Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume I Part 15

?????? is explained in a two-fold way. The common explanation is: "She has practised what is disgraceful, she has acted [Pg 237] shamefully."

Others, on the contrary, explain: "She has been put to shame, she has been disgraced." In this latter way it is explained by _Manger_, who remarks, "that this word is stronger than ???; that it implies not only an accusation of vile wh.o.r.edom, but also that she has been convicted of this crime, and as it were apprehended _in flagranti_; so that, even if she were yet impudent enough, she could no longer deny it, but must sink down in confusion and perplexity." This latter exposition is, without doubt, the preferable one; for, 1. ????? never occurs in the first-mentioned signification. _Winer_ contents himself with quoting the pa.s.sage before us. _Gesenius_ refers, moreover, to Prov. x. 5. But the ?? ???? of that pa.s.sage is evidently a son bringing disgrace upon his parents,--in xxix. 15 ???? is added,--or making them ashamed, disappointing their hopes. On the other hand, the signification, "to be put to shame," "to be convicted of a disgraceful deed," is quite an established one. Compare, _e.g._, Jer. ii. 26: "As the disgrace of a thief when he is found, thus the whole house of Israel is _put to shame_;" Jer. vi. 15: "They are put to shame, for they have committed abomination; they shamed not themselves, they felt no shame;" compare also Jer. viii. 9. In all these pa.s.sages, ????? signifies the shame forced upon those who have no sense of shame.--2. The signification, "to act disgracefully," does not admit of a regular grammatical derivation. _Gesenius_ refers to a.n.a.logies such as ??? ,?????; but these would be admissible only if the _Kal_ ??? signified, "to be infamous," while it means only "to be ashamed." Being derived from ???, the verb can mean only "to put to shame," in which signification it occurs, _e.g._, in 2. Sam. xix. 6. But, on the other hand, the signification, "to be put to shame," can be well defended. As the _Hiphil_ cannot have an intransitive signification, it must, with this signification, be considered as derived from ???, "_pudorem, ignominiam contraxit_,"--a view which is favoured by Jer. ii. 26.--The "lovers"

are the idols; compare the remarks on Zech. xiii. 6. The ?? confirms the statement, that she who bare them has been whoring, and has been put to shame by a further exposure of the crime and its origin. The same delusion which appears here as the cause of the spiritual adultery, is stated as such also in Jer. xlix. 17, 18. Jeremiah there warns the people not to contract sin by idolatry, because that was the cause of all their present misery, and would bring upon them [Pg 238]

greater misery still. But they answer him, that they would continue to offer incense and drink-offerings to the Queen of heaven, as they and their fathers had formerly done in their native land; for, "since we left off to do so, we have wanted all things, and were consumed by hunger and sword." The ant.i.thesis in Jer. ii. 13 of the fountain of living waters, and the broken cisterns that hold no water, has reference likewise to this delusion. But that which is the _cause_ of the gross wh.o.r.edom, is the _consequence_ of the refined one. The inward apostasy must already have taken place, when one speaks as the wife does in the verse before us. As long as man continues faithfully with G.o.d in communion of life, he perceives, by the eye of faith, the hand in the clouds from which he receives everything, which guides him, and upon which everything--even that which is apparently the most independent and powerful--depends. As soon as, through unbelief, he has lost this communion with G.o.d, and heaven is shut against him, he allows his eye to wander over every visible object, looks out for everything in the world which appears to manifest independence and superior power, makes this an object to which he shows his love, soliciting its favour, and making it his G.o.d. In thus looking around, the Israelites would, necessarily and chiefly, have their eyes attracted by the idols. For they saw the neighbouring nations wealthy and powerful; and these nations themselves derived their power and wealth from the idols. To these also the Israelites now ascribed the gifts which they had hitherto received; and this so much the rather, because it was easier to satisfy the demands of these idols, than those of the true G.o.d, who requires just that which it is most difficult to give--the heart, and nothing else. And, being determined not to give it to Him, they felt deeply that they could expect no good from Him. Whatever good He had still left to them, they could consider as only a gift of unmerited mercy, and destined to lead them to repentance,--a consideration which makes a natural man recoil and draw back, inasmuch as, in his relation to G.o.d, he always thinks only of merit. That which we thus perceive in them is even now repeated daily. We need only put in the place of idols, the abstract G.o.d of the Rationalists and Deists, man's own power, or the power of other men, and many other things besides, and it will at once be seen that the words, "I will go after my lovers that give me my [Pg 239] bread," etc., are, up to the present moment, the watch-word of the world.--"Bread and water" signify the necessaries of life; "oil and (strong) drink," those things which serve rather for luxuries.--"My bread," etc., is an expression of affection, indicating that she regards these as most necessary, and to be sought after, in preference to everything else.

Ver. 8. "_Therefore, behold, I hedge up thy way with thorns, and I wall her wall, and her paths she shall not find._"

The apostate woman is first addressed: "_thy_ way;" but the discourse then pa.s.ses to the third person,--"her wall, her paths." We must not conceive of this, as if the wife were to be shut up in a two-fold way:--first, by a hedge of thorns, and then, by a wall; but the same thing is expressed here by a double figure, as is also done in Is. v.

5. First, the shutting up is alone spoken of; it is afterwards brought into connection with the effects to be thereby produced; and because she is enclosed by a wall, she cannot find her path. "I wall her wall"

is tantamount to, "I make a wall for her." The words of the husband in the verse under consideration form an evident contrast to those of the wife in the preceding verse. _Schmid_ says: "The punishment is by the law of retaliation. She had said, 'I will go to my lovers;' but G.o.d threatens, on the contrary, that He will obstruct the way so that she cannot go." The ???? points to the unexpectedness of the result. The wife imagined that she would be able to carry out her purpose with great safety and ease; it does not even occur to her to think of her husband, who had hitherto allowed her, from weakness, as she imagines, to go on her way undisturbed; but she sees herself _at once_ firmly enclosed by a wall.--There can be no doubt, that, by the hedging and walling about, severe sufferings are intended, by which the people are encompa.s.sed, straitened, and hindered in every free movement. For sufferings regularly appear as the specific against Israel's apostasy from their G.o.d. Compare, _e.g._, Deut. iv. 30: "In the tribulation to thee, and when all these things come upon thee, thou returnest in the end of the days to the Lord thy G.o.d, and hearest His voice;" Hosea v.

