"And then Miriam answered to them (???, _i.e._, to the men), Sing ye to the Lord," Moses sings first with the children of Israel, ver. 1, "and then Miriam the prophetess took, etc., and _answered_." The signification "to answer," is here quite evident. But, on the other hand, it appears that that pa.s.sage has not the slightest relation to the one under consideration, inasmuch as there is not, in the latter, any mention of a first choir, to which the second answers.--From what has been hitherto remarked, it is settled that the translation, "And she answers thither," is alone admissible. But now, since no _verbal_ question or address has preceded here, the question arises:--Which address by deeds called forth the answer? To this question an answer is readily suggested by the reference of ??? to the preceding ???. The address must have come from that place to which the answer is sent; hence, it can consist only in the giving of the vineyards, and of the good things of the promised land generally. On entering into it, she is welcomed by this affectionate address of the Lord, her husband, and there she answers it. The following words, "As in the days," etc., show what that is in which the answer consists. If, at that time, Israel answered the Lord by a song of praise, full of thanks for the deliverance from Egypt, now also they will answer Him by a song of praise, for being led into Canaan. If history had given any report of a hymn of praise sung by Israel when they entered into Canaan, the prophet would have referred to it; but as it was, he could only remind them of that hymn. And although the occasion on which it was sung did not altogether correspond, it must be borne in mind, that in this hymn (compare ver. 12 ff.) the pa.s.sing through the Red Sea is represented as a preparatory step, and as prefiguring the occupation of Canaan--the latter being contained in it as in a germ. It is, moreover, self-evident that the essential fundamental thought is [Pg 266]only that of the cordial and deep grat.i.tude of the redeemed,--that the form only is borrowed from the previous manifestation of this thankfulness.
An image altogether similar, and arising from the same cause, is found in Is. xii. also, where the reference to Moses" hymn of thanks is manifested by employing the very words; and likewise in Is. xxvi.; and, further, in Hab. iii. and Rev. xv. 3.--??? and ??? are Nominatives, not Accusatives; which latter could not be made use of here, because the discourse is not of an action extending through the whole period, but of one happening at a particular point of that period. The comparison is here also merely intimated, because the _tertium comparationis_ is abundantly evident from what precedes: "As the days of her youth,"
instead of, "As she once answered in the days of her youth."
Ver. 18. "_And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, thou shalt call Me, My husband, and shall call Me no more, My Baal._"
The full performance of her duties corresponds with the full admission to her rights. The prophet expresses this thought, by announcing the removal of the two forms in which the apostasy of the people from the true G.o.d--the violation of the marriage-covenant which rested on exclusiveness--was at that time manifested. One of these was the mixing up of the religion of Jehovah with heathenism, according to which they called the true G.o.d "Baal," and worshipped Him as Baal; the other was still grosser--was pure idolatry. The abolition of the former (compare above, p. 176 f.) is predicted in this verse; the abolition of the latter, in the verse following. Both are in a similar way placed beside each other in Zech. xiv. 9: "In that day shall there be one Lord, and His name one;" where the first clause refers to the abolition of polytheism, and the second to the abolition of the mixing of religion--of the hidden apostasy--which, without venturing to forsake the true G.o.d entirely and openly, endeavours to mix up and identify Him with the world. To the fundamental thought there are several parallels; _e.g._, Deut. x.x.x. 5 ff.: "And the Lord thy G.o.d bringeth thee into the land which thy fathers possessed; and the Lord thy G.o.d circ.u.mciseth thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy G.o.d with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." This pa.s.sage shows that the verse before us, no less than that which precedes, contains a _promise_, and that the "calling," and the "calling no more," is a work of divine [Pg 267]grace. To this we are led also by the words, "I shall take away," in ver. 19, as well as by the other parallel pa.s.sages:--Jer. xxiv. 7: "And I give them an heart to know Me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be a people to Me, and I will be a G.o.d to them, for they shall return to Me with their whole heart;" Ezek. xi. 19: "And I give them one heart, and a new spirit I put within them, and take the stony heart out of their flesh;" compare further Zech. xiii. 2. Another interpretation of the verse recommends itself by its apparent depth. According to it, ??? is to be taken as an appellative noun, the "marriage-Lord," in contrast with ???, "husband,"
and that the people are henceforth to be altogether governed by love.
But this interpretation must be objected to, for a whole mult.i.tude of reasons. There is, _first_ of all, the relation of this verse to the following one, which does not allow that ???, which there occurs as a proper name, should in this place be taken as an appellative. There is, _then_, the arbitrariness in defining the relation between ??? and ???, the former of which as little exclusively expresses the relation of love, as the latter excludes it. (Compare Is. liv. 5, 6, lxii. 4; 2 Sam. xi. 26.) Further, it is incorrect to say that ??? properly means "Lord;" it means "possessor." _Still further_,--There is the unsuitableness of the thought, which would be without any a.n.a.logy in its favour throughout Scripture. And, _lastly_, the relation of love to G.o.d cannot, even in its highest consummation, do away with reference to Him, etc.
Ver. 19. "_And I take away the names of the Baalim out of her mouth, and they shall no more be remembered by their name._"
The people are to conceive such an abhorrence of idolatry, that they shall be afraid of being defiled even by p.r.o.nouncing the name of the idols. The words are borrowed from Exod. xxiii. 13: "Ye shall not make mention of the name of other G.o.ds, neither shall it be heard out of thy mouth." The special expression of the idea must, as a matter of course, be referred back to this idea itself, viz., the abhorrence of the former sin and, hence, such a mention cannot here be spoken of as, like that in the pa.s.sage before us, has no reference to that sin.
