Hosea 1
1 “The word of the
Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri,” - The
prophets are divided into the former (rishonim,
Zechariah 1:4) prophets and the
later prophets. The writings of the former prophets comprise
most of the historical
books, for the Hebrew conception of avprophet
was that of an individual inspired
by
God to instruct men for the present or inform them of the future,
whether orally
or
by writing; the later were the prophets properly so called, while
these, again, are
subdivided into the greater, consisting
of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and the
lesser, or minor, including the remaining twelve. The designation
“minor” does
not
imply any inferiority in importance of subject or value of contents, but
has
respect solely to the smallness of their size as compared with the larger
discourses of the others. The twelve minor prophets were added to the
canon before its completion as a single book, “lest,” says Kimchi, in his
commentary on this verse, “a book of them should be lost because of
its
smallness, if each one of them should be kept separate by itself.”
They
were accordingly δώδεκα ἐν μονοβίβλῳ - dodeka
en monobiblo –
reckoned as one book. The name Hosea, like other Hebrew names, is
significant, and denotes “deliverance,” or “salvation;” or, the abstract being
put
for the concrete, “deliverer,” or “savior.” It is radically the same name
as
Joshua, except that the prefix of the latter implies the name of Jehovah
as
the Author of such deliverance or salvation; while the Greek form of
Joshua is Jesus, which
in two passages of the Authorized Version stands
for
it. The form of the name in the original is closely connected with
Hosanna (hoshia na),
“save now,” which occurs in Psalm
118:25 – “in
the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings
of
in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash,
king of
Hosea’s prophetic activity is one of the longest, if not
the longest, on
record. It continued during the reigns of the four kings of
mentioned, and during that of Jeroboam II. King of Israel, which was
in
part coincident with that of Uzziah. Uzziah and Jeroboam reigned
contemporaneously for twenty-six years. Somewhere during or rather
before the end of that period Hosea commenced his ministry. Uzziah
survived Jeroboam some twenty-six years, then Jotham
and Ahaz in
succession reigned each sixteen years. During all these fifty-eight
years
Hosea continued his ministerial labors. To these must be
added a few years
for
the beginning of his prophetic career during the reign of Jeroboam, and
some two or three years before its close in the reign of Hezekiah; for the
destruction of
the
prophet looks forward to as still future. Thus
for three score years and
more — probably nearer three score years and ten, THE ORDINARY
PERIOD OF HUMAN LIFE —
the prophet persevered in the discharge of
his onerous duties. It may seem strange that, though Hosea exercised his
prophetic function in
by
the reigns
of the kings of
accounted for in a rabbinic tradition on the ground that he did not
credit or
act
on the evil report which Amaziah the priest of
the
Prophet Amos, as we read (Amos 7:10), “Then Amaziah
the priest
of
against thee in the midst
of the house of
all his words” (see also vs.11-13 of the same chapter). The real reason
for
the reckoning by the kings of
Jeroboam, was not that assigned by the rabbins;
neither was it an
indication, on the part of the prophet, of the legitimacy of the
kingdom of
performance of God’s promise to Jehu that his sons would sit upon the
throne to the fourth generation, while Jeroboam, Jehu’s
great-grandson,
was
the last king of that dynasty by whom God vouch-sated help to
his
son and successor Zechariah retaining possession of the kingdom only
for
the short space of six months. The true cause is rather to be sought in
the
regicides, usurpations, occasional
anarchy, and generally unsettled state
of the northern kingdom, inasmuch as such instability and uncertainty
furnished no sure or satisfactory basis for chronological
calculation. Thus
we
find that, on the death of Jeroboam II., there was an interregnum of
some dozen years, during which, of course, a state of anarchy prevailed. At
length Zechariah succeeded to the throne; he had reigned only six
months
when he was murdered by Shallum. Shallum’s reign only lasted a month,
when he was put to death by Menahem. During his
reign often years
occurred the invasion of Pul. Menahem’s son, Pekachiah, had
only reigned
two
years when he was murdered by Pekah, in whose reign Tiglath-pileser
invaded the land. Hoshea slew Pekah. Next followed an interval of anarchy
lasting eight years. Then, after Hoshea’s
short reign of nine years, the
kingdom was destroyed. (See II Kings Chronology – this web site –
CY –
2012). Thus it was only in the southern kingdom that a
sufficiently firm
foundation for chronological reckoning was available, while under
these
circumstances Jeroboam’s reign was necessary to show the prophet’s
connection
with
foretold. The general heading of the whole book is contained in
this verse and
Divine authority is thus claimed for the whole, as the prophet to
whom
the word of the Lord
came is only Jehovah’s spokesman.
The Prophet and His Work (v.1)
This subject may be appropriately introduced with some remarks
about the
minor prophets. They are “minor,” not because their work was of
less
consequence than that of the four major prophets, but simply because
the
Scriptures which they wrote are shorter. The contents of
the minor
prophets are very unfamiliar to many Christians. Possibly the
pulpit is
partly to blame for this.
* THE PERSON OF HOSEA.
but, among the Jews, names were often given in allusion to
circumstances
in character or destiny. “Hosea”
means “salvation.” To some readers this
name may appear to stand in direct contrast to his message,
seeing that he
denounced national ruin. Yet it was appropriate, after all; for Hosea’s
ultimate prophetic word was the
redeeming mercy of Jehovah. We know
nothing of his father, Beeri; or of his
own life, except as reflected in his
book. He was a native and citizen of the kingdom of the ten
tribes
(ch.1:2; 7:5). He loved his
fatherland with the deep love of a patriot; and
his life-message was to “Ephraim.” He is the only prophet of
that kingdom
who has contributed to the Bible a book which is really a
prophecy.
during the powerful reign of Jeroboam II., he began his life-work; and he
maintained his testimony throughout the turbulent period which
ensued
after the death of that prince, and indeed nearly to the
time of the
deportation of
more than two
generations. He did not withdraw from
his ministry after
thirty or forty years’ work, upon the plea of long service. Nor did
he retire
on the ground of his non-success, although
it does not appear that he
ever made a convert, or enjoyed the sympathy of even “a very small
remnant” of his
fellow-countrymen.
* HIS TIMES. Hosea lived in the eighth century before Christ, about
the
time when
years before Isaiah in the southern kingdom. His times were
characterized by:
period of the whole history of
Hebrew people to Himself, and
had called Himself their Husband. But they
had been miserably unfaithful to Him. The kingdom of the ten
tribes,
especially, had “committed great
whoredom” (v. 2). Its very existence
as
a separate kingdom was a course of adultery. Its political flirtations with
ON JEHOVAH were acts of
adultery. The calf-worship at
Jeroboam’s two
“chapels
of ease” was adultery.
The Baal-worship introduced by Jezebel, with
its shameful rites, was adultery. The nation had cast
off all fear of God,
and lost all
knowledge of Him.
RELIGION ARE UNDERMINED, IMMORALITY BECOMES
GROSS AND
RAMPANT! Hosea contemplated almost with despair
UNIVERSAL
SECULARITY and
violence and dissoluteness
(or
rather, dissolution) of society in his
day. (
pattern, and yes, it could be too late! – Time and your reaction
of reader,
will tell! – CY – 2012)
Riot and drunkenness prevailed everywhere.
Sensuality was observed as a sacrament in the temples of Baal and
Ashtoreth. Rivers of blood flowed through the land (ch.4:1-3).
of revolution burst forth, and were never entirely quenched
until the
nation was SUDDENLY
CARRIED INTO CAPTIVITY. There was
often confusion in the government, and sometimes utter anarchy. Kings
perished by the hand
of the assassin, and factions strove one with
another until they
were mutually devoured. Soon came THE
FINAL RUSH OF RUIN and Hoses must have lived almost to see it.
* HIS LIFE-WORK. Hosea is the Jeremiah of the northern kingdom.
