Volume I Part 12 (1/2)

”They have set up kings, and not by Me”--says the Lord by him, chap.

viii. 4--”they have made princes, and I knew it not.” In his view, then, the whole basis of the government in Israel is unG.o.dliness.

Because they have chosen kings and princes without G.o.d, and against the will of G.o.d, they shall be taken from them by G.o.d, chap. iii. 4.

Salvation cannot come to the people until Israel and, Judah set over themselves one head, ii. 2 (i. 11), until the children of Israel seek Jehovah their Lord, and David their king, iii. 5. These two things are, in his view, intimately connected; no true return to the invisible head of the Theocracy is possible without, at the same time, a return to the visible one--the house of David. What, at some future time, the ma.s.s of the people, when converted, were to do, the converted individual must do even now. He even now recognised the kings of the tribe of Judah as truly his sovereigns, although he yielded civil obedience to the rulers of Israel, until G.o.d should again abolish the government which He gave to the people in wrath, and set [Pg 167] up in opposition to the government of the house of David in His anger, on account of their apostasy. From all this, it clearly appears that, in order to account for the peculiarity of the inscription, we need not have recourse to the conjecture, that Hosea was a native of Judah. One might, with as much reason, maintain that all the prophets in the kingdom of Israel, who rejected the wors.h.i.+p of the calves--and hence all the prophets without exception--were natives of the kingdom of Judah. For the wors.h.i.+p of the calves is quite on a par with the apostasy from the anointed of G.o.d. Hosea mentions, first and completely, the kings of the legitimate family. He then further adds the name of one of the rulers of the kingdom of Israel, under whom his ministry began, because it was of importance to fix precisely the time of its commencement. Uzziah, the first in the series of the kings of Judah mentioned by him, survived Jeroboam nearly twenty-six years; compare _Maurer_, l. c. p.

284. Now, had the latter not been mentioned along with him, the thought might easily have suggested itself, that it was only during the latter period of Uzziah's reign that the prophet entered upon his office; in which case all that he said about the overthrow of Jeroboam's family would have appeared to be a _vaticinium post eventum_, inasmuch as it took place very soon after Jeroboam's death. The same applies to what was said by him regarding the total decay of the kingdom which was so flouris.h.i.+ng under Jeroboam; for, from the moment of Jeroboam's death, it hastened with rapid strides towards its destruction. If, therefore, it was to be seen that future things lie open before G.o.d and His servants ”before they spring forth” (Is. xlii. 9), it was necessary that the commencement of the prophet's ministry should be the more accurately determined; and this is effected by the statement, that it happened within the period of the fourteen years during which Uzziah and Jeroboam reigned contemporaneously. That this is the main reason for mentioning Jeroboam's name, is seen from the relation of ver. 2 to ver. 1. The remark there made,--that Hosea received the subsequent revelation at the very beginning of his prophetic ministry, corresponds with the mention of Jeroboam's name in ver. 1. But this is not all; nor can we say that, had it not been for this reason, Hosea would not have mentioned any king of Israel at all, in order that, from the outset, he might exhibit [Pg 168] his disposition. There was a considerable difference between Jeroboam and the subsequent kings. _Cocceius_ remarked very strikingly: ”The other kings of Israel are not considered as kings, but as robbers.” Jeroboam possessed a _quasi_ legitimacy. The house of Jehu, to which he belonged, had opposed the extreme of religious apostasy. It was, to a certain degree, acknowledged, even by the prophets. Jeroboam had obtained the throne, not by usurpation, but by birth. He was the last king by whom the Lord sent deliverance to the people of the ten tribes; compare 2 Kings xiv. 27: ”And the Lord would not blot out the name of Israel from under heaven; and He saved them by the hand of Jeroboam, the son of Joash.” (2.) The _internal_ reason adduced by _Maurer_ (S. 294) is equally insignificant. ”The _morum magistri_,” he says, ”are wont more slightly to reprove, in the case of strangers, that which they severely condemn in their own people; but Hosea rebukes with as much severity the inhabitants of Judah, when he comes to speak of them, as he does the Israelites.” But no certain inferences can be drawn from such commonplaces; for, in this way we might as reasonably infer, that Isaiah and the writer of the Books of Kings were natives of the kingdom of the ten tribes, because they censure the sins of the Israelites as severely as they do those of the inhabitants of Judah. To this commonplace we might as easily oppose another equally true, viz., the ”_morum magistri_, from a partiality for their own people, are wont to judge more leniently of their faults than of those of strangers.” Such maxims require to be applied with the utmost caution, even in the territory to which they belong, because one consideration may be so easily outweighed by another. Here, however, its application is altogether out of the question. The prophets, as the instruments of the Spirit, spoke pure and plain truth without any regard to persons. Whether Hosea was a native of Judah or of Israel, he would express himself in the same way concerning the inhabitants of Judah. He would severely rebuke their sins, and at the same time readily acknowledge, as he does, their advantages,--for ”Salvation cometh of the Jews.”

