성경 주석서

Here the discourse takes a new start. The prophet is a witness of the wild rejoicings of harvest, and warns his people not to be so exuberant, for they must go forth into captivity. Three times in this and the two next chapters he recurs to the early history of the Israelites, and shows how they have constantly met the divine mercy with rebellion and idolatry, so that Jehovah has no choice but to thrust them away.

1. for joy] Rather, too loudly (lit. ‘unto exultation’).

as other people] Rather, as the peoples. The exuberant joy of the wild nature-worships of Palestine was abhorrent to the calm and deep moral religion of the prophets. To the heathen nations certain material blessings were the final object of the forms of worship; to the prophets and their disciples, the outward gifts of the Deity stood in a close relation to states of the character, as being the rewards of moral obedience (comp. Deuteronomy 28:1-4).

for thou hast gone …] The blessings of the ingathering were falsely ascribed by Israel to the Baalim (see on Hosea 2:13). As long as they were enjoyed, Israel felt as much pledged by them to her false gods as the harlot is bound by her ‘hire’ to her paramour. At every recurring season of harvest Israel gratefully connected these blessings with her supposed protectors, and offered first-fruits to them, or, as Hosea puts it, she loved a harlot’s hire (comp. on Hosea 2:12) upon all corn-floors, alluding to the various local festivals (comp. on Hosea 12:9). Observe, Hosea finds fault with the Israelites, not for neglect of a centralizing ordinance, such as Deuteronomy 16:15, but for honouring the Baalim in preference to the true spiritual God. Contrast the reference to the autumn festival in a post-exile prophecy (Zechariah 14:16-19).

1–9. A vivid picture of the bitterness of the calamity in prospect. It does but equal the Gibeah-like wickedness of Israel.

2. the winepress] Rather, the vat (within the press) into which the grape-juice or the oil flowed; comp. Joel 2:24.

shall fail in her] Rather, shall fall her (lit. ‘shall lie unto her’, as Habakkuk 3:17). There is a good various reading (supported by the versions and by the Babylonian codex) ‘in them’, but the same interchange of pronouns occurs in Hosea 4:19. Idolatrous Israel is personified as a harlot. Wine-drinking was, in fact, so closely connected with the customs of idolatry (comp. Jdg 9:27; Amos 2:8), that the Nazirites bound themselves by a vow of ‘total abstinence’ (Numbers 6:3).

3. in the Lord’s land] ‘For I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel’, Numbers 35:34. The expression originated in the popular belief that as, for example, Chemosh was the God of the Amorites, so Jehovah was the God of the Israelites (Jdg 11:24), a belief which could lead even Jonah to imagine that he could ‘flee unto Tarshish from the presence of Jehovah’ (Jonah 1:3).

shall return to Egypt, &c.] A repetition of the threat so well calculated to deter the Israelites from disobedience (see on Hosea 8:13).

shall eat unclean things in Assyria] Comp. Ezekiel 4:13, ‘Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their bread defiled among the nations whither I will drive them.’ The prospect held out is not that the captive Israelites would be reduced to the necessity of eating prohibited food, but that, since all heathen lands were ‘unclean’ (Amos 7:17), all the products of the soil would also be unclean. The ‘uncleanness’ in both cases was caused by the absence of sanctuaries dedicated to Jehovah. See the foll. notes.

4. They shall not offer wine offerings to the Lord] Libations of wine were accompaniments of the burnt-offerings and the peace-offerings, and so are naturally mentioned in connexion with the ‘sacrifices.’ It is implied that wine in general would become ‘unclean’, if a certain measure of it were not devoted to this sacred and sanctifying purpose. The clause is therefore equivalent to this—‘The wine that they drink shall not be pleasing to the Lord’; comp. the following words.

neither shall they be pleasing (lit. sweet) unto him] Strangely enough, the accentuation of the text separates between the verb and its subject; the Sept., Targ., and Peshito preserve the obviously right view of the construction, neither shall their sacrifices be pleasing unto him. The peculiar accentuation was possibly caused by a wish to preclude a misinterpretation of Hosea’s language, viz. that the Israelites would go on sacrificing to Jehovah even when in captivity. But the truth is that the Hebrew zébakh (like ἱερεῖον, see Mahaffy’s Old Greek Life, p. 32) has a twofold meaning: 1, a sacrifice, and 2, a feast of animal food. Fleshmeat was not the habitual food of the Israelites, any more than it is of the Arabs at the present day; to partake of it was a special divinely given privilege (comp. Genesis 9:3), and those who from time to time availed themselves of this privilege had to make an acknowledgment of it by presenting, at the very least, the blood before Jehovah (comp. 1 Samuel 14:32-35). The Book of Leviticus (Leviticus 17:3-4) prescribes that the blood of all slain beasts should be offered to Jehovah at the door of the tabernacle, and though a milder rule is given in Deuteronomy (Deuteronomy 12:15-16), yet, from what we know of the religious habits of the people, we may safely assume that not only did they worship Jehovah at the ‘high places’, but they also in one way or another presented any animal food of which they partook at the local shrines, as well as at the central sanctuary. Hence we may very probably lay down that in old Hebrew as in old Greek life the conceptions of sacrifice (and presenting the blood was a minor kind of sacrificial act) and of feasting upon animal food were inseparable; indeed, we find in the semi-secular Book of Proverbs two synonymous proverbs, in one of which a feast is described as ‘a stalled ox’, and in the other as ‘sacrifices’ (comp. Proverbs 15:17; Proverbs 17:1). Consequently, we might, in the clause before us, with equal justice render ‘neither shall their sacrifices’, and ‘neither shall their feasts (i.e. meat-meals) be pleasing unto him.’ It must be admitted, however, that the sense is improved if, with Kuenen, we alter a Beth into a Caph, and render, neither shall they lay out their sacrifices before him (upon the altar); comp. Hosea 3:4. Such a mistake in the reading of the text would escape notice the more easily, because the phrase produced by it is so idiomatic (comp. Jeremiah 6:20 b). If we accept this emendation, all that has been said on the connexion of sacrificing and feasting will still retain its explanatory value. We may illustrate this connexion further by Ezekiel 39:17, where Ezekiel is bidden to invite ‘every feathered fowl’ to the ‘sacrifice’ (so A.V.) that Jehovah doth ‘sacrifice for them’; ‘sacrifice’ (zébakh) is here evidently equivalent to ‘feast’ (in the sense described above).