15: "I will go and return to My place till they become guilty; in the affliction to them, they will seek Me." The figure of enclosing has elsewhere also, undeniably, the meaning of inflicting sufferings. Thus in Job iii. 23: "To the man whose way is hid, [Pg 240] and whom G.o.d has hedged in round about;" xix. 8: "He hath fenced up my way and I cannot pa.s.s, and upon my paths He sets darkness;" Lam. iii. 7: "He hath hedged me about, and I cannot get out; He hath made my chain heavy;" compare also ibid. ver. 9; Ps. lx.x.xviii. 9.--The object of the walling about is to cut her off from the lovers; the infliction of heavy sufferings is to put an end to idolatrous tendencies.--The words, "thy way," clearly refer to, "I will go after my lovers," in ver. 7; and by "her paths which she cannot find," her whole previous conduct in general is indeed to be understood, but chiefly, from the connection with ver. 7, her former intercourse with idols. But here the question arises:--How far is the remedy suited for the attainment of this end? We can by no means think of an external obstacle. Outwardly, there was, during the exile, and in the midst of idolatrous nations, a stronger temptation to idolatry than they had in their native land. Hence, we can think of an internal obstacle only; and then again we can think only of the absolute incapacity of the idols to grant to the people consolation and relief in their sufferings. If this incapacity has been first ascertained by experience, we begin to lose our confidence in them, and seek help where alone it can be found. As early as in Deut. x.x.xii. we are told how misery proves the nothingness of false G.o.ds, and shows that the Lord alone is G.o.d; compare especially ver. 36 sqq. Jeremiah says in ii. 28, "And where are thy G.o.ds that thou hast made thee? Let them arise and help thee in the time of trouble." That which the G.o.ds cannot turn away, they cannot have sent; and if the suffering be sent by the Lord, it is natural that help should be sought from Him also.

Compare vi. 1: "Come and let us return unto the Lord, for He hath torn and He healeth us, He smiteth and He bindeth us up."

Ver. 9. "_And she runs after her lovers and shall not overtake, and she seeks them and shall not find; then she saith: I will go and return to my first husband, for it was better with me then than now._"

??? has, in _Piel_, not a transitive, but an intensive meaning.

_Calvin_ remarks: "By the verb, insane fervour is indicated, as indeed we see that idolaters are like madmen; it shows that such is the perverseness of their hearts, that they will not at once return to a sound mind." The distress at first only increases [Pg 241] the zeal in idolatry; compare Jer. xliv. 17. Every effort is made to move the idols to help. But if help be, notwithstanding, refused--and how could it be otherwise, since they from whom it is sought are _Elilim_, _i.e._, nothings?--they by and by begin to bethink themselves, and to recover their senses. They discover the nothingness of their idols, and return to the true G.o.d. This apostasy and return are in a touching manner described by our prophet in xiv. 2-4 also. The words, "I will go and return to my first husband," form a beautiful contrast to, "I will go after my lovers," in ver. 7. This statement of the result shows that G.o.d's mercy is then greatest and most effective, just when it seems to have disappeared altogether, and when His punitive justice seems alone to be in active exercise. For the latter is by no means to be excluded, inasmuch as there is no suffering which does not, at the same time, proceed from it, and no punishment which is inflicted solely on account of the reformation.

Ver. 10. "_And she, she does not know that I gave her the corn, and the must, and the oil, and silver I multiplied unto her, and gold which upon Baal they spent._"

The prophet, starting anew, here returns to a description of her guilt and punishment; and it is only from ver. 16 that he expands what, in ver. 9, he had intimated concerning her conversion, and her obtaining mercy. The words, "She saith," in that verse, belong thus to a period more remote than the words, "She does not know," in the verse before us. The things which are here enumerated were, in the case of Israel, in a peculiar sense, the gift of G.o.d. He bestowed them upon the Congregation as her Covenant-G.o.d, as her husband. They are thus announced as early as in the Pentateuch; compare, _e.g._, Deut. vii.

13: "And He loveth thee, and blesseth thee, and multiplieth thee, and blesseth the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, thy must, and thy oil;" xi. 14: "And I give the rain of your land in due season, and thou gatherest in thy corn, thy must, and thy oil."

It is certainly not accidental that Hosea enumerates the three objects, just in the same order in which they occur in these two pa.s.sages. By the celebration of the feasts, and by the offering of the first-fruits, the Israelites were to give expression to the acknowledgment, [Pg 242] that they derived these gifts of G.o.d from His special providence--from the covenant relation. The relative clause ???

???? is subjoined, as is frequently the case, without a sign of its relation, and without a _p.r.o.n. suff._, which is manifest from the preceding substantive. Several interpreters, from the Chaldee Paraphrast down to _Ewald_, give the explanation, "which they have made for a Baal," _i.e._, from which they have made images of Baal, and appeal to viii. 4: "Their silver and their gold they have made into idols for themselves." But we must object to this opinion on the following grounds. 1. ???, with ? following, is a religious _terminus technicus_, with the sense of, "to make to any one," "to appropriate,"

"to dedicate," as appears from its frequent repet.i.tion in Exod. x. 25 sqq., and also from the fact that ????? is frequently omitted. The phrase is used with a reference to idolatry in 2 Kings xvii. 32; 2 Chron. xxiv. 7.--2. It cannot be proved that ????, in the singular and with the Article, could be used for "statues of Baal."--3. By this explanation we lose the striking contrast between that which the Israelites _were doing_, and that which they _were to do_. That which the Lord gave to them, they consecrated to Baal, instead of to Him, to whom alone these embodied thanks were due. And, not satisfied in withdrawing from the true G.o.d the honour and thanks which were due to Him, they transferred them to His enemy and worthless rival,--a proceeding which bears witness to the deep corruption of human nature, and which, up to the present day, is continually repeated, and must be so, because the corruption remains the same. It is substantially the same thing that the Israelites dedicated their gold to Baal, and that our great poets consecrate to the world and its prince the rich intellectual gifts which they have received from G.o.d. The words, "and she knew not," in both cases show that they are equally guilty and equally culpable. He who bestows the gifts has not concealed Himself; but they on whom they are bestowed have shut their eyes, that they may not see Him to whom they are unwilling to render thanks. They would fain wish that their liberal benefactor were utterly annihilated, in order that they may not be disturbed in the enjoyment of His gifts by a disagreeable thought of Him,--in order that they may freely use and dispose of them, without being obliged to fear their loss,--and in order that they may be able to devote them, without any [Pg 243]

obstruction, to a G.o.d who is like themselves, who is only their own self viewed objectively (_ihr objectivirtes Ich_). Parallel to the pa.s.sage before us, and, it may be, formed after it, is Ezek. xvi. 17, 18: "And thou didst take thy ornament of My gold and of My silver which I gave thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit wh.o.r.edom with them. And thou tookest thy broidered garments, and coveredst them, and My fat and Mine increase thou gavest before them."

_Hitzig_ understands, by the Baal here, the golden calf, appealing to the fact that the real wors.h.i.+p of Baal had been abolished by Jehu. But no proof at all can be adduced for the a.s.sertion that the name of Baal had been transferred to the golden calf. It is self-evident, and is confirmed by 2 Kings xiii. 6, xvii. 16 (in the latter of which pa.s.sages the wors.h.i.+p of Baal appears as a continuous sin in the kingdom of the ten tribes), that the destruction of the heathenish wors.h.i.+p by Jehu was not absolute. But so much is certain, that by the mention of Baal, the sin is here designated only with reference to its highest point, and that, in substance, the service of the calves is here included. In 1 Kings xiv. 9, it is shown that the sin of wors.h.i.+pping Jehovah under the image of calves is on a par with real idolatry; and in 2 Chron. xi. 15, the calves are put on a footing with the goat-deities of Egypt.

