Addenda to Hosea (2) – Addenda to Joel

Addenda to Hosea (2)

So various become versions, when once a license is taken with the text, or with the current meaning of the words. Junius and Tremelius agree with Calvin, except as to time, the past tense is adopted. The last two lines are thus given, —

“Quando Jehudah adhuc dominabatur cum Deo forti,
Et cum sanctis fidelis erat.”

The whole verse, according to this version, is as follows, —

“Surround me did the Ephraimites with falsehood,
And with guile, the house of Israel;
When Judah as yet ruled with God,
And with the saints was faithful.”

By referring to past times, the objection as to the condition of Judah, he being at that time much given to superstition and idolatry, though still adhering to the outward form of true worship, is to a great extent removed. But the remarks of Calvin on this point seem sufficient.

Hosea 12:8, In all my labors, etc. Newcome’s version is very different, he having been led astray, as usual, by the Septuagint, —

“All his labors shall not be found profitable unto him,
For the iniquity wherewith he hath sinned.”

Horsley’s rendering is nearly as far from the Original as this — “All my labors procured not for me what may expiate iniquity.” Henderson’s version is a paraphrase, but materially agrees with that of Calvin, —

“In none of my labors am I chargeable with guilt.”

What he considers the literal rendering is this — “With respect to all my efforts, they shall not find attaching to me iniquity which is sin.” Perhaps the words may admit of a still more literal rendering — “All my labors shall not be found to be an iniquity to me, that is a sin.”

Hosea 12:11, Is there iniquity in Gilead? There is considerable difficulty connected with this passage, and, indeed, with the whole of this chapter, from the eighth verse to the end. The main drift is evidently what is stated by Calvin, and in this most commentators agree. It was clearly the design of the Prophet, in alluding to Jacob and his history, to prove the ingratitude and to beat down the pride of Ephraim. But still, to connect the whole together in a continuous narrative, is no easy task. On this very line there is a great variety. Grotius reads, “Si in Galaade idolum fuit;” Junius and Tremelius, “An in Gilhade iniquitas?” Horsley, “Was there idolatry in Gilead?” Newcome, “Verily, in Gilead there is iniquity;” and Henderson, “Verily, Gilead is iniquitous.”

It appears that Gilead was at this time destroyed; for what is said in 2 Kings 15:29, was evidently previous to the time of Hosea. It is there stated that the king of Assyria had taken Gilead, with other cities, and carried the inhabitants captive to Assyria. The reference, then, to Gilead, must have been to its former state. Gilgal being still in the possession of Israel, its state at that time is described. This shows that Grotius and Horsley are more correct than Calvin, Newcome, and Henderson. Gilead is evidently introduced as an instance of the effects of idolatry, and the folly of Israel is exposed in continuing the same idolatry at Gilgal. That I may attempt to exhibit the whole passage from verse eighth to the end, in a connected form, I submit to the reader the following version, —

Note 79. "Do ye think there was more iniquity in the Gileadites, that are already carried away captive, than in you? Surely the rest of Israel is in the same case; they all lie open to the same judgement. ... They sacrifice to their idols in Gilgal also." — Bishop Hall, quoted by Scott.

8. Canaan is he! In his hand are the balances of deceit;
He loves to oppress:

Note 80. "God says to the Prophet, Instead of turning to me and keeping to the works of charity and justice, he is a mere heathen huckster. Thou hast miscalled him Jacob; he is Canaan; not Jacob, the godly, the heir of the promise; [but] Canaan, the cheat, the sone of the curse." — Bishop Horsely.

9. Yet Ephraim says, “Surely I am become rich,
I have found substance for myself;
In all my labors they will not find against me
An iniquity that is a sin.”

10. But I, Jehovah, thy God from the land of Egypt,
Will yet make thee to dwell in tents,
As in the days of meeting:

Note 81. This refers to the meeting or assembling of the people in the wilderness to the tabernacle. The tabernacle was called אחל מוער, the tabernacle of meeting, the very word used here. See Exod. 25:22; 30:36. But if מוער יטי designate the days of the annual feast of the tabernacles, yet they must be viewed here, as Scott says, with reference only to the manner in which they lived in the wilderness.

11. Thus have I spoken by the prophets,
When I had visions multiplied,
And by the prophets showed similitudes.

12. If Gilead has been iniquitous, (literally, iniquity;)
Surely vain have they become in Gilgal;
They sacrifice oxen, yea their altars
Are like the heaps on the furrows of the field.

