By marrying a harlot, and by the names of his children, the prophet sets forth the crimes of Israel and their punishment. He foretells their redemption by Christ.
In signification of the peoples idolatrie, the prophet marieth a fornicatrix: 4. by his childrens names foresheweth their great, and long captiuitie: 11. And afterwards their redemption together with al nations.
1The word of the Lord, that came to Osee, the son of Beeri, in the days of Ozias, Joathan, Achaz, and Ezechias, kings of Juda, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joas, king of Israel.Parola del Signore detta a Osea figliuolo di Beeri a' tempi di Ozia, di Joatham, di Achaz, di Ezechia, regi di Giuda, e a' tempi di Jeroboam figliuolo di Joas, re di Israele.THE word of our Lord, that was made to Osee the sonne of Beeri, in the dayes of Ozias, Ioathan; Achaz, Ezechias kinges of Iuda, and in the dayes of Ieroboam the sonne of Ioas king of Israel.Verbum Domini, quod factum est ad Osee, filium Beeri, in diebus Oziæ, Joathan, Achaz, Ezechiæ, regum Juda; et in diebus Jeroboam, filii Joas, regis Israël. 2The beginning of the Lord’s speaking by Osee: and the Lord said to Osee: Go, take thee a wife of fornications, and have of her children of fornications: for the land by fornication shall depart from the Lord.Il Signore cominciò a parlare ad Osea, e gli disse: Va, prendi per moglie una peccatrice, e fatti de' figliuoli della peccatrice; perocché la terra mancherà indegnamente di fede al Signore.The beginning to our Lord of speaking in Osee: and our Lord sayd to Osee: Goe, take thee a wife of fornications, and make children of fornications: because the land fornicating shal fornicate from the Lord.Principium loquendi Domino in Osee. Et dixit Dominus ad Osee: Vade, sume tibi uxorem fornicationum, et fac tibi filios fornicationum, quia fornicans fornicabitur terra a Domino. 3So he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Debelaim: and she conceived, and bore him a son.Ed egli andò, e sposò Gomer Figliuola di Debelaim, la quale concepì, e partorì a lui un figliuolo.And he went, and tooke Gomer the daughter of Debelaim: and she conceiued, and bare him a sonne.Et abiit, et accepit Gomer, filiam Debelaim: et concepit, et peperit ei filium. 4And the Lord said to him: Call his name Jezrahel: for yet a little while, and I will visit the blood of Jezrahel upon the house of Jehu, and I will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.E il Signore disse a lui: Pongi nome Jezrahel: perocché tra poco io farò vendetta del sangue di Jezrahel sopra la casa di Jehu, e farò sparire il regno della casa d'Israele.And our Lord sayd to him: Cal his name Iezrahel: because yet a litle while, & I wil visite the bloud of Iezrahel vpon the house of Iehu, and I wil make the kingdom of the house of Israel to cease.Et dixit Dominus ad eum: Voca nomen ejus Jezrahel, quoniam adhuc modicum, et visitabo sanguinem Jezrahel super domum Jehu, et quiescere faciam regnum domus Israël.
5And in that day I will break in pieces the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezrahel.Ed io in quel giorno spezzerò l'arco d'Israele nella valle di Jezrahel.And in that day I wil breake the bow of Israel in the valley of Iezrahel.Et in illa die conteram arcum Israël in valle Jezrahel. 6And she conceived again, and bore a daughter, and he said to him: Call her name, Without mercy: for I will not add any more to have mercy on the house of Israel, but I will utterly forget them.E quella concepì di nuovo, e partorì una figliuola. E il Signore disse a lui: Ponle nome: La non compassionata; perocché io non avrò più compassione alcuna della casa d'Israele; ma mi dimenticherò affatto di loro.And she conceiued yet agayne, and bare a daughter, & he sayd to him: Cal her name, Without mercie: because I wil adde no more to haue mercie on the house of Israel, but with obliuion I wil forget them.Et concepit adhuc, et peperit filiam. Et dixit ei: Voca nomen ejus, Absque misericordia, quia non addam ultra misereri domui Israël, sed oblivione obliviscar eorum. 7And I will have mercy on the house of Juda, and I will save them by the Lord, their God: and I will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, nor by horses, nor by horsemen.Ma avrò compassione della casa di Giuda, e li salverò per mezzo del Signore Dio loro, e non per mezzo degli archi, né delle spade, né per mezzo delle battaglie, o di cavalli, o di cavalieri.And I wil haue mercie on the house of Iuda, and wil saue them in the Lord their God: & I wil not saue them in bow and sword, and in battel, and in horses, & in horsemen.Et domui Juda miserebor, et salvabo eos in Domino Deo suo; et non salvabo eos in arcu et gladio, et in bello, et in equis, et in equitibus. 8And she weaned her that was called Without mercy. And she conceived, and bore a son.E la donna divezzò la non compassionata, e concepì, e partorì un figliuolo.And she weyned her that was, Without mercie. And she conceiued, and bare a sonne.Et ablactavit eam quæ erat Absque misericordia. Et concepit, et peperit filium. 9And he said: Call his name, Not my people: for you are not my people, and I will not be yours.E il Signore disse: Pongli nome: Non popol mio: perocché voi non (siete) mio popolo, ed io non sarò vostro Dio.And he sayd: Cal his name, Not my people: because you not my people, and I wil not be yours.Et dixit: Voca nomen ejus, Non populus meus, quia vos non populus meus, et ego non ero vester. 10And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, that is without measure, and shall not be numbered. And it shall be in the place where it shall be said to them: You are not my people: it shall be said to them: Ye are the sons of the living God.Ma sarà il numero de' figliuoli d'Israele come l'arena del mare, la quale è immensurabile, e non può numerarsi. E avverrà, che dove fu detto loro: Non siete voi mio popolo, si dirà ad essi: Voi figliuolo di Dio vivo.And the number of the children of Israel shal be as the sand of the sea, that is without measure, and shal not be numbered. And it shal be in place where it shal be sayd to them: Not my people you: it shal be sayd to them: Children of the liuing God.Et erit numerus filiorum Israël quasi arena maris, quæ sine mensura est, et non numerabitur. Et erit in loco ubi dicetur eis: Non populus meus vos: dicetur eis: Filii Dei viventis.
11And the children of Juda, and the children of Israel, shall be gathered together: and they shall appoint themselves one head, and shall come up out of the land: for great is the day of Jezrahel.E si raduneranno insieme i figliuoli di Giuda, e i figliuoli d'Israele, e si eleggeranno un solo capo, e si rialzeranno da terra; perchè grande è il giorno di Jezrahel.And the children of Iuda, and the children of Israel shal be gathered together: and they shal set to themselues, one head, and shal ascend out of the earth: because great is the day of Iezrahel.Et congregabuntur filii Juda et filii Israël pariter; et ponent sibimet caput unum, et ascendent de terra, quia magnus dies Jezrahel.
1:1
Year of the World 3179, Year before Christ 825.
Usher
Israel. He reigned forty-one years, till the year of the world 3220. (Usher)
St. Jerome
The prophets usually give the date, that the prediction may be verified. Some Latin manuscripts intimate, that "the Jews attribute these titles to Esdras, (who is Malachias) or to the respective prophets, which is more probable." (St. Jerome, t. i.)
Worthington
Jeroboam II died twenty-six years before Ozias, towards the end of whose reign Isaias commenced; so that Osee was more ancient. (Worthington)
1:2
Challoner
Fornications. That is, a wife that hath been given to fornication. This was to represent the Lord's proceedings with his people Israel, who, by spiritual fornication, were continually offending him. (Challoner)
St. Jerome
The prophet reclaimed her. (St. Jerome)
Calmet
She denoted Samaria, abandoned to idolatry, Ezechiel 16:15. Several such actions were prophetical. Many have supposed that this was only a parable; but the sequel proves the contrary. (Calmet)
Challoner
Of fornications. So called from the character of their mother, if not also from their own wicked dispositions. (Challoner)
He is ordered to marry a woman who had been of a loose character, and to have children who would resemble her; (Worthington) or he takes her children to his house; (Grotius) unless the children of the prophet were so styled because the mother had been given to fornication. So the rod of Aaron retains its name when it was become a serpent, Exodus 7:12.
Shall, or rather, "has departed;" and therefore he denounces future chastisements.
1:4
Calmet
Jezrahel. Jehu slew Joram in this place. He was the instrument of God's justice, yet acted himself through malice and ambition, and was therefore deservedly punished. Zacharias, the fourth of his family, lost the crown, and was slain by Sellum, at Jezrahel, 4 Kings ix., etc. (Calmet)
Worthington
The offspring of Jehu, now on the throne, solicited Jezrahel or the ten tribes to idolatry, which God will revenge. (Worthington)
1:6
Challoner
Without mercy. Lo Ruchamah. (Challoner)
Some copies of Septuagint and St. Paul read, "not beloved," Romans 9:25. Samaria shall surely perish. After the death of Jeroboam II, the kingdom was all in confusion, and in sixty-two years time became extinct. It was afterwards blended with Juda.
1:7
Calmet
Horsemen. Sennacherib was miraculously disconcerted. Juda returned from captivity and became more flourishing, giving birth to the Messias. (Calmet)
1:9
Challoner
Not my people. Lohammi. (Challoner)
Calmet
The kingdom of Israel seemed to be quite cast off; and in captivity it was hardly distinguished from other nations. Juda was preserved longer, and at all times was under the divine protection. Ezechiel, Daniel, etc., comforted the people in the worst of their afflictions. (Calmet)
1:10
Challoner
The number, etc., viz., of the true Israelites, the children of the Church of Christ. (Challoner)
Calmet
This is the primary sense, Romans 9:25. Yet the Israelites are here also assured of their return from captivity. (Calmet)
Worthington
God. Among many sinners, some are chosen. (Worthington)
1:11
Calmet
Head; Christ, (Challoner) the head of all the faithful, (Worthington) consisting both of Jews and Gentiles. Israel and Juda returned under Zorobabel, etc. (Calmet)
The prophets blend present and future transactions together. (St. Jerome in Osee 3.)
