Volume I Part 13 (1/2)
[Pg 190]
5. When the transaction is viewed as an outward one, insurmountable difficulties are presented by the third chapter; and the argument drawn from this would, in itself, be quite sufficient to settle the question: ”Then the Lord said unto me. Go again, love a woman beloved of her friend and an adulteress.” Interpreters who have adopted that view, find themselves here in no little embarra.s.sment. Several suppose that the woman, whom the prophet is here commanded to love, is his former wife, Gomer,--with her he should get reconciled. But this is quite out of the question. In opposition to it, there is, _first_, the indefinite signification by ???; _then_, in ver. 2, there is the purchase of the woman,--which supposes that she had not yet been in the possession of the husband; and, _further_, the words, ”beloved of her friend, and an adulteress,” can, according to a sound interpretation, mean only, ”who, although she is beloved by her faithful husband, will yet commit adultery;” so that, if it be referred to the reunion with Gomer, we should be compelled to suppose that, after being received again, she again became unfaithful,--and in favour of this opinion, no corresponding feature can be pointed out in the thing typified.
_Lastly_,--The word ”love” cannot mean ”love again,” ”_rest.i.tue amoris signa_.” For the love of the prophet to his wife must correspond with the love of G.o.d to the people of Israel. That this love, however, cannot be limited to the love which G.o.d will show to the Congregation _after_ her conversion, is seen from the additional clause, ”And they turn themselves to other G.o.ds, and love grape-cakes.”
Hence it appears that the love of G.o.d continues even during the unfaithfulness, and consequently, also, the love of the prophet, by which it is typified.--Equally untenable is the other opinion, that the prophet is here called upon, by his entering into a new marriage, to prefigure the relation of G.o.d to the Covenant-people a second time. In that case, it is supposed either that Gomer had been rejected, because she would not return, or that she had died. In either case, however, she would not have been chosen by G.o.d to be a type of the people of Israel. The ground of this choice can be no other than the correspondence with the ant.i.type. But this would be wanting just in the most important point. If the unG.o.dly part of the nation were not to be deprived of all hope, nor the pious of all consolation, it was of special importance to [Pg 191] point out that even the rejected congregation would receive mercy; that the Lo-Ruhamah should be the Ruhamah. Just the reverse of all this, however, would, according to this view, have been typified. Two different women would, quite naturally, suggest the thought of two different nations. Moreover, the non-conversion of Gomer would be in direct opposition to the prophet's own expressions. There cannot be any doubt, that her relation to the prophet still lies at the foundation of the description in ii. 4 seqq.
For they are her three children whose former names, announcing disaster, are changed, in ver. 25 (23), into such as are significant of salvation. In vers. 4-6 (2-4) the whole relation, as previously described, is presupposed. But now, she who, in ver. 9 (7), says, ”I will go and return to my first husband, for then was it better with me than now,” is the same who said in ver. 7 (5), ”I will go after my lovers that give me my bread and my water, my wool and my flax.” To the same result we are also led by the showing of mercy to her children, announced in the first section, ii. 1-3 (i. 10-ii. 1), where the prophet alludes to their names; and still more distinctly in the second section; compare ver. 25 (23). But now, the showing of mercy to the children cannot be conceived of without the conversion of the mother, and mercy being subsequently shown to her also. As they are to be rejected on account of the unfaithfulness of the mother (compare ii.
6 [4], and, specially, the ?? at the commencement of ver. 7), so the ground of their being received into favour can only be the faithfulness of the mother. Being begotten in adultery, they stand in connection with the prophet only through the mother; as soon as he has rejected the mother, he has nothing further to do with them.--The supposition that Gomer had died, is evidently the result of an embarra.s.sment which finds itself compelled to invent such fictions.--_Finally_,--Several interpreters, after the example of _Augustine_, suppose that no marriage at all is here spoken of, but only a certain kindness which the prophet should manifest to some woman, in order to encourage her conversion. But this opinion is contradicted by these circ.u.mstances:--that the prophet's love towards the woman must necessarily be of the same extent, and of the same nature, as the love of G.o.d towards the people of Israel, since the ??? and the ?????
exactly correspond with each other; that only conjugal love is suitable to [Pg 192] the image; that this view falls, of itself, to the ground when ???? is referred to the prophet, as it must be; that, in such circ.u.mstances, no satisfactory account can be given of the purchase of the woman, etc. To all these suppositions there is, moreover, the common objection that, according to them, no account can be given of the omission of very important circ.u.mstances which the prophet leaves to his hearers and readers to supply from the preceding symbolical action. Two things only are pointed out, viz., the appropriation of the woman by the prophet, ver. 2, and the course which he pursues for her reformation, ver. 3. Every intervening circ.u.mstance--the criminal, long-continued unfaithfulness of the wife--is pa.s.sed over in silence.