Ver. 11. "_Therefore I return, and take My corn in its time, and My must in its season, and take away My wool and My flax to cover her nakedness._"

??? stands here with great emphasis. It points to the eternal law of G.o.d's government of the world, according to which He is sanctified _upon_ them, _in_ whom He has not been sanctified; and this so much the more, the closer was His relation to them, and the greater were His gifts. From him who is not thereby moved, they will be taken away; and nothing but his natural poverty and nakedness is left to him who was formerly so richly endowed. And well is it with him if they be taken from him at a time when he is able still to recognise the giver in Him who taketh away, and may yet deeply repent of his unthankfulness, and return to Him, as is said of Israel in iii. 5. If such be done, it is seen that the ungrateful one has not yet become an object of divine justice alone, but that divine mercy is still in store for him. The longer G.o.d allows His [Pg 244] gifts to remain with the ungrateful, the darker are their prospects for the future. That which He gave in mercy, He, in such a case, allows to remain only in anger. The words ????

?????? are commonly explained by expositors, "I shall take again,"

inasmuch as two verbs are frequently found together which, in their connection, are independent of each other--the one indicating only an accessory idea of the action. But this mode of expression occurs in general far more rarely than is commonly a.s.sumed; and here the explanation, "I will return and take," is to be preferred without any hesitation. Scripture says, that G.o.d appears even when He manifests Himself only in the effects of His omnipotence, justice, and love,--a mode of expression which is explained by that large measure of faith which perceives, behind the visible effect, the invisible Author of it; compare, _e.g._, Gen. xviii. 10, where the Lord says to Abraham, that He would return to him at the same period in the following year; whereas He did not return in a visible form, as then, but only in the fulfilment of His promise. Thus G.o.d had formerly appeared to Israel as the Giver; and now that they did not acknowledge Him as such. He returns as the G.o.d that takes away. "She did not know that I gave, therefore I shall return and take." That the words were to be thus understood, the prophet, as it appears, intended to indicate by the change of the tenses. It is quite natural that a verb, used as an adverb, should be as closely as possible connected with that verb which conveys the princ.i.p.al idea; and it would scarcely be possible to find a single instance--at all events there are not many instances--where, in such a case, a difference of the tense takes place. Altogether a.n.a.logous is Jer. xii. 15: "And it shall come to pa.s.s after I have destroyed them, ???? ???????, I will return and have compa.s.sion on them;" where the sense would be very much weakened if we were to translate, "I shall _again_ have compa.s.sion." There appears to be the same design in the change of the tenses in iii. 5 also. What is there said of Israel forms a remarkable parallel to what is here said of G.o.d. G.o.d had formerly come, giving--Israel, taking; G.o.d now returns, taking--Israel giving,--a relation which opens up an insight into the whole economy of the sufferings.--"_My_ corn," etc., forms a contrast to ver. 7, where Israel had spoken of all these things as _theirs_.

Whatever G.o.d gives, always remains [Pg 245] His own, because He gives only as a loan, and on certain conditions. If any one should consider himself as the absolute master of it, He makes him feel his error by taking it away.--"In its time" and "in its season" are added, because it was _then_, ordinarily, that G.o.d had appeared as _giving_, and because _then_ they therefore confidently expected His gifts. But now He appears at once as _taking_, because they were already so sure of the expected gifts that they held them, as it were, already in their hands; just as if, at Christmas--which corresponds to the harvest, the ordinary season of G.o.d's granting gifts--parents should withdraw from their children the accustomed presents, and put a rod in their place.

It is better thus to understand the expression, "in its time, etc.,"

than to follow _Jerome_, who remarks, that "it is a severe punishment, if at the time of harvest the hoped-for fruits are taken away, and wrested from our hands;" for if, even at the time of the harvest, there be a want of all things, how will it be during the remaining time of the year.--The words, "to cover, etc.," are very concise, but without any grammatical ellipsis, instead of, "which hitherto served to cover her nakedness." As to the sense, the LXX. are correct in translating, t?? ? ?a??pte?? t?? ?s???s???? a?t??. For that which had _hitherto_ been, is mentioned by the prophet only for the purpose of drawing attention to what _in future_ will _not_ be.--It is the Lord who must cover the nakedness; and this leads us back to the natural poverty of man, who has not, in the whole world, a single patch or shred--not even so much as to cover his shame, which is here specially to be understood by nakedness. The same thought which is so well calculated to humble pride--what have we that we have not received, and that the Giver might not at any moment take back?--occurs also in Ezek. xvi. 8: "I spread out My wings over thee, and covered thy nakedness."

Ver. 12. "_And now I will uncover her shame before the eyes of her lovers, and none shall deliver her out of My hands._"

The ?pa? ?e??e??? ????? is best explained by "decay," "_corpus multa stupra pa.s.sum_." Being a femin. of a Segholate-form, its signification can be derived only from the _Kal_; but ??? always signifies "to be faded, weak, feeble;" in _Piel_ it means, "to make weak," "to declare as weak," "to disgrace," "to despise." As the signification of _Kal_ does not [Pg 246] imply the Idea of ignominy, we cannot explain the noun, as several interpreters do, by "_turpitudo_, _ignominia_." The ??a?a?s?a of the LXX. is probably a free translation of the word according to our view.--????? is constantly used for "_coram, inspectante aliquo_," properly, "belonging to the eyes of some one,"

and cannot therefore be explained here by "to the eyes," as if she were uncovered to, or for, the lovers alone; these, on the contrary, are mentioned only as fellow-witnesses. But in what respect do they come into consideration here? Several interpreters are of opinion that their powerlessness, and the folly of trusting in them, are intended to be here pointed out. Thus _Calvin_ says: "The prophet alludes to the impudent women who are wont, even by terror, to prevent their husbands from using their rights. He says, therefore, this shall not prevent me from chastising thee as thou deservest." Thus also _Stuck_, who subjoins to the phrase "her lovers:" "who, if they had the strength, might be a help to her." But it is altogether erroneous thus to understand the verse. The words, "Before the eyes of the lovers,"

rather mean, that the Lord would make her an object of disgust and horror even to those who formerly sought after her. The idea is this: Whosoever forsakes G.o.d on account of the world, shall, by G.o.d, be put to shame, even in the eyes of the world itself, and all the more, the more nearly he formerly stood to Him. This idea is here expressed in a manner suited to the figurative representation which pervades the whole section. _Jerome_ says: "All this is brought forward under the figure of the adulterous woman, who, after she has been taken in the very act, is exposed and disgraced before the eyes of all." The uncovering, as guilt, is followed by the uncovering, as punishment; and every one (and her lovers first) turns away with horror from the disgusting spectacle.