If, then, these be the arguments in favour of the Judean origin of Hosea, it readily appears that the probabilities of such an origin, compared with that of his Israelitish descent, are not [Pg 169] even in the proportion of one to a hundred. The prophets were almost more numerous in the kingdom of Israel than in that of Judah; and yet the entire history knows of only two instances of prophets being sent from the kingdom of Judah to that of Israel, viz., the prophet spoken of in 1 Kings xiii. and Amos. And the former of these even scarcely belongs to this cla.s.s, inasmuch as he received only a single mission into the kingdom of Israel, and _that_, at a time when the prophetic inst.i.tution was not as yet organized there. In the case of Amos likewise, it is manifest not only that he was only an exception to the rule,--as appears from the transactions with the priest Amaziah, reported in Amos vii. (compare especially ver. 12),--but still more plainly, from the mention in the inscription of his having been a native of Judah.

With regard to the _time_ of the prophet, the inscription places his ministry in the reigns of the kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah.

A long period is, no doubt, thus a.s.signed to it,--a period embracing at least twenty-six years of Uzziah's reign, and, in addition, the sixteen years of that of Jotham, the sixteen years during which Ahaz reigned, and at least one or two years of the reign of Hezekiah, making, at the lowest calculation, a period of sixty years in all.

This exceedingly long duration of the prophet's ministry might easily excite suspicion regarding the genuineness and correctness of the inscription; but such suspicion is at once set at rest by the fact, that the statements contained in the book itself lead us to a.s.sume a period equally extended. The _beginning_ of the prophet's ministry cannot be a.s.signed to any _later_ period; for, in chap. i. 4, the fall of Jeroboam's house, which took place soon after his death, is announced as a future event. _Moreover_, the condition of the kingdom appears still, throughout the whole first discourse, as a very flouris.h.i.+ng one. Nor can the end of his ministry be a.s.signed to any earlier period. For in chap. x. 14, an expedition of Shalman or Shalmaneser against the kingdom of Israel (_Vitringa_, _Proleg. in Is._ p. 6) is described as being already past, and a second invasion is threatened. But the first expedition of Shalmaneser, reported in 2 Kings xvii. 1 seqq., is almost contemporaneous with the beginning of Hezekiah's reign. For it was directed against Hoshea, king of Israel, who began his reign in the twelfth [Pg 170] year of that of Ahaz, which lasted sixteen years. The exact harmony of the pa.s.sage in Hosea with that in 2 Kings xvii. is very evident. In 2 Kings xvii. 3, it is said: ”Against him came up Shalmaneser, king of a.s.syria, and Hoshea became his servant and gave him tribute.” This was the first expedition of Shalmaneser. Then followed the second expedition, which was caused by the rebellion of Hoshea,--in consequence of which Samaria was taken and the people carried away. In Hos. x. 14, 15, it is said: ”And tumult ariseth against thy people, and all thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as Shalman spoiled Beth-arbel in the day of battle; the mother was dashed in pieces upon (her) children. So shall he do unto you, Bethel, because of your great wickedness in the dawn of the morning, destroyed, destroyed shall be the king of Israel.” Hosea here declares that the beginning of the destruction by Shalmaneser is the prophecy of the end of the kingdom of Israel. The ”morning dawn” is the time of apparently reappearing prosperity, when, according to _Cocceius_, a time of peace begins to s.h.i.+ne. In Amos iv. 13, v. 8, the prosperity again dawning upon the kingdom of Israel is likewise expressed by ”morning” and ”morning dawn.” The ident.i.ty of Beth-arbel and Arbelah in Galilee can the less be doubted, because recent researches have rendered it certain that this place, now called _Irbid_, was an important fortress.