Challoner
Jezrahel. That is, of the seed of God; for Jezrahel signifies the seed of God. (Challoner)
Calmet
For may also be rendered, "when or though." The seed of Jehu shall be exterminated. The kingdom, signified by Jezrahel, a great city, shall fall. (Calmet)
1:2
A wife of fornications.... That is, a wife that has been given to fornication. This was to represent the Lord’s proceedings with his people Israel, who, by spiritual fornication, were continually offending him.—Ibid. Children of fornications.... So called from the character of their mother, if not also from their own wicked dispositions.
1:6
Without mercy.... Lo-Ruhamah.
1:9
Not my people.... Lo-ammi.
1:10
The number, etc.... Viz., of the true Israelites, the children of the church of Christ.
1:11
One head.... viz., Christ.—Ibid. Great is the day of Jezrahel.... That is, of the seed of God; for Jezrahel signifies the seed of God.
1:1
This Ieroboam king of Israel died 26, yeares before Ozias: wberby appeareth that Osee prophecied before Isaie: vvho begane nerer the end of Ozias reigne. Isa. 6.
1:2
Take a vvoman that hath bene a fornicatrixe:
begette.
and begette children, vvhich vvil also be fornicators.
1:4
The issue of Iehu now reigning, solicited the to tribes called Iezrahel to idolatrie, vvhich God here sayth he vvil reuenge.
1:7
Concordance 4. Reg. 19.
1:10
Amongst manie sinners, some are the elected children of God, vvhom he vvil cal to grace & repentance.
1:11
Al the faithful haue one head our Sauiour Christ.
1:1
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.1
… We now come to consider the next point in the work before us, How the Word was with God. To this end it will be of service to remember that what is called the Word came to certain persons; as “The Word of the Lord
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 18.27
In order that we may be able to consider these times, let us go back a little to earlier times. At the beginning of the book of the prophet Hosea, who is placed first of twelve, it is written, “The word of the Lord which came to Hosea in the days of Uzziah, Jothan, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah.”
1:2
Theodotus † fl. AD 160 Excerpts of Theodotus 1
III. “In the beginning God made the heaven and the earth,” both terrestrial and celestial things. And that this is true, the Lord said to Osee, “Go, take to thyself a wife of fornication, and children of fornication: because the land committing fornication, shall commit fornication, departing from the Lord.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.20.12
… For this reason did Hosea the prophet take “a wife of whoredoms,” prophesying by means of the action, “that in committing fornication the earth should fornicate from the Lord ,”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Modesty 6
… because Ahab, by deprecation, washed away (the guilt of) Naboth’s blood; and David, by confession, purged Uriah’s slaughter, together with its cause—adultery. That done, you will condone incests, too, for Lot’s sake; and fornications combined with incest, for Judah’s sake; and base marriages with prostitutes, for Hosea’s sake;
St Hippolytus † AD 235 The Refutation of All Heresies 5.22
… and in this Elohim washed Himself. and having washed did not repent. And when, he says, the prophet affirms, “Take unto yourself a wife of whoredom, since the earth has abandoned itself to fornication, (departing) from (following) after the Lord;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.4
… After these things it is written that “He left them and departed.” For how was the bridegroom—the Word—not going to leave the adulterous generation and depart from it? But you might say that the Word of God, leaving the synagogue of the Jews as adulterous, departed from it, and took a wife of fornication,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 14.20
… A priest, then, will not take to himself as a wife one who has been a harlot and an outcast, but no other, as being inferior to the priest, is hindered from doing so. But if you seek for the harlot in regard to the calling of the Gentiles, you may use the passage, “Take to yourself a wife of fornication, and children of fornication,”
St Ephrem the Syrian † AD 373 Ephraim Syrus: The Pearl. Seven Hymns on the Faith 6.2
… He pitied sinners, and restored them without cost: and made low the mountains of their sins: He proved that God is not to be arraigned by men, and as Lord of Truth, that His servants were His shadow; and whatsoever way His will looked, they directed also their own wills; and because Light was in Him, their shadows were enlightened.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 3
… For He hath come as a Physician, not as a Judge. Therefore in like manner as those of old took harlots for wives, even so God too espoused unto Himself the nature which had played the harlot: and this also prophets
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 53.8
… The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume, have typical meanings far different from their literal ones. Hosea speaks many times of Ephraim, of Samaria, of Joseph, of Jezreel, of a wife of whoredoms and of children of whoredoms,
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 70.2
… My efforts promote the advantage of Christ’s family, my so-called defilement with an alien increases the number of my fellow-servants. Hosea took a wife of whoredoms, Gomer the daughter of Diblaim, and this harlot bore him a son called Jezreel or the seed of God.
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 123.13
… And as if their example was not enough, David had many wives and Solomon a countless number. Judah went in to Tamar thinking her to be a harlot; and according to the letter that killeth the prophet Hosea married not only a whore but an adulteress.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 3.12
… And so that which in the case of other persons is often a sin, becomes, when ascribed to God or a prophet, the sign of some great truth. Keeping company with a harlot, for example, is one thing when it is the result of abandoned manners, another thing when done in the course of his prophecy by the prophet Hosea.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.5
… or how his son Solomon had three hundred wives, and seven hundred concubines, and princesses without number; or how the first prophet Hosea got children from a prostitute, and, what is worse, it is said that this disgraceful conduct was enjoined by God;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.80
80. Another of Faustus’ malicious and impious charges which has to be answered, is about the Lord’s saying to the prophet Hosea, "Take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.89
… Then shall the children of Israel and the children of Judah be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land: for great shall be the day of Jezreel. Say ye unto your brethren, My people; and to your sister, She hath found mercy."
1:6
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.20.12
… And for this reason, Paul declares that the “unbelieving wife is sanctified by the believing husband.” Then again, the prophet names his children, “Not having obtained mercy,” and “Not a people,”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 4.16
… but when Christ had given to Him “the Gentiles for His heritage, and the ends of the earth for His possession,” then began to be accomplished what was said by Hosea: “Ye are not my people, who were my people; ye have not obtained mercy, who once obtained mercy”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 4.37
37. The fact is obvious from His own words. For He says to Hosea the prophet, I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel, but will altogether be their enemy. But I will have mercy upon the children of Judah, and will save them in the Lord their God
1:7
Theodotus † fl. AD 160 Excerpts of Theodotus 1
… for great is the day of Jezreel.” For whom one believes, him He chooses. But one believes the Son, who is the head; wherefore also he said in addition: “But I will have mercy on the sons of Judah, and will save them by the Lord their God.”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 12
… Why shall the truth of faith hesitate in that wherein the authority of Scripture has never hesitated? For, behold, Hosea the prophet says in the person of the Father: “I will not now save them by bow, nor by horses, nor by horsemen; but I will save them by the Lord their God.”
1:10
Theodotus † fl. AD 160 Excerpts of Theodotus 1
… “And it shall be, that in the place in which it was said to them, Ye are not my people, they shall be called the children of the living God: and the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered to the same place, and they shall place over them one head, and they shall come up out of the land; for great is the day of Jezreel.”
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 3
… “Make us gods, to go before us: for that Moses, who ejected us from the land of Egypt, hath quite forsaken us; and what hath befallen him we know not.” And accordingly we, who “were not the people of God” in days bygone, have been made His people,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 18.28
The prophet Hosea speaks so very profoundly that it is laborious work to penetrate his meaning. But, according to promise, we must insert something from his book. He says, “And it shall come to pass that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there they shall be called the sons of the living God.”
1:11
St Ephrem the Syrian † AD 373 Ephraim Syrus: Nineteen Hymns on the Nativity of Christ in the Flesh 1
… He was born there who in writing should tell the Gentiles’ number! The Psalm that David once sang, by its fulfilment came to-day! The word that Micah once spake, to-day was come indeed to pass! For there came from Ephrata a Shepherd, and His staff swayed over souls. Lo! from Jacob shone the Star, and from Israel rose the Head.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 18.28
… and because this same people of the Gentiles is itself spiritually among the children of Abraham, and for that reason is rightly called Israel, therefore he goes on to say, “And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together in one, and shall appoint themselves one headship, and shall ascend from the earth.”
