Hosea 3
This short chapter contains two sections, of which the
first, comprising
vs.
1-3, is a symbolic representation; and the second, consisting of vs. 4- 5,
gives the explanation. The prophet bestows his affections on a
worthless wife,
who,
notwithstanding his tender love to her, proves utterly unfaithful and lives
in
adultery. He does not cast her off, but, in order to reclaim her and bring her
to
repentance, he places her in a position of restraint, where she is
obliged to
renounce all intercourse with her paramours. Thus it was with
had multiplied experience of God’s loving-kindness and tender
mercies, but
in
spite of all His benefits, great and manifold, they were alike ungrateful and
unfaithful. The remainder of the chapter foretells the long and
sorrowful
abandonment of
closes with an outlook into the far-off future, when
issue in THEIR CONVERSION, so that they
would return to the Lord their God
and
David their king in the latter days.
1 “Then said the Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend,
yet an adulteress,
according to the love of the Lord toward the children of
Israel, who look
to other gods, and love flagons of wine.”
The general meaning
of
this verse is well given in the Chaldee Targum: “Go, utter a prophecy against
the house of
though she is unfaithful
to him, is nevertheless so greatly loved by him that he
is unwilling to put
her away. Such is the love of the Lord
towards
they turn aside to the
idols of the nations.” The word mr is in contrast with
‘techillath,
as the second part of Jehovah’s
continued discourse. It is erroneously
and,
contrary to the accents, constructed with “said” by Kimchi
and others (Ewald
considers it admissible, Umbreit
preferable). Kimchi’s comment on this
verse is: “After the prophet finished his words of consolation,
he returns to
words of censure, turning to the men of his own time. And it is
the custom
of
the prophets to intermingle reproofs with consolations in their
discourses. But he says yet (again), because he had already
commanded
him
to marry a wife of whoredoms, and now he speaks to
him another
parable.” This time he does not employ the ordinary and usual word
“take,” but “love.” plainly
implying that he had already married her, so that
her
unfaithfulness took place in wedlock; or rather indicating the object of
the
union. Beloved of her friend, yet an
adulteress. Her friend or companion is:
husband’s love to her are her adulteries with others, as is implied
by the
participles.
some to be an acquaintance or lover, and preferred, as a milder
term, to
מְאַהֵב.. The contrast was
realized in Jehovah’s love for
notwithstanding their spiritual adultery in worshipping other gods.
According to the love of the
Lord toward the children of
look (turn) to other gods. Two expressions in
this clause recall, if they
do not actually reflect, the words of two older Scriptures;
thus in
Deuteronomy 7:8 we read, “Because the Lord loved you;” and in
Ibid. ch.
31:18, “They are turned unto ether gods.”
agaposan ponaera – love a wicked
woman - having probably read
אֹהֶבֶת רַע. And
love flagons of wine (margin, grapes). The term ashishe,
according to Rashi and Aben
Ezra, means “bowls,” that is, “bowls of wine”
(literally,
“of grapes”). They probably connected the word with the root
shesh,
six, a sextorius,
and hence any other wine-vessel. The Septuagint,
however, renders the word πέμματα μετὰ
σταφίδος – pemmata meta
staphidos - cakes with dried grapes.
This meaning is to be preferred,
whether we derive the word from אִשַׁשׁ, to press together, or from אֵשׁ, fire;
according to the former and correct derivation, the sense being
cakes of
grapes pressed together; according to the latter, cakes baked
with fire.
Gesenius differentiates the word from צִמּוּק, dried grapes, but not
pressed
together into a cake, and from דְּבֵלַה figs pressed together into a cake.
These raisin-cakes were regarded
as luxuries and used as delicacies; hence
a fondness for such indicated a proneness to sensual
indulgence, and
figuratively the sensuous service belonging to idol-worship.
“According
to the love of the Lord toward the children of
This exquisitely beautiful phrase comes in the midst of a
passage of the
most painful and distressing character. As a fond husband may tenderly
love his wife, even though she abandon herself to a course of infidelity and
profligacy, so the God of Israel is represented as cherishing towards
His
people, even in their defection and apostasy, the sincerest
compassion, the
most invincible affection. The love
of the Lord was first displayed in His
selection of
His special favor and calling. They were given
peculiar advantages and privileges.
They were the depositaries of His truth and the
conservators of His worship.