But his isolation
was more complete, his sorrow more tragic, and his
prophetic work more barren of results than even Jeremiah’s. (The
question I have
for the general populace of the
“Are you a part of that barrenness today? Why are people not being
saved as in the days of old? Had the Holy Spirit been withdrawn from
you? from Society? – CY – 2012)
Husband, and gone a-whoring after other gods. So Hosea was raised up
to rebuke this unfaithfulness in all its forms: the
Baal-worship, the
calf-worship, the rampant licentiousness, the revolt from the house
of David, and the
leaning for aid upon heathen powers.
were as yet no signs of ruin. Hosea’s thunderbolts dropped at
first out of a
clear sky. It was the time
of Jeroboam II., when the kingdom was in the
zenith of its prosperity. But from first to last the prophet warned the ten
tribes that their commonwealth would soon become a total wreck.
They
would be carried away into perpetual exile. God would set their
kingdom
aside on account of its sins, and not
for seventy years only (as would be
the case with
Hosea was not a despairing
pessimist. He spoke with confidence of the
continuance of the Divine tender mercy towards
kingdom, as such, must perish; but, notwithstanding, Jehovah will
yet have
a people for Himself, who shall be gathered out of all the
twelve tribes. So
Hosea mingled with his menaces
urgent calls to repentance. His appeals are
surcharged with the most tender pathos. It has been pointed out that
he is the
first of the Hebrew prophets who calls God’s affection for His
people by
the name of “love;” the first clearly to forecast the Christian conception of
the fatherhood of God, with the infinite tenderness implied in
it. Hosea’s
message of grace was that God has still the heart of a husband
towards
* HIS BOOK. It is important
to distinguish between a prophet’s life-work
and his
contribution to Holy Scripture.
Hosea’s long
ministry. It comprises only a few notes
indicative of its
burden and spirit. Yet
the order of the book seems to be chronological.
The first three chapters tell of
the “word” given him before the fall of
Jehu’s house,
and while the kingdom still seemed strong and flourishing.
The other chapters reflect those
vicissitudes of frightful anarchy and feeble
misrule which characterized the fifty years that followed.
is generally the Lord in His own person. The whole prophecy contemplates
the first personal pronouns usually refer to God Himself. The
Lamentations
of Jeremiah is a sad book, but the Book of Hosea reverberates
with even a
more profound bass of sorrow; it is the
saddest book of Holy Scripture,
being in effect THE LAMENTATIONS OF JEHOVAH! Hosea
shows us the Divine heart as it were agitated with such
conflicts of
passion as a good man might experience whose conjugal and
parental
love had been cruelly blighted.
chapters 1 and 3 are written in prose. The first three chapters
constitute a
symbolical introduction, while the body of the book (Hosea 4-14.) IS A
DIRGE composed of
mingled wailings, entreaties, threatenings, and
promises. The style is abrupt, sententious, laconic, and “rather to
be called
Hosea’s
sayings than Hosea’s sermons” (Matthew Henry). But “a verse
may find him who a sermon flies.” (George Herbert)
primarily for
“righteousness
exalteth a nation” (Proverbs 14:34).
It reminds the
moralist that a sound and pure ethics can rest only upon a
foundation of
living religion. It warns the Christian of the danger of
harboring idols within
his heart. Hosea is by no means a shallow book. It is not for
superficial minds.
It requires — as its epilogue
(ch.14:9) suggests very deep and diligent study.
* THE POWER WITH
WHICH HOSEA WAS INVESTED. This, of course,
touches
on his Divine commission, and the corresponding inspiration which
qualified
him for the proper execution of that commission. Like the
apostles
in after times, he claims to hold his commission from God, and to
be
charged with the commands of God. Thus in Luke 3:2 we read that
“the word of God came
unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness;”
and
in Galatians 1:1 we find the apostle of the Gentiles speaking of his
commission
in the following terms: “Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither
by
man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the
dead.” Thus in the case of Paul, his apostolic authority was not
from (ἀπό - apo)
men,
as the source of that authority by whom it is conferred, nor by (διὰ - dia)
man, the single representative of any body of men, as the
channel of that
authority
through whom it is conveyed. It was through the two Persons of
the
blessed Trinity — Son and Father, agent and origin, medium and
source
— a direct Divine commission. So with the prophet in this
introductory
passage. But he not only held his commission from God, he
had
his instructions from God. His position was like that of a diplomatist or
ambassador
sent out by an earthly sovereign, who is commissioned to
represent
his sovereign, and in that capacity to adhere faithfully to the
instructions
he has received, correctly interpreting the will and wishes of
his
monarch and scrupulously communicating the same. Three several
times
is the source of Hosea’s instructions insisted on. There is the first
general
statement of the word of the Lord coming to him; then there is the
notification
of the beginning of the word of the Lord being in Hosea; and
next
we learn that the Lord spake to him. The conveyance
of these
instructions
is presented under a threefold aspect. They come to him from
the
Lord and so with DIVINE AUTHORITY they reach him by direct
communication,
for the Lord himself spoke to him; and they are in him,
reflected
on his mind and retained in his memory, and ready for present and
practical
use. God made him a depositary of His truth and thus fitted him
for
declaring it to others; He revealed His will to him, and by the inspiration
of
His Spirit qualified him to record it without error for the benefit of
present
and succeeding generations. Though not possessing or presuming
to
possess this special inspiration of prophets under the Old and apostles
under
the New Testament, the preacher of the gospel is truly
commissioned
and strictly commanded to declare the whole
counsel of
God, not with
wisdom of words, not with enticing words of man’s
wisdom, not handling the Word of God deceitfully, but by
manifestation
of the truth commending himself to every man’s conscience in
the sight
of God. (Acts 20:27; I Corinthians 2:4; II Corinthians 4:2) Hosea did so for
nearly 70 years or soduring the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah
in
a time, especially
in
of Solomon,
together with Hamath on the Orontes, the key of
checking if not crushing that hostile power. The northern kingdom had
reached an unprecedented height of wealth and power; the sovereign had
been triumphant in war, and his subjects were now happy and prosperous
in peace. But at this very period of material wealth and military glory, after
he had “restored
the coasts of
lower part of the Coelo-Syrian valley, from the gorge of the Litany to
Hosea foretold, not merely the decline, but the actual downfall, of the
only the truth of the prediction, so contrary to all calculation, so opposed to
all seeming
probability, but the warning thus furnished against TAKING
MATERIAL PROSPERITY for a
proof of Divine
favor, or reckoning
and resting on the permanence of earthly possessions. (A tremendous
mistake of political leadership and the general populace, in the 21st century
root of the gourd.
The moral progress of the nation was in the inverse
ratio
of its material prosperity.
* HOSEA’S PAINFUL DECLARATION OF THE NATIONAL SIN.
That sin was more than ordinary apostasy, bad as such a state of things
assuredly is; it was idolatry which is spiritual adultery. This was expressed
by the symbol of the prophet, whether in reality, vision, or parable,
wedding an unchaste woman, a wife of whoredoms, by name Gomer, the
daughter of Diblaim. If such a union, even in symbol, was humiliating to
the pure spirit
of the prophet, how dreadful for a people to be in a
condition so disgustingly loathsome and fearfully sinful,
exposed
to the deserved wrath of the Almighty, and obnoxious to the
doom
He has
pronounced against such, “Thou
hast destroyed all them that
go a-whoring from thee!” (Psalm 73:27) If such relationship is repulsive in
the extreme to
every man of proper sentiments and
virtuous feeling, how
unspeakably
hateful to the infinitely holy God to stand in the position
of
husband to a people so abominably faithless and impure! Yet their
Maker had been
their Husband, even the Lord of hosts, which is His
adorable name.
2 “The beginning of the
word of the Lord by (literally, in)
Hosea,” - What is
the
beginning here mentioned? It cannot mean that Hosea was the first of the
prophets by whom God made known His will to
prophets; for Jonah, as is rightly inferred from II Kings 14:25,
preceded him;
Joel also is usually regarded as before him in point of
time; neither can it
denote his priority to Isaiah and Amos, who also
prophesied in the days of
Uzziah.
The plain meaning is that which becomes obvious when we adopt the
right rendering: that is, the
beginning of the prophecies which Hosea was
commissioned by Jehovah to make known. The peculiarity of
the
expression, “in Hosea,” as the
word literally means, deserves attention.
Numbers 12:2, 6, and 8, proves that the expression
signifies speaking to
rather than in or by.