1:1
1. THE WORD OF THE LORD WHICH WAS MADE TO OSEE THE SON OF BEERI. — This is the title of the prophecy, prefixed not by Esdras (as others have thought) who after the captivity is said to have restored and repaired the codices of Holy Scripture; but by Osee himself, just as the titles of the other Prophets were prefixed by the prophecies themselves, by which they testified that they were the authors of them, and that they had received them from God through revelation, to whom therefore all ought to believe and give credence. "Word" therefore is the same as oracle, prophecy, the word of the Lord, as the Chaldean translator rendered it. Cajetan adds to that passage of Luke: "The word of the Lord was made upon John:" Divine, he says, inspiration, instruction and mission, is called the word of the Lord: the word therefore sounds not only prophecy, but also mission. For by this word of God they were sent to the people, and were commanded to proclaim to it these oracles of God. By this therefore the prophets, teachers and preachers of God were constituted as ambassadors to the people. Why prophecy is now called word, now vision, I have said in Canon I on the greater prophets. TO OSEE THE SON OF BEERI. — The Hebrews, and from them Lyran, Arias and Guadalupensis, think this Beeri to be Beera, who was a prince of the tribe of Reuben, and was captured and led away into Assyria by Tiglathpileser, I Paralipomenon V, 6. But the reason of the times stands in the way, for Osee and his father Beeri long preceded Tiglathpileser. For Osee began to prophesy at the beginning of the reign of Ozias: but Tiglathpileser invaded Samaria, and led away captives from it in the 52nd year of Ozias, as is evident from IV Kings XV, 27 and 29. It is added that St. Epiphanius, Dorotheus and Isidore, in the Life of Osee, assert that Osee was born from the tribe of Issachar, not Reuben. Wherefore it is fabulous what R. David relates, and from him Vatablus, that Osee and the other Prophets, who do not bear the name of their country, were Hierosolymites. Allegorically St. Jerome: Osee, he says, that is Jesus, is the son of Beeri, that is of my well, that is of God the Father. For God the Father is not a cistern now full of waters, now empty and dry; but is as it were a well flowing with perennial and living waters, both of the generation of the Son, and of wisdom, and of all goods, which He communicated to His Son and continually communicates, by which He Himself through Osee and other Prophets and Apostles waters, moistens and makes fruitful the dryness of Jews and Gentiles. Otherwise Leo Castrius: Beeri, he says, is the same as in my light. It signifies therefore Jesus, who as light from light, is the Word from the Father and existing in the Father. But it should have been said thus Beori, not Beeri, as St. Jerome rightly observes. IN THE DAYS OF OZIAS, JOATHAN, ACHAZ, EZECHIAS KINGS OF JUDA, AND IN THE DAYS OF JEROBOAM THE SON OF JOAS KING OF ISRAEL. — He names kings both of Juda and of Israel, because he prophesies both against Juda and against Israel, that is the ten tribes, but more against Israel; hence he names Ephraim, Israel, Bethel, Bethaven so many times, which signify nothing but Israel, that is the ten tribes. Thus St. Jerome, Athanasius in the Synopsis and Eusebius in the book On the Appellations of Prophetic Books. From this it is evident first, that these prophecies, although brief, were nevertheless spoken successively and over a long time, then written; secondly, that Osee was the first of the Prophets, as I shall soon show, and prophesied for a very long time, and not only predicted, but also saw the destruction of the ten tribes predicted by him; for this happened in the 6th year of Ezechias. Thus St. Jerome and Rufinus. Wherefore the Hebrews relate that Osee in prophesying surpassed 90 years, in which he said many things which he did not write; and having also suffered much from the rebellious people, he obtained the palm of confession, that is of slow, but long martyrdom. JEROBOAM. — This was not the first king of Israel, who made the schism under Roboam, III Kings XII, 20; but he was far later than him, namely he was the great-grandson of Jehu king of Israel, to whom God, IV Kings X, 3, had promised the kingdom up to the fourth generation, and thus He granted it. For Jehu was succeeded by his son Joachas, to him Joas, to him this Jeroboam, to him Zacharias, whom Sellum despoiled of kingdom and life: in the fourth therefore of his line, namely in Zacharias, the royal stock of Jehu failed, IV Kings XV, 10. Hosea names, besides the kings of Judah, also Jeroboam king of Israel, so as to signify that he was prophesying then, indeed rather against Israel than against Judah. But why does he name only Jeroboam from among the kings of Israel, omitting Zacharias, Shallum, Menahem, Pekah, Pekahiah and Hosea, who reigned in Israel at the time when Ozias, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah reigned in Judah? For in the sixth year of Hezekiah, which was the ninth year of Hosea, the kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians. I answer: Various writers give various reasons, but the true and genuine one is, that the Prophet might indicate that he began to prophesy not at the end, nor in the middle of the reign of Ozias or Azarias (inasmuch as he reigned fifty-two years), but at its beginning. For in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam king of Israel, Ozias began to reign in Judah; and Jeroboam reigned forty-one years: whence it follows that only the last fourteen years of Jeroboam coincide with the first fourteen years of Ozias, in which they reigned together, Jeroboam in Israel, Ozias in Judah, in which it is necessary that Hosea prophesied; for he began when both reigned together. See IV Kings XIV, 23, and IV Kings XV, 1. Then also, namely a little after Hosea, Amos began to prophesy under both these kings, as he himself says cap. I, 1. Thus Arias, Ribera and a Castro. From what has been said it follows that Hosea prophesied the destruction of Samaria and the kingdom of Israel almost ninety years (for so many years are there from the beginning of the reign of Ozias until the sixth year of Hezekiah, when Samaria was captured) before it came to pass: but he predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and Judah about two hundred and twenty-four years (for so many years are there from the first year of Ozias until the last year of Sedekiah, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Chaldeans) before it happened. For the destruction of Jerusalem was one hundred and thirty-four years later than the destruction of Samaria. Thus timely does God forewarn sinners of the impending scourge, and gives them a sign that they might flee from before the bow, and escape it by repenting, lest they complain that they were warned too late. Thus one hundred years before the flood He commanded Noah to build the ark, and to warn men of the impending flood. Hence again it follows that Hosea began to prophesy a little before Isaiah. For Isaiah began in the seventeenth year of Ozias, as Eusebius has it in his Chronicle.
1:2
2. THE BEGINNING OF THE LORD SPEAKING IN HOSEA. — There is a twofold literal sense here: The first, that is to say, before Isaiah, Joel and other Prophets, the Lord spoke to Hosea himself, or to Hosea. Whence it follows that Hosea was the first of all the Prophets. Christopher a Castro denies this; but St. Jerome, Rupertus, Haymo, Vatablus, Albertus, Cardinal Hugo, Dionysius here, and St. Basil and Rufinus in Isaiah cap. I assert it. And the Hebrew confirms this, as it is now pointed. For thus they have it: In the beginning the Lord spoke through Hosea, as Vatablus translated it. For they now point דבר dibber, that is, he spoke, in the past tense, whereas our text and the Septuagint read it in the infinitive dabber, that is, of speaking. Moreover our version favors this. For "the beginning of the Lord speaking (understand: was) in Hosea," is the same as, the Lord began to speak and made the beginning in Hosea, or first began to speak in Hosea. But in this sense all the other Prophets could have used the same beginning, and in like manner could say: The beginning of the Lord speaking in Isaiah, Obadiah, Joel, etc. Now, however, no other says this, but Hosea alone. It is a sign therefore that he not only seeks this sense, but especially the former one, which belongs to him alone. TO THE LORD, — that is, of the Lord; for in either way you translate from the Hebrew, yet more significantly to the Lord: for "in" the Lord signifies the cause and author of the beginning of speaking, that is to say, the Lord gave the beginning and as it were the foundation of his oracles, and placed it in Hosea. IN HOSEA, — by inspiring inwardly in him those things which he would do and say to the people. Secondly, "in," that is, to Hosea, as the Septuagint, Vatablus and others translate it. Thirdly, "in," that is, through Hosea to the people. Fourthly, "in," that is, with Hosea. For all these things are signified by the Hebrew beth of the preposition. The second sense is, that is to say, This is the beginning by which the Lord began to speak with Hosea, namely that which follows: "Take thee a wife of whoredoms," etc. Thus also St. Jerome, Theodoretus, Haymo, Hugo, Lyranus, a Castro and Vatablus explain it, who again thus translates: In the beginning in which the Lord spoke through Hosea, he said to him: Go, take thee a wife, etc., that is to say, Observe, O reader, and marvel why God gave the beginning to his oracles, namely by commanding Hosea to take a harlot, so that by this very thing he might represent and reprove the whorish manners of the people. GO, TAKE THEE A WIFE OF WHOREDOMS, — that is, devoted to many whoredoms and infamous, a notorious harlot, a public prostitute either in a tavern, or in a brothel, or in another place prostituting her body for shameful gain to anyone. By a similar Hebraism a man of bloods is called, a man of sorrows, a man of mercy, a man of virtue, one who is very bloodthirsty, very sorrowful, notably merciful, endowed with notable virtue. Hosea is therefore commanded to take a famous harlot, and to join her to himself in lawful matrimony, and to beget children from her, so that by this symbol, as it were by words and real discourse, he might reprove the apostasy and idolatry of his people. For the Prophet here represents God, the harlot wife represents the Synagogue, that is, the people of Israel or of the ten tribes, as is evident from what follows; for fornication here, and throughout the Prophets, signifies sins, especially of idolatry, by which the Israelites, abandoning God their spouse, with desire for a more licentious life, clung to idols and their pleasures as to paramours. Thus the Prophet explains it, when immediately subjoining the cause of this his marriage commanded by God, he adds: "Because the land shall commit fornication," that is, because the Israelites shall greatly devote themselves to idolatry, shall rush forth with prone and common impulse to worship idols, that is to say, I God wish thee, O Hosea, to have a wife hitherto most addicted to fornication, so that I may designate my wife, namely the Synagogue, mystically a harlot, that is, an idolatress and to be one, so that what began to be under Jeroboam, may thereafter be more so. Thus St. Jerome, the Chaldean and others. They therefore err who think that in this place the Prophet is commanded to fornicate, that is, to approach a harlot remaining a harlot, so that he does not