If we suppose an outward action, this circ.u.mstance cannot be accounted for. For we are not at liberty to draw, from the first case, any inference bearing upon the second. The latter would again have required a complete account. But if we suppose an inward transaction, everything is easily explained. The question as to whether it was Gomer, or some other person, does not come up at all. If Gomer was only an _ideal_ person, that which applied to her was equally applicable to the second _ideal_ wife of the prophet; since both typified the same thing, and without having an independent existence of their own, came into consideration as types only. Thus, very naturally, the second description was supplemented from the first, and the prophet was allowed abruptly to point out those circ.u.mstances only which were of special importance in the case before him.
6. If the whole be viewed as an outward transaction, there arises a difficulty, by no means inconsiderable, as regards the children mentioned in chap. i. These had been begotten in adultery. Even although the mother did reform, they could yet never be considered by the prophet as, in the full sense, his own. There would then arise a great difference between the type and the thing typified. But if we suppose a transaction merely inward, this difficulty vanishes. The physical impossibility then no longer comes into consideration. That which is possible in the thing typified, viz., that those who formerly were not children of G.o.d, become children of G.o.d, is transferred to the type. In point of fact, the mother does not exist beside, and apart from, the children; she stands related to them as the whole to the parts; and hence it is, that in ii. 25 (23), the [Pg 193] mother and children are imperceptibly blended in the prophet's description.
7. We are led to the idea of a mere inward transaction by the symbolical names of the first wife, and of her father. On the other hand, if such a symbolical signification could not be proved, this might be used as an argument for the literal interpretation,--although, indeed, it would be only a single argument which would be obliged to yield to other counter-arguments. For it may well be conceived that the prophet, in order to give to the inward transaction more of the appearance of an outward one, should have chosen names usual at that time; just as, in a similar manner, poetry would not be satisfied with invented names used only in certain formulas and proverbs, but makes use of names which would not, at once, be recognised by every one as mere fictions.--?????? can only mean ”completion” in the pa.s.sive sense. For _Segolate-forms_ in _o_ are only used to express pa.s.sive and intransitive notions, and the verb ??? is found in the ignification ”to be completed,” in Ps. vii. 10, xii. 2. The sense in which the woman, the type of the Israelitish people, is called _completion_,--_i.e._, one who, in her wh.o.r.edom, had proceeded to the highest pitch,--is so obvious from the context, as to render nugatory the argument which _Maurer_ (p. 360) has drawn from the omission of express statements on this point, in order thereby to recommend his own interpretation, which is altogether opposed to the laws of the language. A significant proper name can, in any case, convey only an allusion; but such an allusion was here quite sufficient, inasmuch as the mention of the wife's wh.o.r.edom had preceded. Compare, moreover, Zech. v. 5-11, where the thought, that Israel had filled up the measure of their sins, is represented by a woman sitting in an Ephah. _Hofmann_ explains the name Gomer by ”end,” ”utmost ruin:” ”By luxury, Israel has become wanton, and hence it must come to an end, to utter ruin.” But this interpretation is at variance with the context, from which it must necessarily be derived; for it is not the _punishment_, but the _guilt_ which is spoken of in the context. ???, ”Completion” (compare the ????, ”_perfectus_,” ”_absolutus_,” in Ezra vii. 12), is equivalent to ???
