[THE PROPHET HOSEA.]
[GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS.]
That the kingdom of Israel was the object of the prophet's ministry is so evident, that upon this point all are, and cannot but be, agreed. But there is a difference of opinion as to whether the prophet was a fellow-countryman of those to whom he preached, or was called by God out of the kingdom of Judah. The latter has been asserted with great confidence by Maurer, among others, in his Observ. in Hos., in the Commentat. Theol. ii. i. p. 293. But the arguments by which he supports this view will not stand the test. He appeals (1) to the inscription. The circumstance that, in this, there is mention made of the kings of Judah under whom Hosea exercised his ministry,—that they are mentioned at all,—and that they are mentioned first and completely, while only one of the kings of Israel is named, proves, according to him—especially on a comparison with the inscription of Amos—that the prophet acknowledged the kings of Judah as his superiors. But this mode of argumentation entirely overlooks the position which the pious in Israel generally, and the prophets especially, occupied in reference to Judah. They considered the whole separation—the civil as well as the religious—as an apostasy from God. And how could they do otherwise, since the eternal dominion over the people of God had been granted, by God, to the house of David? The closeness of the connection between the religious and the civil sufficiently appears from the fact, that Jeroboam and all his successors despaired of being able to maintain their power, unless they made the breach, in religious matters also, as wide as possible. The chief of the prophets in the kingdom of the ten tribes—Elijah—by taking twelve stones according to the number of the tribes of Israel (1 Kings xviii. 31), plainly enough declared, that he considered the separation as one not consistent with the idea of the Jewish kingdom, and that therefore, in reality, it must at some future period be done away with; that he considered the government in Israel as existing de facto, but not de jure.
By none do we find this view so distinctly brought out as by Hosea. "They have set up kings, and not by Me"—says the Lord by him, chap. viii. 4—"they have made princes, and I knew it not." In his view, then, the whole basis of the government in Israel is ungodliness. Because they have chosen kings and princes without God, and against the will of God, they shall be taken from them by God, chap. iii. 4. Salvation cannot come to the people until Israel and, Judah set over themselves one head, ii. 2 (i. 11), until the children of Israel seek Jehovah their Lord, and David their king, iii. 5. These two things are, in his view, intimately connected; no true return to the invisible head of the Theocracy is possible without, at the same time, a return to the visible one—the house of David. What, at some future time, the mass of the people, when converted, were to do, the converted individual must do even now. He even now recognised the kings of the tribe of Judah as truly his sovereigns, although he yielded civil obedience to the rulers of Israel, until God should again abolish the government which He gave to the people in wrath, and set up in opposition to the government of the house of David in His anger, on account of their apostasy. From all this, it clearly appears that, in order to account for the peculiarity of the inscription, we need not have recourse to the conjecture, that Hosea was a native of Judah. One might, with as much reason, maintain that all the prophets in the kingdom of Israel, who rejected the worship of the calves—and hence all the prophets without exception—were natives of the kingdom of Judah. For the worship of the calves is quite on a par with the apostasy from the anointed of God. Hosea mentions, first and completely, the kings of the legitimate family. He then further adds the name of one of the rulers of the kingdom of Israel, under whom his ministry began, because it was of importance to fix precisely the time of its commencement. Uzziah, the first in the series of the kings of Judah mentioned by him, survived Jeroboam nearly twenty-six years; compare Maurer, l. c. p. 284. Now, had the latter not been mentioned along with him, the thought might easily have suggested itself, that it was only during the latter period of Uzziah's reign that the prophet entered upon his office; in which case all that he said about the overthrow of Jeroboam's family would have appeared to be a vaticinium post eventum, inasmuch as it took place very soon after Jeroboam's death. The same applies to what was said by him regarding the total decay of