The first verse is the general heading for the whole book;
the
first clause of the second verse is the special heading of the first section of
the
book, which extends to the end of the third chapter – “and the Lord said
to
Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms,
and children of whoredoms:”
Whether the transaction here enjoined is to be understood
as a reality, or a vision,
or
an allegory, has been keenly debated. To enter fully into the discussion of
this
point would lead us too far from our purpose; nor could it
minister to edification.
Though high authorities have maintained it to be a real
occurrence, we do not
see
our way to concur with their view. A canon of interpretation sanctioned by
Augustine forbids the literal acceptation of this command,
for, according to the
canon referred to, if the language of Scripture taken literally
would involve
something incongruous or morally improper, the figurative sense must
be
preferred. Again, we can scarcely understand it of a vision; for
there is no
mention of or reference to anything of that kind in the passage,
nor does
the
context countenance the notion of a vision.
We are, therefore, shut up to
that interpretation which explains the whole as an allegorical or imaginary
narrative, which is thus constructed in order to impart greater
vividness to
the
prophet’s declaration. The Chaldee paraphrase
understands it in this
sense. “Go,” says the paraphrast,
“declare a prophecy against the
inhabitants of the idolatrous city, who persist in sin.” Jerome also
explains
it
allegorically, and urges against the literal sense that passage in
Ezekiel 4:4-6, where the prophet is commanded by God to
bear the
iniquity of the house of
and
ninety days — a thing impossible according to the literal understanding
of
the injunction. Calvin rightly
understands it in the sense of a parabolic
representation as follows: “The Lord had bidden him (the prophet) to
relate
this parable, so to speak, or this similitude, that the people might see, as
in a
living portraiture, their turpitude and perfidiousness. It is, in
short, an exhibition
in
which the thing itself is not only set forth in words, but is also placed, as
it
were, before their eyes in a visible form.”
By “a wife of whoredoms” we
understand a woman addicted
to whoredoms,
and thus likely
to prove an
unfaithful wife, while “children of whoredoms” are children who follow in
the footsteps of their mother’s lewdness, or children on whose
birth their
mother’s licentiousness
had left a stigma so that their legitimacy is
questionable. The construction of the verb “take,” with both
objects, is an example of the figure zeugma, by which one word does
duty
to
two clauses, though it undergoes a modification of sense in its
application to the second. The meaning here is clearly that the
prophet
should take a wife of the character indicated, and beget children
by her, not
take such a wife and such children
already born to her. This view is favored
by
the Vulgate, though Keil maintains that Hosea was to
take children of
prostitution as well as a wife who had lived by prostitution – “for
the land
hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord.” This is
more exactly rendered, for the land hath utterly gone a-whoring from
after
(that is, from following) the
Lord. From this we learn the symbolic import
of
the command, in whatever way that command is interpreted, whether as
a
reality, or vision, or allegory, the prophet’s
marriage to an unfaithful wife
sets
forth Jehovah’s marriage to an unfaithful nation. God often
condescends — graciously condescends — to represent His relation to
His
people as a marriage covenant; while unfaithfulness
on their part is
SPIRITUAL ADULTERY. The mother and the children may represent the
country and its inhabitants,
or the nation as a whole and its several members,
or
generally the people and their posterity in
succeeding generations. The father
of
the Hebrew race had served other gods on
the other side of the flood, that is,
in
taken into covenant relationship, how often had they fallen into
the former
sin
of idolatry! The fearful consequences of their sin is graphically
portrayed in the verses immediately following, symbolized in the
names of
the
prophet’s children. They are:
·
national ruin,
·
the loss of the
Divine favor, and
·
the forfeiture of
their proud position as the chosen people of
Jehovah.
3 “So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim;
which
conceived, and bare him a son.”
- Kimchi conjectures
that Gomer was
the
name of a harlot well known at that time; he also explains the name,
according to his view of its symbolic import, as follows: “Gomer has the
meaning of completion;” as if the prophet said, He will fully execute on
them the punishment of their transgressions that He may forgive their
iniquity.” The names of the children born to the prophet are
significant and
symbolical; and their symbolic significance is explained. The names
mentioned in this verse are also significant, though their
significance is not
expressly stated, as in the former case; the cause of the omission
being the
fact that these names were not, like the others, now received for the first
time, but simply retained. Gomer denotes
“completion” or” consummation,”
from a verbal root signifying “to perfect” or “come to an end; and Diblaim is
the
dual of deblelah, the plural being debhelim, from the verb dabhal,
to press
together into a mass, especially a round mass. The meaning of the word, then,
is
“two cakes,” that is, of dried figs pressed together in lumps. It may be
observed,
in
passing, that the Greek παλάθη – palathae - cake of compressed fruit - seems to
come from the Aramaic form debhalta, by
the omission of the initial daleth. But what
is
the mystic meaning which the prophet veils under the
two names Consummation
and Compressed fig-cakes (cakes
of compressed figs)? The one may hint not
obscurely consummation in sin and in the suffering which is the
ultimate
consequence of sin; while the other may imply the sweetness of sensual
indulgences, especially such as idolatrous celebrants were prone to.
If, then,
the
symbolical interpretation of these names be allowable, we may accept
that given by Jerome. He says, “Out of Israel is taken typically by Hosea a
wife consummated in
fornication, and a perfect daughter of pleasure which
seems sweet and
pleasant to those who enjoy it.” There is,
moreover, an obvious
appropriateness in the names thus symbolically understood. The prophet,
whose name signifies “salvation,” marries a woman who was a
daughter of
pleasure and a votary of sin; this alliance represents the relation into
which Jehovah, with His saving power, had mercifully taken
people, unmindful and unthankful for such mercy, and intent on the
indulgence of a sinful course, went from bad to worse in apostasy and
idolatry till GOD AT LENGTH LEFT THEM IN THEIR IMPENITENCE
AND ABANDONED THEM TO THEIR FATE!
4 “And the Lord said unto
him, Call his name Jezreel;” - The
name which the people inherited from a distinguished ancestor was one of
honor and dignity —
imposed by their sins was one of reproach and disaster — Izreel, or
Yizreel, “scattered by God.” The Hebrews had
a peculiar fondness for a
paronomasia of this kind; thus
“house of vanity”
- “for yet a little while, and I will
avenge (visit) the blood
of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu,”
The verb here rendered “avenge” is literally
to
“visit,” and is used sometimes
in a good sense, implying a benevolent purpose,
as
in Ruth 1:6, “For she had
heard in the country of
had visited His people in giving them bread;” sometimes it expresses a hostile
intention, as in Exodus 20:5, “I the Lord thy God am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children.” In the present
passage, as elsewhere in this book (see ch.2:13; 4:9), it is taken
in
the
sense assigned it in the Authorized Version, with which the Septuagint
and
Syriac are in accord. But what are we to understand
by the blood of
Jezreel, which brought down
this vengeance on the house of Jehu? Some
suppose that the expression denotes the bloody deeds of Ahab’s
house,
including, not only the murder of Naboth,
but also their bloody persecution
of
the servants and prophets of Jehovah, as we read in I Kings 18:4,
that “Jezebel cut off the
prophets of the Lord;” and in II Kings 9:7,
“Thou shalt smite the house of Ahab thy master, that I may avenge
the
blood of my servants the
prophets, and the blood of all the servants of the
Lord, at the hand
of Jezebel.” These and like deeds of blood
brought down
retribution on the house of Ahab; Jehu, the instrument of this
retribution,
was
himself guilty of such enormities that the cry of blood for vengeance
was
repeated, and the criminality of the preceding dynasty continuing, the
ate of Jehu’s was
redoubled. This view appears to us both clumsy and
farfetched. The plain meaning
is that which refers the blood of Jezreel to the
bloody massacres of Jehn himself, when
in a single day he put an end to the
dynasty of Omri and the wicked house of
Ahab. On that memorable
occasion he slew the queen-mother Jezebel, the seventy sons of
Ahab, and
forty-two relatives of King Ahaziah,
also all the prophets of Baal, all his
servants and all his priests. The royal house of
he
“slew all that remained of the
house of Ahab in Jezreel, and all his great
men, and his
kinsfolk, and his priests, until he left him none remaining”
(II Kings 10:11); the royal house or’
very verge of extinction. The slaughter of Ahab’s sons, of Jezebel and Joram,
and
that whole royal line, was, it is true, in compliance with God’s express
command; and, for the measure of his obedience to that command,
Jehu
was
rewarded by the promise of his family occupying the throne of
to
the fourth generation. But what was the motive that prompted this
performance of the Divine will? Was it really zeal for God, as he
pretended, and consequent diligence in obeying the Divine direction?