This love was tested by:
God’s love endured and triumphed in this test to which it
was subjected.
of
grace were addressed, when threats of desertion were to be expected.
Opportunity of repentance and reconciliation was afforded,
and
was
entreated not to abuse it.
2 “So I bought (acquired) her to me for fifteen pieces of
silver,
and for an homer of barley and an half-homer (margin, lethech) of
barley.” In narrating the
prophet’s compliance with the Divine command,
the
word אֶכְּרֶהָis, is connected by Aben Ezra with וֶכַר, in the sense of
making acquaintance with; but it is more correctly referred by Kimchi to
כָרָה ;
with daghesh
euphonic in the caph as in יִקְּרֵך shall meet thee. “The
daghesh of the caph is for
euphony as in miqdush, and the root is כַרה”
(Kimchi). The meaning is then simply and naturally traced as follows:
to
dig,
obtain by digging, acquire. The price paid for the acquisition in this
case was either the purchase money paid to the parents of the bride, as to
Laban in the case of Rachel and Leah by Jacob, or the marriage
present
paid (mohar) to the bride herself. Another
view represents the prophet
paying the price to the woman’s husband to whom she had been
unfaithful,
and
who in consequence resigned her for so small a sum. It remains for us
to
attend to the amount thus paid. Fifteen pieces of silver or shekels would
be
about one pound fifteen shillings, or one pound seventeen and sixpence;
while the price of the barley would he somewhere about the same.
There were fifty or sixty shekels in a mana,
Greek mina, and Latin ulna;
while the maneh was cue-sixtieth of a
talent (kikteer); and thus three
thousand or three thousand six hundred shekels in a talent. The
homer, the
largest of the Hebrew dry measures, contained one cor or ten ephahs (= ten
baths of liquids = ten Attic μέδιμνοι –
medimnoi - ),
and the half-homer or lethec
(haemi-coros in the
Septuagint) was half a cop or five ephahs. These
fifteen ephahs,
at
a shekel each — for under extraordinary circumstances (II Kings 7:1)
we
read of “two measures of barley for a
shekel” — would be equivalent
to
one pound fifteen or seventeen shillings and sixpence. Both together —
the
silver and the barley — would amount to thirty shekels, or three
pounds and ten or fifteen shillings. Why this exact amount? and why such
particularity in the reckoning? By turning to Exodus 21:32 we learn
that thirty shekels were the estimated value of a manservant or
maidservant; for it is there stated that “if the ox shall push a manservant or
a maidservant, he
shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver.” The
price paid by the
prophet partly in money and partly in kind was exactly the
price of an ordinary
maidservant. The barley (שְׂעֹרִים, plural, equivalent to
“grains of barley”) may hint the woman’s unchastity, as it was the offering
for a woman suspected of adultery (Numbers 5:15), The low estate of the
person purchased is a legitimate inference from all this. The wife, for whom
such a paltry sum should be paid, and paid in such a way, or
to whom such
a
petty gift would be offered, must be supposed to be in a condition of
deep depression or in circumstances of great distress. Thus
the sum paid by
the prophet for his partner symbolizes the servile state of
Jehovah chose them for HIS
PECULIAR PEOPLE!
3 “And I said unto her,
Thou shalt abide for me many days; thou shalt
not play the harlot, and thou shall not be for another man:”
- The
prophet
imposes certain restrictions
of a very stringent character on his wife; he places
her in a state of
isolation; her past excesses and his purpose of effecting her
reformation necessitate such measures, however strict and severe or
even
harsh they may appear. She is not to be admitted into full
fellowship with
her
husband, nor is she to be allowed the possibility of intercourse with
others. From friend, that is, husband and lovers, she is shut
out; all sexual
connection, whether illicit or legitimate, is peremptorily cut off.