Ver. 20. "_And I make a covenant for them in that day with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the earth; and bow, and sword, and war I break out of the land, and make them to dwell in safety._"
[Pg 268]
On the expression, "I make a covenant," _Manger_ remarks, "The cause is here put for the effect, in order to inspire with greater security."
For the benefit of Israel, G.o.d makes a covenant with the beasts, _i.e._, He imposes upon them obligations not to injure them. The phrase ??? ???? is frequently used of a transaction betwixt two parties, whereby an obligation is imposed upon only one of the parties, without the a.s.sumption of any obligation by the other. A somewhat different turn is given to the image in Job v. 23, where, by the mediation of G.o.d, the beasts themselves enter into a covenant with Job after his restoration. ??? never means "worm," but always "what moves and creeps," both small and great, as, in Ps. civ. 25, is subjoined by way of explanation. The three cla.s.ses stand in the same order in Gen. ix.
2. The normal order there established, "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast," etc., returns, after the removal of the disturbance which has been produced by sin. Upon the words, "I break," etc., _Manger_ makes the very pertinent remark: "It is an emphatic and expressive brevity, according to which breaking out of the land all instruments of war, and war itself, means that He will break them and remove them out of the land." It is self-evident that "war" can here, as little as anywhere else, mean "weapons of war." The prophet, as it appears, had in view the pa.s.sage Lev. xxvi. 3 ff.: "If ye will walk in My statutes, and keep My commandments and do them, I will give you your rains in due season, and the land shall yield her increase, and the trees of the field shall yield their fruit.... And I give peace in the land, and you dwell, and there is none who makes you afraid; and I destroy the wild beasts out of the land, and the sword shall not enter into your land." It is so much the more obvious that we ought to a.s.sume a reference to this pa.s.sage, as Ezekiel also, in x.x.xiv.
25 ff., copies it almost _verbatim_. On account of the fatal _If_, that promise had hitherto been only very imperfectly fulfilled; and frequently just the opposite of it had happened. But now that the condition is fulfilled, the promise also shall be fully realized. But we must observe, with reference to it, that, when we look to the present course of the world, this hope remains always more or less ideal, because in reference to the condition also, the idea is not yet reached by the reality. The idea is this:--As evil is, as a [Pg 269]punishment, the inseparable concomitant of sin, so prosperity and salvation are the inseparable companions of righteousness. This is realized even in the present course of the world, in so far as everything must serve to promote the prosperity of the righteous. But the full realization belongs to the pa????e?es?a, where, along with sin, evil too (which is _here_ still necessary even for the righteous, in order to purify them) shall be extirpated. Parallel are Is. ii. 4, xi.-x.x.xv. 9; Zech. ix. 10.
Ver. 21. "_And I betroth thee to Me for eternity; and I betroth thee to Me in righteousness and judgment, and in loving-kindness and mercy._"
Ver. 22. "_And I betroth thee to Me in faithfulness, and thou knowest the Lord._"
The word ???, "to espouse" (compare Deut. xx. 7, where it is contrasted with ???), has reference to the entrance into a marriage entirely new, with the wife of youth, and is, for this reason, chosen on purpose.
"Just as if (so _Calvin_ remarks) the people had never violated conjugal fidelity, G.o.d promises that they should be His spouse, in the same manner as one marries a _virgo intacta_." It was indeed a great mercy if the unfaithful wife was only received _again_. Justly might she have been rejected for ever; for the only valid reason for a divorce existed, inasmuch as she had lived in adultery for years. But G.o.d"s mercy goes still further. The old offences are not only _forgiven_, but _forgotten_. A relation entirely new begins, into which there enter, on the one side, no suspicion and no bitterness, and on the other, no painful recollections, such as may pa.s.s into similar human relationships, where the consequences of sin never disappear altogether, and where a painful remembrance always remains. The same dealing of G.o.d is still repeated daily; every believer may still say with exultation: "Old things are pa.s.sed away; behold, all things are become new." It is the greatness of this promise which occasions the direct address, whilst hitherto the Lord had spoken of the wife in the third person. She shall hear face to face, the great word out of His mouth, in order that she may be a.s.sured that it is she whom it concerns; and in order to express its greatness, its joyfulness, and the difficulty of believing it, it is repeated three times. _Calvin_ says: "Because it was difficult to deliver the people from fear and despair, and because they could not but be [Pg 270]aware how grievously they had sinned, and in how many ways they had alienated themselves from G.o.d, it was necessary to employ many consolations, that thus their faith might be confirmed. One likes to hear the repet.i.tion of the intelligence of a great and unexpected good fortune which one has some difficulty in realizing. And what could a man, despairing on account of his sins, less readily realize than the greatest of all miracles--viz., that all his sins should be done away with, at once and for ever? But the repet.i.tion is, in this case, so much the more full of consolation, that, each time, it is accompanied with the promise of some new blessing; that, each time, it opens up some new prospect of new blessings from this new connection. First, there is the eternal duration,--then, as a pledge of this, the attributes which G.o.d would display in bestowing it,--and, finally, there are the blessings which He would impart to His betrothed." The ????? points back to the painful dissolution of the former marriage-covenant: This new one shall not be liable to such a dissolution; for "the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed, but My kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of My peace be removed, saith the Lord:" Is. liv.