??????, ”a wife of wh.o.r.edom.” The ?? ????? can only mean, ”daughter of the two fig-cakes,” = _filia deliciarum_ = _deliciis_ [Pg 194]
_dedita_. The word ”daughter” serves to indicate every relation of dependence and submission: _Gesenius_, _Thesaurus_, p. 220. Fig-cakes were considered as one of the greatest dainties; compare _Faber_ on _Harmar_. i. p. 320 ff. Sensuality was the ground of the Israelites'
apostasy from the severe and strict religion of Jehovah to the idolatry of their neighbours, which was soft, sensual, and licentious. The occasion which had called it forth with their neighbours was one which rendered them favourably disposed towards it. The masculine form can offer no difficulty as to the derivation from ????, ”fig-cake;” for the masculine form of the plural occurs also in 1 Sam. xxv. 18; 1 Chron.
xii. 40. As little difficulty can arise from the Dual form, which may be explained from the circ.u.mstance that fig-cakes commonly consisted of a double layer of figs, or of double cakes (_Hesych._ pa????--which Greek word is a corruption of the Hebrew ????--? t?? s???? ?p???????
??s??), and the Dual is used in reference to objects which are commonly conceived of as a whole, consisting of two parts, even when several of them are spoken of. That this explanation of the Dual is correct, is proved from the circ.u.mstance, that it occurs also as the name of a Moabitish town, _Beth-Dibhlathaim_, Jer. xlviii. 22, and _Dibhlathaim_, Num. x.x.xiii. 46, which, probably, was famous for its fig-cakes.--There existed another special reason for the prophet's choosing the Dual in the masculine form, viz., that there was the a.n.a.logy of other proper names of men--as Ephraim, etc.--in its favour; and such an a.n.a.logy was required,--for, otherwise, the name would not have been, as it was intended to be, a riddle. Our whole exposition, however, which was already in substance, although without proper foundation and justification, advanced by _Jerome_, is raised above the condition of a mere hypothesis, by its being compared with chap. iii. There, the words, ”They turn themselves to other G.o.ds, and love grape-cakes,” are a mere paraphrasis of ”_Gomer Bath Dibhlaim_.” It scarcely needs to be remarked, that the difference betwixt grape-cakes and fig-cakes does not here come into consideration at all, inasmuch as both belonged to the choicest dainties; and it is as evident, that ”to love,” and ”to be the daughter of,” express the same idea. But if thus the symbolical signification of the name be established, the correctness of the supposition of a merely internal transaction is established [Pg 195] at the same time. The symbolical names of the children alone could not have furnished a sufficient foundation for this supposition. Against this an appeal might, with the most perfect propriety, have been made to _Shear-Jashub_, and _Maher-shalal-hash-baz_, neither of whom can, by any means, have been an ideal person. The prophet gave them these names; but the matter is quite different in the case of the wife, who already had her name when the prophet took her. All that we can grant to _Hofmann_ is, that such a providential coincidence was _possible_; but _probable_ it could be, only if other decisive arguments favoured the view of the transaction having been an outward one. If the name were not symbolical--if it belonged to the real wife of the prophet, it cannot be easily explained, why he did not afterwards mention the name of his second wife also, but content himself with the general term, ”a wife.”
8. A main argument against the literal interpretation is further furnished by iii. 2. The verse is commonly translated: ”And then I bought her to me for fifteen pieces of silver, and an homer of barley, and a lethech of barley;” and is explained from the custom prevalent in the East of purchasing wives from their parents. But it is very doubtful whether the verb ??? has the signification ”to purchase.”
There is no necessity for deviating from the common signification ”to dig,” in Deut. ii. 6: ”And water also ye shall dig from them for money, and drink” (compare Exod. xxi. 33); the existing wells were not sufficient for so great a mult.i.tude, compare Gen. xxvi. 19, 21, 22. To this philological reason, we must _further_ add, that the circ.u.mstance would be here altogether dest.i.tute of significance, while every other feature in the description is full of meaning. We base our interpretation upon the supposition, already sufficiently established by _J. D. Michaelis_, that the whole purchase-money amounted to thirty shekels, of which the prophet paid one-half in money, and the other half in the value of money. According to Ezek. xlv. 11, the homer contained ten ephahs, and a lethech was the half of an homer. We have thus fifteen pieces of silver, and also fifteen ephahs; and the supposition is very probable that, at that time, an ephah of barley cost a shekel,--the more so, as according to 2 Kings vii. 1, 16, 18, in the time of a declining famine, and only relative cheapness, two-thirds of an ephah of barley cost a shekel. We are unable [Pg 196]
to say with certainty, why one-half was paid in money, and the other half in natural productions; but a reason certainly exists, as no other feature is without significance. Perhaps it was determined by custom, that the sum by which servants were purchased was paid after this manner. The lowness of their condition was thereby indicated; for barley, _vile hordeum_, was, in all antiquity, very little esteemed.
