Volume I Part 15 (1/2)
?????? 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_. ????