The .Vai-riage o/Z/ooi-n.— Various opinions have hcen held on this suiiject. 1. It has been supposed that Hosea allied himself with a wotiian already linowii as a sinner, with the view of re- ctailnint; her. It is 'very ditlieult to believe either that the iiniphet should do such "a thin^'. or that he should represent liirnself as commanded by tlod to do it. It is a dirterent thinjj when he seeks to rechiitn the woman afterwards (:i'). and repre- sents his eiforts to do so as the command of (jod, because she was then his wife. Moreover, the rupresentullon that the woman was alrcidy a sinner wh.'U taken to wife does not suit tlie symbolism. I't is the view of the profdiet and all the early prophets that Israel was pure in the first time of her union to .1 ", anil only corrupted lierself later. The Lolcii says, ' I found Israel like gl-aiies in tlie wilderness,' a fit'Ure sujr^estiutf Ills deiit'ht in her (it'") ; and in .Ter 'i- He says. * I remember of thee the kindness of tiiy youth, tliv bridal love, how thou diiist follow me In tile w]ldernes^.' 'Ihouch this view was formerly advocated, and deserves mention because support!^ by Pusev, it has proliably few adherents now.
2. It has been maintained l>y many that the whole story is an allegory. Neither the arguments for this view no: ' those a^'ainst it are of much force. 0) It is ari^ued that prophets often rejiresent themselves as commandei] to perform actions wiiirh. from the nature of the case, could not really have been perforuu-d tKzek 4*'.). The actions were ideal; their lueauin^ was easily seen when Ihev were describe*! ; and they had no cvlstence except iu the idea and the de,«cripli«in. All this is true: but it is eijualiy true that prophets, particularly in early times, did somelluies iH-rform real actions haviiif* a symbolical ineanini.' (1 K ^-.i", .ler li^"*). ('J) The fact thai the naiiies of the children, .lezreel. Lo-ruhamah, and I.o-amiiil. are st^rullicanl makes neither for nor against the ailesnriral tnt^Tpretatloli. Keal children inltrht have been piven symbulicjil name«. as was the case with Isaiah's sons (T' st). On the other hand, no sym- bolical ineaniiii; has tieen dlseoverisl fur the name of 'the mother, (Joiner. (.S) The argument of Kwald. and other-* after hlul, that (he iirophet would have made himself ridiculous If he bad publistied such a pitiful narrative HlHiiit himself all the Willie that his wife was virtuous and his dl)me^Iic n'tallons happy, has lltlle force. If his hearers ututrrHUnHt tliat he simke a jiaratile, they would not ha\e (."iven a thou^'hl either In bliii- self or his wlte. Iiul have attendtsl only to the moral of hl« late. (4t Tile staleineiit so often re)H*atitl, that then* is notiilnr: l>i sui:i;est that tlie proiihet is not narrntlni: an actual history, will not tie aei|ulesccu ill by everyone. When it is .»ald, 'lin, take a wife of whortsloms, for the land commltteth whnnslnm ai.'alnst the Loitn ' (1>) ; and then, ' .\|,'Aln (ro love a wmiiaii. an ailultiTess, as .1" loveth the childrvn of Israel, while tliey turn to other CikIs' (:1M, llie first iinpri'sslon priMluc,.,! by the wunU Is that the actions commandtsl were not real, but meant merely to clothe an Idea. Cf. tl vposltlun '."».
:(. It Is held by many that a certain substratum of fiict undi-r- lles the prophers narrallve. The chief arv'uments fur this \l.-\r are. first, thai it is more In haruionv with llie realism of am-lent pnipllecy to supIio»e that Hosea alludes, lliiwever ri'*er\e«lly, to a fact, than that lio is pultilic furth a mere ilteniry fable; secondlv, that no symliollcal tiieaiiliii: can lie dl^civereil In Oomer-lialh-IHblalm. which iniint Iherffnri- be the name uf an actual {HTsiiii ; and Ihlrilly. thai »«• have thu« an etplaiiatlon nf llie Mrljrin of the pniplier* eelllral i-iilireptlon iif llie lovr-rvlatiiol of ,1" to Ills peiiple and their unfallllfiillii-^*. The conciplinii was silffk'e^tcil tiy the prnphet's own etlM-rlcnces. Some mich inlserablo bistorv as he narrates hail U'&llen him. III5 wife
422
HOSEA
HUSEA
had j;nne astray. >linrin(r the common c»)rruptlon of inoralt aU>ul li*>r. What hii*! hal>[iv[)ed to him wa.s nut an tndlvtilual cast'. It was not Individuals tliat were corrupt, th« corruption was general — Israel was corrupt. And incilltatink' on his histor.v he saw in It a rullecliou u( the history of .1" and Mis people, of Ills love and Israel's insensibility to it. And relh-ctirn: further on It, the conviction forced Itself upon him that It was not an accident or a misfortune that had broin;ht liin) throiii:h such painful experiences, U was (.lod's providential way <»f revealitit:
to hlin His i>wn heart towards His | pie— his Impulse to take
this woman to wife was the he^innlnt; of J"'* speuklnt; to him (i'l.
The attempt to fit this theory Into the prophet's life 1» not without <lltnculty. (1) The prophet's taking (Joiner to wife was due to his own natural Impulse : it was not till inncb later that he concluded that the Impulse ba^l been (trompted by God. The sauio must be said of his return in hive to her after she had left his liou.so tch. ii) : it was due to his own unchan;;in^' alfec- tion ; and it was only later rettection that leil him to Interpret his own act as the commaiul of tlod. (u') lint now, these events must have covered a irood [tart of the prophet's life. The Itlrth and weaninir of throe children, accordlnt; tti the habits of Heh. mothers, would occupy 0 to 10 years ; and when to this Is added the tiute durini; wbicli the woman was away from the pniphet's home and under the protection of another, and the time occupied in recoverinir her, U will appear that not much short of the whole prophetic life of llosea Is covered. (:*) It is of some consequence to ask. When did his wife's intidelity becomo known to the prophet? Wellliausen, who claims to have jrlven the cue to the interpretation both of Kueuen and W. K. Smith, artrues. and sureiv rltrlitly, that it was not till af^er the birth of bis tlrst cbil<I. I'lut if so, it was not his ndsfortunes that gave llosea his prophetic word. Israel's apostasy was plain to him, and lie foreshatlowed her doom in .lezreel, tlio name of his first child, before an.v misfortunes overtttok him. .\t most, his mis- fortunes may at a later time have civen a comjilexion to his priiplietic th*ou:;hts. (4) Wellb. (followed by Now.iek) appcirs to thmk that (iomer's unfaithfulness was discovered before tho birth of the other two children. There is really no evidence on the point. There is certainly none in the names of the children, for Lo-ruhamah and Lo-ammi are naines having; a purely ob- jective reference to tho impending fate of Israel ; there Is not the slightest evidence that they express an.v feeline on tlie part of the father toward the children, or any dislike of them as of dotibtl'ul parentAffe. It is hard to believe that llosea would have continued to retain an adulteress in his house. It is said that * lie conce.aU'd the shame of their mother and acknowledjred her children as his own, hidlui; his bitter sorrow in his own heart ' ( W. W. Smith, Propheln, 179, cf. 1*1). If he concealed the shame at the time, ho certainly took etl'ecttial pains to proclaim it to all the world soon afterwards. It would he more natural to suppose that it was only after all tiie cliildren were born that the woman's character was revealed to the prophet, either throuiih her desertion or in some other way, and that then for the tirst time he could use the bitter words, 'a wife of whore- dom and children of whoredom.' Even tho passaffe V* leaves any other view improbable.