Or
did
human passion predominate and political advantage hurry him on? We
trow not. Certain it is that his subsequent career rendered the
purity of his
zeal more than doubtful. He
exterminated the idolatry of Baal, but he
clave
to the
calves of Jeroboam at
fundamental sin of the kings of
was
right, for God commanded it; but the motive was wrong, for it was selfish
ambition that prompted it. Thus it was with Baasha;
he executed vengeance by
command of God on the wicked house of
exalted to be prince over God’s people
against him, as we read, “For
all the evil that he did in the sight of the
Lord... in being
like the house of Jeroboam; and because he killed him”
(I Kings 16:7). The Chaldee regards the blood shed by Jehu in Jezreel, though
shed in a righteous cause and for the rooting out of the Baal idolatry, as
innocent blood, because Jehu himself and his house turned aside to
the idolatry
of
the calves – “and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of
Jeroboam II, the third of Jehu’s family, was now reigning;
a fourth member of
the
same was to occupy the throne. That fourth sovereign was Zechariah, whose
short inglorious reign lasted only six months, at the expiration
of which he fell
a
victim in the conspiracy by Shallum. Thus ended the
dynasty of Jehu; while
its
overthrow paralyzed the strength of the northern kingdom. And, though the
day of its
complete destruction was deferred for half a century, yet the
disorders,
dethronements, anarchy at times, and repeated assassination of
the
sovereigns, to which Menahem was the only exception,
prepared the way
for THE
FINAL CATASTROPHE! The overthrow of the house of Jehu
was the
beginning of the end for
THE
PROCESS OF DECOMPOSITION!
5
“And it shall some to pass at that day, that I will break
the
bow of
most momentous event, with express statement of the place where it
should occur, as also the time of its occurrence. The event
itself was more
than the downfall of a dynasty; it was the destruction of a kingdom. The
date of that destruction is defined simply as THE
PERIOD WHEN GOD
WOULD PUNISH THE SINS OF BOTH THE PRINCES AND PEOPLE
OF
FOR AND THE CESSATION OF THE
of
this calamity was the
of
overthrew the Midianites; there Saul was
defeated by the Philistines, when
driven up the slopes of Gilbea “the
beauty of
(I Samuel 1:19); there a defeat equally sorrowful and not
less disastrous was
aggravated by the death of good King Josiah, and proved fatal to the
kingdom
of
Crusaders and the Moslems, in which victory crowned the
arms of Saladin;
there, also, was fought the battle, as we learn from this
passage, which decided
the
fate of the
2012).
The situation of this valley was admirably suited for such
scenes.
This plain, or valley, broad as it is beautiful, begins
where the maritime plain,
interrupted by the ridge of Carmel, turns aside and extends across the
center
of
the country from the Mediterranean Sea on the west to the
on
the east, and from the hills of
base is fifteen miles, reaching from Engannim, now
Jenin, to the hills below
formed by the hills of
somewhat irregular triangle is a narrow pass through which the
river Kishon —
“that ancient river, the river Kishon”
(Judges 5:21) — with its winding stream
makes its way to the sea. On the east there are three branches
in the direction
of
the
The northern branch passes between Tabor and Little Hermon, or Jebel ed-Duhy;
the
central one, which is the
Jezreel, now Zerin; the southern
between
Jenia — this branch, having no outlet, loses itself among
the eastern hills. The
name of this plain was derived from the city of
eastern extremity on a spur of
residence, and which remained so for three successive reigns, though
in the
time of Jeroboam II.
royal city. In this great plain, called by the Greeks Esdraelon, the bow
of
unbending) was the warrior’s weapon of offence and defense — strong
and
powerful; the breaking of his bow deprived him of his chief weapon,
and
left him at the mercy of the enemy to conquer or to kill; thus we read, “His
bow abode in
strength” (Genesis 49:24); and again, “My glory was fresh in me,
and my bow was
renewed in my hand” (Job 29:20).
But while such general
references prove the bow to
have been an emblem of strength and power,
still there is something very special and suitable in the
expression of the
prophet here. In one important respect, the ancient military glory
of
if
not confined to the northern kingdom yet regarded as eminently characteristic
of
it.
archery. The use of the bow
was there a late acquisition (II Samuel 1:18). But
in
Benjamin and Ephraim it had been an habitual weapon. The bow of
Jonathan was known far and wide. The children of Ephraim
were
characterized as ‘carrying bows’ (Unfortunately, in
crunch time of the
nation’s need, Ephraim, “turned
back” - Psalm 78:9 - CY –
2012). And so
the
chief weapon of the captain of the host of
of
kingdom was the breaking of the bow of
the
prophet was thus singularly appropriate. An historical basis, though
denied by some and pronounced precarious by others, is, we have
little doubt,
found for this prediction in ch.10:14 of this very book. The
bow, that is, the
archery in which
Jezreel, when Shalmon, identified with Shalman-ezer, King of Assyria by
Pusey and Stanley, spoiled Beth-Arbel,
or
Sepphoris and Tiberias, and near the
middle of the valley, and thus crushed
of
battle was most calamitous to
neither the helplessness of infancy nor the tenderness of
womanhood was
spared; the infants were dashed to death against the stones, and
the
mothers then hurled in mortal agony upon the dead bodies of their
little
ones. Kimchi explains it generally: “On that day when I shall visit the blood
of Jezreel, I shall break the bow of
power.”
6
“And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God
said unto him, Call
her name Lo-ruhamah:” - The first birth
symbolized
the
BLOOD-GUILTINESS and IDOLATRY of
CONSEQUENT
DESTRUCTION! Two other births follow to confirm
THE CERTAINTY OF THE COMING CALAMITY, to develop
it further,
and
exhibit the nation ever which it
impended under new phases,
as ALSO
TO SHOW THE PROSPECT OF DELIVERANCE TO BE HOPELESS!
The change of sex may indicate the totality of the nation,
male and female, as
or
rather THE WEAK AND DEFENSELESS CONDITION OF
ISRAEL
after their bow was
broken and their power crushed by the enemy. They
are
now ready to be led into captivity, like a female
helpless and powerless and
exposed to ell the
insults of the conquerors. The birth of
the daughter is
thus explained by Kimchi: “After she had borne a
son which is a proverbial
reference to Jeroboam the son of Joash…
she bore a daughter, who refers
parabolically to Zechariah and to Shallum son
of Jabesh, who reigned after
him,
who were weak as a female.” The name given to the child is Unpitied,
or
Unfavored, if ruchamah be taken as a mutilated participle,
the initial
mem being dropped, though
it is not found in close connection with a
participle; or, She-is-not-pitied, if the word be a
verb. In either case, the
mercy which if exercised would save her from the miseries of
captivity,
IS CLEAN GONE and the love which, if it existed, would prompt that
exercise of mercy, IS NO LONGER TO BE LOOKED FOR! - “for I will
no more have mercy upon the house of
away (margin, that I should
altogether pardon them)”..
Aben Ezra quotes the
correct meaning as follows: “Some say that נילי is that I have up till now forgiven
their iniquity; “and Kimchi: “Hitherto
I have forgiven and pardoned them,
because I have had mercy upon them; but I shall continue to do so
no
more.” עֶוד , again, from עוּד, to return or repeat.
The construction of the
first clause is peculiar. Rosenmüller
cites as parallel Isaiah 47:1, 5 and
Proverbs 23:35; but more exact parallels are I Samuel 2:3
and ch. 6:3, in both
of
which, and also in the text, Kimchi and Aben Ezra understand asker before
the
second verb. The last clause of the verse, however, presents a real difficulty,
as
we may infer from the variety of interpretations to which it has been
subjected.