10. The attributes which G.o.d will display towards the wife, and the conduct which she shall observe towards Him through His mercy, are connected with ?????? ??, "I betroth thee to Me," by means of ?, which is often used to mark the circ.u.mstances on which some action rests. Thus, in the case before us, the betrothment rests upon what G.o.d vouchsafes along with it, inasmuch as thereby only does it become a true betrothment. That the accompanying gifts must be thus distributed--as we have done--first, the faithful discharge of all the duties of a husband on His part, and then, the inward communication of strength to her for the fulfilment of her obligations; and that we are neither at liberty to refer, as do some interpreters, everything to one of the two parties, nor to a.s.sume, as others do, that everything refers to both at the same time--is proved not only by the intervening repet.i.tion of "I betroth thee to Me," but also by the internal nature of the gift"s mentioned. ?????, "mercy," cannot be spoken of in the relation of the wife to G.o.d, nor knowledge of G.o.d, in the relation of G.o.d to the wife. The four manifestations of G.o.d which are mentioned here form [Pg 271] a double pair,--righteousness and judgment, loving-kindness and mercy. The two are frequently connected in a similar way; _e.g._, Is. i. 27: "Zion shall be redeemed in judgment, and her inhabitants in righteousness." They are distinguished thus:--the former, ???, designates the _being just_, as a subjective attribute, with the dispositions and actions flowing from it; the latter, ????, denotes the _objective right_.[1] A man can give to another his right or judgment, and yet not be righteous; but G.o.d"s righteousness, and His doing right in reference to the Congregation, consists in this:--that He faithfully performs the obligations which He took upon Himself when He entered into covenant with her. This, however, is not sufficient. The obligations entered into are reciprocal. If, then, the covenant be violated on the part of the Congregation, what hope is left for her? In order the more to relieve and comfort the wife, who, from former experience, knew full well what she might expect from righteousness and judgment alone, the Lord adds a second pair,--loving-kindness and mercy, the former being the root of the latter, and the latter being the form in which the former manifests itself, in the relation of an omnipotent and holy G.o.d to weak and sinful man. ???, properly "love," man may also entertain towards G.o.d; although even this word is very rarely used in reference to man, because G.o.d"s love infinitely exceeds human love; but G.o.d only can have ?????, "mercy," upon man. But still a distressing thought might, and must be entertained by the wife. G.o.d"s mercy and love have their limits; they extend only to the one case which dissolves even human marriage--the type of the heavenly marriage, the great mystery which the Apostle refers to Christ and the Church. What, then, if this case should again occur? Her heart, it is true, is now filled with pure love; but who knows whether this love shall not cool,--whether she shall not again yield to temptation? A new consolation is applied to the new distress. G.o.d Himself will bestow what it is not in the power of man to bestow--viz., faithfulness towards Him (compare ?????
used of human faithfulness, in Hab. ii. 4; Jer. v. 3, vii. 28; the faithfulness in this verse forms the contrast to the wh.o.r.edom in i.
2), [Pg 272]and the knowledge of Him. "Thou knowest the Lord" is tantamount to--"in My knowledge." The knowledge of G.o.d is here substantial knowledge. Whosoever thus knows G.o.d cannot but love Him, and be faithful to Him. All idolatry, all sin, has its foundation in a want of the knowledge of G.o.d.
Ver. 23. "_And it comes to pa.s.s in that day, I will hear, saith the Lord; I will hear the heavens, and they shall hear the earth;_ Ver. 24.
_And the earth shall hear the corn, and the must, and the oil; and they shall hear Jezreel_" (_i.e._, him whom G.o.d sows).
The promise in this pa.s.sage forms the contrast to the threatening in Deut. xxviii. 23, 24: "And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be bra.s.s, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. The Lord will give for the rain of thy land, dust, and dust shall come down from heaven upon thee." The second ???? is, by most interpreters, considered as a resumption of the first. But we obtain a far more expressive sense, if we isolate the first ????, "I shall hear," namely, all prayers which will be offered up unto Me by you, and for you. Parallel, among other pa.s.sages, is Is. lviii. 9, where the reformed people are promised: "Then shalt thou call, and the Lord shall answer; thou shalt cry, and He shall say. Here I am." By a bold _prosopopia_, the prophet makes heaven to pray that it might be permitted to give to the earth that which is necessary for its fruitfulness, etc. Hitherto they have been hindered from fulfilling their _destination_, since G.o.d was obliged to withdraw His gifts from the unworthy people, ii. 11; but now, since this obstacle has been removed, they pray for permission to resume their vocation. The prophets in this manner give, as it were, a visible representation of the idea, that there is in the whole world no good independent of G.o.d,--nothing which, in accordance with its destination, is not ours, and would indeed be ours, if we stood in the right relation to Him,--nothing that is not His, and that will not be taken away from us, if we desire the gift without the Giver. _Calvin_ remarks: "The prophet shows where and when the happiness of men begins, viz., when G.o.d adopts them, when He betrothes Himself to them, after having put away their sins.... He teaches, also, in these words, that the heavens do not become dry by some secret instinct; but it is when G.o.d withholds His grace, that there is no rain by which the heavens water the earth." G.o.d, then, here shows [Pg 273]plainly that the whole _order of nature_ (as men are wont to say) is so entirely in His hand, that not one drop of rain shall fall from heaven unless by His will,--that the whole earth would produce no gra.s.s,--that, in short, all nature would be sterile, unless He made it fruitful by His blessing.
Ver. 25. "_And I sow her unto Me in the land, and I have mercy upon her "who had not obtained mercy"_ (Lo-Ruhamah); _and I say to "not My people"_ (Lo-Ammi), _Thou art My people, and they say to Me, My G.o.d._"
The three symbolical names of the children of the prophet here once more return. The _femin. suffix_ in ??????, referring to ??????, need not at all surprise us; for, in the whole pa.s.sage before us, the sign disappears in the thing signified. In point of fact, however, _Jezreel_ is equivalent to Israel to be sowed anew. (It is not the Israel to be _planted_ anew, which is a figure altogether different; the sowing has always a reference to the increase.)