Upon this estimate of it was based its use at the jealousy offering (Num. v. 11 seqq.; compare _Bahr's Symb._ ii. S. 445), and the symbolical use of the barley-bread in Judg. vii. 13. The statement of the sum leads us, involuntarily, to think of slaves or servants.
It is the same sum which was commonly given for a man-servant, or a maid-servant, as is expressly mentioned in Exod. xxi. 32; compare the remarks on Zech. xi. 12. And this opinion is confirmed by the use of ?????. The ears of a servant who was bound to his master to _perpetual_ obedience, were bored; compare Exod. x.x.xi. 5, 6; Deut. xv. 17, where it is added: ”And also unto thy maid-servant thou shalt do likewise.” In conformity with the custom of omitting the special members of the body, in expressions frequently occurring, it is said simply ”to bore.” The meaning then is: I made her my slave. It was not a free woman, then, whom the prophet desired in marriage, but a servant, whom he was obliged, previous to marriage, to redeem from servitude; who was therefore under a double obligation to him, and over whom he had a double claim. The reference to the thing to be typified is quite apparent. It was not a free, independent people whom the Lord chose, but a people whom He was obliged first to redeem from vile servitude, before He entered into a nearer relation to them. This redemption appears, throughout, as a ransoming from the house of bondage,--and the wonderful dealings of the Lord, as the price which He paid. Compare, _e.g._, Deut. vii. 8: ”But because the Lord loved you, and because He kept His oath which He had sworn to your fathers, He has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed thee (?????) from the house of bondmen (???? ?????), from the hand of Pharaoh, king of Egypt.” See also Deut. ix. 26. It is upon this redemption that the exhortation to the people is founded--that, as the Lord's servants, they should serve Him alone; comp., _e.g._, the introduction to the Decalogue. Thus, we have here also a feature so evidently typical, [Pg 197] so plainly transferred from the thing typified to the type, that we cannot any longer think of an outward transaction. This argument, however, is, in the main point, quite independent of the philological interpretation of ???. Even if it be translated ”I bought her to me,” the circ.u.mstance, notwithstanding, always remains, that the wife was redeemed from slavery, unless there be a denial of the connection of the sum mentioned with Exod. xxi. 32, and Zech. xi. 12, where the thirty pieces of silver likewise appear as the estimate of a servant's value; and this circ.u.mstance evidently suggests the inward character of the transaction.
The first germs of the representation of G.o.d's relation to Israel under the figure of marriage, are found so early as in the Pentateuch, Exod. x.x.xiv. 15, 16; Lev. xx. 5, 6, xvii. 7; Num. xiv. 33--where idolatry, and apostasy from the Lord in general, are represented as wh.o.r.edom--Deut. x.x.xii. 16, 21; compare the author's _Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pent._ vol. i. p. 107 ff.; and commentary on the Song of Solomon, S. 261. But it was only through the Song of Solomon that it became quite a common thing to represent the higher love under the figure of the lower. It is not through accident that this representation appears so prominent just in Hosea, where it not only pervades the first three chapters, but returns continually in the second part also. Hosea, being one of the oldest prophets, was specially called to fit, as a new link, into the Song of Solomon, which was the last link in the chain of Sacred Literature. There are, moreover, in the details, other undeniable references to the Song of Solomon, which coincide with this connection with it, as regards the fundamental idea. The basis, however, for this whole figurative representation is Gen. ii. 24, where marriage appears as the most intimate of all earthly relations of love, and must, for this very reason, have a character of absolute exclusiveness.
CHAP. I.-II. 3 (II. 1).