take her as a wife. Whence they conclude that fornication is lawful. For this is a manifest error, which Alphonsus a Castro attributed to the Greeks, lib. VII Against Heresies, word Fornication; for fornication was prohibited not only in the New, but also in the Old Testament by natural and divine law, as I showed in the fornication of Thamar, Genesis cap. XXXVIII, 16, from the common opinion of the Fathers and Interpreters. And more fully, I Corinthians VI, 9. Finally God commands the Prophet: "Take thee a wife"; therefore he commands that he join her to himself in matrimony, not that he fornicate with her. Thus the Fathers and interpreters everywhere. You will say: St. Thomas, II-II, Question C, article 8, to 3, and II-II, Question CLIV, article 2, to 2, Cajetan and certain Thomists say that Hosea fornicated, and yet did not sin, because God, being Lord of marriage and all things, dispensed with him, and gave him power and right over the body of the harlot. And all these things they think are signified by the words of God to the Prophet, in which He says: "Take unto thee a wife," not of marriage, but "of fornications." I answer: Theologians dispute whether God can dispense in the law of nature, for instance in the Decalogue: and various ones answer variously. First, Occam in II, Question XIX, to 3 and 4 doubt, Gerson in tract. On Spiritual Life, lecture I, corollary 10, in Alphabet 61, letter E, and Almain, tract. III Moral. chapter XV, assert that God can dispense in every single precept of the Decalogue and of the law of nature; indeed Occam says God can command hatred of God, and make it so that this is not evil, but good. Their reasoning is: Every sin, they say, is sin for this reason, that it is prohibited by the will of God. If therefore God wills that something not be sin, by this very fact it will not be sin. The second is that of St. Bonaventure in I, distinction XLVII, Question IV, Scotus in III, distinction XXXVII, Question I, § Here it is said, and Gabriel in III, distinction XXXVII, Question I, article 2, conclusion 1, that God can dispense in the precepts of the second table, but not of the first, for instance can in those things which touch the neighbor, but not in those which touch God. The third is that of Durand in I, distinction XLVII, Question IV, number 46, that God can dispense in the affirmative precepts of the second table, but not in the negative. But I say that God cannot directly and formally dispense with any precept of the natural law. The reason is that the natural law contains and commands that which is by its nature and intrinsically good: wherefore those things which are done against it are by their nature and intrinsically evil, not because prohibited by the will of God, but because they are by their own nature contrary and repugnant to nature and natural reason. For just as possible things are possible, not because God willed them to be possible, but because it does not imply contradiction in themselves that they be possible; in the same way works against the natural law are by their own nature evil, not because God willed them to be evil and prohibited them, but because they are in themselves contrary and repugnant to rational nature, as rational. Since therefore God cannot change the natures of things according to His will, neither can He change the natural law, so that what it dictates to be fitting to reason and to be good, God should decree not to be fitting and to be evil. Wherefore no one, not even God, can make it so that hatred of God is good, or lawful (for this is repugnant not only to reason and nature, but to divinity itself), or that theft, adultery, lying be lawful: for theft is taking another's thing against the will of the Master; adultery is shamefully using a woman not one's own but another's; lying is speaking against the mind and deceiving. But these things are intrinsically and by their nature so evil and depraved that they cannot be good and honest. Wherefore God cannot persuade these things, so neither can He do them, nor command them, much less will and effect that they be honest and lawful. Hence it is clear that the first opinion is false, and its foundation. For fornication is not evil because God so wills it and hates it; but rather He hates it because it itself in itself and by its nature is dishonest and shameful. Just as therefore creatures have their existence from the will of God, but have their possibility from the very nature of God; for if God is omnipotent, it naturally follows and as it were results that He can create man, horse, etc., and consequently that those creatures are possible which without God would be impossible: so likewise positive law, both divine and human, depends and is made from the will of God, but natural law is derived from the eternal law, which is in the mind and reason of God. Thus St. Thomas, Cajetan, Richard, and from them Gabriel Vasquez, I II, disp. CLXXIX, num. 12. Indirectly however and materially God can dispense with these same precepts, namely by changing the matter of the thing commanded, and thus withdrawing it from the natural law and from the obligation of the Decalogue. But this happens almost only in the precepts of the second table, not of the first, as the authors of the second opinion said. I explain: God can give me a right in the goods, body and life of another, and then I can lawfully take away his goods, which otherwise would have been theft; use another's body, which otherwise would have been adultery; kill another, which otherwise would have been homicide. Thus God commanded the Hebrews, Exodus XII, 36, to despoil the Egyptians, because by this very thing He gave them the goods of the Egyptians, and made it so that these were no longer the Egyptians', but the Hebrews'; wherefore the Hebrews taking possession of them took not another's but their own; their own, I say, from the gift of God, who is the supreme lord of all, nay the lord of life and death. But here He gave Hosea a right in the body of a harlot, and by this very thing made her to be his wife, not another's. Wherefore Hosea using her was not fornicating but in a material act in conjugal union with her as it were his own wife was joined. Thus if God should command someone, or permit him to go to a brothel, and there to be joined with a harlot once only, to raise offspring from her, that union would no longer be fornication, but would be an act of temporary conjugal union; for he would be joined not to another's but to his own, and consequently to a wife at least temporary from God's dispensation. For God can remit the obligation by which a wife bound herself to her husband in conjugal union to perpetual fidelity, and therefore can dispense in the bond of matrimony, and make it not perpetual but temporary, so long as it pleases Him; especially because He can neglect the education of offspring, on account of which matrimony requires perpetuity, as its lord, or procure it in other ways. Thus formerly He dispensed with the Jews in matrimony, when He permitted them to give their wives a bill of divorce, by which the matrimony was truly dissolved, so that each spouse could as it were free and unbound contract another conjugal union with another. Just as therefore then a husband at any time, nay even after the first union could repudiate his wife; so he could also now be joined once with one, and soon dismiss her, if God in like manner now dispensed with him. St. Thomas therefore holds that Hosea, by the command and dispensation of God, was joined with a fornicatress only by a temporal union (and therefore he calls that union fornication by catachresis), not by a stable and perpetual marriage. Thus he opines that this woman was Hosea's temporary wife, and the marriage with her was temporary, namely for some acts of generation and for three offspring to be generated from her; afterwards he dismissed her, and thus the temporary marriage with her was dissolved. Therefore St. Thomas teaches that Hosea approached a fornicatress, not as a concubine, but as a wife, although only a temporary one; for he holds that God dispensed with him so that he would contract with her only for a time, and use her as his own; he therefore holds that Hosea did not fornicate, but used marriage, although only a temporary one. His words are: "Hosea, approaching a fornicatress wife or an adulterous woman, was not an adulterer, nor did he fornicate; because he approached her who was his according to divine command, who is the author of the institution of marriage." But how his act here is called fornication in marriage, he explains in II II, Question CLIV, article 2, ad 2: "Hosea," he says, "did not sin by fornicating from divine precept, nor should such intercourse properly be called fornication, although it is named fornication (when it is said: Take unto thee a wife of fornications) referring to the common course," namely by which commonly the common people call a fornicator one who couples with a fornicatress for a time and, having satisfied his lust, abandons her. Whence it is clear that St. Thomas teaches that Hosea here did not fornicate, but with a fornicatress as with his own wife, God conceding and dispensing, was joined for a time. But it is more true what other Doctors and Interpreters commonly hold, namely that Hosea entered into a stable and perpetual, not temporary, marriage with the fornicatress. For he is commanded to take her as a wife; and from what follows it is clear that he lived with her for four, indeed more, years; for it is said that he begot three offspring from her, and afterwards nourished and educated them through her. Whence it comes about that there was no dispensation here, but only God's command; for Hosea could lawfully take the fornicatress as a wife to receive, but was not bound; therefore in order that he be bound, God commands and obliges him. You will press the point: This fornicating wife represents the Synagogue committing idolatry: but this one, after entering into marriage with God, returned to her idols; therefore this fornicating woman also, after marriage with Hosea, returned to her fornications; otherwise indeed she would not represent the Synagogue equally, nor would the type correspond to the antitype. I answer: A similitude is not similar in all respects; but only in that respect in which the similitude is placed; wherefore it is not necessary in allegories and types that all circumstances of time, manner, action, etc., correspond to the thing signified, but only those in which the representation and comparison of the signifying thing with the signified thing takes place, namely of the type with the antitype. Thus here the Prophet is commanded to take a fornicating woman, so that through this he might represent the Synagogue to be fornicating. In this respect therefore the comparison and similitude is placed here, that, just as the Prophet takes a fornicating woman, and begets offspring from her, who are called sons of fornications from the shame of the mother, that is, of a fornicating woman: so God's wife, that is the Synagogue, is fornicating, that is idolatrous, and begets and educates similar sons for herself, namely idolaters. For this matter could not have been represented in any other way lawfully. For God could not have commanded the Prophet to fornicate, so as to approach a fornicating woman as not his own, just as the Synagogue worshipped idols and gods not her own; or so that after intercourse and offspring he would send her back to the brothel and to her debaucheries; for this would have been