They now at once see her who, hitherto, had made a show with the apparel and goods of her lawful husband, in her true shape as a withered monster. That this explanation is alone the correct one, appears from the parallel pa.s.sages: compare, _e.g._, Nah. iii. 5: "Behold, I come upon thee, saith the Lord of hosts, and uncover thy skirts upon thy face, and make the heathen to see thy nakedness, and kingdoms thy shame. And it cometh to pa.s.s, all that see thee shall flee from thee:" Lam. i. 8: "Jerusalem hath committed sin, therefore she has [Pg 247] become a reproach; all that honoured her, despise her, for they have seen her nakedness; she sigheth and turneth away;" Jer. xiii.

26: "And I also (as thou hast formerly uncovered) uncover thy skirts over thy face, and thy shame shall be seen;" Ezek. xvi. 37, 41; Is.

xlvii. 3.--But now, it might seem that, according to this explanation, not the idols, but only the nations serving them, can be understood by the lovers. But this is only in appearance. In order to make the scene more lively, the prophet ascribes to the ??????, to them who are nothing, life and feeling. If they had these, they would act just as it is here described, and as their wors.h.i.+ppers really acted afterwards.--The second member of the verse, "And none shall deliver,"

etc., is in so far parallel to the first, as both describe the dreadfulness of the divine judgment. Parallel is v. 14: "For I will be as one who roars to Ephraim, and as a lion to the house of Judah: I will tear and go away, I will take away, and there is no deliverer."

Ver. 13. "_And I make to cease all her mirth, her feast, and her new-moon, and her sabbath, and all her festival time._"

The feasts served a double purpose. They were days of sacred dedication, and days of joy; compare Num. x. 10. Israel had violated them in the former character--just as at present the sacred days have, throughout the greater part of Christendom, the name only by way of _catachresis_--and, as a merited punishment, they were taken away by G.o.d in the latter character. They had deprived the festival days of their sacredness; by G.o.d, they are deprived of their joy fulness. The prophet, in order to intimate that he announces the cessation of the festival days as days of gladness, premises "all her mirth," to which all that follows stands in the relation of _species_ to _genus_. ????

does not here denote "joyful time:" it might, indeed, according to its formation, have this signification: but it is never found with it. It here means "joy" itself. (Compare the parallel pa.s.sages, Jer. vii. 34; Lam. i. 4: "The ways of Zion do mourn, because none come to the feasts;" Amos viii. 10: "And I will turn your feasts into mourning, and all your songs into lamentation;" Lam. v. 15; Is. xxiv. 8, 11.) The three following nouns were very correctly distinguished by _Jerome_.

??, "feast," is the designation of the three annual princ.i.p.al festivals. In addition to these, there was in every month the [Pg 248]

feast of the new-moon; and in every week, the Sabbath. This connection is a standing one, which, even in the New Testament (compare Col. ii.

16), still reverts. The words, "all her festival time," comprehend the single _species_ in the designation of the _genus_. That ???? properly signifies "appointed time," then, more specially, "festival time,"

"feast," appears from Lev. xxiii. 4: "These are the ????? of the Lord, the sacred a.s.semblies which you shall call ??????, in their appointed time." That the _feasts_ are not a single species co-ordinate with the new-moons and Sabbaths, but the genus, appears from the fact that in Lev. xxiii. the Sabbath opens the series of the ??????. In a wider sense, the new-moons also belonged to the ??????, although they are not enumerated among them in Lev. xxiii. on account of their subordinate character. In Num. x. 10, Is. i. 14, Ezra iii. 5, the new-moons are mentioned along with the ?????? only as the species by the side of the genus. But we are at liberty to think only of the feasts appointed by G.o.d; for, otherwise, there would be no room for the application of the _lex talionis_:--G.o.d takes from the Israelites only what they had taken from Him. The days of the Baalim are afterwards specially mentioned in ver. 15. The days of G.o.d are taken from them; for the days of the Baalim they are punished. This much, however, appears from the pa.s.sage before us--and it is placed beyond any doubt by several other pa.s.sages in Hosea as well as in Amos--that, outwardly, the wors.h.i.+p, as regulated by the prescriptions of the Pentateuch, had all along continued. (For the arguments in proof of this a.s.sertion, the author's _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, vol. i., are to be compared.)

Ver. 14. "_And I make desolate her vine and fig-tree, whereof she said, They are the wages of wh.o.r.edom to me, that my lovers have given me; and I make them a forest, and the beasts of the field eat them._"

The vine and fig-tree, as the two n.o.blest productions of Palestine--_Ispahan_, in the "_Excerpta ex vita Saladini_," p. 10, calls them "_ambos Francorum oculos_"--are here also connected with each other, as is commonly done in threatenings and promises, as the representatives of the rich gifts of G.o.d, wherewith He has blessed this country.--??? is often placed before an entire sentence, to mark it out as being relative in general. [Pg 249] It is the looser, instead of the closer connection, = "of which."--???? "wages of prost.i.tution," instead of which, in ix. 1 and other pa.s.sages, the form ???? occurs, requires a renewed investigation. It is commonly derived from ???, to which the signification "_largiter donavit, dona distribuit_," is ascribed. But opposed to this, there is the fact that the root ??? is, neither in Hebrew, nor in any of the dialects, found with this signification. It has in Hebrew, Arabic, and Syriac, the signification "to laud," "to praise," "to recount." But besides this ???, there occurs another ???, not with the general signification "to give," but in the special one, "to give a reward of wh.o.r.edom;" in which signification it cannot be a primitive word, but derived from ??? ???? = ????, in the pa.s.sage under consideration, and in Ezek. xvi. 34. The supposition of a primitive verb ???, with the signification "to give," is also opposed by the circ.u.mstance that the noun which is said to be derived from it never occurs with the general signification "gift," but always with the special one, "reward of prost.i.tution." ???? is rather derived from the first pers. Fut. Kal of the verb ???, a "I will-give-thee," similar to our "forget-me-not." The wh.o.r.e asks, in Gen. x.x.xviii. 16, ?????? ??