The section chap. i.-iii. is distinguished from the other prophecies by this,--that, in it, the relation of the Lord to the [Pg 198] people of Israel Is represented, _throughout_, under the figure and symbol of marriage, whilst this same mode of representation is soon relinquished wherever else it occurs in the book. By this closer limitation, the objections of _Bockel_ and _Stuck_ to the common division of the collection into two parts, are set aside. This first portion may be divided into three parts, which are, in one respect, closely connected, as is shown by the _Fut._ with the _Vav Conv._ in iii. 1, and likewise by the fact that this chapter requires to be supplemented from the two preceding ones, while, in another respect, they may be considered as wholes, complete in themselves. They do not, by any means, so distribute the contents among themselves, as that the first describes the apostasy; the second, the punishment; and the third, the return and restoration; but each of them contains all these three features, and yet in such a manner, that here the one feature, and there the other, is more fully expanded; so that the whole description is complete, only when all the three parts are taken together. In the portion now before us, the covenant relation into which the Lord entered with Israel is typified by a marriage which the prophet contracted at the command of the Lord; the apostasy of the people, and especially of the ten tribes, to whom the prophet was sent in the first instance, is typified by the adultery of the wife, by the divine punishment, and the unpropitious names which he gives to the children born by the adulterous wife. In chap. ii. 1-3, there follows the announcement of salvation more directly, and only with a simple allusion to the symbol.
Ver. 1. ”_The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel._ Ver. 2. _At the beginning when the Lord spake to Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea: Go take unto thee a wife of wh.o.r.edoms, and children of wh.o.r.edoms; for the land is whoring away from the Lord._” ??????? is never a noun--not even in Jer. v. 13--but always the 3d pers. _Pret. Piel_. The _status constr._ ???? is explained by the fact, that the whole of the following sentence is treated as one substantive idea: the beginning ”of the Lord hath spoken,” [Pg 199] etc., for ”the beginning of speaking.” ??? ??? ????, _the day of_ ”_the Lord spoke_,” instead of, ”the day on which the Lord spoke.” Similar constructions occur also in Is. xxix. 1, and Jer.
xlviii. 6.--The _Fut._ with _Vav Conv._, ?????, ”and then He spoke,”
carries forward the discourse, as if there had preceded: the Lord began to speak to Hosea. There is here a _constructio ad sensum_. It is intentionally, and in order the more distinctly to point out the idea of the beginning, that the prophet has made use of the noun ????, not of the verb. The construction of ??? with ?, with the signification ”to speak to some one,” may be explained thus:--that the words are, as it were, put into the mind of the hearer in order that they may remain there. Several interpreters erroneously translate, ”spoke through:”
others, following _Jerome_ (the last is _Simson_), ”spoke in;” as if thereby the act of speaking were to be designated as an inward one. The difference between outward and inward speaking disappears in the vision; and, for this reason, we cannot imagine that there is any intention of here noticing it particularly. Everything which takes place in the vision is substantially, indeed, internal, but in point of form it is external. Moreover, ??? with ? several times occurs in other pa.s.sages also, where the signification, ”to speak to some one,” is alone admissible. Thus 1 Sam. xxv. 39, where _Simson's_ explanation, ”David sent and _ordered_ to speak _about_ Abigail,” is set aside by ver. 40. The a.n.a.logy of the construction of the verbs of hearing and seeing with ? is likewise in favour of our explanation.[1]--A wife of _wh.o.r.edoms_ and _children of wh.o.r.edoms_. The wife belongs to wh.o.r.edoms in so far as she is _devoted to them_; the children, in [Pg 200] so far as they _proceed_ from them. For we cannot suppose that the children themselves are described as given to wh.o.r.edom. Such a thought would here be altogether out of place. For wh.o.r.edom is here only the general designation of adultery, as, by way of applying it to the case in question, it is immediately subjoined, ”away from Jehovah.” The subject of consideration is only the relation of the wife and children to the prophet, as the type of the Lord; and with this view, it is only the origin of the children from an adulterous wife which can be of importance. That this alone is regarded, appears from ii. 6 (4), compared with ver. 7 (5). That the children, as children of wh.o.r.edoms, deserve no compa.s.sion, is founded upon the fact that their mother plays the harlot. ??? ?????? is stronger than ????; it expresses the idea that the woman is given, soul and body, to wh.o.r.edoms. The same emphasis is expressed also by the a.n.a.logous designations: man of blood, of deceit, etc.--Calvin says, ”She is called a wife of wh.o.r.edoms, because she was long accustomed to them, gave herself over to the l.u.s.ts of all indiscriminately, did not prost.i.tute herself once, or twice, or to a few, but to the debauchery of every one.” It is not without reason that ”_take_” is connected with the children also. The prophet shall, as it were, receive and take, along with the wife, those who, without his agency, have been born of her. It is self-evident, and has been, moreover, formerly proved, that we cannot speak of children who were previously born of the prophet's wife; but that, on the contrary, the children are they whose birth is narrated in ver. 4 seqq. And that we cannot consider these children as children of the prophet, as is done by several interpreters (_Drus._: ”_Accipe uxorem et suscipe ex ea liberos_”), is obvious from their being designated ”children of wh.o.r.edoms;” from the word ”take” itself, which is expressive of the pa.s.sive conduct of the prophet; from the fact that, in the subsequent verses, the conceiving and bearing of the wife are alone constantly spoken of, but never, as in Is. viii. 3, the begetting by the prophet; and, _finally_, from the relation of the type to the thing typified. By the latter, it is absolutely required that children and mother stand in the same relation of alienation from the legitimate husband and father.
