(3) Differences of Views. Expositors are not at all agreed as to the meaning of the phrase 'wife of whoredoms,' whether the phrase refers to har lotry before marriage. or unfaithfulness after it. It may afford an easy solution of the difficulty if we look at the antitype in its history and character. Adultery is the appellation of idola trous apostasy. The Jewish nation was espoused to God. The contract was formed on Sinai; but the Jewish people had prior to this period gone a-whoring. Josh. xxiv :2-14. 'Your fathers dwelt on the other side of the flood in old time, and they served other gods.' Comp. Lev. xvii :7, in which it is implied that idolatrous propensities had also de veloped themselves during the abode in Egypt; so that the phrase employed may signify one devoted to lasciviousness prior to her marriage. The mar riage must be supposed a real contract, or its significance would be lost. Jer. :2, 'I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals, when thou wentest after me in the wilderness, in a land that was not sown.' Chil dren of whoredoms refer most naturally to the two sons and daughter afterwards to be born. They were not the prophet's own, as is intimaked in the allegory, and they followed the pernicious example of the mother. Spiritual adultery was the debasing sin of Israel.
The Israelites who had been taken into cove nant very soon fell from their first love, and were characterized by insatiable spiritual wanton ness; yet their Maker, their husband, did not at once divorce them, but exhibited a marvelous long-suffering.
The names of the children being symbolical, the name of the mother has probably a similar signification. It may have the symbolic sense of 'one thoroughly abandoned to sensual delights.' The names of the children are Jezreel, Lo ruhamah, and Lo-ammi. The prophet explains the meaning of the appellations. It is generally supposed that the names refer to three successive generations of the Israclitish people. Hengsten berg, on the other hand, argues that 'wife and children both are the people of Israel; the three names must not be considered separately, but taken together.' But as the marriage is first mentioned, and the births of the children are de tailed in order, some time elapsing between the events, we rather adhere to the ordinary exposi tion. Nor is it without reason that the second child is described as a female.
The first child, Jezreel, may refer to the first dynasty of Jeroboa.rn I and his successors, which was terminated in the blood of Ahab's house which Jehu shed at Jezrecl. The name suggests also the cruel and fraudulent possession of the vineyard of Naboth, 'which was in Jezreel,' where, too, the woman Jezebel was slain so ignominiously (1 Kings xvi :1; 2 Kings ix :21). But as Jehu and his family had become as corrupt as their predecessors, the scenes of Jezreel were again to be enacted, and Jehu's race must perish. Jezreel, the spot referred to by the prophet, is also, ac cording to Jerome, the place where the Assyrian army routed the Israelites. The name of this child associates the past and future, symbolizes past sins, intermediate punishments and final over throw. The name of the second child, Lo ruhamah, 'not-pitied.' the appellation of a de graded douglz,ter, may refer to the feeble, effemi nate period which followed the overthrow of the first dynasty, when Israel became weak and help less as well as sunk and abandoned. The favor of God was not exhibited to the nation; they were as abject as impious. But the reign of Jero boam Il was prosperous; new energy was infused into the kingdom ; gleams of its former prosperity shone upon it. This revival of strength in that generation may be typified by the birth of a third child, a son. Lo-ammi, 'not my people' (2 Kings xiv :25). Yet prosperity did not bring with it a revival of piety; still, although their vigor was recruited, they were not God's people (Lec tures on the Jewish Antiquities and Scriptures. by J. G. Palfrey, vol. ii, 422, Boston, N. A., 1841) The space we have already occupied precludes more minute criticism ; but the general principles we have indicated may be applied to the second and third chapters.
(4) Divisions. Recent writers, such as Ber tholdt, Eichhorn, De Wette, Stuck, Maurer and Hitzig, have labored much, but in vain, to divide the book of Hosea into separate portions, assign ing to each the period at which it was written ; but from the want of sufficient data the attempt must rest principally on taste and fancy. A suffi cient proof of the correctness of this opinion may be found in the contradictory sections and allot ments of the various writers who have engaged in the task. Chapters i, ii and iii evidently form one division ; it is next to impossible to separate and distinguish the other chapters. The form and style are very similar throughout all the second portion.
(5) Style. The peculiarities of Hosea's style have been often remarked. Jerome says of him, 'Commaticus est et quasi per sententias loquens' (Prof. ad XII ProPh.) His style, says De \Vette, 'is abrupt, unrounded and ebullient ; his rhythm hard, leaping and violent. The language is peculiar and difficult' (Einleitung, sec. 228). Lowth (Prolect., 21) speaks of him as the most difficult and perplexed of the prophets. Bishop Horsley has remarked his peculiar idioms—his change of person, anomalies of gender and num ber, and use of the nominative absolute UVorks, vol. iii). Eichhorn's description of his style was probably at the same time meant as an imitation of it (Einleitung, sec. 555) : 'His discourse is like a garland woven of a multiplicity of flowers ; images are woven upon images, comparison wound upon comparison, metaphor strung upon metaphor. He plucks one flower, and throws it down that he may directly break off another. Like a bee, he flies from one flower-bed to an other, that lie may suck his honey from the most varied pieces. It is a natural consequence that his figures sometimes form strings of pearls. Often is he prone to approach to allegory—often he sinks down in obscurity' (comp. chap. v :9; vi 3; vii :8; xiii :3, 7, 8, 16). Unusual words and forms of connection sometimes occur (De Wette, sec. 228). Many examples might be given of the peculiar abruptness of the style ; the particles of connection, causal, adversative, transitive, etc., being frequently omitted.
(6) Quoted in New Testament. Hosea, as a prophet is expressly quoted by Matthew (ii :15). The citation is from the first verse of chap. xi. Hosea (vi :6) is quoted twice by the same evan gelist (ix :13 ; xii :7). Quotations from his proph ecies are also to be found in Rom. ix :25, 26. References to them occur in Cor. xv :55 and in Pet. ii :to. Messianic references are not clearly and prominently developed (Gramberg, Religion sid, :298). This book. however, is not without them; but they lie more in the spirit of its allu sions than in the letter. Hosea's Christology ap pears written not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God, on the fleshly tables of his heart. The future conversion of his people to the Lord their God, and David their king, their glorious privilege, in becoming sons of the living God, the faithfulness of the original promise to Abraham, that thc number of his spiritual seed should be as the sand of the sea, are among the oracles whose fulfillment will take place only un der the new dispensation.
(7) Literature. Besides works on the Minor Prophets as a whole, such as Ewald, Hitzig-Stein er, Keil, Pusey. von Orelli, etc., particular com. mentaries on Hosea are : Pococke, Oxf. 1685: Simson, 1851 ; Wiinsche, 1868; Nowack, 188o; and Kleine Propheten ( Fl andkom. ) , 1897 ; Scholz, 1882; Cheyne (Camb. Bible), i884. Comp. Vale ton, Antos en Hosea, 1894; G. A. Smith, The Book of the Twelve Proph. (Expositor's Bible), 1896; Wellhausen. Die Kleinen Proph. (Skiszen v.), 1893; also W. R. Smith, Prophets, Lect. iv.; Billeb, Die michti4rsten Satze d. A lit. Kritik vom Standp. der Proph. Am. it. Hos. aus betrachtet, 1893. On the Text, Houtsma, Th T, 1875, p. 55 ff.; Oort, ib. 1890, PP. 345 ff. 480 ff.; Bachmann, Allies,. Untersuch. 1894 ; Ruben, Critical Remarks on some passagrs of O. T., 1896; Loftman, Kritisk unders5kning af den Masoretiska texten till prof. Hoseas bok, 1894, and Kommentar till prof. Ho seas bok, 1896.