Footnote 1: In our authorized version ???? is almost constantly rendered by "_judgment_," although evidently in the sense pointed out by the author,--for which reason, this rendering has been retained here.--Tr.
CHAPTER III.
"The significant couple returns for a new reference" (_Ruckert_).
First, in vers. 1-3, the symbolical action is reported. At the command of the Lord, the prophet takes a wife, who, notwithstanding his affectionate and faithful love, lives in continued adultery. He does not entirely reject her; but, in order that she may come to recovery and repentance, he puts her into a position where she must abstain from her lovers. The interpretation of the symbol is given in ver.
4: Israel, forsaken by the world, shall spend a long time in sad seclusion. A glance into the more distant future, without any symbolical imagery, forms the conclusion. The punishment will at length produce conversion. Israel returns to the Lord his G.o.d, and to David his king.
Ver. 1. "_Then said the Lord unto me, Go again, love a_ [Pg 274]_woman beloved of her friend, and an adulteress, as the Lord loveth the sons of Israel, and they turn to other G.o.ds and love grape-cakes._"
The right point of view for the interpretation of this verse has been already, in many important respects, established; compare p. 183 sqq.
We here take for granted the results there obtained. It is of great importance, for an insight into the whole pa.s.sage, to remark, that the symbolical action in this section, just as in that to which chap. i.
belongs, embraces the entire relation of the Lord to the people of Israel, and not, as some interpreters a.s.sume, one portion only, viz., the time from the beginning of the captivity. This false view--of which the futility was first completely exposed by _Manger_--has arisen from the circ.u.mstance, that the prophet, in narrating the execution of the divine commission, omits very important events. In the expectation that every one would supply them, partly from the commission itself, and partly from the preceding portions, where they had been treated of with peculiar copiousness, he rather at once pa.s.ses from the first conclusion of the marriage, to that point which, in this pa.s.sage, forms his main subject, namely, the disciplinary punishment to which he subjects his wife,--the Lord, Israel. The prophet"s aim and purpose is to afford to the people a right view of the captivity so near at hand; to lead them to consider it neither as a merely accidental event, having, no connection at all with their sins; nor as a pure effect of divine anger, aiming at their entire destruction; but rather as being at the same time a work of punitive justice, and of corrective love.
Between the second verse, "I purchased her to me," etc., and the third, "Then I said unto her," etc., we must supply. And I took her in marriage and loved her; but she committed adultery. That this is the sound view, appears clearly from ver. 2. According to the right exposition (compare p. 195 sqq.), this verse can be referred only to the first beginning of the relation betwixt the Lord and the people of Israel--to that only by which He acquired the right of property in this people, on delivering them from Egypt. This is confirmed, moreover, by the second half of the verse under consideration: "As the Lord loveth,"
etc. Here the love of the Lord to Israel in its widest extent is spoken of. Every limitation of it to a single manifestation--be it a [Pg 275]renewal of love after the apostasy, or the corrective discipline inflicted from love--is quite arbitrary; and the more so, because, by the addition, "And they turned," etc., the love of G.o.d is represented as running parallel with the apostasy of the people. The same result is obtained from a consideration of the first half. For what ent.i.tles us to explain "love" by "love again," or even by "_rest.i.tue amoris signa_"
as is done by those who hold the opinion, already refuted, that the woman is _Gomer_? The word "love" corresponds exactly with "as the Lord loveth." If the latter must be understood of the love of the Lord in its whole extent,--if it does not designate merely the manifestation of love, but love itself,--how can a more limited view be taken of the former "love?" How could we explain, as is done by those who defend the reference to a new marriage, the words, "Beloved of her friend, and an adulteress," as referring to a former marriage of the wife, and as tantamount to--who was beloved by her former husband, and yet committed adultery? In that case, there would be the greatest dissimilarity betwixt the type and the ant.i.type. Who, in that case, is to be the type of the Lord? Is it to be the former husband, or the prophet? If the figure is at all to correspond with the reality,--the first member with the second, the ???? can be none other than the prophet himself.--Let us now proceed to particulars, ???, "love," is stronger than ??, "take,"
in chap. i. 2. There, marriage only was spoken of; here, marriage from love and in love. This is still more emphatically pointed out by the subsequent words ???? ??, and contrasted with the conduct of the wife, which is indicated by ?????, so that the sense is this: "In love take a wife who, although she is beloved by thee, her friend, commits adultery, and with whom--I tell it to thee beforehand--thou wilt live in a constant antagonism of love, and of ingrat.i.tude, the grossest violation of love." The word "_love_" has a reference to the love preceding and effecting the marriage; the word "_beloved_,"
to the love uninterruptedly continuing during the marriage, and notwithstanding the continued adultery, unless we should say--and it is quite admissible--that "love" implies, at the same time, "to take out of love," and "to love constantly." Instead of "beloved by _thee_" it is said, "beloved by her _friend_." Many have been thereby misled; but it only serves to make the contrast more [Pg 276]prominent.[1] ???? has only one signification--that of _friend_. It never, by itself, means "fellow-man," never "fellow-Jew," never "one with whom we have intercourse." The Pharisees were quite correct in understanding it as the opposite of enemy. In their gloss, Matt. v. 43, ?a? ?s?se?? t??