The Septuagint has Ἀνψιτασσόμενος ἀντιτάξομαι
– antitassamenos
antitazomai autois - that I should
in any way pardon them. Jerome, confounding
the
verb with hcn translates,
“But I will entirely forget them.” Rashi: “I will
distribute to them a portion of their
cup and of their deeds,” viz. as they have
deserved by their deeds, Kimchi: “I will raise
up enemies against them, who
shall carry them into captivity and lay waste their land.”Aben Ezra: “I will take
them away;” he quotes for this meaning of the text Job 32:2, and takes the
prefix
le as the Aramaic sign
of the accusative, giving as a notable example of the same
II Samuel 3:30, haregu leabner for eth-abner.
The Syriac Version is
similar. A more feasible rendering, if the meaning of “take away” be
retained, is that of Hengstenberg and
others, who translate it: “I will utterly
take away from them, or with regard to them,” viz. everything. We prefer
the
sense of “pardon,” as given in the Chaldee; in the margin of the
Authorized Version; by Ewald, Wunsche, and Delitzsch; and
mentioned by
Aben Ezra and Kimchi. Thus it will read: “I will no more favor them that I
should verily forgive them.” The first verb literally means the pitiful
yearning of parental love —
the strong feeling of affection which the
Greeks expressed by στοργή - storgae - Paul’s rendering of the word with
the
privative denotes absence of love; and Peter’s the absence of mercy. Both
notions are contained in the word, and their relation is well
explained by
Pusey, who says, It is tender
love in him who pitieth; mercy as shown to
him
who needeth mercy.” Now, the connection between such
tenderness of
love and forgiving mercy is natural and close. Many
an instance of this had
been experienced in the previous history of
compassion had been extended to His erring people, notwithstanding their
manifold provocations; BUT THAT
DAY IS GONE! — the Divine
long-suffering IS EXHAUSTED! Once
be no
return; no mercy to restore them, as in the case of
7 “But I will have mercy
upon the house of
the Lord their God,” - Thus
the contrast expressed in this verse increases the
painful feelings with which the threatened abandonment and consequent
destruction of
pronoun, the proper name of Jehovah is employed; instead of
saying, “I will
save them by myself,” He says in a specially emphatic manner, “I will save them
by Jehovah,” adding at the same time the important adjunct of “THY GOD”
to
remind them of that relationship to Himself in virtue of which He
interposes
thus personally and powerfully on their behalf. An expression
somewhat similar
in
form occurs in Genesis 19:24, “Then the
Lord [Jehovah] rained upon
and upon
heaven” - “and will not save them by bow, nor by
sword, nor by battle
(literally, war), by horses, nor by
horsemen.” This enumeration is quite in
accordance with the prophet’s style, as may be seen at a glance by
comparing ch. 2:5, 11, 22; 3:4; and 4:13.
The manner of this deliverance is
very peculiar and unusual; while prominence is given to the absence of those
means of
defense or deliverance on which the
northern kingdom so much relied.
The deliverance would be accomplished without the
ordinary weapons of war —
bow and sword, in the use of the former of which
without war, that is, without its appliances and material of
whatever kind —
skilful commanders, brave soldiers, and numerous troops;
likewise without
horses and horsemen, a great source of strength in those days (parashim,
equivalent to “riders on horses,” as distinguished from rokebhim, riders on
camels). This deliverance, in fact, was to be entirely independent
of all
human resources. All
this points plainly and positively to the deliverance
of
angel of the Lord smote a hundred and eighty-five thousand of the flower
of
the Assyrian
host, and JEHOVAH thus BY HIMSELF delivered
Thus, too,
and entirely succumbed. (Compare, on this miraculous
deliverance, II Kings 19.
and
Isaiah 37.)
8 “Now when she had weaned
Lo-ruhamah, she conceived,
and bare a son.” As Eastern mothers nurse their children some two or
three years, the process of weaning at the end of that period
would imply a
corresponding interval. This may be merely an incident to complete the
prophetic declaration, and pleasingly vary the narrative. It is
rather, we
think, a pause in the progress of the approaching calamity — a
pause
indicative of the Divine loathing to execute the final sentence. Or
the
weaning may be referred, with some, to the entire withdrawal of
all
spiritual nourishment and support, when promise and prophecy,
instruction
and
consolation, symbol and sacrifice, would be abolished.
9 “Then said God, Call his
name Lo-ammi: for ye are not my people, and
I will not be your God.”
Here we have the climax of
fate. The prophet’s children, whether actual, visionary, or allegorical,
symbolized STEP BY STEP THE SAD
DEGRADATION IN
FAST-COMING CALAMITY!
The name Jezreel,
whether taken to mean
their being scattered by God or their suffering the sorrowful consequences
of
their multiplied delinquencies, m either ease denotes the first blow dealt
to
them by Divine providence. But from that it
was possible by repentance
to recover;
and, though dispersed, they were not beyond the reach of the Divine
compassion, nor beyond the power of the Divine arm to collect and
bring
together again. But Lo-ruhammah, Unpitied, or Uncompassionated,
imports another and a still heavier blow; and, though dispersed
far and
near, and though left in the places
of their dispersion without pity and
without compassion, still
there might be a good time coming in the near or
in
the distant future, when a favorable change in their circumstances would
be
brought about so that they would be both collected together, or
comforted and compassionated. The name Lo-ammi, however,
PUTS
AN END TO HOPE, implying
as it does A TOTAL REJECTION AND
AN ENTIRE RENUNCIATION OF THE PEOPLE OF
the part of THE ALMIGHTY! . THE NATIONAL COVENANT IS
ANNULLED. God has cast off His people, who are thus left hopeless
as
helpless, because of their sinful and ungrateful departure from the Source
of all
mercy and the Fountain of all blessing.
The expression of this is very
touching: “Ye” says God, now addressing them directly and personally,
“are not — are no longer, my
people; and I will not be yours.” Such
is the
literal rendering of this now sad but once tender expression — tender,
unspeakably tender, as long as applicable; sad, inexpressibly
sad, now that
its
enjoyment is FOR EVER GONE!
The Sufferings of
The three children of the prophet by Gomer
symbolize at once a degree of
sin and a
period of suffering. The forefathers
of
their native land and in
(Joshua 24:14), “Put
away the gods which your fathers served on the
other side of the
flood, and in
with Himself at Sinai; this new relation may be represented by the prophet’s
espousing at the Divine command Gomer,
notwithstanding her previous
impurity and lewdness. But though God took the people of
a
close and endearing relation to Himself, yet their posterity, instead of
proving themselves children of God, often forsook God and fell
into
idolatry, this apostasy of the descendants through succeeding
generations is
set
forth by the children of whoredoms which the prophet
had by a wife of
whoredoms. So with ourselves tainted with original sin; we are
stained by
many actual transgressions. “Sin,” it has been well said, “is
contagious,
and, unless the entail is cut off by grace, hereditary.”
Jezreel, if taken in its
local sense, reminds of bloodshed as also idolatry,
and of the nemesis that in due time followed; but if
understood
appellatively, the name of dominion implied in
of dispersion included in Jezreel.
Ø
Imperfect work is imperfectly rewarded. No work done for God can
make Him our debtor, yet He is graciously pleased to reward
honest work
in His service, the reward being entirely of grace and not of
debt. Jehu
executed God’s judgment on the house of Ahab, and had his reward in
the
succession of his family to the fourth generation. Though he
pretended zeal
he did not do the Lord’s work sincerely; his own
selfish interests and his
own base designs mingled largely with his motives, and marred
the worth
of his work. The obtainment of a kingdom for himself rather
than
obedience to God was the chief end on which his heart was set.