(Compare _Munchener gelehrte Anzeigen_ 1836, S. 870 ff.; _Robinson_, iii. 2, p. 534; _v. Raumer_, S. 108.) The use of Beth-arbel, instead of the more common Arbelah, as well as that of Shalman instead of Shalmaneser, belongs to the higher style. At the first expedition, the decisive battle had, no doubt, taken place at Arbelah. They who disconnect this pa.s.sage from 2 Kings xvii. do not know what to make of it. _Simson_ complains of the darkness resting on the pa.s.sage under consideration.--But Hos. xii. 2 (1) likewise leads us to the very last times of the kingdom of Israel,--those times when Hoshea endeavoured to free himself from the a.s.syrian servitude by the help of Egypt. ”Ephraim feedeth on wind, and followeth after the east-wind; he daily increaseth lies and desolation; and they do make a covenant with a.s.syria, and oil is carried into Egypt.” Their sending oil to Egypt, notwithstanding the covenant made with a.s.syria, is the lie, which goes hand in hand with desolation, while they imagine thereby to [Pg 171] work deliverance.

This explanation has been already given by _J. H. Manger_, of whose _Commentarius in Hoseam_, _Campen_, 1782--a commentary in many respects excellent--most of the recent commentators, and, lastly, _Simson_, have, to their great disadvantage, not availed themselves. _Manger_ says: ”These words refer to the amba.s.sadors who were sent with splendid presents by king Hoshea to the king of Egypt, in order to win him over to himself, and induce him to a.s.sist him against the a.s.syrians, to whom he had become subject by a solemn treaty.”--To the last times of the kingdom of Israel we are likewise led by what occurs in other pa.s.sages concerning the relation of Israel to Egypt and a.s.shur. The matter has been falsely represented by very many as if two parties among the people were spoken of,--an a.s.syrian and an Egyptian party. Nor is it so, that the whole people turn at one time to Egypt in order to free themselves from the a.s.syrians, and at another time to a.s.syria to a.s.sist them against Egypt. The position is rather thus: The people, heavily oppressed by a.s.shur, at one time seek help from Egypt against a.s.shur, and, at another, attempt to conciliate the latter. Precisely thus is the situation described in vii. 11: ”They call to Egypt, they go to a.s.shur.” That by which Israel was threatened, was, according to viii.

10, ”the burden of the king of princes, the king of a.s.shur,” ver. 9.

This they seek to turn off, partly by artifices, and partly by calling to their help the king of Egypt. a.s.shur alone is the king ”warrior”