sin. Therefore here was the marriage of Hosea with a fornicating woman (even according to the opinion of St. Thomas, at least temporary), and consequently the sons of fornications are called sons born from this marriage; for this reason, so that they were not truly sons of fornications, but only by this name were they commonly reckoned and named, on account of the previous fornications of the mother before marriage. Simply therefore and in general the Prophet is commanded here through a fornicating wife to represent the idolatry of the Synagogue, abstracting from the time and place, where and when; whether before marriage with God, or after it she perpetrated it. Add that the Jews after this prophecy of Hosea, namely after the punishment and destruction inflicted by the Chaldeans, after they were punished and penitent renewed marriage with God through Ezra, no longer returned to their idols, just as this wife of Hosea after marriage with him is not read to have returned to her fornications. It is true that there is a greater appearance of fornication, and consequently of similitude, if with St. Thomas one says the marriage was not stable, but temporary; but on the other hand, the thing itself appears more base and more dishonorable, for it seems to be truly a fornicating union, and only a simulated marriage. Haymo errs, secondly, who interprets a wife of fornications as a wife who after marriage from her prior habit of fornicating again fornicates with other suitors, that is, commits adultery, and begets sons from them, who are therefore called sons of fornications, that is born from adultery, whom the Prophet is commanded to take to himself and educate, and equally to retain and support the mother. For this would have been not only infamous, but also scandalous, and therefore illicit; for the Prophet would have seemed to foster the wife in adulteries and to consent to them. Whence the Wise man decrees: "He that keepeth an adulteress is foolish and wicked," Proverbs XVIII, 22. See Sanchez, book X On Divorce, disputation XIII. Wherefore infamous and a public reproach of the world was the Emperor Claudius, because his wife Messalina publicly played the harlot. Thus Suetonius in Claudius, and M. Antoninus the Philosopher on account of Faustina his wife, who was engaged in continual debaucheries; and when he was warned about this matter, and friends persuaded him to repudiate her, if he did not wish to kill her, he responded effeminately: "If we dismiss our wife, let us return also the dowry," by the name of dowry meaning the Empire, which he had received from Antoninus Pius the father of Faustina, thus willing the Emperor Hadrian, having adopted him. Thus Julius Capitolinus in Antoninus. Lyra and Burgensis err, thirdly, in that they take fornication here mystically for idolatry, and think that Hosea is here commanded to take a wife of fornications, that is, a gentile and idolatress. Their reason is, because this wife represents the idolatrous Synagogue: therefore she herself also was an idolatress. I answer by denying the consequence. For the same thing is not represented by the same, but by the like: and the Prophets are wont to represent idolatry by fornication; because this is the most apt symbol, mirror and image of that. Thus St. Jerome, Theodoret, Haymo, Hugh and interpreters everywhere. Wherefore when God says to the Prophet: "Take unto thee a wife of fornications," he takes fornication literally as it sounds; but when he subjoins the cause and symbol of this command, and explains it saying: "For the land shall commit great fornication," he takes fornication mystically for idolatry; because he had commanded that it be represented symbolically through the true and real fornication of the Prophet's wife. You will ask, whether these things truly and really came to pass, or only through an imaginary vision; that is, whether Hosea truly took a fornicatress, and begat from her children of fornications, or whether God only represented this to him in imagination, so that it seemed to him that he took her and begat from her; as those who dream seem to themselves to do the things they dream? The Chaldean and some Rabbis hold it to have been a vision only, whom the followers of Origen will follow, as Rufinus testifies, Haymo, Isidore, Burgensis and Vatablus. Indeed St. Jerome himself holds the same, writing in Ezekiel IV. And here in the Preface: "Hosea," he says, "hearing from the Lord: Take unto thee a wife of fornications, does not wrinkle his brow, does not testify to sorrow by pallor, does not show shame by changed redness of cheeks; but he goes to the brothel, and takes a harlot to his bed. And he does not initiate her into the modesty of a matron, but proves himself luxurious and profligate. For he that is joined to a harlot, is made one body with her. Who is wise, and shall understand these things?" and after these things he responds, and brings forward that these are to be interpreted typically and singularly. The fundamental reason therefore of this opinion is this, because it would have been a base and unworthy thing, if a holy man and Prophet had taken a harlot. But it is far more true what all the other Fathers and Interpreters commonly hold, that this thing was accomplished not through a vision, but really. Thus Theodoret, Cyril, the Hebrews, Arias, Hugh, Dionysius and others here, and St. Augustine, book III of On Christian Doctrine, chapter XII, and book XXII, Against Faustus, chapter XXIII, St. Basil in Isaiah VIII, Irenaeus book IV Against Heresies, chapter XXXVII, St. Thomas in the place cited and others everywhere; indeed St. Jerome himself holds the same here, as he will see who has carefully weighed his words. For he says in his manner that this history is to be referred to the antitype, that is, that Hosea took a fornicatress, not from his love and lust, but that he might represent the marriage of Christ and the Church. This therefore, and nothing else, he wished, when he said that this deed of Hosea was to be interpreted typically and figurally. The reason of this opinion is, because the simple narrative of the divine precept and deed demands it, namely the obedience of the Prophet; for otherwise when it is a vision, Scripture is wont to express it, or to indicate it by some sign, as is plain from Apocalypse I, 4; Ezekiel XL, 1, and elsewhere. Add: Here is named the husband, namely Hosea; the wife, namely Gomer; the wife's mother, namely Diblaim; three of her offspring, namely Jezreel, Lo-ammi, Lo-ruhamah, which all signify that it is not a parable, but a true history. The reason is, that the people had fallen asleep in idols and their sins, and therefore they despised the ordinary rebukes and admonitions of the Prophets, indeed they did not hear them; God therefore wished by a real and portentous prophecy, namely by commanding the Prophet to take a fornicatress, and to beget offspring from her, to rouse the people sleeping in sins from the sleep of their crimes, and to move them to repentance. For the same reason he commanded Isaiah, chapter XX, that he himself, though he was a man of noble birth and great authority, should run naked through the city of Jerusalem in broad daylight, so that by this portent he might turn all eyes upon himself, and truly give them a type and image of the impending spoilation and destruction, and thus turn the people to lamentation. For the same reason he commanded Ezekiel, chapter IV, to eat bread baked with dung of oxen, so that by this he might forewarn the city of impending famine and calamity. To the argument I respond that God's command and authority wiped away from this Prophet's marriage every stain of infamy and baseness, especially because he was assumed to prophecy and to be a sacrament of a future matter. Add that it is not base, but holy and honest, to take a fornicatress to wife for this end, that she herself might exchange a base life for an honest one, fornication for matrimony; indeed confessors are accustomed and ought to persuade concubinaries to turn concubinage into marriage. Thus St. Augustine, book XXII Against Faustus, chapter LXXX, responds to the Manichaeans impugning the Old Testament, and objecting to it that therein the fornication of a Prophet is commanded. For St. Augustine responds: Fornication was not commanded, but a harlot, having abandoned fornication, was taken into a chaste and holy marriage, concerning which more presently. St. Jerome here responds similarly to the gentiles, and opposes to them similar examples from the gentiles: "By what reasoning," he says, "do they proclaim the most learned man Xenocrates, who made Polemon, a most dissolute youth, drunk among harps and flute-players and immodest women, crowned with ivy, obey wisdom, and changed an utterly base adolescent into a most wise philosopher? Why do they exalt Socrates to heaven, who took Phaedo, from whose name Plato's book is named, from a brothel, serving the lust of many on account of the cruelty and avarice of his master, and transferred him to the Academy? And whatever they might answer concerning the masters of philosophy, we shall refer to the defense of the Prophet." AND MAKE FOR THYSELF CHILDREN OF FORNICATIONS.—The word "make" is not in the Hebrew, nor in the Septuagint, nor in the Syriac, nor in the Arabic. For thus they have it: Take for thyself a mother of fornications, and children of fornications. Whence first, some take "children of fornications" properly as children begotten from fornication, whom, as witnesses of the mother's fornication, Hosea is commanded to receive with the mother, to nourish, and as it were to adopt, which was a great ignominy and punishment for the Prophet, and this for this reason, that through these he might represent in like manner the Synagogue to have borne children who were idolaters, whom nevertheless God as the children of the Patriarchs and his own children, with ignominy and sorrow, nourishes in Jerusalem. Thus Theodoret, Hugh, Lyra and Arias explain it. But that these children were not adopted, but natural; nor begotten before, but to be generated by the Prophet from the fornicatress, is evident from what follows. For he says: "And Hosea went, and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son," etc. The word therefore "make," although it is not expressly in the Hebrew, is nevertheless understood; indeed it is included in the word "take." For to take children from a wife is the same to the Hebrews as to beget and procreate. For the verb לקח lacach, that is, I take, I seize, I take away, is of the most ample signification among the Hebrews. Thus St. Jerome, Augustine, Basil, Vatablus and others cited above. Secondly, Ribera thinks they are called "children of fornications," that is of the fornicatress, because they were children of a mother who was an idolatress. But I refuted this above. For idolatry is mystical fornication, not literal, of which we are speaking here. I say therefore that children to be begotten by Hosea from a legitimate marriage with a fornicatress are called children of fornications, that is, children of a mother who was formerly wholly devoted to fornications. For the mother breathed her own baseness and infamy upon her offspring, she who had been a public harlot; nor could the marriage following upon it wipe away and erase that infamy among the people. From the mother therefore the offspring draw the mark of infamy and the name of fornication. Thus St. Jerome and others already cited. Add that these are called children of fornications because they themselves are also