The clause,
“thou shalt abide [or, ‘sit still’] for
me,” denotes an attitude of waiting, not
necessarily in sorrow, like the captive maiden who before marriage
with
her
captor bewailed her parents for the period of a month, but in patient
expectation of her husband’s fortune and favor, though in seclusion
from
him,
as also exclusion of all others. During this long period of “many days”
she
is not only debarred the society of her lawful partner, but forbidden
either to play the harlot with several or to attach herself to a
single
paramour. Jerome directs attention to the fact that the word
“another” has
no
place in the original text; otherwise it would imply that she was
prohibited from intercourse with any other than her husband, while
the real
meaning makes the prohibition absolute and inclusive even of
conjugal
connection with her husband – “so will I also be for thee.” The Hebrew
expositors, Aben Ezra and Kimchi, repeat the negative from the preceding
clause and translate, “Nor shall I even come to you,” that is,
for marital
society. This is not necessary to bring out the true sense, which
is that, as
she
was to be restrained from intercourse with any and every other man, so
he
himself also would abstain from intercourse with her. “And also I will
be
for
[unto] thee [i.e. thy husband] to preserve conjugal fidelity to
thee, but
hold aloof from thee during thy detention.” Thus
separated from both
lovers and husband,
of idols,
and be at the same time shut out from her covenant relation to
Jehovah. Kimchi’s comment
mounts to pretty much the same, as does also
that of Aben Ezra. The explanation of the former
is, “I said to her, After
thou hast committed adultery against me, thy punishment shall be that thou
shalt abide in widowhood of life many days; and the meaning of
‘for me’ is,
thou shalt be called by my name and not by another
man’s; thou shalt say, I
am
the wife of such a one, and thou shalt not play the
harlot with others,
and
also thou shalt not be the wife of any other man than
myself.” Aben
Ezra makes mention of another interpretation of the verse,
to the effect, “If
ye
shall return to me, I also will return to you.” With this the Chaldee
Targum is in accord, which represents God as commanding the
prophet to
say,
“O
congregation of
for
many days; ye shall devote yourselves to my
service, and not go astray
nor
worship idols, and I also will have compassion upon you.” Maurer
considers היאל־אי equivalent to היעִם
אי,
viz. remhabere
cum muliere; but to this linguistic usage is opposed. Umbreit renders the
phrase, “and I will only be for thee;” this, however, partakes more of the
nature of a promise than of a punishment, and is not quite,
therefore, in
accord with the context. Ewald: “And
yet I am kind to thee [i.e. love
thee];” this is a rather trivial, as also ill-supported idea. Calvin’s
exposition
is
pretty much the same as we have given, and is the following: “I also shall
be
for thee; that is, I pledge my faith
to thee, or I subscribe myself as thy
husband: but another time must be looked for; I yet defer my
favor, and
suspend it until thou givest proof of
true repentance. I also shall be for
thee; that is, thou shalt not be a widow in vain;
if thou complainest that
wrong is done to thee, because I forbid thee to marry any one
else, I also
bind myself in turn to thee.”
The Contrast Between
God’s Mercifulness and
THE PUNISHMENT THREATENED AND THE PROMISE
VOUCHSAFED.
Calvin has plainly pointed out the position of this chapter
in the series of God’s dealings with
says, “to keep in firm hope the minds of the faithful during
the exile, lest,
being overwhelmed with despair, they should wholly faint. This
prediction
occupies a middle place between the denunciation of the prophet
previously pronounced, and the promise of pardon. It was a dreadful thing
that God should divorce His people and cast away the Israelites
as
spurious children; yet a
consolation was afterwards added. But lest the
Israelites should think that
God would immediately, as on the first day, be so
propitious to them as to visit them with no chastisement, it was the
prophet’s design expressly to correct this mistake; as though he
said, ‘God
will indeed receive you again, but in the mean time a
chastisement is
prepared for you, which by its intenseness would break down your
spirits,
were it not that this comfort will ease you, and that is that God, although
He punishes you
for your sins, yet continues to provide for your
salvation, and to
be as it were your Husband.’”
UNREQUITED. The prophet’s treatment of the woman whom he was to
take or had taken to be his wife evinced extreme forbearance
and
exceeding tenderness. He loved her before her fall, — this was
natural
enough; he loved her during and notwithstanding her fall, — this
was not
to be expected; he continued to
love her after her fall, — this is contrary
to all the ordinary feelings and instincts of humanity. This continued
affection was designed, as
it was calculated, to win her back from the error
and evil of her ways. But where is the man who under ordinary
circumstances
would act so? Where is the
husband that would treat a worthless wife
with such mildness and compassion? But what man cannot find in his heart
to do, what man
cannot bring himself to do, GOD DOES in his treatment of
your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. For as
the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher
than
your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:8-9).
