrifices, they would offer their lips, ¢.e. their prayers, to God (cf. Ps. li. 17-19, Ixix. 31, 32). In the Sept. rendering, dmrodecopev xapiov xetrewy, to which there is an allusion in Heb. xii, 15, 05 has been confounded with "3, as Jerome has already observed. But turning to God requires renunciation of the world, of its power, and of all idolatry. Rebellious Israel placed its reliance upon Assyria and Egypt (ch. v. 18, vii. 11, vill. 9). It will do this no longer. The riding upon horses refers partly to the military force of Egypt (Isa. xxxi. 1), and partly to their own (ch. i. 7; Isa. 11. 7). For the expression, “ neither will we say to the work of our hands,” compare Isa. xlii. 17, xliv.17. 72 WW, not “Thou with whom,” but “for with Thee” (asher as in Deut. il. 24). The thought, “ with Thee the orphan findeth compassion,” as God promises in His word (Ex. xxii. 22; Deut. x. 18), serves not only as a reason for the resolution no longer to call the manufacture of their own hands God, but generally for the whole of the penitential prayer, which they are encouraged to offer by the compassionate nature of God. In response to such a penitential prayer, the Lord will heal all His people’s wounds, and bestow upon them once more the fulness of the blessings of His grace. The prophet announces this in vers. 4—8 as the answer from the Lord.