to be inclined to fornication, and this vice, and this libidinous nature along with their nature from the fornicatress mother they are to drink in and suck. For this aptly corresponds to the matter signified. For these libidinous children mystically signify the Jews libidinous, that is inclined to idols, whence against them equally as against the mother he threatens destruction in chapter II, 4, saying: "I will not have mercy on her children, for they are the children of fornications." Thus Emmanuel Sa, Mariana and Pineda, book I On the Affairs of Solomon, chapter IV, number 3. For by a similar phrase in Scripture, are called children of obedience, distrust, pride those who are very prone to obedience, distrust, pride, so that they seem to be born and begotten from obedience, distrust, pride itself. Whence the Syriac translates: Take for thyself a woman who fornicates, and children who fornicate; because by fornicating the land shall fornicate after the Lord, away from the Lord. Note here morally the vices of parents, especially of mothers, flowing into their children; for when the mother is corrupted, the seed is corrupted, which corrupts the offspring that is formed from the seed. Wherefore for bridegrooms who seek brides, it is to be inquired most carefully, not so much whether the brides are wealthy and beautiful, as whether they are chaste, honest, and virtuous, lest, if they be unchaste, dishonest, and vicious, they generate similar offspring. "Just morals therefore," says the philosopher Antiphanes, "are the most excellent possession, and a dowry more noble than all gold." That this is so the natural philosophers and physicians teach, and reason and experience itself. For this reason throughout the books of Kings, of Solomon, of Abijah, of Jehoshaphat, of Manasseh and other kings, the mothers are studiously named, because upon the mother depends the character and education of the offspring for good or for evil; and such as the mother is, such also is the offspring; especially because the offspring follows the affection and love which it experiences more in the mother than in the father. Aristotle gives the reason, in book IX of the Ethics, book VII. The offspring, he says, are loved more by mothers, because their generation is laborious, and they know them more certainly to be theirs. Thus the Spartans, as Plutarch testifies in the Laconian Apophthegms, were continent and strong in wars and labors, because they had virago mothers, who by the institution of Lycurgus accustomed themselves and their offspring to continence, labors, and hardship. Whence Gorgo, the wife of Leonidas, when someone reproached her: "You Spartan women alone command your husbands;" answered: "Because we alone bear men." Hence the son of a harlot is called he who has the morals of a harlot. Thus Saul, calling his son Jonathan interceding for David, calls him the son of "a woman who seizes a man of her own accord," I Kings, chapter XX, 21, that is the son of a harlot, as if to say: You are harlot-like, because your mother was a harlot. Or as if to say: You do not appear to me as my son, but as the son of an adulteress, because you love David my enemy more than me; as if your mother had not borne you from me, but from David, and therefore has engendered in you the love of David. Thus Agrippina, the mother of Nero, was so given over to lust that she even provoked Nero to incest with herself. And therefore what a monster of lust and cruelty did she give to the world in Nero? Thus from Cornelius Tacitus, Sabellicus, book II, Ennead VII. Elagabalus the Emperor, the son of a Greek harlot, drank in from her his own filthiness and obscenity. Thus Lampridius and Rhodiginus, book XI, chapter XIII. Indeed even Solomon, the husband of three hundred wives and the lover of seven hundred concubines, had for his mother Bathsheba an adulteress. Semiramis compelled her son Ninus to incest, and therefore was killed by him, if we believe Ctesias, whom Sabellicus cites, book I, Ennead I. St. Aphra the martyr, formerly a harlot (who was recalled from her foul and unclean trade by Narcissus, Bishop of Jerusalem), had for her mother Hilaria, who procured her livelihood by pimping alone. Thus her Life relates. Venus, the most incestuous daughter of the most incestuous Jupiter, says Ovid in book X of the Metamorphoses. Julia, the daughter of Caesar Augustus, was a rival of her father's lusts, as Suetonius testifies in his Life of Augustus. For this reason, and equally on account of shame, bastards are by canon law excluded from the priesthood, and are irregular; for the priesthood requires angelic purity. In a similar way infants while sucking imbibe with the milk the character, affections, and vices of their nurses, as is shown by many examples in Genesis XXI, 7. Finally, that nature is accustomed to make children more similar to mothers than to fathers, both in body and in morals, Aristotle teaches in his book On the Generation of Animals, chapter IV, and in the Problems, book X, chapter XII, and Hippocrates in his treatise On Generation. Wherefore it is both pious and prudent, the custom of certain cities, that the bastard offspring of unchaste mothers be separated from their mothers by the magistrate, lest the mothers corrupt the depraved character in the seed of their children by more depraved education and wicked example; and they are entrusted to be reared by grave matrons, who by grave and severe discipline correct and reform the depraved birth; such as we see at Rome in the hospital of the Holy Spirit and in the monastery of St. Catherine of the Rope-makers. In a similar way in other cities foundling hospitals have been erected and endowed. You may ask: for what reasons did God will that the Prophet should marry a fornicatress, and beget children from her? I answer: The primary literal cause is that which I gave a little before, namely that He might give to the Jews, as it were, a living mirror, in which they might clearly see and contemplate their own baseness and idolatry. The secondary cause was charity, namely that He might consult the shame and conscience of the fornicatress, while He changes her into a wife. Thus St. Augustine in book XXII Against Faustus, chapter LXXX: "What," he says, "is contrary to the clemency of Truth (which Christ, who is truth, said to the Pharisees: The publicans and harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you)? What is hostile to the Christian faith, if a harlot, having abandoned fornication, be changed into a chaste marriage? And what is so incongruous and alien to faith in a Prophet, as if he did not believe that all sins of unchastity were forgiven and changed for the better? Therefore when the Prophet (Hosea) made a harlot his wife, both was the woman's life amended, and the sacramental figure, of which we shall speak presently, was expressed." He then adds in the same place, and more fully in chapter LXXXIX, that the Manichaeans attacked this deed of Hosea, not because it was shameful, but because they themselves condemned marriages, and preferred that men fornicate rather than burden the womb of a wife with offspring, and burden themselves with the cost of feeding her; and therefore they feigned that God, or a part of the divine substance, was as it were bound in offspring and constrained by bonds. Moreover, God willed here to exercise the Prophet's obedience equally with his patience, "so that the more base she (the wife) is, the more patient the prophet should be, who took such a wife," says St. Jerome, especially because Hosea was young, virginal, holy, and in the flower of his age, equally of purity and virtue, when he married the fornicatress; for this was his first prophecy which he had at the beginning of the reign of Ozias, and then he prolonged his life through 52 years of Ozias, 16 of Jotham, as many of Ahaz, and reached the times of Hezekiah. Young therefore he must have been when he married the fornicatress. The allegorical cause is that Hosea through marriage with a fornicatress might represent a similar but mystical union, and that twofold, of Christ's marriage: First with our flesh, which was fornicatress, that is, flesh of sin, which He united to Himself purified and espoused through the Incarnation. Thus St. Ambrose, in book II of the Apology for David, chapter X, explains mystically not only this marriage of Hosea, but also the adultery of David. "To the Prophet," he says, "it was said: Go, take unto thee a wife of fornications. The Lord commands that there be a marriage with her who was a fornicatress, the fruit of which marriage is Christ. For to the son who was born from fornication (that is, from the wife of Hosea who had formerly been a fornicatress), the Lord imposed the name Jezreel, which is divine generation. If therefore that pious union with a fornicatress, then surely this pious society with an adulterous union is," etc. And soon after: "From unequal unions a pious cohabitation was made, when namely the Word was made flesh, there are not legitimate consortiums of divinity and flesh. God assumed flesh, assumed a soul, through an unusual and not legitimate incarnation made the consortium to be legitimate, so that God might be all in all." Whence the name of the son is Jezreel, that is, seed of God, or arm of God. For Christ is the arm, that is, the power, of God, as Isaiah calls Him in chapter LIII, 1. Christ is also the seed of God, because He was conceived and born not from the seed of man, but from the Holy Spirit. Wherefore Tertullian, in the book On the Flesh of Christ, chapters XVIII and XIX: "The Son of God," he says, "from the seed of God the Father, that is, the Spirit, so that He might be the son of man, flesh alone was to be taken for Him from human flesh without the seed of man, for the seed of man was lacking in Him who had the seed of God." And chapter XIX: "What then is it? Not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but born of God." Thus also Leo Castrius, who however wrongly contends that this sense alone is literal, and excludes all others. Note in passing here that the Holy Spirit is not properly the seed of God. For God does not emit any seed from Himself, as man does; therefore Tertullian improperly and by catachresis calls the Holy Spirit the seed of God, because namely He Himself, having received divine power from the Father and the Son, did in the Virgin what the seed of man does in a wife: it is therefore called "seed," because it was in place and stead of seed: for He formed and organized the body of Christ in the Virgin, just as the body of an embryo in the womb of the mother is coagulated, joined together, formed and organized from her seed and blood by the seed of the male. The latter marriage of Christ is with the Church, which Hosea here represents through his own. Thus St. Ambrose, in the book On Solomon, chapter V: "This harlot," he says, "is a type of the Church, at one time established among the gentiles, corrupted by the worship of idols, whom the follies of vain superstition had polluted, whom the multitude of false gods had made adulterous; and she wandered through groves and sacred places with wanton and shameful movements unsuitable to her station, given over to luxury, enslaved to the pomp of the gentiles. After our Lord Jesus Christ poured over her with the pure font of baptism, she received both the washing away of her crime and of her name." Thus also St. Augustine, book XXII Against Faustus, chapter LXXXIX, and St. Prosper, in the book On Predictions and Promises, XV, part II, indeed St. Paul, Romans