Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament · Hosea Kabanata 6

The prophet's address commences afresh, as in Hosea 2:4, without any introduction, with the denunciation of the incurability of the Israelites. Hosea 6:4-11 form the first strophe. Hosea 6:4. “What shall I do to thee, Ephraim? what shall I do to thee, Judah? for your love is like the morning cloud, and like the dew which quickly passes away.” That this verse is not to be taken in connection with the preceding one, as it has been by Luther (“how shall I do such good to thee?”) and by many of the earlier expositors, is evident from the substance of the verse itself. For ‛âsâh , in the sense of doing good, is neither possible in itself, nor reconcilable with the explanatory clause which follows. The chesed , which is like the morning cloud, cannot be the grace of God; for a morning cloud that quickly vanishes away, is, according to Hosea 13:3, a figurative representation of that which is evanescent and perishable. The verse does not contain an answer from Jehovah, “who neither receives nor repels the penitent, because though they love God it is only with fickleness,” as Hitzig supposes; but rather the thought, that God has already tried all kinds of punishment to bring the people back to fidelity to Himself, but all in vain (cf. Isaiah 1:5-6), because the piety of Israel is as evanescent and transient as a morning cloud, which is dispersed by the rising sun. Judging from the chesed in Hosea 6:6, chasdekhem is to be understood as referring to good-will towards other men flowing out of love to God (see at Hosea 4:1).

return to '

“Therefore have I hewn by the prophets, slain them by the words of my mouth: and my judgment goeth forth as light.” ‛Al - kēn , therefore, because your love vanishes again and again, God must perpetually punish. חצב ב does not mean to strike in among the prophets (Hitzig, after the lxx, Syr., and others); but ב is instrumental, as in Isaiah 10:15, and châtsabh signifies to hew, not merely to hew off, but to hew out or carve. The n e bhı̄'ı̄m cannot be false prophets, on account of the parallel “by the words of my mouth,” but must be the true prophets. Through them God had hewed or carved the nation, or, as Jerome and Luther render it, dolavi , i.e., worked it like a piece of hard wood, in other words, had tried to improve it, and shape it into a holy nation, answering to its true calling. “Slain by the words of my mouth,” which the prophets had spoken; i.e., not merely caused death and destruction to be proclaimed to them, but suspended judgment and death over them - as, for example, by Elijah - since there dwells in the word of God the power to kill and to make alive (compare Isaiah 11:4; Isaiah 49:2). The last clause, according to the Masoretic pointing and division of the words, does not yield any appropriate meaning. משׁפּטיך could only be the judgments inflicted upon the nation; but neither the singular suffix ך for כם (Isaiah 10:4), nor אור יצא , with the singular verb under the כ simil. omitted before אור , suits this explanation. For אור יצא cannot mean “to go forth to the light;” nor can אור stand for לאור . We must therefore regard the reading expressed by the ancient versions,

(Note: The Vulgate in some of the ancient mss has also judicium meum, instead of the judicia tua of the Sixtina. See Kennicott, Diss. gener. ed. Bruns. p. 55ff.)

viz., משׁפּטי כאור ציצא , “my judgment goeth forth like light,” as the original one. My penal judgment went forth like the light (the sun); i.e., the judgment inflicted upon the sinners was so obvious, so conspicuous (clear as the sun), that every one ought to have observed it and laid it to heart (cf. Zephaniah 3:5). The Masoretic division of the words probably arose simply from an unsuitable reminiscence of Psalms 37:6.

return to '