13. When Jacob fled to the land of Aram,
Then Israel served for a wife,
And for a wife he kept sheep;
By a prophet also did Jehovah bring Israel from Egypt,
And by a prophet was he preserved.

14. Yet Ephraim has caused the bitterest provocation:
But his blood on himself shalt be left,
And his reproach will his Lord return to him.

Hosea 13:2, Who sacrifices men, etc. Henderson, after mentioning several authors for and against this rendering, strengthens his own, which agrees with our common version, by referring to a rule of syntax laid down by Gesenius; but that rule refers to adjectives and to passive participles, according to the instances given, and not to participles, as in the present case, in an active form. The words here are literally “the sacrificers of men,” which certainly can never mean the men who sacrifice. The words are not in apposition but in regimine. We have in Deuteronomy 18:3, הזבח זבחי, “the sacrificers of the sacrifice,” a phrase similar to the present.

Hosea 13:14, From the power of the grave would I redeem thee, etc. The conditional form is adopted by Grotius and others, but disapproved by Horsley, Newcome, and Henderson. When we consider what precedes this verse, and what follows it, the condition seems the most suitable. Then the expression, “repentance is hid from my eyes,” appears more consistent with a threatening than with a promise, especially as the threatening is continued in the next verse. To repent of evil, and not of good, is the phrase usually found in the Old Testament. It is true that Paul makes use of the expression with regard to the gifts of God, (Romans 11:29,) but the context here seems to favor the other notion.

Hosea 14:2, Bring good. Horsley reads, “Accept the good;” Newcome, “Let us receive good;” Henderson, “Graciously receive us.” The words are וקח-טוב, literally, “and receive,” or “bring good.” The verb means simply to “take’” but then it is used to express taking for one’s self in the sense of receiving, and taking for another in the sense of bringing. Naaman said to Elisha, קח נא ברכה, “Take,” or “receive, I pray, a blessing,” 2 Kings 5:15; and Jacob said to Joseph, קחם-נא אלי, “Take,” or “bring them, I pray, to me,” Genesis 48:9. See also Genesis 15:9; 2 Kings 2:20. So the meaning may be either that given by Horsley or by Calvin; and as the latter is more consonant with this passage, and does not blend in sense, as the former does, with the next clause in the verse, it ought to be preferred. But the Bishop’s note must be added, — “Take away all iniquity, i.e., Take away entirely the sinful principle within us. Take away the carnal heart of the old Adam. Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me. And then, when we are thus begotten again unto holiness by thy Spirit, accept the good, accept as good, what, so regenerate, we shall be enabled to perform.” All this is perfectly true; but the former part is not an explanation of the text; for to take away sin does not mean the renewal of the heart, but the forgiveness of sin. Though they be two gracious acts which go together, they are yet wholly separate and distinct; and to confound them may lead to serious mistakes.

Note 82. The Doctor says, that Horsely is wrong in his philogy in this instance, and adds, that מוכ is used adverbially. No instance is given; and it is difficult to find one. Let it be adduced, and then the philogical accurateness of this rendering shall be allowed. The fact is, that in Hebrew very few words of this kind are taken adverbially: the language deals very sparingly in adverbs. — Ed

The same verb is used at the beginning of the verse, Take, or bring with you words. As they were to bring words of confession and prayer, so God is solicited to bring good; and to bring good very suitably follows the taking away of iniquity; and then follows the gratitude that is required.

Addenda to Joel

ADDenda to Joel

Joel 1:4, The residue of the locusts, etc. “A comparison,” says Dr. Henderson, “of the different passages in which these names occur, renders it more than probable that they are here employed by the Prophet, not with any reference to the species into which the locusts may be scientifically divided, but to designate four successive swarms, according to certain destructive qualities, by which, as a genus of insects, they are distinguished, and thereby to heighten the terror which this description was intended to produce.”

Mercerius, as quoted in Poli Syn., tells us, that almost all divines, both ancient and modern, understood this narrative of the locusts allegorically; and it appears that, according to some, they designate the four incursions of the Chaldeans into the land, that is, by Tiglathpileser, Shalmanezer, Sennacherib, and Nebuchadnezzar; or, according to Cyril, by Shalmanezer, Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus, and the Romans; or, according to Jerome, the four empires which successively ruled over the Jews, the first locust representing the Chaldeans, — the second, the Medes and Persians, — the third, the Macedonians, — and the fourth, the Romans. But these are hallucinations and not expositions. Much more appropriate is the opinion stated and approved by Henderson, that in this chapter Joel describes a devastation of the country by natural locusts; and that in the second he predicts a devastation by the Assyrians in a language highly metaphorical, borrowed in some measure from the scene described here; and this is exactly the view of Calvin.

