1–7. In great emotion (which reflects itself in the short clauses) the prophet announces the imminent invasion of N. Israel, and its true causes—idolatry and schism

1. Set the trumpet to thy mouth] Lit., To thy palate the cornet! An abrupt appeal by a heavenly voice to the prophet, who is bidden to give warning of the approach of the foe (comp. Hosea 5:8 note). ‘Palate’, or ‘mouth’, as the organ of speech, as Proverbs 5:3; Proverbs 8:7, &c.

as an eagle] The Hebr. word (nesher) seems to have been specially applied to the great griffon vulture, the carrion-eating habits of which are referred to in Job 39:30; Proverbs 30:17; Matthew 24:28, and its swift flight in Deuteronomy 28:49; 2 Samuel 1:23; Jeremiah 49:22. References to this bird of prey (Assyr. nasru) are frequent in the cuneiform, inscriptions, and figures of it occur in battle-scenes on the monument. The more appropriate is it as an emblem of the Assyrian invaders. Similarly Nebuchadnezzar (whom St Jerome wrongly supposes to be meant here) is called an eagle (or vulture) in Jeremiah 49:22; Ezekiel 17:3.

the house of the Lord] In chap. 2 we had the people of Israel represented as a bride who is sustained and adorned by her husband; here we have the figure completed by the description of the land of Canaan as the divine Bridegroom’s house (as Hosea 9:15, comp. Hosea 8:3). This beautiful figure is obscured if, with Reynolds and Whitehouse, we compare the weakened sense, ‘country’, of Assyr. bît. In the N.T. the house of God, or of Christ, is the Church, see Hebrews 3:6; 1 Timothy 3:15.

my covenant] Most explain this of the ‘covenant’ or contract between Jehovah and Israel. But the phrase is more probably equivalent to ‘mine ordinance’, for the parallel clause has ‘my law.’ The Heb. word (b’rîth) sometimes appears to mean simply ‘appointment’, ‘ordinance’ (so 2 Kings 11:4; Jeremiah 11:6; Jeremiah 34:13; Jeremiah 34:18; Job 31:1; Psalm 105:10), which may even be the primary meaning (comp. Assyr. barû ‘to decide’). Comp. the phrase ‘the book of the covenant’ (Exodus 24:7).

my law] See note on Hosea 8:12.

2. Israel shall cry …] Rather, Unto me they will (then) cry, My God, we—Israel—know thee. When the punishment comes, they will cry aloud to Jehovah, and lay stress upon their belonging to Him. ‘Israel’ is mentioned, as the title of honour (the kunya, comp. the commentators on Isaiah 44:5), given by Jehovah, which was the outward sign of His mystic connexion with His worshippers. The speech of the Israelites is the counterpart of that of Jehovah in Isaiah 43:1, ‘I have called thee by name; thou art mine.’ (The Septuagint and the Peshito, however, omit ‘Israel.’) ‘My God’ seems used distributively, each Israelite professes to feel his individual relation to the national God.

3. The appeal is dismissed; Israel’s piety is but superficial (comp.Hosea 6:1-4); his ‘knowledge of God’ is not that which Jehovah expects.

hath cast off] Not merely put aside out of caprice, but (as the word implies) cast off with loathing (see Hosea 8:5).

4. Israel’s great offence—making a schism in the ‘theocratic’ community. Setting up idols was virtually rebellion against Jehovah; whatever Ahijah said (1 Kings 11:31, &c.), or a lower class of prophets after him (comp. Amos 7:12-13), the great prophets, such as Hosea, could not sanction any of the N. Israelitish dynasties (see on Hosea 1:11). See next note.

not by me] Rather, not from me. There is a verbal contradiction between these words and those ascribed to Shemaiah in 2 Kings 12:24. A prophet could only declare the will of God with regard to the particular case laid before him. The disunion of north and south was so great, that for the sake of peace it was better to separate. But when the moral and spiritual decay of N. Israel had reached such a point as in the time of Hosea, no prophet with any spiritual insight could fail to perceive that the usurping kings lacked the divine blessing.

that they may be cut off] The verb is in the singular, and the implied subject is the silver and gold which had been made into idols.

5. Thy calf, O Samaria, hath cast thee off] This rendering is very harsh in this context; Ewald prefers ‘He hath cast off thy calf’, a contrast to ‘Israel hath cast off that which is good’ in Hosea 8:3. But ‘casting off’ implies a previous connexion (e. g. Psalm 43:2); it is better to revert to the intransitive sense which belongs to the cognate verb in Arabic, and render, Thy calf, O Samaria, is loathsome. ‘Thy calf’ is a contemptuous expression for the small golden bull which was symbolic of Jehovah; such a bull, it appears, existed at Samaria, and doubtless at other places besides Dan and Bethel (e. g. at Gilgal).

ere they can attain innocency] Lit. ‘will they be incapable of innocency.’ Idolatry presented itself to Hosea, not only as a form of worship, but as an immoral way of living.