("what wilt thou give me?"), and the wh.o.r.emonger answers, ?????? ("I will give thee"), ver. 18. From this there originated, in the language of the brothel, a base word for such base traffic. The sacred writers are not ashamed or afraid to use it. They speak, throughout, of common things in a common manner; for the vulgar word is the most suitable for the vulgar thing. The morality of a people, or of an age, may be measured by their speaking of vulgar things in a vulgar manner, or the reverse. Wherever, in the language, the "_fille de joie_" or "_Freudenmadchen_" has taken the place of the "wh.o.r.e," a similar change will, in reality, have taken place. Whatsoever the people of Israel imagined that they received from their idols, they certainly will not have designated as a "reward of prost.i.tution," but as a "reward of true love." But the prophet at once destroys all their pleasant imaginings by putting into their mouths the corresponding expression,--an expression which must certainly have sounded very rudely and vulgarly in their tender ears; for the tongue and the ear become more tender, in the same degree in which the heart becomes more vulgar. She who imagined herself so tender and affectionate sees herself [Pg 250] at once addressed as a common prost.i.tute. The sweet proofs of the heartfelt mutual love which her "lovers" gave her are called "wages of wh.o.r.edom." This is indeed a good corrective for our language, for our whole view of things, for our own hearts, which are so easily befooled.

All love of the world, all striving after its favour, every surrender to the spirit of the age, is wh.o.r.edom. A reward of wh.o.r.edom, which must not be brought into the temple of the Lord (for it is an _abomination_ unto the Lord thy G.o.d, Deut. xxiii. 19), is everything which it offers and gives us in return. Like a reward of wh.o.r.edom, it will melt away; "of wages of wh.o.r.edom she has collected, and to wages of wh.o.r.edom it shall return."--This derivation from the Future has a great many a.n.a.logies in its favour; among others, the whole cla.s.s of nouns with ?

prefixed, in which it is quite evident (although this has been so often overlooked) that they have arisen from the Fut. If the ? in these forms originated from the _Hiphil_, how could it be explained that they are more frequently connected with _Kal_? Even the very common occurrence of the formation from the Future in the case of proper names, induces us to expect, _a priori_, that it will be more frequent in appellative names than is commonly supposed. The occurrence of the phrase ??? ????, in the pa.s.sages quoted, is also in favour of this derivation. By it, the interchange of the two forms ???? and ???? is easily accounted for.

In the latter of these forms, the _Nun_ which prevails in ???, but which had been dropped at the beginning, again reappears. A variation in the form is, moreover, quite natural in a word which originated from common life, which is entirely dest.i.tute of accurate a.n.a.logies, and is therefore, as it were, without a model; for the other nouns of this cla.s.s are formed from the 3d pers. of the _Fut._--As regards, now, the substance:--Egotism, and selfishness arising out of it, are the ground of all desire for the love of that which is not G.o.d, especially in the case of those who have already known the true G.o.d; for where this is not the case, there may be, even in idolatry, a better element, which seeks for a false gratification only because it does not know the true one. From this, however, it appears, that the idolatry of the Israelites (and this is only a species of the idolatry of all those who have had opportunity to know the true G.o.d, and of whom it is true that "the last is worse than the first") was [Pg 251] much lower than that of the Gentiles, whose poets and philosophers, in part, zealously opposed the dispositions which are here expressed; compare the pa.s.sages in _Manger_. Egotism is here, as it always is, folly; for it trusts in him who himself possesses only borrowed and stolen goods, which the lawful owner may, at every moment, take away from him. And in order that such folly may appear as such, and very glaringly too. He appears here indeed, and takes what He had in reality given out of His mercy, but what, according to their imagination, they had received from the idols as a reward.--The suffix in ????? refers to the vine and fig-tree. The gardens of vines and fig-trees carefully tended, hedged and enclosed round about, are to be deprived of hedges, enclosures, and culture (?a????a?e? ??? ? ??ade????? ? ?pe???, _Clem. Alex. Paed._ i. 1, p. 115 Sylb.), to be changed into a forest, and given over to the ravages of wild beasts; for the words "and eat them" are by no means to be referred to the fruits only. The same image of an entirely devastated country is found in Is. vii. 23 ff.; Mic. iii. 12.

Ver. 15. "_And I visit upon her the days of the Baalim, to whom she burnt incense, and put on her ring and her ornament, and went after her lovers, and forgat Me, saith the Lord._"

The days of the Baalim are the days consecrated to their wors.h.i.+p, whether they were specially set apart for that purpose, or whether they were originally devoted to the wors.h.i.+p of the Lord, whom they sought to confound with Baal. _Manger_, and with him, most interpreters, are wrong in understanding by the days of Baal, "all the time--certainly a very long one--in which that forbidden wors.h.i.+p flourished in this nation." Such would be too indefinite an expression. When days of the Baalim are spoken of, every one must think of days specially consecrated to them,--their festivals. To this must be added, moreover, the reference to the days of the Lord in ver. 13. In ver. 10, however, only one Baal, ????, is spoken of; here there are several. This may be reconciled by the supposition that one and the same Baal was wors.h.i.+pped according to his various modes of manifestation which were expressed by the epithets. But the plural may also be explained--and this seems to be preferable--from 1 Kings xviii. 18, where Baalim is tantamount to Baal and his a.s.sociates (compare _Dissertations on the Gen. of the Pent._ vol. i. p. 165); or from Lev. xvii. 7, where ?????? denotes the Goat-idol, [Pg 252] and others of his kind. The calves, the wors.h.i.+p of which was, at the time of Hosea, the prevailing one throughout the kingdom of the ten tribes, are, in that case, comprehended in the Baalim.--In the words, "And she put on her ring and ornament," the figurative mode of expression has been overlooked by most interpreters.

Misled by the ?????, which refers directly to the spiritual adulteress, they imagined that the wearing of nose-rings, and other ornaments, in honour of the idols, was here spoken of. A more correct view was held by the Chaldee who thus paraphrases: "The Congregation of Israel was like a wife who deserted her husband, and adorned herself, and ran after her lovers. Thus the Congregation of Israel was pleased to wors.h.i.+p idols, and to neglect My wors.h.i.+p." A great many false interpretations have had their origin in the circ.u.mstance, that they could not comprehend this liberty of the sacred writers, who at one time speak plainly of the spiritual ant.i.type, and at another time transfer to it the peculiarities of the outward type. Had this been kept in view, it would not, _e.g._, have been a.s.serted, that David had, in Ps. xxiii. 5, relinquished the image of the good shepherd, because he does not speak of a trough which the actual good shepherd places before his sheep, but of a table, placed before them by the spiritual good Shepherd. In the pa.s.sage under consideration, the ????? denotes an action performed by her who is an adulteress in a spiritual point of view. In the words, "She puts on," etc., her conduct is described under the figure of that of her outward type. The actual correspondence is to be found in her efforts of making herself agreeable,--in the employing of every means in order to gain her spiritual lovers. The putting on of precious ornaments comes into view, only in so far as it is one of these efforts, and, indeed, a very subordinate one. The burning of incense, the offering of sacrifices, etc., are, in this respect, of far greater importance. The correctness of our interpretation is confirmed by those parallel pa.s.sages also, in which the same figurative mode of expression occurs. Thus, _e.g._, Is. lvii. 9: "Thou lookest upon the king (the common translation, "thou goest to the king," cannot be defended on philological grounds) in oil (_i.e._, smelling of ointment), and multipliest thy perfume,"--evidently a figurative designation, taken from a coquetish woman, to express the employing of all means in, order to gain favour;--Is. iv. 30: [Pg 253] "And thou desolate one, what wilt thou do? For thou puttest on thy purple, for thou adornest thyself with golden ornaments, for thou rentest thine eyes with painting. In vain thou makest thyself fair; the lovers despise thee, they seek thy life." In Ezek. xxii. 40-42, Jerusalem washes and paints herself, expecting her lovers, and decks herself with ornaments; then she sits down upon a stately couch; a table is prepared before her, upon which she places the incense of the Lord, and His oil.