Joel 2:12, But even now, etc. Our version, “Therefor also now,” is not so emphatical as that of Calvin. The full meaning has been perceived by Newcome, “Yet even now,” though omitted by Henderson, whose rendering is, “Now therefore,” which comes short of our common version.

Joel 2:13, For he is propitious, etc. It is of great importance that this declaration of what God is should be correctly rendered. Newcome’s version is the same with our common translation. Henderson’s is different; it is this, —

“For he is pitiful and compassionate,
Long-suffering and of great mercy,
And repenteth of the evil.”

The first, חנון, is not “pitiful,” but gracious, benevolent, propitious, gratuitously kind, favorable to the undeserving; it comes from חן, to show favor or kindness; and the last letter being doubled, it may be rendered, very kind, or very gracious. The second is רחום, which more properly means pitiful, but rightly rendered, “compassionate,” rather than “merciful,” as in our version. The third, ארך אפים, is better expressed by “slow to anger,” or to wrath, than by “long-suffering.” The fourth is, רב-חסד, much, or abundant in goodness: the word חסד is sometimes rendered mercy, but not properly; it means overflowing goodness, or exuberant benevolence. Adam Clarke has given an accurate description of these terms: — “gracious — good and benevolent in his own nature, — merciful — pitying and forgiving, — slow to anger — not easily provoked to punish, — of great kindness — exuberant goodness to all them who return to him.”

Joel 2:14, who knows, etc. Henderson has been very felicitous in his version of this line, —

“Who knoweth? He may turn and repent.”

It is an instance of the potential or subjunctive meaning of the future tense in Hebrew; which is the case probably much oftener than what is generally thought. But not so felicitous is the rendering of חוסה, in verse 17, by “Have pity.” The meaning of the verb is, no doubt to spare, as it is rendered, I believe, uniformly in our version. It may be seen in connection with two other verbs, which include the ideas of pity and sympathy, in Jeremiah 13:14; 21:7

Joel 2:20, For high hath he exalted himself to do his purpose. Both Newcome and Henderson retain the common version, only the former reads, “Though,” instead of “because he hath done great things.” כי הגדיל לעשות, “For he made himself great in (or, by) doing,” or, “Became great in doing.” It is the greatness of the doer that is set forth, rather than of the things done. Henderson very justly observes, that those words “convey the idea of moral agency, and can with no propriety be interpreted of the locusts.” Exactly the same words are adopted in the next verse in reference to God.

Joel 2:25, My great army, etc. Newcome says, “We have here a key to the grand and beautiful description which runs through these two chapters.” He considered that the Prophet is to be understood throughout “as foretelling a plague of locusts.” But this can be no key to such an interpretation, for what is said in this verse coalesces much better with the other view. On the supposition that there had been locusts, as related in the first chapter, and that the Prophet threatens a heavier judgment in this, which could only be prevented by repentance, to which he exhorts them, it appears most appropriate for him to say, that not only “the Northlander,” of whose invasion he had spoken, would be driven away and destroyed, but that also the devastations already produced by the locusts would be repaired. So far then is this verse from being a key to the proposed interpretation, that it is much more suitable to the other.

Joel 2:30, And I will set prodigies, etc. Calvin extends the range of these prodigies beyond what most commentators do. They are viewed by most as those prodigies, recorded even by the historian Josephus, which preceded the overthrow of the city and the temple by the Romans, when the whole kingdom, in a civil and ecclesiastical sense, was completely abolished. The day of the Lord, as mentioned here, has therefore been regarded as the day or time when this awful calamity happened to the Jews: but Calvin regards it as the day of final judgment. There is no doubt much truth in what he says about prodigies or awful judgments ever accompanying the gospel, not as its effects, but as visitations for unbelief, and willful and malicious opposition to it. There is much in the history of the world in confirmation of what he advances. The determinate suppression of the gospel by those who had opportunity of knowing it, or the evident depravation of it either by the influence of infidelity or of superstition, have often been visited in this world with awful judgments, such as wars and political disturbances.