the kingdom which was so flourishing under Jeroboam; for, from the moment of Jeroboam's death, it hastened with rapid strides towards its destruction. If, therefore, it was to be seen that future things lie open before God and His servants "before they spring forth" (Is. xlii. 9), it was necessary that the commencement of the prophet's ministry should be the more accurately determined; and this is effected by the statement, that it happened within the period of the fourteen years during which Uzziah and Jeroboam reigned contemporaneously. That this is the main reason for mentioning Jeroboam's name, is seen from the relation of ver. 2 to ver. 1. The remark there made,—that Hosea received the subsequent revelation at the very beginning of his prophetic ministry, corresponds with the mention of Jeroboam's name in ver. 1. But this is not all; nor can we say that, had it not been for this reason, Hosea would not have mentioned any king of Israel at all, in order that, from the outset, he might exhibit his disposition. There was a considerable difference between Jeroboam and the subsequent kings. Cocceius remarked very strikingly: "The other kings of Israel are not considered as kings, but as robbers." Jeroboam possessed a quasi legitimacy. The house of Jehu, to which he belonged, had opposed the extreme of religious apostasy. It was, to a certain degree, acknowledged, even by the prophets. Jeroboam had obtained the throne, not by usurpation, but by birth. He was the last king by whom the Lord sent deliverance to the people of the ten tribes; compare 2 Kings xiv. 27: "And the Lord would not blot out the name of Israel from under heaven; and He saved them by the hand of Jeroboam, the son of Joash." (2.) The internal reason adduced by Maurer (S. 294) is equally insignificant. "The morum magistri," he says, "are wont more slightly to reprove, in the case of strangers, that which they severely condemn in their own people; but Hosea rebukes with as much severity the inhabitants of Judah, when he comes to speak of them, as he does the Israelites." But no certain inferences can be drawn from such commonplaces; for, in this way we might as reasonably infer, that Isaiah and the writer of the Books of Kings were natives of the kingdom of the ten tribes, because they censure the sins of the Israelites as severely as they do those of the inhabitants of Judah. To this commonplace we might as easily oppose another equally true, viz., the "morum magistri, from a partiality for their own people, are wont to judge more leniently of their faults than of those of strangers." Such maxims require to be applied with the utmost caution, even in the territory to which they belong, because one consideration may be so easily outweighed by another. Here, however, its application is altogether out of the question. The prophets, as the instruments of the Spirit, spoke pure and plain truth without any regard to persons. Whether Hosea was a native of Judah or of Israel, he would express himself in the same way concerning the inhabitants of Judah. He would severely rebuke their sins, and at the same time readily acknowledge, as he does, their advantages,—for "Salvation cometh of the Jews."
If, then, these be the arguments in favour of the Judean origin of Hosea, it readily appears that the probabilities of such an origin, compared with that of his Israelitish descent, are not even in the proportion of one to a hundred. The prophets were almost more numerous in the kingdom of Israel than in that of Judah; and yet the entire history knows of only two instances of prophets being sent from the kingdom of Judah to that of Israel, viz., the prophet spoken of in 1 Kings xiii. and Amos. And the former of these even scarcely belongs to this class, inasmuch as he received only a single mission into the kingdom of Israel, and that, at a time when the prophetic institution was not as yet organized there. In the case of Amos likewise, it is manifest not only that he was only an exception to the rule,—as appears from the transactions with the priest Amaziah, reported in Amos vii. (compare especially ver. 12),—but still more plainly, from the mention in the inscription of his having been a native of Judah.
With regard to the time of the prophet, the inscription places his ministry in the reigns of the kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. A long period is, no doubt, thus assigned to it,—a period embracing at least twenty-six years of Uzziah's reign, and, in addition, the sixteen years of that of Jotham, the sixteen years during which Ahaz reigned, and at least one or two years of the reign of Hezekiah, making, at the lowest calculation, a period of sixty years in all.