chapter IX, 24. As a type of this matter, Moses took an Ethiopian woman as wife, Numbers XII, 1, "against whom," says St. Jerome in the Preface, "Aaron and Mary, the carnal priesthood of the Jews and prophecy serving the letter, murmur, and offend God. Which she says in the Song of Songs: I am black but beautiful, O daughters of Jerusalem." Therefore to Christ coming into the world the Father said and commanded: "Take for yourself a wife who is a harlot," namely the Church from the gentiles, and beget from her sons, who are sons of harlotries, that is of a gentile mother; but from the father, as the Son of God, they themselves are also sons of God, from whom many are to return to the former harlotry of their mother, that is to follow their own lusts and to sin, and therefore to be punished and rejected by God. It was indeed a marvelous mercy and condescension for Hosea to take a harlot as wife, but far greater was that of Christ, who united himself most closely to our flesh and Church and espoused her, so that he might prepare her, sanctify her and glorify her, and render her as it were divine, and thus Hosea, that is Jesus and the name of Savior, was obtained. Thus Hosea and the followers of Christ are those who humble themselves to hard, vile and abject things, and undertake whatever labors and sorrows, so that they might convert souls fornicating with concupiscences, filthy and horrible, make them pure, and lead them back to God the Spouse. Whence it is a tropological reason that God taught Hosea by this example, that is preachers, confessors, and others burning with zeal for their neighbors, to draw souls away from Satan, flesh and sin, and to espouse them to Christ through penance and chastity, as Paul espoused the Corinthians, epistle II, chapter XI, 2. For a sinful soul is a harlot, indeed an adulteress, and begets sons of harlotries, that is works of lust, gluttony, pride. Whence St. Jerome in the Preface, through this harlot tropologically understands St. Mary Magdalene, whom Christ espoused to himself as penitent: "This," he says, "is the harlot and adulteress, who in the Gospel washed the feet of the Lord, wiped them with her hair, and honored her confession with ointment." And below: "This is the harlot of whom the Lord speaks to the Jews: Amen I say to you, harlots and publicans shall go into the kingdom of God before you. This harlot (Rahab, Joshua II) received my two spies, most mighty youths, one of whom I sent to circumcision, the other to the gentiles, with kindness, hid them with care, lifted them onto the roof, covered them with stalks of flax. She, beaten by persecutions and washed in baptism, changes her color, and is turned from dark to white." BECAUSE THE LAND SHALL COMMIT FORNICATION. — That is, Israel, that is the ten tribes, shall commit fornication intensely and continually. For he speaks of these, not of Judah, as is evident from what follows. For the future tense joined with a participle or gerund of the same verb signifies to the Hebrews the vehemence and continuity of an action, or a custom. Understand fornication here mystically, namely idolatry; for here God applies and explains a symbol or parable, as if to say: I commanded you, O Hosea, to take a harlot as wife, and to beget from her sons of harlotries, so that through this I might represent to the Jews that they themselves in like manner shall commit fornication mystically, that is shall love and worship idols, abandoning me, their God. Verse 3. AND HE WENT, AND TOOK GOMER THE DAUGHTER OF DIBLAIM. — Hugo and Dionysius wrongly read with diastole concerning Diblaim, as if Diblaim were a proper name of a place from which Gomer was descended. For Diblaim is clearly one word, and that a Hebrew word, as is evident from the Hebrew. Diblaim therefore is the name of the mother of Gomer, says St. Jerome, and Rupertus, although some wish it to be the name of her father. He notes the wife by name and lineage, so that we might know this to be history, not a vision. Sanchez suspects that Diblaim was also a harlot, both because the name of her husband is passed over in silence, and because such was her daughter Gomer; for, "as the mother, so also her daughter," says Ezekiel chapter XVI, verse 44. The wife was appropriately called Gomer, and her parent Diblaim; for Gomer in Hebrew is the same as consummation or consumption; Diblaim is the same as two masses of dried figs; by which it is signified that the Synagogue was to be consumed and laid waste: "Which, consumed in fornication and perfected as a daughter of pleasure, which appears sweet and pleasant to those enjoying it," says St. Jerome, because she served idols and pleasures in mind and body. For Diblaim, that is twin figs, is a sym-
1:3
is a matter of twofold pleasure and sweetness. Whence Vatablus: "Gomer," says he, "signifies consumption, and Diblaim two palates, by which are understood the pleasures of soul and body, which bring forth consumption and destruction," according to that saying of the Apostle: "He that soweth in the flesh, of the flesh shall reap corruption." This twofold pleasure can also be understood as of spirit and flesh, or of ambition and belly, namely of gluttony and lust. For from these two all concupiscence arises, all sin, all ruin of men. It is therefore an elegant saying here: Gomer is the daughter of Diblaim, that is, corruption is the daughter of figs, namely is the daughter of pleasure, punishment is the daughter of fault; for this as it were a mother brings her forth: just as a worm is born to the fig and apple, so also to love and pleasure are born pain, stench and shame. Excellently Valerius, book IX, chapter 1: "Luxury," says he, "embracing with its enticements Hannibal, unconquered by arms, delivered him to be conquered by the Roman soldier." Finally, Arias takes the twofold figs literally for the twofold kingdom of the Hebrews, namely Israel and Judah, for both were devoted to their idols and delicacies, and therefore were given over to destruction by God. For although this prophecy of the first chapter is properly and primarily directed to Israel (for he calls this one Jezreel, verse 4), yet secondarily and consequently it is also directed to Judah, the rival and follower of Israel. 4. CALL HIS NAME JEZREEL.—Hosea is commanded by God first to call his son, begotten of a fornicating wife, Jezreel, so that through him he might represent to the Hebrews the impending disaster of Jezreel, that is of Israel, or the ten tribes. Jezreel in Hebrew has a fourfold etymology, and signifies four things. First, Jezreel is said as it were זרע אל, seed of God. Second, as it were זרוע אל, arm of God. Third, as it were יזרה רע אל, God shall scatter evil or contraction. Fourth, as it were זרע אל, God shall scatter or disperse, namely the Israelites, so that they go captive into Assyria, and are scattered throughout the whole world. Again Jezreel denotes Israel, indeed it is the same as Israel, if you change the letter ז into ש, and י into א which is akin to it.
1:4
Note: Jezreel was a royal city and the metropolis of the ten tribes, says St. Jerome, and it was the boundary of the tribe of Manasseh and Issachar, situated at the foot of Mount Gilboa to the west, distinguished by a notable tower and watchtower, from which a splendid view extended throughout all Galilee as far as Carmel, Tabor, Lebanon, and beyond the Jordan. Near this city were most pleasant and fertile fields, and a very vast valley, which extended for more than ten thousand paces, which from the nearby city was called the valley of Jezreel; just as in turn the city was named from the most fertile valley Jezreel, that is, the seed of God, because the seed in the harvest would yield most abundantly, namely a hundredfold, so that it would appear to be the seed of God and blessed by God. Before the city was the vineyard and field of Naboth, which was still shown in the times of Borchard and Bredenbach, as they themselves write in the Description of the Holy Land. Moreover, God commands Hosea to call his firstborn from this city and valley Jezreel, so that through him he might represent Israel. Whence he adds the reason for the name, saying: FOR YET A LITTLE, AND I WILL VISIT THE BLOOD OF JEZREEL UPON THE HOUSE OF JEHU. — He names "Jehu" because his descendants were then reigning in Israel, and were propagators of idolatry. For Jeroboam was then reigning, who was the third from Jehu: for Jehu was succeeded by his son Joachaz, to him Joash, to him Jeroboam, to him Zechariah, who was slain by Shallum, and in him the line of Jehu was cut off. From the words of Hosea it is clear, and all acknowledge, that there is an allusion here to the history of Ahab, Jezebel, Naboth and Jehu. For Jezebel, the wife of Ahab, by calumny brought about the death of Naboth in Jezreel, so that she might seize and possess his vineyard situated there. Wherefore God through Elisha anointed Jehu as king, and commanded him to avenge this crime in the same place. Jehu therefore slew Jezebel, and caused her to be buried in the field of Jezreel. Moreover, he commanded all the sons of Ahab to be slain in Samaria, and their heads to be sent to him in Jezreel, IV Kings cap. IX and seq. Now first, Arias explains the words of the text thus, as if to say: Call, O Hosea, your son Jezreel, that is, the arm of God, because just as I God poured out blood in Jezreel by my arm upon Jezebel and her sons, so in the same way I will pour out the blood of the descendants of Jehu, because they are like Ahab and Jezebel in crime. This sense seems more remote. For blood of Jezreel in the genitive is to be understood here, as if the blood of Jezreel, as of a person whose blood is poured out; not in the dative or ablative, as if blood poured out by Jezreel as by an arm or instrument. Secondly, Theodoret, whom our Emmanuel follows: Jezreel, he says, that is, the seed of God, is Israel, which is the people of God, namely the ten tribes. But blood in Scripture is called murder, and by catachresis any enormous sin and crime, such as idolatry here is, especially because idolaters not rarely shed blood by killing children and other men, and sacrificing them to Moloch, Baal, and other idols: and they always killed both their own souls and those of their people. This sense seems more mystical than literal. Thirdly, Rupert, Vatable and Anthony Fernandez in the vision I, lect. 3, explain, as if to say: I will punish the blood of Jezebel and her sons shed by Jehu in Jezreel, because although he did this at my command, yet in that slaughter he served not so much my will as his own ambition: namely, so that with the royal line slain, he himself might seize the kingdom and reign as a tyrant. This sense does not sufficiently correspond to Scripture, which praises Jehu for this deed and promises him the kingdom even to the fourth generation, IV Kings IX and seq. Fourthly, Christopher of Castro: Jezreel, he says, is Israel, and its first king Jeroboam, and the other kings of it: as if to say: I will avenge the blood of Jezreel, that is, of the Israelites, shed by Jeroboam and the other kings, especially those descended from the family of Jehu, because they killed pious Israelites who refused to go to Dan and Bethel to adore their golden calves. That Jeroboam did this will be evident cap. V; wherefore I will overthrow the house of Jehu and the whole kingdom of Israel. But this is uncertain; for nowhere do we read that Jehu killed those who refused to adore idols. Yet this sense, like the others already reviewed, can have a place and be admitted as accessory and