?????? s??, there was one thing only objectionable--the most important, it is true--that by the friend, they understood only him whom their heart, void of love, loved indeed; not him whom they ought to have loved, because G.o.d had united him to them by the sacred ties of friendship and love. Thus, what ought to have awakened them to love, just served them as a palliation for their hatred. Now this signification, which alone is the settled one, is here also very suitable. He whom the wife criminally forsakes, is not a severe husband, but her loving friend, whom she herself formerly acknowledged as such, and who always remains the same. Entirely parallel is Jer.
iii. 20: "As a wife is faithless towards her _friend_, so have ye been faithless to Me;" compare ver. 4: "Hast thou not formerly called me. My father, _friend_ of my youth art thou?" Compare also Song of Sol. v.
16. The correct meaning was long ago seen by _Calvin_: "There is," says he, "an expressiveness in this word. For often, when women prost.i.tute themselves, they complain that they have done it on account of the too great severity of their husbands, and that they are not treated by their husbands with sufficient kindness. But if a husband delight in having his wife with him, if he treat her kindly and perform the duties of a husband, she is then less excusable. Hence, it is this most heinous ingrat.i.tude of the people that is here expressed, and set in opposition to the infinite mercy and kindness of the Lord." For a still better insight into the meaning of the first half of this verse, we subjoin the _paraphrasis_ by _Manger_: "Seek thee a wife in whom thou art to have thy delight, and whom thou art to treat with such love, that, even if she, by her unfaithfulness, violate the sacred rights of matrimony, and thou, for that reason, canst no longer live with her, [Pg 277]she shall still remain dear to thee, and shall be willingly received again into thy favour, as soon as she shall have reformed her life."--In the second half of the verse, there is a verbal agreement with pa.s.sages of the Pentateuch, so close that it cannot certainly be accidental. Compare on ????? ???? ?????? ?????, Deut. vii. 8, ?????
???? ????,--an agreement which undoubtedly deserves so much more attention, that we have already established the relationship of the pa.s.sage with ver. 2. On ???? ?? ????? ?????, compare Deut. x.x.xi. 18: "I will hide My face in that day for all the evil they are doing, for they turn to other G.o.ds," ????? ?????--.??? ?? ????? ?????, "grape-cakes,"
has, as to its substance, been already explained, p. 194 sqq. It is the result of an entire misunderstanding, that some interpreters should here think of the love of feasting and banqueting. Others (as _Gesenius_) are anxious to prove that such cakes were used at the sacrifices which were offered to idols. The grape-cakes are rather idolatry itself; but the expression, "They love grape-cakes," adds an essential feature to the words, "They turn to other G.o.ds." It points, namely, to the sinful origin of idolatry. Earnest and strict religion is substantial and wholesome food; but idolatry is soft food, which is sought only by the dainty and squeamish. That which is true of idolatry, is true also of the service of sin, and of the world in general, which, in Job xx. 12, appears under the image of meat which is, in the mouth, as sweet as honey from the comb, but which is, in the belly, changed into the gall of asps. In the symbolism of the law, honey signified the _l.u.s.t_ of the world; compare my work _Die Opfer der Heil. Schrift_, S. 44. It is only the derivation of ??????, the signification of which is sufficiently established by parallel pa.s.sages, which requires investigation. We have no hesitation in deriving it from ????, "fire;" hence it means properly, "that which has been subjected to fire (compare ???????) = that which has been baked,"
"cakes." The derivation from ???, "to found," has of late become current; but the objections to it are:--partly, that the transition from "founding," to "cake," is by no means an easy one; partly and mainly, that there is not the slightest trace of this root elsewhere in Hebrew. It is a.s.serted, indeed, that ?????? itself is found in Is. xvi.
7, with a signification which renders necessary the derivation from the verb ???. But, even in that pa.s.sage, the signification of [Pg 278]
"cakes" must be retained. The following reasons are in favour of it, and against the signification "ruins," adopted by _Gesenius_, _Winer_, and _Hitzig_. 1. The signification "cakes" deserves, _ceteris paribus_, a decided preference, because it is established by the other pa.s.sages.
It is only for reasons the most cogent that we can grant that one and the same word has two meanings, and these not at all connected with each other. 2. The transition from the meaning "foundation," which alone can be derived from the verb ???, to that of "_ruins_," is by no means so easy as those critics would represent it. With respect to a rebuilding, for which the ruins" afford the foundation, they might, it is true, be called foundations, compare Is. lviii. 12, but not where destruction only is concerned. Who would speak of howling over foundations, instead of howling over ruins? 3. The context is quite decisive. If we translate ?????? by "ruins," the subsequent ?? is quite inexplicable. This little word, upon which so much depends, performs also the office of a guide: "For this reason Moab howls, for Moab altogether does he howl, for the cakes of Kirhareseth you do sigh, wholly afflicted; _for_ the vineyards of Heshbon are withered, the vine of Sibmah, the grapes of which intoxicated the lord of the nations,"
etc. Then, ver. 9, "Therefore I weep with Jaeser for the vine of Sibmah." If there be no more grapes, neither are there any more grape-cakes. The destruction of the vineyards is therefore the cause of the howling for the cakes. That such cakes, moreover, were prepared in many places in Moab, sufficiently appears from the name of the place Dibhlathaim, _i.e._, town of cakes. It may be remarked further, that we are not ent.i.tled to a.s.sume a sing. ???? as given by lexicographers along with ???? ;????? likewise forms the plural ?????.
Ver. 2. "_And I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and a homer of barley, and a lethech of barley._" Compare the explanation of this verse, p. 195 sqq.