their sacrifices … mourners] Rather, (their bread) shall be unto them as the bread of mourning; the first two words seem to have fallen out of the text. ‘Bread of mourning’ means such as was eaten during the seven days of mourning, when everything in the vicinity of the dead body was regarded as unclean (Numbers 19:14); it is therefore the emblem of utter impurity. Or there may possibly be a more special reference to the funeral feasts, which lingered on among the Israelites, as St Jerome has noticed (see his note on Jeremiah 16:7 and see Deuteronomy 26:14), but which are to be distinguished from the offerings made at intervals (in Sirach’s time) at the grave (Sir 7:33; Sir 30:18). See Ewald, Antiquities, E. T., p. 153, Renouf, Hibbert Lectures, p. 132, Tylor, Primitive Culture, ii. 27.

for their bread for their soul …] Rather, for their bread shall be (only) for their hunger (i.e. to satisfy their appetite); it shall not come into the house of the Lord. They will not have the joy which belongs to those who have duly presented the tithes of their corn, or the firstlings of their flock, or offered their burnt sacrifices—the joy of the sense of the divine favour. They cannot have this, because their food lacks the consecration of ‘the house of the Lord’ (not the temple at Jerusalem, but any of the ‘high places’ dedicated to Jehovah).

5. What will ye do, &c.] The festivals, which were kept up in N. Israel, even after the schism, were seasons of popular merry-making (see Hosea 2:11). But now as each ‘feast of Jehovah’ comes round in the calendar, ye will neither have the mechanical performance of ritual forms, nor the accompanying holiday-mirth, to fill up the vacant hours.

6. Hosea ‘in the Spirit’ sees the Israelites already being carried into captivity.

because of destruction] Rather, from the devastation. They have left their desolated country.

shall gather them up] viz. in burial; comp. Ezekiel 29:5; Jeremiah 8:2; Jeremiah 25:33.

Memphis] The most ancient of the capitals of Egypt, on the west bank of the Nile, south of old Cairo, elsewhere called in the Hebrew Noph (Isaiah 19:13; Jeremiah 2:16), but here Moph. The Egyptian name, given to it by Menes, accounts for both forms—Men-nufre ‘the good’ or ‘perfect mansion’; the Assyrians called it Mimpi. All that is left of Memphis is its necropolis ‘stretching north and south nearly twenty miles’, where Hosea threateningly declares that the Israelites shall find a grave, remote, dishonoured, and ‘unclean.’ Contrast Exodus 14:11, where the Israelites reproach Moses with having deprived them of their right to sepulture in the vast cemeteries of Egypt.

the pleasant places for their silver] Rather, their precious things of silver, i.e. costly silver ornaments.

their tabernacles] i.e., either the idol-tents of the high places (comp. Ezekiel 16:16), or simply their dwellings (comp. 2 Samuel 20:1).

7. are come] Rather, come. The sense is that the days of punishment shall surely come (the tense is the prophetic perfect).

shall know it] i.e. by experience; as Isaiah 9:9. Another view of these words (in connexion with the following clause) is, ‘Israel shall perceive (but too late) how it has been deceived by its prophets.’ But a false prophet would never be called a ‘man of the spirit’, but rather ‘one that followeth his own spirit’ (Ezekiel 13:3); and neither ‘a fool’ nor ‘mad’ suggests the idea of falsehood or hypocrisy.

the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad] These words evidently convey a reproach, for though ‘mad’ might be taken in a good sense (= frenzied with sorrow, as Deuteronomy 28:34), ‘a fool’ could hardly be. But if so, introductory words must have dropped out of the text, such as ‘who say in their pride.’ ‘The spiritual man’ is, literally, ‘the man of the Spirit’, i.e. ‘the inspired man’, Sept. ἄνθρωπος ὁ πνευματοφόρος. ‘Mad’, or ‘a madman’, ‘a fanatic’, is a term applied disparagingly to a prophet’s disciple in 2 Kings 9:11, and to Jeremiah by an opponent in Jeremiah 29:26. The expression was doubtless received from those early times, in which the acts performed by prophets were often strange and startling.

for the multitude …] Rather, for the greatness of thine Iniquity, and because the enmity hath been great. These words are to be connected with the preceding. Israel spoke thus because its iniquity was great, and great also the enmity which certain classes (probably) felt towards the higher prophets. The priests and the lower class of prophets would be at one in their hostility to Hosea. More is said of this feud in the next verse.