Notwithstanding all God’s love
to His
people
commencement of their national existence they showed a special proneness
to apostasy, readily and recklessly turning aside to
idolatrous worship; yet
God’s love continued through it
all, and outlived
it all. It was love to the
unlovable and unloving, to the undeserving and ungrateful; the current of His
love runs on like the river broad and deep, which never ceases in its course
till its waters form part of” the shining levels of the sea.”
SEDUCTIVE TENDENCY. Idolatry was usually associated with
voluptuousness and sensuality; and indulgences of this sort tended, no
doubt, to attract many votaries, and served as inducements to idol-worship.
Whether we take “flagons of wine” to be the right
rendering of the original,
as the Authorized Version does, or rather “raisin-cakes,” the
nature of the
attraction will be much the same — fondness
for self-indulgence. The
Levitical priests were forbidden the use of wine when they
ministered
before the Lord; the Nazarites were
total abstainers all the time of their
vow; but the worshippers of idols — priests and people alike —
am
represented as drinking bowls or flagons of wine. Raisin-cakes, sweet
and
luscious, formed parts of idolatrous repasts, and served as
appetizing
morsels in idol-feasts and for idol-worshippers. How like the
seductive
pleasures of sin in general! But they
neither last long nor satisfy while
they do last. (I
remember a phrase in an American History textbook, when
describing
stated “Is it a wonder that
a momentary pleasure only yields a pleasure
for a moment?” - CY – 2012) The meat offerings of Mosaic ritual
were
of a severer sort, and less calculated to gratify the taste and please the palate.
SEASON OF HER SEPARATION. If the prophet had already espoused
the woman whom he is directed to love, the pieces of silver
and measures
of barley could neither be dowry, nor purchase, nor a present
in any proper
sense. How, then, are we to understand the matter? Probably we
may
regard the expenditure here indicated as a suitable allowance for
her
support — a sufficient maintenance for her during the period of
her
separation from her husband. She may now be conceived as living apart
from her husband — shut out a mensa
eta thoro, as it is
said, and so
deprived of her proper means of subsistence. During this sad state
of
things, which her own guilt has brought about, she is still the
prophet’s
wife, and neither forgotten nor forsaken by him. True, in one
way she is
unpitied and
undeserving of pity, because of her vileness, yet in another she
is not entirely bereft of her husband’s affection; in spite
of her grievous
departure from the path of rectitude and virtue, his love follows
her, still
striving for her reformation and yearning for her restoration.
Meantime he
provides her with nearly fifty bushels of barley for food, and with
nearly
two pounds sterling in cash for raiment and other necessaries
of life. The
money and grain together would afford a sufficient, though not
very
sumptuous, support. Thus God’s
treatment of His
Though they were separated by
sin from His immediate presence, and
though they had forfeited His favors and proved themselves
unworthy of His
love, yet He has not entirely and finally cast them off. His
eye still rests
upon them; His mercy provides for them in their state of
isolation; they are
deprived indeed of the honor and dignity they once enjoyed and
might still
have retained, and they possess no longer the means of living
in luxury and
splendor as aforetime, yet they are allowed the necessary means of
subsistence and an humble maintenance, with
the prospect and for the
purpose of their ultimate restoration to full favor, and
unstinted
possession of all the benefits and blessings still in store for
them.
doomed to sit in solitary widowhood. Restrained from all
licentious
intercourse on the one hand, she is not restored to conjugal rights on
the
other. She was not to be a harlot, neither was she to be a
husband’s. That
husband, however, still regards Himself bound to her, and while
she abides
for Him He promises her a like return: “So will I likewise be to thee-ward.”
He would still have regard to
her and respect for her; feelings of kindness
would animate Him towards her; His guardian care and watchful
providence
would still be exercised on her behalf and for her benefit. The
meaning and
application of v. 3 is well given in the following comment: “He, His
affections, interest, thoughts, would be directed towards her.
The word
“towards” expresses regard, yet distance also. Just so would God, in
those
times, withhold all special tokens of His favor, covenant,
providence; yet
would He secretly uphold and maintain them as a people, and
withhold
them from failing wholly from Him into the gulf of irreligion
and infidelity.”
Sin is the cloud
that darkens our sky and shuts out the bright light
of our heavenly Father’s countenance; yet behind the
dark cloud of
afflictive providences He
hides a shining face.
WITH HIS PEOPLE.
Ø
We see here the Divine
considerateness. God might have made out a
bill of divorce, and dismissed them at once and forever. He
does not
deal with us with the rigor of law or in the strictness of
justice, but
according to the multitude of His tender mercies and loving-
kindnesses.