Ver. 3. "_And I said unto her. Thou art to sit for me many days: thou art not to wh.o.r.e, and thou art not to belong to a man; and so I also to thee._"
The sitting has the accessory idea of being forsaken and solitary, which may be explained from the circ.u.mstance, that he who is not invited to go with us is left to sit. Thus, _e.g._, Gen. x.x.xviii. 11: "Sit as a widow in thy fathers house, until Shelah [Pg 279]my son be grown;" Is. xlvii. 8, where Babylon says, "I shall not _sit_ as a widow," etc. The Fut. in this and the following verses must not be taken in an imperative sense, as meaning, thou shalt sit for me, thou shalt not wh.o.r.e; the explanation given in ver. 4, and in the parallel pa.s.sage in chap. ii. 8, 9, are alike opposed to it. The husband will not subject his wife to a moral probation, but he will lock her up, so that she must _ sit_ solitary, and _cannot_ wh.o.r.e. With reference to this. _Manger_ strikingly remarks: "There is, in that very severity, the beginning of leniency; "sit for me," _i.e._, I who have been so unworthily treated by thee, and who yet am thy most affectionate husband, and who, though now at a distance from thee, will not altogether forget thee." The ?? indicates that the sitting of the wife must have reference to the prophet. Quite similar is Exod. xxiv. 14: "And he said unto the elders, ??? ???, Sit ye here for us until we return to you." The phrase itself, which must not be explained by "to sit in expectation of some one," does not indicate in what way the sitting has reference to him. The issue of the whole proceeding, described in ver. 5, clearly shows, however, that it is not inflicted by him as a merited punishment, as an effect of his just indignation, but rather that we must think chiefly of his compa.s.sionate love, which makes use of these means in order to render the reunion possible.--The distinction between "to wh.o.r.e," and "to belong to a man," is obvious: the former denotes _vagos et promiscuus amores_; the other, connubial connection with a single individual; compare, _e.g._, Ezek. xvi. 8; Lev. xxi. 3. But the question is,--Who is to be understood by the "_man?_" Several refer it to the prophet exclusively. Thus _Jerome_ says, "Thou shalt not shamefully prost.i.tute thyself with other lovers, nor be legally connected with me, the man to whom thou art married."
Others admit, at least, a co-reference to the prophet = the Lord. By the words, "Thou art not to wh.o.r.e," they say that the intercourse with the lovers is excluded; but, by, "Thou art not to belong to a man," the intercourse with the husband also; so that the sense would be, "Thou shalt not have connubial intercourse either with me, or with any other man." But the correct view is to refer both to the intercourse with the lovers; and so, indeed, that the former designates the giving of herself up, now to one, then to another; while the latter points to her entering [Pg 280]into a firm relation to a single individual; just as, in point of fact, the relation of Israel to the idols. .h.i.therto was a whoring. According as it suited their inclination, they made, now this, and then that, G.o.d of the neighbouring nations an object of their worship; whilst a marriage connection would have been formed, if they had entered with any one of them into a permanent and exclusive connection, similar to that which had heretofore existed between them and the Lord. This explanation is required by the words, "And so I also to thee," at the close of the verse. If the words, "Thou shalt not belong to any man," referred to the prophet, then "thou shalt not have any intercourse with me" would imply, "I shall not have any intercourse with thee;" and did not require any new mention to be made.--The questions, however, now arise:--By what means was the state of things corresponding to the figure to be brought about? By what is adulterous Israel to be prevented from whoring, and from belonging to any man? By what means is idolatry to be extirpated from among the people? The answer has been already given in our remarks on chap. ii. 8, 9. The idols manifest themselves to Israel in their supposed gifts. If these were taken from them,--if they were entirely stripped, and plunged into want and misery, they could not fail to recognise the vanity of all their previous efforts, along with the vanity of the object of their worship, while their love to him could not but vanish. The absolute inability of the idols to afford consolation and help to the people in their sufferings must have put an end to their showing them allegiance.--The last words, "And I also to thee," are explained by the greater number of interpreters to mean, "I also will be thine."
_Manger_ explains them thus: "I will not altogether break the tie of our love, nor marry another wife; but I will remain thine, will at last receive thee again into my favour, and restore thee to the position of my wife." _De Wette_ interprets them thus: "But then I will come to thee;" _Umbreit_: "And I also only to thee;" _Ewald_: "And yet I am full of love towards thee." But the words, "And I also to thee," are rather tantamount to--"I will conduct myself in a similar manner towards thee." Now two things may const.i.tute this equality of conduct.
_Either_ it is conceived thus:--that the prophet is placed in parallelism with the wife. The latter has lost all claims upon the prophet; she has violated connubial [Pg 281]fidelity, and, hence, has no t.i.tle to demand that he should observe it. But that which she cannot demand from him, he does, from the necessity of his nature. He promises to her that, during the proceeding which has commenced against her, he would not enter into any new connection; and by holding out to her the hope of her returning, at some future period, to her old relation to him, he makes it more easy for her to break off the sinful connections which have destroyed it. Without a figure: The Lord, from His forbearance and mercy, waits for the reformation of those who hitherto were His people; does not drive them to despair by receiving another people in their place. _Or_, The prophet is placed in parallelism with the other man. As the wife does not enter into any relation with that man, so the prophet also abstains from any nearer intercourse with her.
The latter explanation (adopted by _Simson_ and _Hitzig_) is to be preferred. The exclusiveness cannot in the same sense be applicable to the prophet, representing the Lord, as to the wife, representing the people. So early as in Deut. x.x.xii. 21, we read: "They have moved Me to jealousy with that which is not G.o.d, they have provoked Me to anger with their vanities; and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people, I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation,"
After all that had, in the Song of Solomon, been predicted regarding the reception of the Gentile nations into the kingdom of G.o.d and Christ, and about the receiving again into it of Israel, to be effected by their instrumentality (compare my _Comment. on Song of Sol._, S.