In this last feature in Ezekiel, the type disappears behind the thing typified, although not so completely as is the case in the pa.s.sage under consideration, in the words, "She burns incense."--From what has been remarked, it appears that, in substance, Hos. iv. 13, "They sacrifice upon the tops of the mountains and b.u.m incense upon the hills," is entirely parallel. The two clauses, "She went after her lovers," and "she forgat Me," both serve to represent the crime in a more heinous light. Sin must certainly have already poisoned the whole heart, if occasion for its exercise be spontaneously sought after. In reference to the latter, _Calvin_ remarks: "Just as when a wife has for a long time lived with her husband, and has been kindly and liberally treated by him, and then prost.i.tutes herself to lovers, and does not entertain or retain any more love for him; such a depravity is nothing less than brutish."

Ver. 16. "_Therefore, behold, I allure her, and lead her into the wilderness and speak to her heart._"

The consolation and promise here begin with as great abruptness as in the first section. It is reported how the Lord gradually leads back His unfaithful wife to reformation, and to reunion with Him, the lawful husband. Great difficulty has been occasioned to interpreters by the ??? at the commencement. Very easily, but at the same time very inconsiderately, the difficulty is got over by those who give it the signification, "_utique_, _profecto_;" but this cannot be called interpreting. It must be, above all, considered as settled and undoubted, that ??? can here have that signification only which it always has; and this all the more, that in vers. 8 and 15 it occurred in the same signification. This being taken for granted, the "therefore" might be referred to the words of the wife in ver. 9, "I will go and return to my first husband," and all which follows be considered as only a kind of parenthesis. That the Lord begins again to show Himself [Pg 254] kind to His wife would then have its foundation in this:--that in her the first symptoms of a change of character manifested themselves. But this supposition is, after all, too forced.

These words are too far away as that the prophet could have expected to be understood, in thus referring to them in a manner so indefinite.

Several interpreters follow the explanation of _Tarnovius_: "Therefore, because she is not corrected by so great calamities, I will try the matter in another and more lenient way, by kindness." But the prophet could not expect that his hearers and readers should themselves supply the thought, which is not indicated by anything,--the thought, namely, "because that former method was of no avail, or rather, because it _alone_ did not suffice;" for it was by no means wholly in vain. When the Lord had hedged up her way with thorns, the woman speaks: "I will go and return;" and where tribulations are of no avail--tribulations through which we must enter the kingdom of G.o.d--nothing else will. The severity of G.o.d must precede His love. And even though this train of thought should have occurred to them, they had no guarantee for its correctness. It is most natural to take the ??? as being simply co-ordinate with the ??? in vers. 8 and 11. The "_because_," which, in all the three places, corresponds to the _therefore_, is the wife's apostasy. Because she has forgotten G.o.d, He recalls Himself to her remembrance, first by the punishment, and then, after this has attained its end,--after the wife has spoken: "I will go and return,"--by proofs of His love. The leading to Egypt, into the wilderness, into the land of Canaan, rests on her unfaithfulness as its foundation. Without it, the Congregation would have remained in undisturbed possession of the promised land. By it, G.o.d is induced, both according to His justice and His mercy, to take it from her, to lead her back into the wilderness, and thence to the promised land.--???, in the _Piel_, is a _verb.u.m amatorium_; it signifies "to allure by tender persuasion." There is to be a repet.i.tion of the proceeding of G.o.d, by which He formerly, in Egypt, allured the people to Himself, and induced them to follow Him into the wilderness, from the spiritual and bodily bondage in Egypt.

After the sufferings, there always follows the alluring. G.o.d first takes away the objects of sinful love, and then He comes alluring and persuading us that we should choose, for the object of our love. Him who alone is worthy of, and ent.i.tled to, love. He is not [Pg 255]

satisfied with the strict prosecution of His right, but endeavours to make duty sweet to us, and, by His love, to bring it about that we perform it from love. After He has thus allured us. He leads us from Egypt into the wilderness.--The words, "I lead her into the wilderness," have been very much misunderstood by interpreters.

According to _Manger_, the wilderness here is that through which the captives should pa.s.s on their return from Babylon. But one reason alone is sufficient to refute this opinion,--namely, that on account of the following verse, by the wilderness (the article must not be overlooked), only that wilderness can be understood which separates Egypt from Canaan. Others (_Ewald_, _Hitzig_), following _Grotius_, understand by the wilderness, the a.s.syrian captivity. _Kuehnol_ has acquired great merit for this exposition, by proving from a pa.s.sage in _Herodotus_, that there were, at that time, uncultivated regions in a.s.syria! The same reason which militates against the former interpretation is opposed to this also. To this it may be further added, that, according to it, we can make nothing of the _alluring_.

The Israelites were not _allured_ into captivity by kindness and love; they were driven into it _against_ their will, by G.o.d's wrath.

_Moreover_, what according to this interpretation is to be done with the ??? in ver. 17? Did, perhaps, the vineyards of Canaan begin immediately beyond a.s.syria, or does not even this rather lead us to the Arabian desert? It is certain, then, that this desert is the one to be thought of here, and, in addition, that it can only be as an image and type that the prophet here represents the leading through the wilderness, as a repet.i.tion of the former one in its individual form; inasmuch as it was, substantially, equal with it. For they who returned from the a.s.syrian captivity could not well pa.s.s through the literal Arabian desert; and the comparison expressed in the following verse, "As in the day when she went up from the land of Egypt," shows that here also a _decurtata comparatio_ must take place. But, now, all depends upon determining the essential feature, the real nature and substance, of that first leading through the wilderness; because the leading spoken of in the verse before us must have that essential feature in common with it. The princ.i.p.al pa.s.sage--which must guide us in this investigation, and which is proved to be such by the circ.u.mstance that the Lord Himself referred [Pg 256] to it when He was _spiritually_ led through the wilderness, an event which, for a sign, _outwardly_ also took place in the wilderness--is Deut. viii. 2-5: "And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy G.o.d led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to afflict thee and to prove thee, to know what was in thy heart, whether thou wouldst keep His commandments, or no. And He afflicted thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with the manna which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know, that He might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by everything which proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live. Thy raiment waxed not old upon thee, neither did thy foot swell these forty years. And thou knowest in thine heart, that as a father chasteneth his son, so the Lord thy G.o.d chasteneth thee." The essential feature in the leading through the wilderness is, accordingly, the _temptation_. By the wonderful manifestations of the Lord's omnipotence and mercy, on the occasion of Israel's deliverance from Egypt, a heartfelt love to Him had been awakened in the people. (Compare the tender expression of it in the Song in Exod. xv.; and also the pa.s.sage in Jer. ii. 2: "I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, thy going after Me in the wilderness in a land not sown,"--which cannot but refer to the very first time of the abode in the wilderness, before the giving of the law on Sinai, as is evident from the mention of the youth and espousals; for the latter ceased on Sinai, where the marriage took place.) The whole conduct of the people at the giving of the law,--their great readiness in promising to do all that the Lord should command,--likewise bear testimony to this love.