The words in ver. 3, ”She bare him a son,” are not indeed in opposition to it, for these words are only intended to mark the deceit of the wife who [Pg 201] offers to her husband the children begotten in adultery, as if they were his, and, at the same time, to bring out the patience and forbearance of the husband who receives them, and brings them up as if they were his, although he knows that they are not. In like manner, the Lord treated, for centuries, the rebellious Israelites as if they were His children, and granted to them the inheritance which was destined only for the children, along with so many other blessings, until at length He declared them to be b.a.s.t.a.r.ds, by carrying them away into captivity. The last words state the ground of the symbolical action. The causal ?? is explained from the fact that the import of a symbolical action is also its ground. The _Inf. absol._ preceding the _tempus finitum_ gives special emphasis to the verbal idea. The prophet thereby indicates that, in using the expression ”to wh.o.r.e,” he does so deliberately, and because it corresponds exactly to the thing, and wishes us to understand it in its full strength and compa.s.s. In calling the thing by its right name, he silences, beforehand, every attempt at palliating and extenuating it. Of such palliations and extenuations the Jews had abundance. They had not the slightest notion that they had become unfaithful to their G.o.d, but considered their intercourse with idols as trifling and allowable attentions which they paid to them.--_Manger_ understands by wh.o.r.edoms, their placing, at the same time, their confidence in man; but from what follows, where idolatry alone is constantly spoken of, it is obvious that this is inadmissible.
If this special thing be reduced to its idea, it is true that trusting in men is, then, not less comprehended under it than idolatry, inasmuch as this idea is the turning away from G.o.d to that which is not G.o.d.
And, from this dependence of what is special upon the idea, it follows that the description has its eternal truth, and does not become antiquated, even where the folly of gross idolatry has been long since perceived.--?????, the definite land, the land of the prophet, the land of Israel.--Concerning the last words, Ps. lxxiii. 27 may be compared, where ??? ?? occurs with a similar signification. This phrase contains an allusion to the common expression, ”to walk with, or after, G.o.d;”
compare 2 Kings xxiii. 3. According to _Calvin_, the spiritual chast.i.ty of the people of G.o.d consists in their following the Lord.
Ver. 3. ”_And he went and took Gamer the daughter of Dibhlaim, and she conceived and bare him a son._”
[Pg 202]
Many interpreters suppose that, by the three children, three different generations are designated, and the gradual degeneracy of the people, which sinks deeper and deeper. But this opinion must certainly be rejected. There is no gradation perceptible. On the contrary, the announcement of the total destruction of the kingdom of Israel is connected immediately with the name of the first child, ver. 4. Nor is it legitimate to say, as _Ruckert_ does, that the three children are a designation of the ”conditions” in which the Israelites would be placed in consequence of their apostasy from the Lord. For, how could mercy be shown to _conditions_? The right view rather is, that the wife and children are both the people of Israel, viewed only in different relations. In the first designation, they are viewed as a unity; in the latter, as a plurality proceeding from, and depending upon, this unity.
The circ.u.mstance that the prophet mentions the birth of children at all, and the birth of three only, is accounted for by their names. The children exist only that they may receive a name. The three names must, therefore, not be considered separately, but must be viewed together.
In that case they present a corresponding picture of the fate impending upon Israel. The circ.u.mstance that the mother and sons are distinguished in Hosea, rests upon the Song of Solomon. (Compare the more copious remarks in my commentary on the Song of Sol. iii. 4: ”By the mother, the people is designated according to its historical continuity,--by the daughter or sons, according to its existence at any moment.”)
Ver. 4. ”_And the Lord said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little_ (while), _and I visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel._”