239), the thought suggested by the former view would be quite incomprehensible. Quite decisive, however, is ver. 4, in which the thought, which is here in a symbolical garb, is expressed in plain language. There, however, not only the intercourse with the idols, but the connection with Jehovah also, appears to be intermitted. The reason why the prophet does not enter into a closer connection with the wife is, that her repentance is more of a negative, than of a positive character. By want and isolation, her hard heart is to be broken, true repentance to be called forth, and the flame of cordial conversion and love to her husband, whose faithful love she had so ill requited, to be enkindled in her. In favour of the explanation given by us, and in opposition to that first mentioned, the ?? is decisive. Against this, that other explanation, [Pg 282]in its various modifications, tries its strength in vain. "I also will be thine, or will adhere to thee," would require in the preceding context, "Thou shalt be mine, or adhere to me;" but of this, there is no trace. It is only in ver. 5 that, with an _after_, the conversion is reported. In favour of that false interpretation it is said, and with some plausibility, that the explanation would otherwise be more extended than the symbol: The latter would contain the outward dealing only; while the former, in ver. 5, would contain at the same time its salutary effect. But, even according to this explanation, the words would not correspond with ver.
5. _Here_, the showing of mercy would be announced without the mention, even by a word, of the sincere return to the husband--and this, altogether apart from the ??, would be quite unsuitable, and would, moreover, be opposed by the a.n.a.logy of chap. ii. 9--while, in ver. 5, not the showing of mercy, but only the reformation, would form the subject. In that case, it ought not to have been said, "They shall return to the Lord," but rather, "The Lord shall return to them." But this plausible reason falls to the ground, along with the unfounded supposition that the two last verses contain the explanation. The correct view is, that the explanation is limited to ver. 4. Ver. 5 must be considered as an appendix, in which, without any figurative covering, the effect is described which will be produced upon the nation by these outward dealings. The symbol and its explanation extend only as far as the main object of the prophet in the section under review,--that object being to present the impending captivity in its true light, and thereby to secure against levity and despair when it should appear.
Ver. 4. "_For many days the children of Israel shall sit without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without a pillar, and without an Ephod and Teraphim._"
?? is used because the reason of the performance of the symbolical action lies in its signification. Concerning ???, see the remarks on ver. 3; compare, moreover. Lament, i. 1: "How does the city sit solitary that was full of people! she has become as a widow."--The question is, whether, by the religious objects here mentioned, such only are to be understood as belonged to the worship of the idols, or such also as belonged to the worship of Jehovah. The following furnishes the reply. The ???? only [Pg 283]can be considered as belonging exclusively to the idolatrous worship. Such pillars always occur only as being consecrated to the idols--especially to Baal. It cannot be proved in any way that, contrary to the express command in Lev. xxvi. 1, Deut. xvi. 22, they were, in the kingdom of Israel, consecrated to the Lord also; compare 2 Kings iii. 2, xvii. 10, x.
26-28. On the other hand, among the objects mentioned, there is also one, the ????, the mantle for the shoulders of the high priest, on which the Urim and Thummim were placed, which must be considered as belonging exclusively to the worship of Jehovah; at least there is not the smallest trace to be found that it was part of any idolatrous worship. It is true that _Gesenius_, in the _Thesaurus_, p. 135, gives _s. v._ ????, under 2, the signification _statua_, _simulacrum idoli_, and, besides the pa.s.sages under consideration, refers to Jud. viii. 27, xvii. 5, xviii. 14, 17. But one requires only to examine these pa.s.sages a little more minutely, to be convinced that the metamorphosis of Jehovah into an idol is as little justified as the changing of the mantle into a statue. From the personal character of Gideon, who was so zealous for the Lord against the idols, we cannot at all think of idolatry in Jud. viii. 27. In the _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, vol. ii. p. 80, it has been proved that the Ephod of Gideon was a precious imitation of that of the high priest. In chap.
xvii. 5, we need only to consider these words: "And the man Micah had an house of G.o.d, and made an Ephod and Teraphim, and consecrated one of his sons, and he became a priest to him." Afterwards, Micah took a _Levite_ for a priest. But for what reason should he have been better suited for that purpose than any other man? The answer is given in ver.