Ø
The condition He proposes
to us is that we be to Him a people, and He
will be to us a God. (One expression which I have been blessed
to have
understood the significance of, and one which has brought blessings
to
my home, my family, and my environment, from awareness in the
late
1940’s to 2012 – CY). When punished for sin it is wise and well to
Justify God’s ways with us
(as David did – Psalm 51:4); we must wait
with patience, and that perhaps for many days, until God again
lift on
us the light of His countenance. But besides all this, we
must not turn
again to folly (Psalm 85:8), as
harlotry in the future; in other words, to shun
every form of idolatry in
all time to come. So,
in dependence on Divine grace, we must resolve
to follow the Lord fully, not wandering in the wilderness,
not
worshipping the idols of our own pride, or passion, or sensuality, or
sin
of any sort, and never more to go
a-whoring from our God.
Ø
Another condition of
the covenant between the sovereign and His
once rebel but now repentant subjects is implied in this
passage,
and well stated in the following words: “If they
will be for God
to serve Him, He will be for them to save them. Let them
renounce
and abjure all rivals with God for the throne in the heart
and
devote themselves entirely to Him, and Him only, and He will be
to them A GOD ALL-SUFFICIENT!
If we be faithful and
constant to God in a
way of duty, and will never leave nor
forsake Him, He will be so to
us in a way of mercy, and will
never leave nor forsake us.” (Hebrews 13:5-6)
4
“For the children of
king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and
without an
image, and without an ephod, and teraphim.”
For a long series of years
they were thus doomed to be without CIVIL POLITY or
ECCLESIASTICAL
PRIVILEGE
or PROPHETIC
INTIMATIONS. More particularly they were
to remain
without royal rule, or princely power, or priestly function, or
prophetic
instruction. As the prophet’s wife was
neither to be, strictly speaking,
her husband’s nor yet belong to another man; so
was destined
to be deprived of independent self-government and princely
sovereignty; of Divine service, whether allowed as by sacrifice — the
central part of Hebrew worship — or disallowed as by statue; of
oracular
responses, whether lawful as by the ephod or unlawful as by teraphim.
There was thus an entire breaking up of Church and state as
they had long
existed; of all civil and ecclesiastical relations and privileges
as they had
been long enjoyed. Without a king of their own nationality to sit upon the
throne, or a prince of their own race as heir apparent to the
kingdom, or
princes as the great officers of state; without offering by
sacrifice to
Jehovah, or statue by way of memorial to Baal; without means of
ascertaining the will of Heaven in relation to the future by the Urim and
Thummim of the high-priestly ephod, only the more than
questionable
means of soothsaying by the teraphim;
— THE CHILDREN OF
WERE TO BE LEFT! And what attaches
special importance to this remarkable
passage is the
undeniable fact that these predictions were uttered, not only before
the dissolution of
the monarchy and the cessation of sacrifices, but at a time
when no human
sagacity could foresee and no human power foretell the
future abstention of
the Hebrew race from idol-worship so long practiced,
and from heathenish
divination resorted to from such an early period of
their history. Rashi, in his comment, has the following: “I said to her, Many
days shalt thou abide for me; thou shalt not go a-whoring after other gods;
for
if thou shalt play the harlot, thy sons shall remain
many days without a
king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice in the sanctuary in
without an ephod with Urim and Thummim which declared to them
secrets, and without teraphim; they are
images that are made with the
observation of one hour composed for the purpose, and which speak of
themselves and declare secrets; and so Jonathan has translated,
“Neither
will there be an ephod nor one to give a response.’” Similarly Aben Ezra:
“Without king, nor is there any objection from the Chasmoneans, for they
were not of the children of
to
Baal, without ephod to Jehovah and without teraphim
to the
worshippers of idols, which Laban called his
gods” (Genesis 31:19-35).
