Commentari biblici

XI.

(1) Comp. Hosea 9:10 and Exodus 4:22-23. In this context there cannot be a prophecy of the Christ, for obstinate conduct and rebellion would thus be involved in the prediction. It is true that Matthew 2:15 quotes the passage in illustration of the fact that the true Son of God was also submitted in His youth to the hard schooling of a cruel exile. The calling out of Egypt of the Messiah gave a new indication of the cyclical character of Hebrew history. The passage helps us to understand what is meant by the formula, “that it might be fulfilled,” &c.

(2) As they (i.e., the prophets) called them, so they (Israel) went from them.—Sought to avoid the voice and presence of the men of God.

(3) Read, Yet it was I who guided Ephraim’s steps, taking him by his arms. There is a beautiful parallel to this in Deuteronomy 32:10-11.

Knew not . . .—This obtuseness to the source of all mercies—the refusal to recognise the true origin in Divine revelation of those ideas which, though they bless and beautify life, are not recognised as such revelation, but are treated as “the voice of nature,” or “development of humanity,” or “dictum of human reason “—is one of the commonest and most deadly sins of modern Christendom. The unwillingness to recognise the Divine Hand in “creation,” “literature,” “history” takes the opposed forms of Pantheism and Pyrrhonism. To each of these the prophet’s words apply.

(4) Cords of a man.—In contrast with the cords with which unmanageable beasts are held in check. Israel is led with “bands of love,” not of compulsion. Render the last clause, And gently towards them gave I food to eat, expressing the tenderness, delicacy, and condescension of his personal regard.

(5) It is best, with Ewald, to take the two clauses as interrogative, Shall he not return into the land of Egypt? And shall not the Assyrian, &c.? (See Notes on Hosea 8:13; Hosea 10:3-6. Comp. also Hosea 11:11.)

Return—i.e., to God.

(6) The rendering of the English version is here incorrect. Render, Then shall the sword be brandished amid his cities, and utterly destroy his princes. The word for “princes” is, literally, bars, the heroes, leaders, or defenders of the state being aptly called barriers, or bulwarks. Analogous metaphors frequently occur in the Old Testament; such is the interpretation of the Targum.

(7) No imagery is used, as of unfaithful wife, recalcitrant heifer, or furnace-piling baker, but homely literal commonplace. The people were called by sufficient means to the highest worship, but they were bent on the lowest.

(8) In the depth of despair the prophet delivers himself of one of the most pathetic passages in Hebrew prophecy. On the darkest cloud gleams the bow of promise. A nation so much beloved as Israel cannot be destroyed by Him who has fostered it so tenderly. As the prophet loved his faithless bride, so Jehovah continued to love His people. The “how?” of this verse expresses the most extreme reluctance. Admah and Zeboim were cities of the plain destroyed with Sodom and Gomorrah, which are often referred to as the type of irremediable catastrophe. (Comp. Isaiah 1:9; Isaiah 13:19; Matthew 10:15.)

Mine heart is turned within me.—Better, against me—a violent revulsion of feeling. Divine compassion pleads with Divine justice.