13: "Then said Micah, Now I know that Jehovah will do me good, for the Levite has become a priest to me." The ignorant man knows after all thus much, that the Levites alone are the only legitimate servants of Jehovah, and he rejoices, therefore, that he had now remedied the former irregularity. Jud. xviii. 14 does not require any particular ill.u.s.tration, for it is the same Ephod which is spoken of in that pa.s.sage; but we must still direct attention to vers. 5 and 6 of that chapter. "Then they (the Danites) said unto him (the Levite), Ask G.o.d, we pray thee, in order that we may know whether our way in which we go shall be prosperous. And the priest said unto them, Go in [Pg 284]peace, before _Jehovah_ is the way wherein ye go." Here, then, we have a revelation given to the priest, as is alleged, by means of Ephod and Teraphim; and this revelation is not ascribed to the idols, but to Jehovah, whom alone the Levite wished to serve. From this it appeal"s that the graven image and the molten image--which, besides Ephod and Teraphim, according to ver. 14, exist in the house of Micah--must be considered as representations of Jehovah, similar to the calves in the kingdom of the ten tribes. In vol. ii. pp. 78, 79, of my _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, it has been demonstrated that the Ephod of Micah was, along with the Teraphim, an apeing of the high-priestly Ephod with the Urim and Thummim. The four objects mentioned in Judges xvii. and xviii. are such as were separable although connected, and connected although separable. The _molten work_ is the pedestal under the image; the image is clothed with the Ephod, and in the Ephod were the Teraphim, from whom information and good counsel for the future were expected. For, that this is the object of the whole contrivance, is plain from chap. xviii. 5, 6, where the priest asks counsel of G.o.d for the Danites.--With regard to the other two objects mentioned in the verse before us, viz., the sacrifice and Teraphim, a reference, at least exclusive, to idolatrous worship, cannot be by any means maintained. As sacrifices are mentioned in the widest generality, without any limitation in the preceding context, there is certainly nothing which could in the least ent.i.tle us to exclude the sacrifices which were offered to Jehovah. The Teraphim are intermediate deities, by means of which the future is to be disclosed (compare the remarks on Zech. x. 2); they might be brought into connection with every religious system, but are found only once in connection with any other religion than that of Jehovah,--and this in a case where a non-Israelite is spoken of. It is true, however, that, in substance, the Teraphim belong to the side of idolatry; for, wherever they occur within the religion of Jehovah, they belong to a degenerate condition of it only, which is on a par with idolatry. It would appear that they are here contrasted with the Ephod, as the illegal means for ascertaining the future, in opposition to the legal means. That the Ephod was used for discovering the divine will, is seen from 1 Sam.
xxiii. 9, x.x.x. 7. The Teraphim, in like manner, served to explore [Pg 285]the future. A closer connection of the two seems to be indicated by the circ.u.mstance that ??? is omitted before ?????.--But how can we account for this strange intermingling of what belonged to the idols with what belonged to Jehovah, since it cannot but be done intentionally? It points to the dark mixture which at that time existed among the people, and is a kind of ironical reflection upon it.--The Lord makes them disgusted with idolatry, and all that belongs to it, through His visitations, in which they seek in vain the help of the idols, and become thoroughly acquainted with their vanity; compare remarks in ver. 3. At the same time, however, all the pledges of His grace are taken from them, so that they get into an altogether isolated position. He withdraws from them their independent government, the altar and priesthood--the former as a just punishment for their rebellion against the dynasty ordained by G.o.d (compare chap. viii. 4), of which, first Israel, and then Judah, had made themselves guilty.--As regards the historical reference of this prophecy, interpreters are divided, and refer it either to the a.s.syrian, the Babylonish, or the Romish exile. The greater number of them, however, refer it exclusively to the last. This is especially the case with the Jewish interpreters; _e.g._, _Kimchi_, who says: "These are the days of the exile, in which we are now; we have neither an Israelitish king nor an Israelitish prince, but are under the dominion of the Gentiles and their kings."
The princ.i.p.al defenders of a direct reference to the a.s.syrian captivity, are _Venema_ (_Dissert._ p. 232) and _Manger_. The decision depends chiefly upon what we are to understand by "the children of Israel." If these are the whole people, it is arbitrary to a.s.sign any narrower limits to the _Word_ of G.o.d, than to His _deed_. The prophecy must, in that case, comprehend everything in which the idea is realized; and this so much the more, as the spiritual eye of the prophet, directed to the idea only, does not generally regard the intervals which, in the fulfilment, lie between the various realizations of the _idea_. But now, ver. 5 would seem to lead us to entertain the opinion, that, in the first instance, the prophet has in view the children of Israel in the more limited sense only. The words, "They shall return and seek David their king," imply a reference to the then existing apostasy of the ten tribes from the dynasty of David. But the future apostasy of the sons of Judah also from [Pg 286]David their king may be as well _presupposed_ here, as, in chapter ii. 2, their being carried away; and this so much the rather, as in chap. ii. 2, the words, "They appoint themselves a king," suggest that the sons of Judah also, no less than the sons of Israel, are without a head, and hence have apostatized from David the king. And it is so much the more natural to adopt such a supposition, as the Song of Solomon had already described so minutely the rebellion of the whole people against the glorious descendant of David--the heavenly Solomon--to which the apostasy of the ten tribes from the house of David was only a prelude.
Considering the whole relation in which Hosea stands to the Song of Solomon, we could scarcely imagine that, in this respect, he should not have alluded to, and resumed its contents. _In the whole third chapter there is nothing which refers exclusively to the ten tribes._ Chap.
iii. 2 has reference to all Israel. Throughout the whole Book of Hosea also, as well as by the second Israelitish prophet Amos (compare the remarks on Amos, chap ix.), Judah and Israel are viewed together, both as regards apostasy and punishment (v. 5, 12, viii. 14, x. 11, etc.), and as regards salvation, vi. 1-4, etc. Of special importance is the comparison of the remarkable prophecy of Azariah in 2 Chron. xv. 2-4, which was uttered at the time of Asa, king of Judah, and which so nearly coincides with the one before us, that the idea suggests itself of an allusion to it by Hosea: "Hear ye me, Asa, and all Judah and Benjamin: The Lord will be with you, if you are with Him; and if ye seek Him, He will be found of you; and if ye forsake Him, He will forsake you. And many days will be to Israel when there is no true G.o.d,[2] and no teaching priest,[3] and no law. Then they return in their trouble unto Jehovah the G.o.d of Israel, and they seek Him, and He is found of them." If the fundamental prophecy refer to all Israel, the same must be the case with the prophecy under consideration. The condition in which the Jews are, up to the present day, is described in both of these prophecies with remarkable clearness; and hence we may most confidently entertain [Pg 287]the hope, that there shall be a fulfilment also of that which, in them as well as in the Song of Solomon, has been foretold regarding the glorious issue of these dealings of G.o.d.