Neither
did he perform the Lord’s work thoroughly. He abolished
the idolatry of
Baal, but he adhered to the
idolatry of the calves (II Kings 10:31); obviously
because the former served his own ends and helped to establish him
in the
kingdom, while the latter tended, as be thought, to secure his
interest in the
kingdom and keep his subjects detached from
Ø
Punishment, though slow, is sure. Yet a little while
and the dynasty of
Jehu became extinct; while
fifty years afterwards the very kingdom over
which that dynasty had ruled ceased altogether to exist. In the
interval that
elapsed between the extinction of the dynasty of Jehu and the
total
cessation of the
the
broken. Whether this was the battle of Betharbel,
in which Shalmanezer
was victorious, or some other reverse sustained in the
invasion by
Tiglath-pileser, to the success of which the inscriptions of that monarch
testify, we have not perhaps sufficient means of ascertaining. This was the
beginning of the end, and a premonition of what was near at hand. THE
SINS IF OF PRINCES
AND THE SINS OF PEOPLE
had gone
on accumulating till at
length the day of vengeance came. As
with
nations, so with individuals:
“Though
the mills of God grind slowly, yet they grind exceeding small;
Though
with patience He stands waiting, with exactness grinds He
all.”
Ø
The unexpected often happens. Nothing could have appeared more
unlikely in the reign of Jeroboam II than the destruction of his
kingdom
within such a comparatively short space. He had proved himself a
man of
prowess and of power; he had extended the boundaries of his
kingdom
outwardly, and had consolidated its resources inwardly. He had
restored
the northern boundary of
had extended his kingdom southward by the sea of the plain,
and to the
valley of willows (Isaiah 15:7) between
recovered what had been lost by the victories of Hazael;
he had
recaptured
the founder of the kingdom — Jeroboam II.” Yet then, while King
Jeroboam was at the zenith of
his fame, and the kingdom at the height
of its prosperity, THE WORD OF THE LORD CAME AGAINST
IT! God,
who seeth not as man seeth,
directed the eye of his servant
the prophet to SIN UNREPENTED OF and UNFORSAKEN
—
THAT INTERNAL
MORAL WEAKNESS AND ROTTENESS
which no amount of material prosperity or power could either
RECTIFY OR REMOVE!
DESOLATENESS OF CONDITION.
and thus represented as a woman, worthless; for she is one of
the children
of whoredom, weak, an easy prey to the spoiler, a victim of
injury and
insult, unpitied and unprotected, impenitent and unpardoned. Applied
nationally, the conquered people are uncompassionated,
and WAITING
TO BE CARRIED INTO
CAPTIVITY! Applied personally, how
dreadful is the state of that individual who, by a long course of
iniquity, HAS SINNED AWAY THE DAY OF MERCY, and against
whom God has shut up the bowels of his compassion!
Ø
To
manifold mercies; let us beware of
abusing our mercies, and thereby
forfeiting them. If we forsake our own mercies for lying vanities, as, alas!
so many do, we may expect that those mercies will forsake us,
being
withdrawn in the providence of God. How sad the condition of those
who
are in affliction, and yet can have no reasonable assurance of
the mercy of
God; who are afflicted, and
yet cannot plead the Divine pity, or hope for
Divine sympathy and succor!
Sadder still is the case of those whom death
surprises in the condition indicated as not having obtained mercy!
God, it is
true, is infinite in compassion, and His mercy everlasting to
them that fear
Him; but to the impenitent
and unbelieving there is a limit to His mercy
somewhere; while to such nations and individuals alike the time may
come
when He will say, “I will have no more
mercy upon them, no more
pity, and no more
pardon.”
Ø
An aggravation of their misery is the natural
consequence of the
contrast with
similar contrast when He says, “There
shall be weeping and gnashing
of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and
all the prophets, in the
out” (Luke 13:28). The Revised Version, which has “cast forth
without,” makes
it yet stronger and more striking.
Ø The salvation of
Sennacherib. To this great event of Jewish history we find frequent
reference elsewhere. Thus Isaiah 10:33-34 and the commencement of
ch.11., has a very striking contrast between the crash of mighty
cedars
and the springing up of a young shoot from a withered stump —
the
downfall of the great conqueror with his men of might, and the
uprising of a righteous Savior out of the lowliness of the royal
house
of Judah; in other words, the Assyrian and the Savior. This
contrast
is couched in the following poetic language: “The Lord of hosts
shall lop the bough with terror [i.e. terrific force]: and the high ones
of stature shall be hewn down, and the haughty shall lie
low; and
He shall cut down the thickets of the forest
with iron, and
a shoot out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow
out
of his roots.” The
same prophet, in Isaiah 29:3, pictures the formidable
military operations of the Assyrian, together with the suddenness
of the
disappearance and completeness of the destruction of his mighty host.
Of the former he speaks in
the first person, as the Assyrian was only
the rod of His anger for the purpose of chastisement, and says, “I
will camp against thee round about, and will lay siege against
thee with a mount, and will raise forts against thee” (while of
the sudden disaster that
would overwhelm them he adds, “And
the
multitude of all the nations that fight against Ariel [Lion of God],
even all that fight against her, and her munition,
and that distress
her, shall be as a dream of a night vision” (Ibid. v.7); a little
before he had said, “The
multitude of the terrible ones shall be as
chaff that passeth away: yea, it shall
be at an instant suddenly”
(Ibid.
v.5).
In the following chapter (30.), naming him by name, he
intimates that he had been a rod of chastisement in the Lord’s hand,
and when that purpose had been served, the rod itself would be
broken by the voice of the Almighty: “And through the voice of
the Lord shall the Assyrian be broken down that smote with a
rod”
(ch. 30:31); the latter was chastisement and
discipline, the former
destruction. Several of the psalms also contain allusions to the
events
of Hezekiah’s reign connected with this great deliverance —
to
Rabshakeh’s blasphemy in the words, “The shame of my face hath
covered me, for the voice of him that reproacheth and
blasphemeth” (Psalm 44:16), in Psalm 73:19-20, a psalm of Asaph,
to Sennacherib’s destruction, “How are they brought into desolation,
as in a moment I… As a dream when one awaketh;
so, O Lord,
when thou awakest, thou debt despise
their image.” In like manner
the whole of Psalm 76 applies.
V.3 enumerates the peculiar
weapons of the Assyrian, and affirms their destruction: “There brake
He the arrows of the
bow, shield and sword and battle;” vs. 5-6
depict that sleep of death that overtook them so calmly, so
noiselessly,
and so awfully: “They
slept their sleep, and none of the men of
might found their hands Both chariot and horse fell into a deep
sleep;” v.8 adds the solemn awe in which all at last
was hushed:
“The earth feared, and was still.”
Psalm 91, which mentions the terror
by night and the pestilence walking in darkness, and
thousands perishing,
may, whatever was the actual occasion of its composition,
apply to the
destruction of the Assyrian army at the eventful time when
miraculously saved.
DEGRADATION.
Before this third and last stage is reached there is a
respite — some time intervenes.
Ø
Speaking after the
manner of men, we may say with reverence that God
seems to repent of His resolution to cast off His people; He
shows
reluctance to renounce them at
once and forever. Hence the delay. So in
this very book He questions with Himself: “How shall I give thee up,
Ephraim? how shall I deliver thee,
as Admah? how shall I set thee
as Zeboim? mine heart is
turned
within me, my repentings are kindled together” (ch. 11:8). He
pauses before proceeding to extremities.
Ø
Once they were the
people of God, a chosen generation, a royal
priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; now they have lost
that high position —
they are degraded, and that degradation must
ere long issue in destruction. God, addressing
them directly and, as it
were, face to face, tells them plainly, “Ye
are not my people, and
I will not be your
God.” The word “God” is here
supplied, and
the original expression is peculiarly tender. It is literally, “I will not
be yours — your Father and Friend, or
your Husband and
Head, or your Sovereign and Savior, or your
Patron and
Protector.” “I will not be to you,” as the words still more literally
Taken mean, “I will not be to you what I once was, what I long
continued to be in
spite of your numberless provocations, what
I would still be but
for your gross unfaithfulness, what you need
no longer expect me to be in consequence of your base ingratitude.
THE BOND IS
BROKEN! I have no interest in you nor you in
me; I have no honor from you, nor shall ye have benefit by me.
You have withheld
from me the observance that was due to
me and the obedience which I claimed; I shall withdraw all my
mercies and loving-kindnesses from you. No more shall I send you
my prophets, no more
make known to you my promises; in a word,”
and including the whole, “I WILL NO MORE BE YOUR GOD!”