This exceedingly long duration of the prophet's ministry might easily excite suspicion regarding the genuineness and correctness of the inscription; but such suspicion is at once set at rest by the fact, that the statements contained in the book itself lead us to assume a period equally extended. The beginning of the prophet's ministry cannot be assigned to any later period; for, in chap. i. 4, the fall of Jeroboam's house, which took place soon after his death, is announced as a future event. Moreover, the condition of the kingdom appears still, throughout the whole first discourse, as a very flourishing one. Nor can the end of his ministry be assigned to any earlier period. For in chap. x. 14, an expedition of Shalman or Shalmaneser against the kingdom of Israel (Vitringa, Proleg. in Is. p. 6) is described as being already past, and a second invasion is threatened. But the first expedition of Shalmaneser, reported in 2 Kings xvii. 1 seqq., is almost contemporaneous with the beginning of Hezekiah's reign. For it was directed against Hoshea, king of Israel, who began his reign in the twelfth year of that of Ahaz, which lasted sixteen years. The exact harmony of the passage in Hosea with that in 2 Kings xvii. is very evident. In 2 Kings xvii. 3, it is said: "Against him came up Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, and Hoshea became his servant and gave him tribute." This was the first expedition of Shalmaneser. Then followed the second expedition, which was caused by the rebellion of Hoshea,—in consequence of which Samaria was taken and the people carried away. In Hos. x. 14, 15, it is said: "And tumult ariseth against thy people, and all thy fortresses shall be spoiled, as Shalman spoiled Beth-arbel in the day of battle; the mother was dashed in pieces upon (her) children. So shall he do unto you, Bethel, because of your great wickedness in the dawn of the morning, destroyed, destroyed shall be the king of Israel." Hosea here declares that the beginning of the destruction by Shalmaneser is the prophecy of the end of the kingdom of Israel. The "morning dawn" is the time of apparently reappearing prosperity, when, according to Cocceius, a time of peace begins to shine. In Amos iv. 13, v. 8, the prosperity again dawning upon the kingdom of Israel is likewise expressed by "morning" and "morning dawn." The identity of Beth-arbel and Arbelah in Galilee can the less be doubted, because recent researches have rendered it certain that this place, now called Irbid, was an important fortress. (Compare Münchener gelehrte Anzeigen 1836, S. 870 ff.; Robinson, iii. 2, p. 534; v. Raumer, S. 108.) The use of Beth-arbel, instead of the more common Arbelah, as well as that of Shalman instead of Shalmaneser, belongs to the higher style. At the first expedition, the decisive battle had, no doubt, taken place at Arbelah. They who disconnect this passage from 2 Kings xvii. do not know what to make of it. Simson complains of the darkness resting on the passage under consideration.—But Hos. xii. 2 (1) likewise leads us to the very last times of the kingdom of Israel,—those times when Hoshea endeavoured to free himself from the Assyrian servitude by the help of Egypt. "Ephraim feedeth on wind, and followeth after the east-wind; he daily increaseth lies and desolation; and they do make a covenant with Assyria, and oil is carried into Egypt." Their sending oil to Egypt, notwithstanding the covenant made with Assyria, is the lie, which goes hand in hand with desolation, while they imagine thereby to work deliverance. This explanation has been already given by J. H. Manger, of whose Commentarius in Hoseam, Campen, 1782—a commentary in many respects excellent—most of the recent commentators, and, lastly, Simson, have, to their great disadvantage, not availed themselves. Manger says: "These words refer to the ambassadors who were sent with splendid presents by king Hoshea to the king of Egypt, in order to win him over to himself, and induce him to assist him against the Assyrians, to whom he had become subject by a solemn treaty."—To the last times of the kingdom of Israel we are likewise led by what occurs in other passages concerning the relation of Israel to Egypt and Asshur. The matter has been falsely represented by very many as if two parties among the people were spoken of,—an Assyrian and an Egyptian party. Nor is it so, that the whole people turn at one time to Egypt in order to free themselves from the Assyrians, and at another time to Assyria to assist them against Egypt. The position is rather thus: The people, heavily oppressed by Asshur, at one time seek help from Egypt against Asshur, and, at another, attempt to conciliate the latter. Precisely thus is the situation described in vii. 11: "They call to Egypt, they go to Asshur." That by which Israel was threatened, was, according to viii. 10, "the burden of the king of princes, the king of Asshur," ver. 9. This they seek to turn off, partly by artifices, and partly by calling to their help the king of Egypt. Asshur alone is the king "warrior" (Jareb), v. 13, x. 6; he only has received the divine mission to execute judgment; compare xi. 5: "He, i.e., Israel, shall not return to the land of Egypt, and Asshur, he is his king." As an ally not to be trusted, Egypt is described in vii. 16, where, after the announcement of their destruction on account of their rebellion against the Lord, it is said: "This shall be their derision on account of the land of Egypt," i.e., thus they shall be put to shame in the hope which they place on Egypt. Is. xxx. 1-5 is quite analogous. In that passage the prophet announces that Judah's attempt to protect themselves against Asshur by means of Egypt would be vain; compare, especially, ver. 3: "And the fortress of Pharaoh shall be your shame, and the trust in the shadow of Egypt, your confusion;" and ver. 5: "Not for help nor for profit, but for shame and for reproach." Such historical circumstances, however, had not yet occurred under Menahem. At that time, Israel was not yet placed in the midst betwixt Asshur and Egypt. It is expressly mentioned in 2 Kings xv. 20, that the invasion of Pul was only transitory, and that not conquest, but spoil, was its aim. The real commencement of the Assyrian oppression is formed by the invasion of Tiglathpileser at the time of Ahaz. Isaiah, in chap. vii., points out the pernicious consequences of Ahaz's calling the Assyrians to his assistance against Syria and Israel. The very fact of this war carried on against Judah by Syria and Ephraim shows, that up to that time, Asshur had not laid his hand upon these regions. It was only with the invasion under Ahaz that there was any display of Asshur's tendency to make permanent conquests on the other side of Euphrates, which could not fail to bring about the conflict with the Egyptian power.—"King Jareb,"—such had already become the historical character of the king of Asshur, at the time when Hosea wrote; but prior to the times of Ahaz and Hezekiah, he did not stand out as such.
There is no decisive weight to be attached to what Simson advances in order to prove that we must fix an earlier date. He argues thus: "Gilead, which, according to 2 Kings xv. 29, was taken and depopulated by Tiglathpileser, whom Ahaz had called to his assistance, appears in vi. 8, xii. 12 (11) to be still in the possession of Israel. Hence, the ministry of the prophet cannot have extended beyond the invasion of Judah by the Syrians and Ephraim." But since the book gives the sum and substance of Hosea's prophecies during a prolonged period, there must necessarily occur in it references to events which already belonged to the past, at the time when the prophet wrote. In chap. i. 4, even the overthrow of the house of Jeroboam appears as being still future.
But even although we could not establish, from other sources, the statement contained in the inscription, the inscription itself would nevertheless be a guarantee for it; and the more so, because there are other analogies in favour of so long a duration of the prophetic office, which was sometimes entered upon even in early youth. The inscription has the same authority in its favour as every other part of the book; and it is hardly possible to understand the levity with which it has, in recent times, been pretty generally designated as spurious, or, at least, suspicious. It is altogether impossible to sever it from the other parts of the book. There must certainly have been some object in view when, in ver. 2, it is expressly remarked, that what follows took place at the beginning of Hosea's ministry. But such an object it will be possible to point out, only in the event of its being more accurately determined at what time this beginning took place—viz., still under the reign of Jeroboam, when the state of things as it appeared to the eye did not yet offer any occasion for such views of the future as are opened up in the first three chapters. Ver. 1 cannot, therefore, be regarded as an addition subsequently made, unless the words in ver. 2, from תחלת to בהושע be so likewise. But these again are most closely connected with what follows by the Future with Vav convers., which never can begin a narrative. There remains, therefore, only this alternative:—either to regard the whole as having been written at a later period, or to claim for Hosea the inscription also. We cannot agree with the view of Simson, that the remark by which the beginning of the book is assigned to the beginning of the prophet's ministry, originated from a chronological interest only; and we can the less do so, because the prophet does not pay any attention to chronology in any other place, but is anxious to give only the sum and substance of what he had prophesied during a series of years. The only exception which he makes in this respect must have originated from strong reasons; and such do not exist, if the inscription in ver. 1, or the mention of the kings in it, be spurious. The mention of the beginning in ver. 2 would, in that case, be so much the more groundless, as we could know nothing at all regarding the length of his ministry.