(_Jareb_), v. 13, x. 6; he only has received the divine mission to execute judgment; compare xi. 5: ”He, _i.e._, Israel, shall not return to the land of Egypt, and a.s.shur, he is his king.” As an ally not to be trusted, Egypt is described in vii. 16, where, after the announcement of their destruction on account of their rebellion against the Lord, it is said: ”This shall be their derision on account of the land of Egypt,” _i.e._, thus they shall be put to shame in the hope which they place on Egypt. Is. x.x.x. 1-5 is quite a.n.a.logous. In that pa.s.sage the prophet announces that Judah's attempt to protect themselves against a.s.shur by means of Egypt would be vain; compare, especially, ver. 3: ”And the fortress of Pharaoh shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt, your confusion;” and ver. 5: ”Not for help nor for profit, but for shame and for reproach.” Such historical circ.u.mstances, [Pg 172] however, had not yet occurred under Menahem. At that time, Israel was not yet placed in the midst betwixt a.s.shur and Egypt. It is expressly mentioned in 2 Kings xv. 20, that the invasion of Pul was only transitory, and that not conquest, but spoil, was its aim. The real commencement of the a.s.syrian oppression is formed by the invasion of Tiglathpileser at the time of Ahaz. Isaiah, in chap. vii., points out the pernicious consequences of Ahaz's calling the a.s.syrians to his a.s.sistance against Syria and Israel. The very fact of this war carried on against Judah by Syria and Ephraim shows, that up to that time, a.s.shur had not laid his hand upon these regions. It was only with the invasion under Ahaz that there was any display of a.s.shur's tendency to make permanent conquests on the other side of Euphrates, which could not fail to bring about the conflict with the Egyptian power.--”King Jareb,”--such had already become the historical character of the king of a.s.shur, at the time when Hosea wrote; but prior to the times of Ahaz and Hezekiah, he did not stand out as such.

There is no decisive weight to be attached to what _Simson_ advances in order to prove that we must fix an earlier date. He argues thus: ”Gilead, which, according to 2 Kings xv. 29, was taken and depopulated by Tiglathpileser, whom Ahaz had called to his a.s.sistance, appears in vi. 8, xii. 12 (11) to be still in the possession of Israel. Hence, the ministry of the prophet cannot have extended beyond the invasion of Judah by the Syrians and Ephraim.” But since the book gives the sum and substance of Hosea's prophecies during a prolonged period, there must necessarily occur in it references to events which already belonged to the past, at the time when the prophet wrote. In chap. i. 4, even the overthrow of the house of Jeroboam appears as being still future.

But even although we could not establish, from other sources, the statement contained in the inscription, the inscription itself would nevertheless be a guarantee for it; and the more so, because there are other a.n.a.logies in favour of so long a duration of the prophetic office, which was sometimes entered upon even in early youth. The inscription has the same authority in its favour as every other part of the book; and it is hardly possible to understand the levity with which it has, in recent times, been pretty generally designated as spurious, or, at least, suspicious. [Pg 173] It is altogether impossible to sever it from the other parts of the book. There must certainly have been some object in view when, in ver. 2, it is expressly remarked, that what follows took place at the _beginning_ of Hosea's ministry. But such an object it will be possible to point out, only in the event of its being more accurately determined at what time this beginning took place--viz., still under the reign of Jeroboam, when the state of things as it appeared to the eye did not yet offer any occasion for such views of the future as are opened up in the first three chapters.

Ver. 1 cannot, therefore, be regarded as an addition subsequently made, unless the words in ver. 2, from ???? to ????? be so likewise. But these again are most closely connected with what follows by the _Future_ with _Vav convers._, which never can begin a narrative. There remains, therefore, only this alternative:--either to regard the whole as having been written at a later period, or to claim for Hosea the inscription also. We cannot agree with the view of _Simson_, that the remark by which the beginning of the book is a.s.signed to the beginning of the prophet's ministry, originated from a chronological interest only; and we can the less do so, because the prophet does not pay any attention to chronology in any other place, but is anxious to give only the sum and substance of what he had prophesied during a series of years. The only exception which he makes in this respect must have originated from strong reasons; and such do not exist, if the inscription in ver. 1, or the mention of the kings in it, be spurious.

The mention of the beginning in ver. 2 would, in that case, be so much the more groundless, as we could know nothing at all regarding the length of his ministry.

Much more fruitful, certainly, than all such vain doubts, are the reflections of Calvin on the long duration of the prophet's ministry: ”How grievous is it to us when G.o.d requires our services for twenty or thirty years; and, especially, when we have to contend with unG.o.dly people, who would not willingly take upon them the yoke, yea, who even obstinately resist us! we then wish to be freed at once, and to become pensioned soldiers. But, seeing this prophet's long protracted ministry, let us take from it an example of patience, that we may not despair although the Lord should not at once free us from our burden.”