Contrast the similarity to
the original words in that beautiful expression
in Canticles, but just
the reverse, “My beloved is mine, and I am His”
(Song of Solomon 2:16)
10 “Yet the number of the
children of
which cannot be measured nor numbered;” The division of the verses at this place
is
faulty both in our common Hebrew Bibles and in the Authorized Version.
The
former connects vs. 10 and 11 with the second chapter, and
the latter closes the first
chapter with these verses, and thus detaches them from the
first verse of the second
chapter. The correct arrangement combines vs. 10 and 11 of
Hosea 1. with ch. 2:1,
and
concludes the first chapter with these three verses which are so closely
joined together in sense. Here is the usual cycle of events:
·
human
sinfulness,
·
deserved punishment, and
·
Divine mercy.
Had the last element been wanting, the promise of a countless posterity made to
Abraham, renewed to Isaac, and confirmed to Jacob, might
appear abolished. Yet,
notwithstanding the rejection of
SURE! But who are the
children of
defies numeration and measurement? The whole posterity of Jacob
or
might seem included, as the words of the promise made to that
patriarch
and
those of the present prediction so closely correspond; and
occasionally taken in this wide and general sense. The context is
opposed
to
this; especially does the distinction so sharply marked in the succeeding
verse militate against this – “and it shall come to pass, that in the place
where it was said unto
them, Ye are not my people, there it
shall be said
unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God.” The place where this great
change takes place is either the place where their rejection was
foretold, or
that where its fulfillment became an accomplished fact. The former was, as
is
obvious,
their dispersion. Thus the Chaldee,
adopting the latter, renders freely as
follows: “And it shall come to pass in the place where they lived
in exile
among the peoples, when they transgressed my Law and it was said
to
them, Ye are not my people, they will turn and be magnified, and called the
people of God.” Once this change takes place, their true mission
shall be
attained and their relations to the living God shall be readjusted.
The dumb,
dead idols, to which they had bowed down in the days of their apostasy
and
unbelief shall be cast aside and away for ever. JEHOVAH,
THE
LIVING ONE ALONE shall be the object of their adoration in
that day.
11 “Then shall the
children of
be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and
they shall
come up out of the land:” -
The phraseology of the older
Scriptures is here
followed. Thus we read in Exodus 1:10, in the words of Pharaoh, the
children of
12:38 and Numbers 32:11); and again, on the report of the
spies when
the
people murmured against Moses and Aaron, “they said one to another,
Let us make a
captain [head], and let us return into
scenes of former days were in some sense to be repeated: an
exodus of
some sort was again to take place;
left behind; they might have a wilderness to traverse, but here again the
prospect of a land of promise was to cheer them on their journey
and
compensate them at its close; in
fact, another or better
them. Nay, more, the
breach between
and
the disruption which had been so disastrous become a thing of the past.
the
important inquiry remains as to the how or when this prediction was to
have fulfillment. Even if we admit the return from the captivity of
to
be a fulfillment, it would be but a very partial, though literal, fulfillment
of
such a grand prediction. That restoration
was far too meager in its
dimensions to come up to the requirements of, much less exhaust,
such a
splendid prophecy. Some
of
united with
fulfillment, if we may so say, cannot be regarded, except perhaps
typically
or
symbolically, as the fulfillment of the prophet’s vivid picture. We must
look to gospel times and gospel scenes for the realization of
the glorious
promise under consideration. Jewish interpreters themselves refer it to the
times of Messiah. Thus Kimchi says,
“This shall take place in the gathering
together of the exiles in the days of the Messiah, for unto the
second house
there went up only Judah and Benjamin that had been exiles in
nor
were the children of
and
they shall make for themselves one head, — this
is the KING MESSIAH;”
similarly, in the ‘Betsudath David,’ by Altschul, we read on this passage,”
They shall be gathered together: this will come to pass in the days of the
Messiah. One head: this is the King Messiah. And they
shall come up; out
of
the lands of the captivity they shall go up unto their own land.” We
cannot possibly mistake the objects of this prophecy; they are
expressly
declared to be “the children of
distinctive branches of the Hebrew race, the two constituent elements
of
the
Jewish nationality, and comprehending the whole natural posterity of
application of the prophecy to the conversion of the people of the
Jews.
For a time they were not to be the people of God; but the
testimony of the
prophet to their again becoming the sons of the living God is
quite
unmistakable. They shall appoint themselves one head. “The prophet,”
says
Calvin, “has, by the expression, characterized the
obedience of faith; for it
is
not enough that Christ should be given as a King, and set over men,
unless they also embrace Him as their King, and with reverence
receive Him.
We now learn that, when we believe the gospel, we choose
Christ for our
King, as it were, by a voluntary
consent.” The words are adopted by both
Peter and Paul: the former (I Peter 2:10) employs them as
an
appropriate description, in Old Testament language, of the happy
change of
condition consequent on the knowledge of the truth; the latter
(Romans
9:25) quotes them more formally in an extension of their
meaning beyond
their primary import, and proper and literal application to the
Jews, as an
exemplification of the principle of once not my people, now my people.
In
this extension of their meaning they embrace, no doubt, the Gentiles,
though not the objects originally and chiefly contemplated in the
prophecy.
their dispersion, on the change indicated taking place, namely,
their
conversion to Christ as King, then their coming up out of the land
under
the sole headship of the Son of David, the true Shepherd of
Israel, may
denote their restoration out of all the countries of their
dispersion to their
ancient territory, again become their own land, and their own in
perpetual
possession. Thus the Targum understands it
of the land of the Jews’
captivity; likewise Kimchi: “They shall go
up out of the land of their
captivity to their own land; for the
and he that goeth thither goeth up, and he that goeth out
of it goeth
down.” The initial and typical fulfillment was the return of
many Israelites, out of
may be the
restoration of the Jews, converted and believing in
Messiah, under Divine guidance, to their own land. (What can
I say? It is a fact
that in 1948
edge of the sword, and shall be led
away captive into all nations:
and
times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.” - Luke 21:24 – Fifty years ago
in my country church, we studied about this. I now remember Odell
Merrick, now deceased, saying that
to rebuild the temple [he said
of the Rock, the second most holy shrine to the Arab World, now stands
on the site. Zechariah 14 seems to imply that an earthquake will destroy
it and then the new temple will be built. This year when surfing the
internet, I ran across the fact
that
stone for the aforementioned purpose – Are we living in the end times?
CY – 2012)
land of their rejection and subsequent recognition as the sons
of God, the
going up may refer to the going up of the inhabitants of both
kingdoms to
the sense of going up, as Ewald and
others understand it, to do battle in
order to widen the boundaries of their native hind and make room
for the
returning exiles.
dispersion, the going up may be understood spiritually of their
coming up
to join themselves to the Church, or rather to the Church’s
Head, as under
the old economy the tribes of
worship at
journey onward and upward to the heavenly
the day of Jezreel.” The
names of the prophet’s children were names of ill
omen — God’s sowing in the sense of God’s scattering, Not-my-people,
Not-pitied; now the evil is
eliminated, the meaning of the second and third
is reversed, and the first is read in a new signification, so
that Not-my-people
becomes My people, Unpitied becomes Pitied, God’s
sowing is no
longer God’s scattering but God’s growing. The curse is thus
changed into
a blessing; great, then, shall be the day so signalized by
Divine goodness,
so glorious in Divine grace, and so conspicuous for the
wondrous works
of the
covenant-keeping God. Most of the
older interpreters take Jezreel
here, as in vs. 4-5, equivalent to “scattered of God.” Aben Ezra says,
“But the iniquity of the house
of
said by way of reproach, not praise.”
There is Salvation in Store for Both
We must here premise our belief that the two divisions of
the Hebrew
people — the ten tribes and the two — have been long amalgamated.
Even
during the Captivity a considerable amalgamation of tribes may
have taken
place. Though we have the list of families that accompanied Zerubbabel
and
Ezra from Assyria and Media to
those families are not given, as though their genealogy had been
already
lost. It has been conjectured, with some degree of probability, that the
somewhat indefinite phrases, “Judah
and Benjamin” are used by Ezra to
denote “the more prominent actors;” while “
nation collectively,” including persons belonging to all the
tribes. It is
certainly remarkable that in the Book of Esther the Hebrews
belonging to
all
the tribes are no longer called “children of
Captivity, there would be a considerable admixture of such
Hebrews as
remained behind with their heathen neighbors; this might be
expected from
their readiness to contract heathenish intermarriages even in
Ezra’s time.
