IV.— Z
sor, Pekahiah, wore the crown but two years, when he was murdered by Pekah. Pekah, after swaying his bloody sceptre for twenty years (B.C. 757-737), met a similar fate in the conspiracy of Hoshea; Hoshea, the last of the usurpers, after another interregnum of eight years, ascended the throne (B.C. 729), and his administra- tion of nine years ended in the overthrow of his kingdom and the expatriation of his people (2 Kings xvii, 18, 23). The prophecies of Ilosea were directed especially against the country of Israel or Ephraim, whose sin had brought upon it such disasters — prolonged anarchy and final captivity. Their homicides and fornications, their perjiuy and theft, their idolalry and impiety, are cen- sured and satirizeil with a faithful severity. Judah is sometimes, indeed, introduced, warned, and admonished. Bishop Horsley ( Works, iii, 23C)) reckons it a mistake to suppose "that Ibisca's jirophecics are almost wholly di- rected against tlic kingdom of Israel." The bishop de- scribes what he tliiiiks the corre<t extent of Ibisea's com- mission, but has adduced no iirodf of his assertion. Any one reading Hosca will at once discover tliat tlic oracles having relation to Israel are primary, while the references to Judah are only incidental. In chap, i, 7, Judah is men- tioned in contrast with Israel, to whose condition the symbolic name of the prophet's son is specially applica- ble. In ver. 11 the futiu'e union of the two nations is predicted. The long oracle in chap, ii has no relation to Judah, nor the symbolic representation in chap. iii. Chap, iv is severe upon Ephraim, and ends with a very brief exhortation to Judah not to follow his example. In the succeeding chapters allusions to Judah do indeed occasionally occur, when similar sins can be predicated of both branches of the nation. The prophet's mind was intensely interested in the destinies of his own people. The nations around him are unheeded; his prophetic eye beholds the crisis approaching his countrj-, and sees its cantons ravaged, its tribes murdered or enslaved. No wonder that his rebukes were so terrible, his menaces so alarming, that his soul poured forth its strength in an ecstasy of grief and affection. Invitations replete with tenderness and pathos are interspersed with his warnings and expostulations. Now we are startled with a vision of the throne, at first shrouded in darkness, and sending forth lightnings, thunders, and voices ; but while we gaze, it becomes encircled -ivith a rainbow, which gradually ex- pands till it is lost in that universal brilliancy which it- self had originated (chaps, xi and xiv).
5. The Projjhet's Famih/ /,'«A//;.-/;y. — The peculiar mode of instruction which the i.niitlict details in the first and third chapters of his orni ks has given rise to many disputed theories. We refer to the command ex- pressed in i, 2— "And the Lord said mito Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and chiklreu of whoredoms," etc.; iii, 1, "Then said the Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress," etc. Were these real events, the result of divine injunctions literally understooil, and as literally fulfilled? or were these intimations to the prophet only intended to be pictorial illustrations of the apostasy and spiritual folly and unfaithfulness of Israel ? The former view, viz. that the prophet actually and literally entered into this impure connubial alliance, was advocated in ancient times by Cyril, Theodoret, Basil, and Augus- tine ; and more recently has been maintamed by Mer- cer, Grotius, Iloubigant, Manger, Horsley, Eichhorn, Stuck, and others. ^Fanciful theories are also rife on this subject. Luther supposed the prophet to perform a kind of drama in view of the people, giving his lawful wife and children these mystical appellations. New- come (Minor Prophets) thinks that a wife of fornication means merely an Israelite, a woman of apostate and adulterous Israel. So Jac. Capellus (In Jfoseam ; Opera, p. G83). Hengstenberg supposes the prophet to relate actions which happened, indeed, actually, but not out- wardlv. Some, with IMaimonides (Moreh Nevochim, pt. ii), imagine it to be a nocturnal vision; while others make it'whollv an allegory, as the Chaldee Paraphrast,
HOSEA
354
HOSEA
Jerome, Drusius, Bauer, Rosenmiiller, Kiiinol, and Lowth. The view of Hengstenberg {Christolnfjy, ii, 11-22), and such as have held liis tlieory (Markii Diatribe de uxore fornkationum accipienda, etc., Lugdmi. Batav. 169G), is "not materially different from the last to which we have referred (see Liibkerk in the Theol. Stud. u. Krit. 1835, p. 647 sq.). Besides other arguments resting on the impurity and loathsomeness of the supposed nuptial contract, it may be argued against tiie external reality of the event that it must have required several years for its completion, and tliat the impressiveness of the symbol would therefore be weakened and obliterated. But this would almost equally apply to the repeated case of Isaiah (viii, 3 ; xx, 3). Other prophetic trans- actions of a similar nature might be referred to. Jerome {Comment, ad loc.) has referred to Ezek. iv, 4. On the other hand, the total absence of any figurative or sym- bolical phraseology seems to require the command to be taken in a literal sense, and the immediate addition of the declaration that the order was obeyed serves to con- firm this view. It is not to be supposed, as has some- times been argued, that the prophet was commanded to commit fornication. The divine injunction was to mar- ry— " Scortum aliquis ducere potest sine peccato, scor- tari non item" (Drusius, Comm. ad loc. in Critici Sacri, tom. v.). Moreover, if, as tlie narrative implies, and as the analogy of the restored nation requires, the formerly tmchaste woman became a faithful and reformed wife, the entire ground of the objection in a moral point of view vanishes (see Cowles, Minor Prophets, ad loc). In fact, there were two marriages by the prophet : the first, in chap, i, ii, of a woman (probably of lewd incli- nations already) who became the mother of three chil- dren, and was afterwards repudiated for her adultery ; and the second, in chap, iii, of a woman at least attach- ed formerly to another, but evidently reformed to a vir- tuous wifj. Both these women represented the Israel- itish nation, especially the northern kingdom, which, although unfaithful to Jehovah, shoidd first be punish- ed and then reclaimed by him. Keil, after combating at length {Minor Prophets, introduct. to Hosea) against Kurtz's arguments for the literal view, is obliged to as- sign tlie moral objection as the only tenable one. This, however, is a very unsatisfactory mode of disposing of the question, for we are not at liberty thus to explain away the reality of the occurrence simply to evade its difficulties. Moreover, if it be a symbol, what becomes of its force unless based upon a fact ? Nor do the proph- ets receive visions respecting their own personal acts. Finally, the internal suggestion of a wrong act to the prophet's mind as one to be not merely tolerated, but committed, would be eqiuvalent, in pf)int of moral ob- liquity, to the actual deed itself; at least according to our Saviour's ride of guilt in such a matter (Matt, v, 28). This last remark leads us to the true solution of the whole difficidty, which has simply arisen from judg- ing O.-T. morals by a Gospel standard, in neglect of the important principle enunciated by Christ himself on the very question of the relations of the sexes (Matt, xix, 8). The Mosaic precept (Lev. xxi, 14) has no perti- nence liere, for Hosea was not a priest.