6. For from Israel was it also] Rather, was this also; i. e. this idol too (as well as the usurping kings) was Israel’s work, unsanctioned by me. But the construction is very dubious, and the integrity of the text may well be questioned.

the workman made it; therefore it is not God] Lit., ‘and it is not God.’ It has a merely fictitious existence (so Hosea 13:2). The sarcastic words of Hosea contain the germ of the vehement polemic of the later prophets against idolatry in general.

but … in pieces] Rather, yea, Samaria’s calf shall be (broken to) shivers (Targum, ‘chips of boards’).

7. The consequences of Israel’s evil conduct and policy are here represented under the figure of sowing and reaping. But the form of the figure is varied. First, Israel sows wind and reaps whirlwind, i.e. his present conduct is unprofitable to himself, and the requital of it shall be actual destruction. Next, though Israel sows a corn-plant, it never grows up to its full size (it, i.e. Israel, hath no standing corn); or if it does, it either yields the farmer no meal, or its meal is seized upon by the enemy, i.e. the worldly results of Israel’s policy are never good, and any wealth that it attains passes into the hands of the enemy.

the bud shall yield no meal] In the Hebrew there is a characteristic play upon sounds,—the çemakh yields no qemakh.

8. is swallowed up] i. e. is as good as swallowed up. Foreigners have already begun to absorb the precious morsel (cf. Hosea 7:8-9); complete destruction is only a question of time.

now shall they be …] Rather, now are they become among the nations, &c. Comp. Jeremiah 22:28; Jeremiah 48:38. ‘The coarse pottery of this country’, says Dr Thomson, ‘is so cheap that even poor people throw it aside in contempt, or dash it to pieces on the slightest occasion’ (The Land and the Book, p. 36). ‘Nations’ (as Hosea 8:10).

8–14. The judgment is already begun; Israel has drawn it upon himself, by dallying with Assyria, by religious abuses, and by a vain confidence in fortified cities.

9. gone up] Used, like ἀναβαίνω, of going inland (‘up the country’).

a wild ass alone by himself] Rather, a wild ass taking his own way by himself. The point of comparison is obstinacy. The wild ass is a gregarious animal, but individuals in the herd will sometimes go and roam moodily and obstinately by themselves. See Tristram, Nat. Hist. of Bible, pp. 41–43, and Davidson’s full note on Job 35:5-8. Ishmael is compared to the wild ass in Genesis 16:12, and now it appears that Israel is no better than Ishmael. In spite of warnings, he will have his way, though intercourse with Assyria is his ruin.

Ephraim hath hired lovers] Rather, loves. The allusion is to the gifts by which Israel sought to gain the Assyrian or Egyptian alliance (Hosea 12:2). The Sept. evidently had a different, though probably not a more correct text.

10. This verse is obscure, and open to a variety of interpretations; the following however seems by far the most probable.

Yea, though they have hired among the nations] Rather, Yea, though they hire, &c. i.e. though they attain a certain amount of success in their negotiations, and win the protection of some stronger nation, yet the time has come for me to check their misplaced activity.

now will I gather them] Surely not, ‘now will I gather the Assyrian army to fight against them’, which does not suit the context (mark ‘yea, though’), but, ‘now will I restrain their roving propensities.’ Where or how, we are not yet told; it is captivity which is dimly hinted at. This interpretation is strongly confirmed by the next clause.

and they shall sorrow a little for the burden of the king of princes] ‘The king of princes’ is a phrase not found elsewhere, but might conceivably = ‘the king of kings’, which is a title claimed by Tiglath-Pileser I. (Records of the Past, Hosea 5:8, comp. Ezekiel 26:7). The ‘burden’ might be the heavy tribute paid by Menahem (2 Kings 15:20). But why ‘sorrow a little’? No better sense is made by rendering ‘and they shall begin to be diminished [in numbers, or in prosperity] by reason of the burden of the king of princes’; why ‘begin’? A third rendering, ‘and they shall soon be in anguish through the burden’ &c. involves a violation of Hebrew usage (‘soon’ should be ‘a little’). The only remedy is to follow the Septuagint, which reads two of the Hebrew words differently, and render that they may cease for a little from anointing a king and princes (all the versions and some Hebr. MSS. sanction ‘and’). Comp. Hosea 13:10 ‘Give me a king and princes’, from which it seems as if the personnel of the class of ‘princes’ would vary according as the king were of one dynasty or another. In Judah, at any rate, as well as in Egypt, we know that the royal princes enjoyed many of the more important offices under the crown (comp. Isaiah 7:13; Jeremiah 17:20; 1 Kings 22:26; 2 Kings 25:25).

11. Because] Rather, For. It is a justification of the foregoing threat.

hath made many altars to sin] In times of national trouble, sacrifices were multiplied, to propitiate the national God (comp. Isaiah 1:11). But as no corresponding effort was made to purify the conduct and the character, such sacrifices did but increase the load of the national guilt. Instead of ‘many sacrifices’, Hosea says ‘many altars’ because there was even less attempt in the times of Hosea and Isaiah to centralize worship in the northern kingdom than in the southern. The strict rule of Deuteronomy (one temple and one altar) seems at present far removed from the general consciousness. See Introduction, part v.

altars shall be unto him to sin] Rather, (yea,) altars are to him for sinning (thereby). There is no unfairness on Jehovah’s part; Israel cannot pretend ignorance of His will.