It is a matter of much consequence that some of the ablest of the Jewish
expositors realize these predictions as applicable to their own case
and the
existing circumstances of their nation. Thus Kimchi, in commenting on
this verse, says, “These are the days of the exile in which we are this day,
and
we
have neither king nor prince of
Gentiles, and in the power of their kings and princes… no
sacrifice to God
and
no statue for worshippers of idols… and no ephod which shall declare
future things by Urim and Thummim, and no teraphim for
idolaters which
declare the future according to the notion of those who believe in
them; and
thus we are this day in this exile, all the children of
Targum of Jonathan in confirmation of his sentiments. For the
ephod,
Compare Exodus 28:6-14, from which we learn that it was “a
short cloak,
covering shoulders and breast, wrought with colors and gold, formed
of
two
halves connected by two shoulder-pieces, on each of which was an
onyx engraved with six names of tribes, and held together round the waist
by
a girdle of the same material;” it was part of the high priest’s attire. The
teraphim — from the Arabic tarifa,
to live comfortably, and turfator, a
comfortable life, were the household gods and domestic oracles, like
the
Roman penates,
and deriving the name from being thought the givers and
guardians of a comfortable life, חֶרֶפ..
They were images in human form
and
stature, either graven of wood or stone (pesel),
or molten out of
precious metal (mas-sekhah). The
first mention of them is in Genesis
31:19, and the name occurs fifteen times in the Old Testament.
They
appear to have been of Syrian or Chaldean origin. Aben Ezra says of them,
“What appears to me most probable is that they had a human
form and
were made for the purpose of receiving supernal power, nor can I explain it
further.” The two principal species of offerings were the זבח, or bloody
sacrifice, and the מנחה, or unbloody oblation. The
former comprehended
those entirely burnt on the altar, עֹלָח rad. עלה, to ascend, from going up
entirely in the altar-smoke; and חלב, or those of which only the fat was
burnt. According to the object of the offerer,
they were chattah, sin
offering, pointing to expiation or pardon for something done
demanding
punishment; or asham, trespass
offering, implying satisfaction and
acceptance, or something undone demanding amends; and shelamim, peace
offerings.
The Kingless State and Priestless
Church (v. 4)
The singular symbolism of this book is intended vividly to
depict the misery
of
again the Divine favor she had forfeited. The woman whom the
prophet
purchased and married was to be deprived at once of her husband and
of
her
lovers, and in this forlorn and anomalous state was to be an emblem of
she
had been unfaithful, and from the spiritual paramours after whom she
had
gone, but in whom no help and no joy were now to be found.
FOR NATIONAL INFIDELITY. Jehovah was Himself the King of the
Israelites; their kingdom was a
theocracy. He had sent Moses the lawgiver;
He had raised
up judges; He had heard their prayer and given them a king.
In revolting from the house of
David, the ten tribes had dishonored God.
Whether we are to look for the
fulfillment of this threat in the collapse and
captivity of the northern kingdom, or in the present dispersion of
immaterial. The lesson is
plain. The
nation which misuses national
privileges and neglects national
opportunities shall lose them both, and
without a head, a corporate life, a settled abiding-place, shall
learn the truth
of the saying, “The Lord reigneth. He taketh down one, and setteth up
another.” (Psalm 75:7)
PUNISHMENT FOR IRRELIGION AND SPIRITUAL REBELLION.
The Hebrews
were highly favored in their possession, not only of the Law,
but of a priesthood, a dispensation of sacrifices and
festivals and various
means of communion with Heaven. As preparatory to a more
spiritual
economy, these arrangements were invaluable. But the enjoyment of
them
was justly made dependent upon their proper estimation and
employment.
The northern tribes, by their
secession, forfeited some of these advantages,
and they largely
corrupted to their own injury such as remained. The
time came when, in Oriental captivity, they mourned the loss of
advantages
they had too often despised and misused. And now, as they are
scattered
among the nations, they possess neither the sacrifices of the
heathen nor the
sacrifice of the Messiah, and are either condemned to a barren and
unhappy seclusion or
to a yet sadder alliance with the deists of the
lands in which they dwell. (Perhaps a modern parallel would be to dwell
among secularists and
perverts – CY – 2012) A
lesson to all who neglect
the precious opportunities with which they are favored
by
“Walk in the
light whilst ye have the light, lest darkness come
upon you.”
