after marriage’ (Wellhausen, Skizzen wnd Vorar- beiten, v. p. 104f.; similarly W. R. Smith, Prophets of Israel, p. 181f., and G. A. Smith, Book of the Twelve Prophets, i. 238 f.) cannot be reconciled with the text. Our first main argument may be rein- forced by the following questions. Would Hosea, even supposing his wife to have been thus guilty, have inscribed her name on the page of history and thus pilloried her for ever? Or would the name of his wife have been so much as named, had it not been a significant one? No, the designations Gomer bath-diblayim (Hos 1°) do not really form a proper name. We are constantly told, indeed, that these designations defy all attempts to explain them as appellatives (Nowack, Valeton, ¢e a.). But why may not Gomer mean ‘ completion’ (Frd. Delitzsch, Prolegomena, etc. p. 200), or, better, ‘ripeness’ (namely, for judgment), or ‘end’ (cf. spi Ps 7° etc.)? Why may we not find in diblayim the sense of ‘double compression’ (cf. E. Meier, Wurzelworterbuch, p. 163f.; Wiinsche, Erklarung des Hosea, p. 15; Arab. dabala=‘coegit’)? May not, then, the epithet bath-diblayim characterize Gomer as one who had to do with two husbands? (We may recall the question : ‘How long halt ye on both knees? If Jahweh is God, follow him; and if Baal, follow him,’ 1 K 187). Finally, it would surely have been a strange circumstance if Hosea’s real wife had had a name composed of two elements, capable of being explained as=‘ ripeness or end,’ and ‘double copulation.’
Further, Zec 114* records how the prophet was told to call one of the two staves, with which he was to shepherd the people of Israel, ‘ gracious- ness,’ and the other ‘union,’ ‘community of fate’ (ef. Ed. Konig, Syntax, § 244c). Would not these very names be enough to show to the prophet’s contemporaries that the actions recorded in vv.** were not actually performed? This conclusion is favoured by the circumstance that there is no men- tion of the execution of the command given in v..
Of greatest weight for the solution of the problem before us are the indications supplied by the prophet who speaks most of symbolical actions, namely Ezekiel. The data are as fol- lows :—In the first place, in his narratives regard- ing symbolical actions, it is only rarely (12' 247°) that he states that these when commanded were carried out. Secondly, in place of mention of the actual performance of these, we find rather an account of their symbolical meaning (4% 5° 121° 21-28), Thirdly, the external performance of the charge ‘thou shalt eat thy bread with trembling, and drink thy water with trembling and despair’ (1218), would have been scarcely noticeable. The intention of presenting clearly the Divine decree as to the final chastisement of Israel was realized by the bare narrative about a Divine command as effectively as would have been the case if the command had been actually performed. Fourthly, God’s command to carry out a symbolical trans- action is expressly introduced in these terms: ‘Give to the rebellious house a parable (mashdl) and say (!) to them, Thus saith the LorD God, set on the caldron, and pour water into it,’ ete. (24°, cf. also 215»), This, too, favours the conclusion that Ezekiel’s statements about commands from God to perform symbolical actions, do not differ essentially from the parables spoken in 17°* and 18%, But, as a matter of fact, these narratives may be understood as parables, whose subject is the prophet as the representative now of God and now of his people. As the representative of God he is to smite one hand against the other (212), to depict the conflict which J ahweh, to His sorrow, has to wage against the unfaithful majority of Israel (21%), just as the smiting together of the hands is attributed to Jahweh Himself in 22. In
the same capacity Ezekiel is also called on to depict vividly the rejection of Israel, to which God has been compelled to resort by the excessive unfaith- fulness of His people (37+*/ 2475-7), Hence, when the prophet has to picture forth the highest degree of the Divine displeasure, he does so by becoming dumb, i.e. by ceasing to act as a reprover (3°), and by refraining from articulate expressions of grief at the destruction of Jerusalem, in order to im- press upon the people about him the truth that this turn in their fortunes was a just punishment from God. This dumbness continued till, with the fall of Jerusalem, the Divine justice was satisfied, and then the Divine grace in the person of the pro- phet turned anew to the people (337), and sought to win their love.—Again, as representative of his people, Ezekiel is the subject of those narratives in which actions of Jahweh against Israel are vividly portrayed. This comes out with special clearness in the words, ‘But thou, O son of man, behold, they shall put bands upon thee’ (3”), and ‘Behold, I put bands upon thee’ (4°). In this way the punishment impending from God upon Israel is described as inflicted upon the prophet, and the purpose of this is evident enough. The exiles who, living far from their native land, could not be onlookers at the act of judgment to be executed upon Judah and especially upon Jeru- salem, were to have a clear reflexion of the fate of Jahweh’s people placed before their eyes.