12. I have written to him] Auth. Vers, here follows the Targum and the Peshito (the Septuagint and the Vulgate give the future), but it is more idiomatic (see p. 36, not[56] to render in the present—I am wont to write. The prophet is fully conscious that the divinely given laws under which Israel lives (or ought to live) were not formulated once for all in the Mosaic age, but grew up in different ages. Thus understood, the passage is an important authority for the existence of a legal literature before the Pentateuch became canonical. But another rendering is grammatically possible, ‘Though I wrote unto him’ (my law by myriads, i. e. in myriad precepts).

[56] te The Targum and Aben Ezra, followed by the Authorized Version, render ‘I have written’ (better, ‘I wrote’). The tense is the imperfect, which is sometimes used in highly poetical passages where past occurrences are referred to; see Driver, Hebrew Tenses, § 27 (1) (β). Such a use of the imperfect would however here be isolated, nor is the passage in a poetical style. We must therefore reject the rendering of Auth. Vers., and with it the theory that the prophet refers simply and solely to a body of Mosaic legislation. In fact, when Moses is referred to by Hosea, it is as a prophet and a leader of the people, not as a legislator (Hosea 12:13).

the great things of my law] The expression in the Hebrew, however we understand it, is remarkable and somewhat harsh. All difficulty would we removed if we might suppose the omission of a letter and a transposition; the phrase would then run, ‘the words of my law.’ The Hebrew Bible however gives 1, in the margin, ‘the multitudes of my law’ (Vulg. multiplices leges meas), which is adopted by Auth. Ver., and 2, in the text, ‘the myriads (or, the myriad precepts) of my law.’ The word rendered ‘multitudes’ is questionable, since it occurs elsewhere only in the singular, and there is here no apparent occasion for a plural. ‘The myriads of my law’ is a bold expression, but this reading is generally preferred. ‘My law’ may be understood to imply that, though Jehovah’s will was made known ‘by divers portions’ (Hebrews 1:1 R. V.), yet these ‘portions’ when fitly joined together made a whole. This was certainly the feeling of those Jewish Bible-students who affixed the vowel-points; but, as Hosea is thinking of the multiplicity of the laws, rather than of their unity, some have thought that we should rather read (altering one point), ‘my laws.’ We can estimate the multiplicity spoken of from the Pentateuch, whether this work was known to Hosea in anything at all like its present form or not. We must remember, however, that the laws to which the prophet alludes are concerned, not with rites and ceremonies, but with civil justice and the applications of a plain but religiously sanctioned morality (comp. the so-called Book of the Covenant, Exodus 21-23).

they were (rather, are) counted as a strange thing] As something which did (does) not concern them.

13. They sacrifice, &c.] Rather, My sacrificial gifts they sacrifice; (yea,) flesh, and they eat it; i.e., their sacrifices are a mere form, Jehovah abhors them; the only positive result is that the sacrificer has the luxury of a dinner of flesh-meat. (Comp. a similar accusation against the priests, Hosea 4:8.) That sensual appetites were partly concerned in the offering of sacrifices even in times of national trouble may perhaps be inferred from Isaiah 22:13, the eating of animal food being only allowed, especially we may suppose in Jerusalem, in connexion with a sacrificial act; comp. Leviticus 17:3-6; Deuteronomy 13:15-16 (a mitigation of a primitive rule). [The word rendered ‘gifts’ is uncertain.]

now] The climax of Israel’s iniquity has been reached; Jehovah will now prove in act that He has not forgotten their transgressions.

they shall return to Egypt] Some think this is a kind of poetical expression for being carried into captivity—a most unnatural supposition. In Isaiah 7:18 we find a threat of a double invasion from Egypt and from Assyria, and why can we not imagine that a people who were ever vacillating between Egyptian and Assyrian alliances should be threatened with an Egyptian as well as an Assyrian captivity? Comp. the prophecies of restoration from Egypt in Isaiah 11:11; Micah 7:12. The word ‘return’ is pointed with the terrible associations of the ‘house of bondage’; comp. Deuteronomy 28:68. Hosea repeats the threat in Hosea 9:3; Hosea 9:6, Hosea 11:5.

14. A fresh reason for the ‘swallowing up’ of which the prophet has spoken (Hosea 8:8)—Israel’s worldliness and self-dependence.

buildeth temples] It seems doubtful however whether Hosea would have laid such stress on the wickedness of many temples and many altars (see Hosea 8:11). More probably ‘temples’ should be palaces (the primitive meaning of the Assyrian cognate is ‘great house’), in which case for ‘palaces’ at the close of the verse we had better substitute castles. It is not so much the ‘palaces’ and the ‘castles’ themselves as the worldliness and the tyranny of those who lived in them that Hosea denounces.

but I will send a fire …] Referring to both Israel and Judah. Remarkably enough, we find these words repeated seven times in Amos as a refrain to as many denunciations (Amos 1:4 to Amos 2:5). It seems hardly likely that so original a prophet should have quoted these words; perhaps they were a well-known prophetic commonplace.