5
“Afterward shall the children of
Lord their God, and David their king;” - There is no note of exact time;
but
the reference is to “the latter days,”
to a period described as
“afterward.” Comparing this
language with the context, we infer that this
return to God should follow upon departure from God, and upon a
bitter
experience of the evil consequences of such forsaking. How often, as in the
case
of
transgressors is hard”! (Proverbs
13:15) Surely
chastening, which is designed
to
produce a proper estimate of sin and a sincere desire for deliverance, is not
to be
resented, but rather received with humility, that it may lead to
contrition, repentance,
and
amendment. Rashi
explains the note of time to signify “after the days of the
Captivity;” and by Kimchi as follows: “This will take place at the end of the
days,
near the
time of salvation, when the children of
repentance.” (I have always been under the impression that the Jews will
accept Jesus Christ as the Messiah – according to Isaiah 66:8-9 – their
conversion will be sudden – “Who
hath heard…..who hath seen….shall
a
nation be born at once? - this could happen soon –
nation again in 1948 –
“Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles
, until the times of the
Gentiles be fulfilled….when these
things come to pass, then look up,
and lift up your heads; FOR YOUR REDEMPTION DRAWETH NIGH!” –
Luke
21:24,28 – CY – 2012) Though
not comprehended in the symbolic
representation that precedes, this
statement is necessary to complete it. The
future of
its
brightness. It comprises three items:
Contemporaneous with their sorrow for the sins of the past
was their
serious seeking of the Lord their God and submission
to David their king.
Their revolt from the Davidic dynasty in the days of Rehoboam was
immediately followed by the idolatry of the calves which Jeroboam set
up
at
Dan and
complete recovery. The
patriarch David was long dead and buried, and his
sepulcher was in
therefore, in the Davidic line, a descendant from, and dynastic
representative of, the patriarch must be meant. That this was MESSIAH
there
can be no reasonable doubt; parallel
passages in the other prophets
prove this; for example: “I
will set up one shepherd over them, and He shall
feed
them, even my servant David; He shall feed them, and He shall be their
shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my servant David a
prince
among them” (Ezekiel
34:23-24; compare also 37:24). Again in Jeremiah
(Jeremiah 30:9) we read to the same purpose, “They shall serve the
Lord their God, and David their king, whom I will raise up
unto them.” We
can
by no means concur with those who refer this promise to Zerubbabel
as
a later occupant of the Davidic throne; and just as little with those who,
like Wunsche, hold that the prophet has no
particular period and no
particular person in view, but presents the prospect of a happy and
blissful
future when
His gracious protection, and when the national prosperity
would equal or
even far surpass that under the glorious reign of David himself. The
best
Jewish authorities are quoted in favor of the same; thus
Rabbi Tanchum
says, “He (the prophet) understands the son of David, occupying his place,
from his lineage, walking in his way, by whom his name shall endure and
his
kingdom be preserved.’’ The Chaldee Targum translates in the same
sense: “They shall seek the worship of
Jehovah their God, and obey
Messiah, the Son of David, their king.” So Aben Ezra says that
“David
their king is this Messiah, Like ‘My
servant David shall be their prince
forever’ (Ezekiel
37:25).” Observe: To whom should
“the Lord their God,” whom they had forsaken in order to worship the
vain gods of the heathen, but who, nevertheless, had a claim upon them that
none
other had, and who never ceased to be their God. In this
mankind; whoever returns
to the Lord, returns to his own, proper, rightful
God. To “David their king,” from whose
dynasty they had revolted in the pride,
self-sufficiency, and rebelliousness of their heart. David was representative
of the
theocracy, for he was “the Lord’s
anointed,” and he was an emblem of Him
who
was David’s Son and David’s Lord, the Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of
God! So that whoever
returns to the Lord by the gospel of Jesus Christ,
returns unto David, whose “sure mercies”(Isaiah
55:3; Acts 13:34) are ratified
in the Divine
Savior. The spirit in which
the
Lord, and should
“fear” or approach with reverential devoutness the Lord and
His goodness. The
spirit thus described is a spirit of true earnestness, a spirit of
lowly repentance, and a spirit of trembling confidence in THAT “GOODNESS”
UPON WHICH ALONE a contrite sinner can rely, AND UPON WHICH
HE CAN NEVER RELY IN VAIN!
The well-known idiom of one idea
Expressed by two verbs, so that the rendering of the clause
would be “They shall
again seek the Lord
their God, and David their king,” if
applied here, as
undoubtedly it might, would weaken the sense, and so be unsuitable to
the
context – “and shall fear (literally, come with
trembling to) the Lord and
His goodness in the latter days.” The comment of Kimchi on the
first part
of
this clause is as follows: “They shall
tremble and be afraid of Him when
they return to Him, and shall with repentance wait for the
goodness of
redemption on which they have trusted.” A somewhat different meaning is
assigned to the words by Aben Ezra: “They
shall return in haste, when the
end
(i.e. the time of redemption) comes to their own land with hasty
course
suddenly.” His goodness is taken by some in a concrete
sense, as signifying
the
blessings which He bestows and the good gifts which He imparts; and by
others in the abstract, as the Divine goodness or majesty, to
which
resorts for the pardon of sin and the gracious acceptance of their
petitions
and answer of their prayers.