The Lord's heartfelt delight in Israel during the first period of their marching through the wilderness, of which Hosea speaks in ix. 10, likewise presupposes this love. Thus the first station was reached. The people now hoped to be put in immediate possession of the inheritance promised to them by the Lord. But, because the Lord knew the condition of human nature. His way was a different one. A state of temptation and trial succeeded that of entire alienation from G.o.d. The first love is but too often--nay, it is, more or less, always--but a flickering flame. Sin has not been entirely slain; it has been only subdued for a moment, and only wants a favourable opportunity [Pg 257] to regain its old dominion. It would never be thoroughly destroyed, if G.o.d allowed this condition always to continue; if by always putting on new fuel, if by uninterrupted proofs of His love. He were to keep that fire burning continually. If the love of the feelings and imagination is to become a cordial, thorough moral love, it requires to be tried, in order that thus it may recognise its own nothingness. .h.i.therto, and how necessary it is that it should take deeper root. The means of this trial are G.o.d's afflicting us, concealing Himself from us, leading us in a way different from that which we expected, and, apparently, forsaking vis.

But because He is the merciful One who will not suffer us to be tempted above that we are able,--because He Himself has commanded us to pray, "Lead us not into temptation," _i.e._, into such an one as we are not able to bear, and would thereby become a temptation inwardly,--He makes His gifts to go by the side of His chastis.e.m.e.nts. He who suffered Israel to hunger, gave them also to eat. He who suffered them to thirst, gave them also to drink. He who led them over the burning sand, did not suffer their shoes to wax old. But this counterpoise to tribulation becomes, in another aspect, a new temptation. As Satan tries to overthrow us by pleasure as well as by pain; so G.o.d proves us by what He gives, no less than by what He takes away. In the latter case, it will be seen whether we love G.o.d _without_ His gifts; in the former, whether we love Him in His gifts. This second station is, to many, the last; the bodies of many fall in the wilderness. But while a mult.i.tude of individuals remain there, the Congregation of G.o.d always pa.s.ses over to the third station,--the possession of Canaan. The state of temptation is, to her, always a state of sifting and purification at the same time. That which is to the individual a calamity, is to her a blessing.--That we have thus correctly defined the nature and substance of the leading through the wilderness, is confirmed by the temptation of Christ also, which immediately succeeded the bestowal of the Spirit, which again corresponded to the first love. That this temptation of Christ corresponded to the leading through the wilderness--in so far as it could do so in the case of Him who was tempted in all things, yet without sin; while in our case, there is no temptation, even when resisted [Pg 258] victoriously, that is without sin--appears sufficiently from its two external characteristics, viz., the stay in the wilderness, and the forty days; but still more so, from the internal feature,--the fact that the Saviour, in order to show the tempter that He recognised in His own case a repet.i.tion of the stay in the wilderness, opposed Him with a pa.s.sage taken from the _locus cla.s.sicus_ concerning it, already quoted.--We now, moreover, cite the parallel pa.s.sages which serve as an explanation of the pa.s.sage under consideration, and as a confirmation of the explanation which we have given. The most important is Ezek. xx. 34-38: "And I bring you _out from the nations_, and gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand and with a stretched-out arm, and with fury poured out. And I bring you into the _wilderness of the nations_, and there will I plead with you face to face; like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead there with you, saith the Lord G.o.d. And I cause you to pa.s.s under the rod, and bring you into the bond of the covenant, and purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against Me; out of the land of your pilgrimage (the standing designation of Egypt in the Pentateuch) I will bring them forth, and into the land of Israel they shall not come, and ye shall know that I am the Lord." Here also, the stay in the wilderness appears as a state of trial, lying in the middle between the abode among the nations (corresponding to the bondage in Egypt, which was so not merely bodily, but spiritual also), and the possession of Canaan. And the result of this trial is a different one, according to the different condition of the individuals. Some shall be altogether destroyed; even the appearance of the communion with the Lord, which they hitherto maintained by having come out of the land of pilgrimage along with the others, shall be taken away; whilst the others, by the very means which brought about the destruction of the former, shall be confirmed in their communion with the Lord, and be more closely united to Him. Hosea, who, in consequence of the personification of the Congregation of Israel, has the whole more in view, regards chiefly the latter feature. A very remarkable circ.u.mstance in Ezekiel, however, requires to be still more minutely considered; because it promotes essentially the right understanding of the pa.s.sage before us. What is meant [Pg 259] by the "wilderness of the nations?" Several interpreters think that it is the wilderness between Babylon and Judea. Thus, for example, _Manger_: "_I am disposed to think_ that the desert of Arabia itself is here called the wilderness of the nations, on account of the different nomadic tribes which are accustomed to wander through it." _Rosenmuller_ says: "He _seems_ to speak here of those vast solitudes which the Jews had to pa.s.s through, on their way from Babylon to Judea." But this "I am disposed to think,"

and this "he seems," on the part of these interpreters, show that they themselves felt the insufficiency of their own explanation. That nomadic tribes are straying through that wilderness, is not at all essential, and can therefore not be mentioned here, where only the essential feature--the nature and substance of the leading through the wilderness--are concerned. And we cannot at all perceive why just the wilderness between Babylon and Judea should be called the wilderness of the nations. It was no more travelled by nomadic tribes than was any other wilderness. And just as little was it characteristic of it, that it bordered upon the territories of various nations (_Hitzig_). Such a designation would throw us upon the territory of mere conjecture, on which we are, in Holy Scripture, never thrown, except through our own fault. But it is quite decisive that the words, "I bring you out of the wilderness of the nations," stand in a close relation to the words, "I bring you out from the nations." From this it appears that the nations, to which the Israelites are to be brought, cannot be any other than those, out of the midst of whom they are to be led. In the first leading out of the Israelites, the two spiritual conditions were separated externally also. The first belonged to Egypt; the second, to the wilderness. But it shall not be thus, in this announced repet.i.tion of the leading. It is only spiritually that the Israelites, at the commencement of the second condition, shall be led out from among the nations, in the midst of whom they, outwardly, still continue to be.