Many interpreters have zealously attempted to determine the [Pg 174]

particular portions of this lengthened period to which the particular portions of this book belong. But such an undertaking is wholly vain in the case before us, as well as in that of Micah, and most of the minor prophets generally. The supposition upon which it rests is false--viz., that the collection consists of a number of single, detached portions.

We do not possess the whole of Hosea's prophecies, but only the substance of their essential contents,--a survey which he himself gave towards the end of his ministry. This appears (1) from the ??? ???? in the inscription. In itself, this would not be a decisive argument, as the prophet might also have comprehended in an _ideal_ unity, discourses outwardly distinct; but, nevertheless, as long as no reason appears for the contrary, it is more naturally referred to a continuous discourse with an external unity also. (2.) It appears from the entire omission of all chronological data. The only exception is in ver. 2; but this exception serves only to strengthen the argument drawn from the omission everywhere else. (3.) It is proved by the absence of all certain indications about the beginning and ending of the particular portions. There occur, just as in the second part of Isaiah, new starting points only; but, with these exceptions, the discourse always moves on in the same manner. (4.) It is seen from the indefiniteness and generality of the historical references, which must necessarily arise if the prophet referred, in like manner, to the whole of this lengthened period. That the facts, upon which the last two arguments rest, really exist, is made sufficiently apparent from the immense diversity of opinions as to the number and extent of the particular portions, and as to the time of their composition. There are not even two of the more important interpreters who agree in the main points alone. Such a diversity does not exist in reference to any of the prophetical books which actually consist of detached prophecies. (5.) The style and language are too much the same throughout the whole, to admit of the idea that any long period could have elapsed between the particular prophecies. This, indeed, is only a subordinate argument; but it acquires its full importance, when connected with the foundation of the third and fourth proofs.

It now only remains to give a survey of the historical circ.u.mstances at the time of the prophet. This is the more necessary, as a knowledge of these is required for the exposition of [Pg 175] the Messianic prophecies, not only of Hosea, but also of Amos, his contemporary.

The kingdom of Israel carried within it, from its very commencement, a twofold element of destruction--viz., the establishment of the wors.h.i.+p of the calves, and the rebellion against the dynasty of David. With regard to the former,--the consequence of this apparently so much isolated transgression of a Mosaic ordinance extended much further than would appear upon a superficial view. In this case also it was seen that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Of far higher importance than the low conceptions of G.o.d produced by this symbolical representation of Him, was another aspect of the transaction. The prohibition of image-wors.h.i.+p in the Pentateuch was as distinct and clear as it was possible to make it. The kings of Israel were far from rejecting it; but still, how difficult soever it may appear, they found out an interpretation by which they evaded the application of it to their inst.i.tution. Such a course once entered upon, could only lead them further and further astray. As, in so important a case, they had, in opposition to their own better convictions, allowed themselves to pervert and explain away the law--a.s.serting, probably, that it was given only on account of the coa.r.s.e sensuality of former generations--the same was done in other things also, as often as it was called for by the disposition of the corrupted heart. All unfaithfulness which is known to be so, and yet is cherished, and excused to the conscience and before men, must draw after it entire ruin, in a community, not less than in an individual. As a reason for this ruin, it is very strikingly said in 2 Kings xvii. 9: ”And they _covered_ (this is the only ascertained signification of ???) words that were not so, over the Lord their G.o.d;” _i.e._, they ventured, by a number of perversions and false interpretations of His word, to veil its true form. To this, the following consideration must be added:--That first change of the religious inst.i.tutions proceeded from the political power which secured to itself, for the future, an absolute influence upon the religious affairs, by subjecting to its control the ecclesiastical power, which had hitherto been independent of it. Those Levites who, having no regard to the miserable sophisms invented by the king as an excuse, declared against the wors.h.i.+p of calves, were expelled, and, in their stead, creatures of the king [Pg 176] were made ministers of the sanctuary. This became now the king's sanctuary (compare the remarkable pa.s.sage, Amos vii. 13), and all the ecclesiastical affairs were, in strict contradiction to the Mosaic law, submitted to his arbitrary power. The consequences of this must necessarily have been all the sadder, the worse the kings were; and they must inevitably have become so, because of the bad foundation on which the royal power rested.