There is an important question in connection with vs. 4-5
which presses for solution,
and
that is — Are the children of
Or has the expression, as used by the prophet, that wider
and larger signification in
which we popularly employ it, namely, as including all the
descendants of Jacob or
prior consideration. The ten tribes were carried away into
captivity and left
in
the lands of
two
tribes of Judah and Benjamin were carried into captivity in
about one hundred and thirty years subsequently. After a lapse
of seventy
years’ captivity the latter were permitted to return to their
own land, and
large numbers availed themselves of that permission. But what became of
the ten
tribes of
some, again, identify them with the Afghans; others with the American
Indians. Such theories are easily enough formed, but can scarcely
be said to
be
founded on facts. It is admitted that the fifty thousand who returned
belonged mainly to the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin, while many
of
those two tribes remained behind in
members of other tribes joined their brethren in the return to
Where, then, are we to look for the main body of the ten
tribes? We will
try
to answer this interesting and important question as best we can, and
with a view to its bearing on the subject before us. After the restoration
of
the
temple and city of
increase of the inhabitants of
Maccabees.
May we not regard it as more than probable that lingerers
out
of
all the tribes were attracted to their native land after the restoration of
its
capital, and the revival of the country’s prosperity? But large bodies still
remained behind in the lands of their dispersion (within my
lifetime one
quarter of the earth’s Jews, once lived in
there would be a natural tendency on the part of the remnants of
the two tribes
and
the ten to gravitate towards each other. Thus they may be supposed to have
amalgamated. Hence James addresses his Epistle to “the twelve tribes
which are of the
dispersion (James 1:1),” that is, “scattered
abroad,” according
to
the Authorized Version; and Paul says, “Unto
which promise our twelve tribes
instantly serving God day and
night, hope to come” (Acts 26:7). We may cite,
as
confirmatory, the opinion of the late Dr. M’Caul. He
says, “I feel strongly
inclined to the opinion that the ten tribes are now found mingled
with the
other two. I do not mean that the ten tribes returned from
Ezra and Nehemiah we are told particularly who did return,
but that the
main body of the Jews, who remained in
their brethren of the other tribes, and that this intermixture
increased after
the
destruction of the second temple.” Their return to the house of David,
intimated in v. 5, presupposes some such reunion with their brethren
as
that of which we speak. We are, therefore, inclined to believe that the
Judahites as well as the Israelites are comprehended in this plural
patronymic of “the children of
The state of the Jewish people at the present day, as well
as during centuries
past (sic. – Many Jews have returned since
The previous sentence was written prior to 1948 – Also
Jerusalem, since 1967,
is
under Jewish control now – see Luke 21:24 – all the more reason to look
up
because not only are these things being fulfilled around our ears, but our
“redemption draweth night” –
Ibid. v. 28 – CY – 2012), corresponds most
exactly with that here described by Hosea. And where, it may be
asked, is it
possible to find any other nation whose condition — political and
religious
— is the same or even similar? Their condition, precisely
what is here
described with respect to Church and state, lasted for centuries
unchanged,
with no public worship nor civil government. (That is until the last half of
the
20th century.
It should be suspicious and draw our attention to know that
the
Jews dwell in
Parliament and government, and have their own armed
services – Surely
the Coming
of the Messiah cannot be far off! - CY – 2012)
God confused their circumstances. “Here,” says an old
commentator, “is much
privation — six ‘withouts:’
but
the last verse makes up for all: ‘They shall
return, and seek the Lord
their God, and David their king.’ These ‘withouts’ show the wonderfully
confused estate that
regard of their civil and of their Church estate.” They had corrupted their
way,
setting up idols in Dan the place of judgment, and in
of
God; and that corruption now ends in confusion
of both their civil and
Church estate. They had combined the ordinances of God with their own
devices, that is, the sacrifice and ephod with the image and the teraphim;
now they are deprived of both.
"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.