The wilderness is in the second Egypt itself. The stay in the wilderness is repeated as to its essence only, and not as to its accidental outward form; just as in Zech. x. 12, the words, "And he pa.s.seth through the sea," which apparently might imply a repet.i.tion of the outward form merely, are limited to the substance by the subjoined "affliction." From this we obtain for our pa.s.sage (_Hitzig_ likewise [Pg 260] remarks: Ezek. xx. 34-38 seems to depend on Hosea ii. 16) the important result, that the leading of G.o.d which is here announced, is not limited to a definite place, and as little, to a definite time. And what is true of the leading through the wilderness, must necessarily apply to the leading into Canaan also. Just as Egypt might begin, and actually did begin, even in Palestine, inasmuch as Israel was there in a condition of heavy spiritual and bodily bondage;--just as, spiritually, they might already be in the wilderness, though, outwardly, they were still under a.s.shur; so, the stay in the wilderness might, relatively, have still continued in Canaan, even although--which did not happen--the whole people should have returned thither with Zerubbabel. What is it that makes Canaan to be Canaan, the promised land, the land of the Lord? It is just this:--that the Lord is there present with all His gifts and blessings. But such was by no means the case in the new colony. Because the spiritual condition of those who had returned was in conformity with the second--in part, even with the first--rather than with. the last station, their outward condition was so likewise. John the Baptist symbolized this continuation of the condition of the wilderness, by his appearing _in the wilderness_, with the preaching of repentance, and with. the announcement, that now the introduction to the true Canaan was near at hand. By proclaiming himself as the voice crying in the wilderness, announced by Isaiah, he showed with sufficient plainness how false was that carnal view which, without being able to distinguish the thought from its drapery, understood, and still understands, by the wilderness spoken of in this prophecy, some piece of land, limited as to s.p.a.ce, and then murmured that the actual limit did not correspond with the fancied one.--As in the case of Israel, so in ours also, these conditions are distinguished, not absolutely, but relatively only. Even he who has, in one respect, been already led through to Canaan, remains, in another respect, in the wilderness still. Canaan, in the full sense, does not belong to the present world, but to the future, as regards both the single individual, and the whole Church.--Another parallel pa.s.sage is Jer. x.x.xi. 1, 2: "At this time, saith the Lord, will I be the G.o.d of all the families of Israel, and they shall be My people. Thus saith the Lord, The people who have escaped from the sword find mercy in the wilderness; [Pg 261] I go to give rest to Israel." In Rev. xii.

6, 14, the wilderness likewise designates the state of trial and temptation.--??? ?????, properly "to speak over the heart," because the words fall down upon the heart, signifies an affectionate and consolatory address; compare Gen. x.x.xiv. 3 ("And he loved the damsel, and spoke over the heart of the damsel"), l. 21; Is. xl. 2. Here they signify that the wife is comforted after she had been so deeply cast down by the consciousness of her former unfaithfulness, and by the experience of its bitter consequences. The view of those who would here think only of the comforting words of the prophets is much too limited,--although these words are, of course, included. We must chiefly think of the _sermo realis_ of the Lord, of all the proofs of affectionate and tender love, whereby He gives rest to the weary and heavy-laden, and brings it about, that those who were formerly unfaithful, but who now suffer themselves to be led by Him out of the spiritual bondage into the spiritual wilderness, can now put confidence in Him; just as, formerly. He comforted Israel in the wilderness, in the waste and desolate land, in the land of drought and of the shadow of death (Jer. ii. 6), and affectionately cared for all their wants, in order that they might know that He is the Lord their G.o.d, Deut. xxix.

4, 5.

Ver. 17. "_And I give her her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor_ (trouble) _for a door of hope; and she answers thither as in the days of her youth, and as in the day when she came up out of Egypt._"

The same faithful love which led into the wilderness, now leads into Canaan also; and the entrance into the promised land is immediately followed by the possession of all its gifts and blessings, which now legitimately belong to the _faithful_ wife (_her_ vineyards), whilst, formerly, they were taken from the unfaithful wife by the giver, ver.

14. ??? with ? of the person, always means "to give to some one." Hence _Simson_ is wrong in giving the explanation: "And I make her of it, viz., the wilderness, her vineyards;" for the valley of Achor was not situated in the wilderness, but in Canaan; compare Is. lxv. 10. The signification "to give" is here suited to the second member of the verse also. The valley of Achor is given to her in its quality as a valley of hope. The _vineyards_ are mentioned with reference to ver.

14, where the devastation of the vine is [Pg 262] threatened. They are brought under notice as the n.o.blest possession, as the finest ornament of the cultivated land, in contrast with the barren wilderness. ???, properly "from thence," is correctly explained by _Manger_: "As soon as she has come out of that wilderness." The explanation of _Rodiger_ and others, "From that time," is unphilological; ?? is never an adverb of time.--According to the opinion of many interpreters (_Calvin_, _Manger_, and others), the valley of Achor here comes into consideration only because of its fruitfulness, and its situation at the entrance of the promised land, but not with any reference to the event which, according to Josh. vii., happened there. But the circ.u.mstance that here, as in the whole preceding context, the prophet, in almost every word, has before his eyes the former leadings of Israel, compels us, almost involuntarily, to have respect to that event. And, in addition, there is a still more decisive argument. It cannot be denied that there is a contrast between what the valley of Achor is by nature, and what it is made by the Lord; there is too plain a contrast between the _hope_ and the _affliction_. But if thus the meaning of the name is brought into view, then certainly there must also be a reference to the event to which it owed its name. But in order to have a right understanding of this reference, we must find out what was the essential feature in the event, the repet.i.tion of which is here announced. The people, when they were entering into Canaan, were immediately deprived of the enjoyment of the divine favour by the transgression of an individual--Achan--which was only a single fruit from the tree of the sin which was common to all. But G.o.d Himself, in His mercy, made known the means by which the lost favour might be recovered; and thus the place, which seemed to be the door of destruction, became the door of hope; compare _Schultens_ on _Harari_ iii. p. 180. The remembrance of this event was perpetuated by the name of the place; compare ver. 25: "And Joshua said. Why hast thou troubled us? The Lord shall trouble thee this day. Therefore the name of the place was called. The valley of Achor, unto this day." This particular dealing of G.o.d, however, is based upon His nature, and must, therefore, repeat itself when Israel again comes into similar circ.u.mstances,--must be repeated, in general, whensoever similar conditions arise. Even they who have already entered the [Pg 263]

promised land, who have already come to the full enjoyment of salvation (_full_, in so far as it is considered as a whole, and designated as the last station; but as this last station again has several steps and gradations, this fulness can be relative only. If it were absolute, if nothing more of the wilderness were left, then, of course, the case here in question could no more occur; for a salvation absolutely full presupposes a righteousness absolutely full);--even they who have already come to the full enjoyment of salvation, and to a degree of righteousness corresponding to this salvation, require still the mercy of G.o.d; for, without it, they would soon lose their salvation again.

This mer