Image-wors.h.i.+p was very speedily followed by idolatry,--which is, however, in like manner, not to be looked upon in the light of an undisguised opposition to the true G.o.d. Such an opposition took place during the reign of only one king--Ahab--under whom the matter was carried to an extreme. Holy Scripture, however, with a total disregard of the whole mult.i.tude of miserable excuses ordinarily made, designates as _direct_ apostasy from G.o.d, everything which was substantially such, although it did not outwardly manifest itself as such. Externally, they remained faithful to Jehovah; they celebrated His feasts,--they offered the sacrifices prescribed in the Pentateuch,--they regulated, in general, all the religious inst.i.tutions according to the requirements there laid down, as may be proved from the Books of Kings, and, still more plainly, from Amos and Hosea. But in all this they discovered a method by which light and darkness, the wors.h.i.+p of idols with that of the Lord, might be combined. Nor was this discovery so very difficult, since their eye was not single. They had before them the examples of heathen nations, who were quite prepared reciprocally to acknowledge their deities, in all of whom they recognised only different forms of manifestation of one and the same divine being; and they were quite willing to extend this acknowledgment even to the G.o.d of Israel also, as long as they did not meet with intolerance on the part of those who professed to wors.h.i.+p Him, and were therefore not roused to the practice of intolerance in return. This reciprocal recognition of their deities by the nations in the midst of whom the Israelites lived, is sufficiently evident from the circ.u.mstance, that they all called their highest deity by the same name--Baal--and expressed, by some epithet, only the form of manifestation peculiar to each. Now, the Israelites imagined that they might be able, at one and the same time, to satisfy the demands of their G.o.d, and to propitiate [Pg 177] the idols of the neighbouring mighty nations--especially of the Phnicians--if they removed the wall of separation betwixt the two. Jehovah and Baal were, in their view, identical as to their essence. The former was that mode of manifestation peculiar to them, and the main object of their wors.h.i.+p according to the method prescribed by Himself in His revelation. But the latter was not to be neglected; inasmuch as they imagined that they might thereby become partakers of the blessings which this form of manifestation of the deity was able to bestow. And thus to Jehovah they gave the name of Baal also, Hos. ii. 18 (16); they celebrated the days appointed by Jehovah, ver. 13 (11), but those also devoted to Baalim, ver. 15 (13). In this way we receive an explanation of the fact which, at first sight, is so startling, viz., that according to Hosea and Amos, all is filled with the service of Baal; while the Books of Kings would lead us to think that, with the reign of Ahab, the dominion of this wors.h.i.+p had ceased. But it was only its hostile opposition to the wors.h.i.+p of Jehovah that had disappeared, while a far more dangerous religious compromise took its place. No doubt can be entertained as to the party on whose side lay the advantage in this compromise. It was plainly on that side on which it always lies, whensoever the heart is divided betwixt truth and falsehood. Externally, the wors.h.i.+p of Jehovah remained the prevailing one; but, inwardly, idolatry obtained almost the sole dominion. If only the limits betwixt the two religions were removed, that religion would of course come with the highest recommendation, the spirit of which was most in accordance with the spirit of the people. But, owing to the corrupt condition of human nature, this would not be the strict religion of Jehovah, which, as coming from G.o.d, did not bring G.o.d down to the level of human debas.e.m.e.nt, but demanded that man should be raised to His elevation,--which placed the holiness of G.o.d in the centre, and founded upon it the requirement that its possessors should be holy;--but it would be the soft, sensual, idolatrous doctrine which flattered human corruption, because from that it had its origin. Thus the Jehovah of the Israelites became in reality what they sometimes called Him by way of alternation--a Baal. And the matter was now much more dangerous than if they had deserted Him [Pg 178] externally also, inasmuch as they now continued to trust in His covenant and promises, and to boast of their external services,--thus strengthening themselves in their false security.