Many of the original stock of
adjacent countries whither they had been carried captives, while
others
migrated into regions more remote. The so-called “lost
tribes” may thus
comprehend, not only those Israelites that were at so early a period
as that
of
the Captivity incorporated with the children of Judah, but also those that
intermingled with or were absorbed among the inhabitants of the
Chaldean
provinces, and whose descendants are represented by the Nestorians,
Yezidees, and other tribes; and in case of those who had removed to
greater distances, by the inhabitants of
and
elsewhere in
Tartary, and even the North American Indians.
This passage of Hosea before us, and that in the second
chapter towards
the
end, which refer to the natural posterity of Abraham, consisting of
Testament to Gentile believers. Hengstenberg draws attention to
the
paradoxical fact, that, notwithstanding the disinheritance of the
natural
Israel should be
as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor
numbered; who, from
being not God’s people, should be called sons of the
living God; that the
children of
gathered together and
appoint themselves one Head, and come up out of
the land [of their captivity]; and that great should be this day of Jezreel [or
sowing].” He then proceeds to explain this as “first fulfilled in
the
Messianic time, and as in part still to be fulfilled, when
the family of
Abraham receives, and will yet more fully receive, an
innumerable increase,
partly by the reception of an innumerable multitude of adopted
sons
[Gentiles], and partly by the exaltation of [Israelitish] sons in an inferior, to
sons in the highest relation,” in other words, by
the incorporation of the
multitudinous believing Gentries with the faithful remnant of
constituting ONE SUBLIME
now the father of many nations, the heir of the world.
But the sense of the passage is not thus exhausted; more is
to be
expected. At present
Gentiles supply the place of the rejected portion of
the natural seed; the ultimate recovery, however, of this
rejected and
disinherited, because still unbelieving, portion itself is also included,
as we
believe, in this passage.
(See also Romans chps.9-11 – CY – 2012)
But whether,
with their conversion to God and submission to Messiah, they shall be
restored to the
“covenant land” from which their
sin expelled them, is another question, and one not
so
easily answered. Indeed, there has been much conflict of opinion in regard to
that
answer. There is, at least, a presumption that with the pardon of their sin
they shall
be favored with the “ancient token of
reconciliation — their
return to the delightsome land.”
In an able work on “The Future of the Jewish Nation,” we
find the
following statement: “The connection uniformly held forth in
Scripture, in
the
case of the Jews, between defection and dispersion, and between
reconciliation and restoration, constitutes
strong ground for expecting that
the final conversion of the Jews will be accompanied by a
final restoration
to their
fatherland.” It is also added in the
same work that the restoration
advocated is “no voluntary return in a state of unbelief,” but “a
restoration
regarded as God’s public token of reconciliation to his ancient and
now
believing people… neither are
we contending for such a restoration as
involves separation and seclusion from other nations
in the little nook of
be
in
in
all the places of their present dispersion.”
The Curse Reversed (vs.10-11; ch.2:1)
The “yet”
with which this passage opens is a blessed yet. It introduces
suddenly an announcement
of salvation for
everything as being always for the worst. His children are not to be
living
witnesses merely of approaching vengeance. So the prophet’s sobs of
agony are stilled for a little, to give place to THE STRAINS OF MESSIANIC
PROMISE! He points out three
blessings which lie on the other side of the
dreadful doom of the northern kingdom.
one might naturally ask the question — If Israel is to be “scattered,”
“unpitied,” and “rejected,” what is to become of the promises given to
Abraham and
the fathers of the Hebrew race (Genesis 22:17; 32:12)?
The prophet replies that these
will be in no wise cancelled by the rejection
of the ten tribes. The people of the northern kingdom are to
be dispersed
among the nations; but God’s purpose is to gather His Church
from the
Gentile world
as well as from the Jewish. The
promises given to Abraham
were not so much national as spiritual. While, therefore, the
symbolic one
hundred and forty-four thousand shall be “sealed,” there shall stand with
them before the throne the “great multitude, which no man could
number” (Revelation 7:4, 9).
there had always been more or less of enmity between
Long before the disruption of
the kingdom, Ephraim “envied
and “
years now these tribes had also been sundered politically. But, in the
good time coming, the twelve tribes shall again become one rod
in the hand of the Lord (Ezekiel 37:16-17). The oracle before
us
implies, further, that prior to this reunion
rejected and carried into exile for its sins. To whom are we to
refer this
notable prophecy of the “one
head”?
Ø
It refers typically to
Zerubbabel, the head of the tribe of
return from the exile. Among those who went up with him were, at
least,
a few belonging to the ten tribes; so that a partial
miniature of this union
was presented in the return from
Ø
It refers
anti-typically to Jesus Christ, the “One Head” of redeemed
humanity. The literal
the spiritual
appointment, of course, from His Father; but also from His people, in
the
sense that they accept and rejoice in it. The lesson here is
that ONLY IN
JESUS CHRIST is
to be found the true basis of the brotherhood
of the human race. The name of Jesus
is the one adequate symbol of
life and liberty. Only His body, the Church, can communicate
to the
world the blessings of the ideal republic — liberty, equality,
fraternity.
COMMON
Hosea’s three children God had
denounced woe upon
very names may also be understood so that they shall convey an
assurance
of mercy and redemption. It may be, indeed, that after
following for a
season in the evil ways of their mother Gomer,
the three young people were
themselves converted, and thus became qualified in character to
illustrate
their father’s prophetic message on its side of promise.
Ø
“Jezreel” will mean “God sows.”
(v.11.) This name shall be purified
from its baser associations, and be understood again in
accordance with
its richest meaning. Originally suggestive of the beauty and
fertility of the
plain of Esdraelon, its application
shall be extended, in the spiritual
sense, to the whole of
When God sows there is
sure to be a glorious harvest; hence the Messianic
promise, “Great shall be the day of Jezreel.”
Ø
“Not-my-people” will become “My
people.” (v.10
and ch.2:1.) In
the good time coming, the men of
no longer as “Lo-ammi;”
but, joyfully dropping the negative, as
“Ammi,” i.e.
those whom the Lord has again called to
be His people.
This
name anticipates “the adoption of
sons” under the New Testament.
Hence
we find the Apostle Peter applying this passage to the Jews of the
dispersion (I Peter
2:10); and the Apostle Paul to the reception of the
Gentiles, in opposition to the Jews (Romans 9:25-26). The words of the
latter are not
merely an ingenious adaptation of the prophecy to the heathen
nations; they are
an argument based upon the fundamental thought of it.
had taken its place
spiritually as part of the Gentile world, which served
dead idols. So the re-adoption of
ADOPTION
ALSO OF THE GENTILES as the spiritual
children of
God.
Ø
“Not-pitied” will become “Pitied.” (ch.2:1.) The word
“Ruhamah” will be applied to the daughters of the people, to
express the climax of the Divine love.
of the Lord’s tender and yearning affection. On the other
side of all
the sin and doom Hosea discerns the sovereignty of Jehovah’s
compassion and loving-kindness, and he calls upon the people
rapturously to celebrate it.
CONCLUSION. How great the
encouragement which these three verses
afford to any of us who feel that we have, in our own lives,
grievously
departed from the living God!
We, in this age, should understand more
clearly than even Hosea did THE
UNSPEAKABLE MERCY OF
JEHOVAH! The prophet says
nothing, for example, about the ground or
method
of the Divine forgiveness. But God has unfolded this “in these last days”
in
speaking “unto us by His Son” (Hebrews
1:2). The Lord Jesus Christ
has
come as the Prophet of the Church to emphasize and carry forward
Hosea’s message “Jezreel,” “Ammi,”
“Ruhamah.”
"Excerpted text Copyright AGES
Library, LLC. All
rights reserved.
Materials are reproduced by
permission."
This material can be found at:
http://www.adultbibleclass.com
If this exposition is helpful, please share
with others.