The _natural_ consequence of this apostasy from the Lord was a frightful corruption of manners. The next result of spiritual adultery was the carnal one. Voluptuousness formed the fundamental characteristic of the Asiatic religions in general, and, in particular, of those with which the Israelites came in contact. But the pernicious influence extended still further over the whole moral territory. Where there is no holy G.o.d, neither will there be any effort of man after holiness. All divine and human laws will be trampled under foot. All the bonds of love, law, and order, will be broken. And, as such, the condition of the country in a moral point of view is described by its two prophets throughout. Compare, _e.g._, Hosea iv. 1, 2: ”There is no truth, nor mercy, nor knowledge of G.o.d in the land. Swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery--they break through, and blood toucheth blood.” There then followed, from the moral corruption, the internal dissolution of the state, and its external weakness.

The _supernatural_ consequences of the apostasy from the Lord, were the severe punishments which He inflicted upon the people. With whomsoever G.o.d has entered into a closer connection, whomsoever He thinks worthy of His grace, in him the Lord will be glorified by the infliction of punishment upon him, if, through his own guilt. He has not been glorified by sanctification in him. Just because Israel formed part of the Covenant-people, they could not be allowed to continue to retain the outward appearance of it, when, inwardly, they did not retain a vestige.

As the second element of the ruin, we mentioned the rebellion against the dynasty of David. Their dominion rested on divine right, while the new Israelitish kingdom rested upon the sandy foundation of human caprice. The first king had raised himself to the throne by his own power and prudence, and through the favour of the people. Whosoever had the same means at his disposal, imagined that these gave him the right to do likewise. And thus dynasty supplanted dynasty, regicide followed regicide. In the b.l.o.o.d.y struggles thereby occasioned, the people became more and more lawless. Sometimes interregna, [Pg 179] and periods of total anarchy took place; and by these internal struggles the power to resist external enemies was more and more broken. No king was able to stop this source of mischief, for such an effort would have required him to lay aside his position as a king. And as little was any one able to put a stop to that source of evil formerly mentioned: for, if the religious wall of part.i.tion which was erected between Israel and Judah were once removed, the civil one likewise threatened to fall.

Such were, in general, the circ.u.mstances under which Hosea, like the other prophets of the kingdom of Israel, appeared. There cannot be any doubt that these were much more difficult than those of the kingdom of Judah. There, too, the corruption was indeed very great; but it was not so firmly intertwined with the foundation of the whole state.

Thorough-going reforms, like those under Hezekiah and Josiah, were possible. The interest of a whole tribe was closely bound up with the preservation of true religion.

The reign of Jeroboam II., which was externally so prosperous, and in which Hosea entered upon his prophetic ministry, had still more increased the apostasy from the Lord, and the corruption of manners, and thus laid the foundation for the series of disastrous events which began soon after his death, and which, in quick succession, brought the people to total ruin. The prosperity only confirmed them still more in their security. Instead of being led to repentance by the unmerited mercy of G.o.d (compare 2 Kings xiv. 26, 27), they considered this prosperity as a reward of their apostasy, as the seal by which Jehovah-Baal confirmed the rect.i.tude of their ways. The false prophets, too, did what was in their power to strengthen them in their delusion, whilst the true prophets preached to deaf ears.

Immediately after the death of Jeroboam, it soon became apparent on which side the truth lay. There followed an interregnum of from eleven to twelve years.[1] After the termination [Pg 180] of it, Zachariah, the son of Jeroboam, succeeded to the throne; but he was murdered by Shallum, after a short reign of six months, 2 Kings xv. 10. Shallum, after he had reigned only one month, was slain by Menahem, ver. 14.