partial, and are probable. But the principal and genuine sense is to be sought. I say therefore that the words of the Prophet manifestly allude to the slaughter of the house of Achab wrought by Jehu in Jezrael, and threaten a similar one; hence the first and principal sense is this, as if to say: I, God, chose thee, O Jehu, that thou shouldest overturn the idolatry introduced by Jeroboam and promoted by Achab and Jezabel in Israel; and therefore I made thee king and commanded thee to kill and bury all the posterity of Achab, and that in the valley of Jezrael, because he himself had slain there the faithful worshipper of me, Naboth. But if thou shouldest not do this, but having killed them shouldest nevertheless cherish their idols, know that thou shalt experience a similar and horrible, nay more horrible, vengeance of God. But thou, as if senseless and rash, forgetting this severe vengeance of God against Achab, of which thou thyself hadst been the minister and executioner, hast stumbled upon the same stone and worshipped the same idols. For this is what is said in IV Kings, chapter X, 29: "So Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel; but yet from the sins of Jeroboam, son of Nabat, who made Israel to sin, he departed not, nor did he leave the golden calves." I will therefore visit the blood of Jezrael upon thy house, that is, I will bring upon thy house a plague and slaughter similar to that which thou at my command didst bring upon the house of Achab in Jezrael. Therefore, as thou hast shed the blood of all his sons, so shall the blood of all thine be shed, and all thy posterity shall be despoiled of kingdom and life; and a little after, namely after forty years, all Israel which followed thee in idolatry shall either be slain or led captive into Assyria. Wherefore that thou mayest set this before the Israelites, O Hosea, I command thee to call thy son Jezrael, and explain to them that he is called Jezrael for this reason, that they may remember Jezabel and the sons of Achab slain and buried in Jezrael on account of idolatry, and may know that they themselves are to be slain in like manner for the same cause; so that as often as they shall name or hear named the name of thy son Jezrael, the whole slaughter of the house of Achab wrought in Jezrael may recur and return to their mind, and a similar one about to be wrought by me, which I here intend through thee. Thus Mariana and others. Whence Jezrael, equally as Sodom, signifies proverbially a great vengeance, a great destruction, says Sanchez. Note here: For "I will visit," the Syriac renders "I will avenge"; in Hebrew it is פקדתי pakadti, which is a very general and broad signification; nor does it signify only to avenge, to punish and to take vengeance, but in general it is the same as to require, to reckon, to impose, to bring. The sense therefore is, as if to say: "I will visit," that is, I will require, "the blood of Jezrael upon the house of Jehu," and I will say: Why hast thou, O Jehu, shed the blood of the house of Achab in Jezrael? Did not thou do this at my command, because they were idolaters and leaders of idolatry in Israel? Why therefore hast thou not feared to worship and defend the same idols? Be thou therefore like them in punishment, as thou wast like them in guilt; their blood was shed by thee; let thine also be shed: their stock was cut off, and let thine be cut off. "I will visit" therefore, that is, I will require and reckon and number the punishments of the house of Achab to thy house, and I will say: Behold, Achab sinned in so many and such great idols and crimes; thou, O Jehu, hast sinned in as many. Wherefore as I punished Achab with so many plagues and the slaughter of all (namely seventy) his sons, so will I punish thee with as many plagues: and as I numbered the number of the sins, so also of the plagues of Achab, I will number and kindle them for thee and thy house, that is, I will bring and inflict them. This is the principal sense, to which however the others are annexed and connected. Therefore according to the exposition of Theodoret and the fourth of Christopher of Castro, thou mayest here add in this manner, as if to say: Because thou, O Jehu, like Achab, hast shed the blood of the pious Israelites worshipping the true God and spurning thy golden calves, who were Jezrael, that is the seed, that is the people of God; and because thou hast compelled all Israelites to blood, that is to an enormous crime of idolatry, therefore like Achab the blood of all thine shall be shed. And as I avenged the blood of Naboth shed by Achab by slaying all his stock in the house of Achab, so also will I avenge the blood of the faithful shed by thee and thine by overthrowing thy family: for it is a grave crime and one that cries to heaven for vengeance, the slaying of the innocent, especially of the faithful and holy. For, as St. Augustine says in Psalm IX, explaining that passage: "He sitteth in ambush, etc., that he may kill the innocent," "to kill the innocent is to make the innocent guilty," which is a perversion both of justice and of nature. You will say: The blood of the posterity of Achab was shed in Jezrael, not on account of his idolatry, but because he himself had shed there the blood of Naboth, so that he might seize his vineyard. Therefore these things are not rightly adapted to the blood of the posterity of Jehu being shed on account of idolatry. I answer that the antecedent is false. For indeed three slaughters were brought upon the house of Achab on account of idolatry, as is expressly said, IV Kings cap. XXI, 22, 26; but the determination of the place, namely that it would happen in Jezrael, was made on account of Naboth slain there, who was an enemy of idols and a worshipper of the one true God. For that all these things pertain to the punishment of idolatry is evident from the fact that for this reason Hosea is commanded to take a fornicatress and beget children of fornications, so that he might represent the idolatry of the Israelites. Whence he says: "Because the land committing fornication shall fornicate," mystically namely with idols; and therefore he threatens her with blood and destruction. To this pertains the explanation which Haymo, Hugo and Albertus bring from the Chaldean, which is of this kind: I will visit, that is, I will impute the blood of the house of Achab shed by Jehu in Jezrael to Jehu himself and to his house, because he himself worshipped the same idols on account of which he killed the sons of Achab and overthrew his line; and therefore by the deed itself he showed that he killed idolaters wickedly and unjustly; and did not so much obey God's command as follow his own ambition and tyranny, as Vatablus said, since he himself was equally an idolater as they were. And so the blood of Jezrael will return against him, and will recoil upon his house; for he himself merited, who wickedly killed idolaters, that his house and entire line, as being likewise idolaters, should similarly be cut off, so that, just as he punished idolaters with the sword, so also his idolatry should be punished and cut down with the sword. In Jezrael there is a beautiful paronomasia with respect to its etymology, as if to say: I will visit the blood of Jezrael, that is of the seed and people of God, namely of the pious Israelites, whom Achab (as appears IV Kings cap. IX, 7) and Jehu afflicted and killed, upon their house and family, and I will be to them Jezrael, that is יזרי רע אל, that is, God bringing evil and destruction, namely I will crush and overthrow them. Finally the Septuagint and after them the Arabic translate quite differently, namely: I will avenge the blood of Israel upon the house of Juda. I suspect with St. Jerome that in them there is a typographical error, and for Israel should be read Jezrael, and for Juda Jehu. For thus the Hebrew, Chaldean, Latin and Syriac have it. Therefore Leo Castrius wrongly, from the version of the Septuagint and from the fact that the Prophet does not say: I will visit the calves of Jeroboam, but: "I will visit the blood of Jezrael upon the house of Juda," contends that these things should be taken literally of the destruction of Judaea and Jerusalem by Titus. The sense being, as if to say: The blood of Jezrael, that is of Christ (for he is called Jezrael, that is seed of God, because he was not conceived from the seed of man, but from the Holy Spirit) killed by the Jews I will avenge upon Juda, by overthrowing Jerusalem and Judaea through the Romans. Wrongly, I say: for from the whole context it is clear that here the matter is of the idolatry of Israel and its punishment through the Assyrians, not of the destruction of Juda by Titus. Here therefore his sense is mystical and allegorical, and that congruous, not literal. Morally learn here how severely God punishes those who do not esteem the judgments and chastisements of God upon the impious, nor are induced by them to the fear of God and a change of life, but perpetrate the same sins on account of which they see others chastised by God. Indeed, those whom God commanded to chastise others, such as princes, judges, magistrates, have shown themselves to be— twelve tribes, namely both Judah and Israel. You will ask, when and how was the kingdom of Israel crushed in the valley of Jezreel? For we read nothing of this in Scripture. Some understand Samaria by Jezreel: for all the people flowed together to it, as Assyria threatened, and there was defeated and captured by it. But nowhere is "the valley of Jezreel" taken for Samaria, especially since Samaria was situated on a mountain, not in a valley. Therefore others more rightly judge from this place of the Prophet, before the destruction of Samaria and the nation, that the Israelites in their customary manner, with signs exchanged, clashed with the Assyrians in the neighboring valley of Jezreel. For this valley extends very far, and was most suitable for conflict. There therefore the Israelites were overcome and slain by the Assyrians, who then pursued their victory, besieged Samaria, and overthrew it with the entire kingdom. Thus St. Jerome, Cyril, Theodoret, Haymo and other interpreters. Whence Borchard, Breidenbach, and from them Adrichomius in his Description of the Holy Land, writes thus of this valley: "The valley of Jezreel, wide by two miles (but much longer), which is also the plain of Galilee. In this valley or intermediate plain great and many conflicts were held. For here Gideon fought against the Midianites, Judges vi and vii. And Saul against the Philistines, I Kings xxxi. Likewise Ahab against the Syrians, III Kings xx, and afterwards the Tartars there fought against the Saracens." Furthermore, God fittingly ordained that Israel should be slain in Jezreel. For there is great force and emphasis in both the proximity of words and things, and in the allusion, as if to say: Once, O ten tribes, you were Israel, that is a people ruling under God, when following the piety of your father Jacob, serving the one God, you obtained from Him blessing and all good that you asked, for which reason Jacob was called Israel, Genesis cap. xxxii, 28. You were likewise then Jezreel, that is the seed and people of God. But now rebels against God and apostates: since you have turned aside to idols, you are not Jezreel, that is the seed of God, nor Israel, that is ruling under God; but God will now rule over you, as an enemy ruling, raging and ravaging in a city which he captures and lays waste. He himself therefore will slay you through the Assyrians in the valley of Jezreel, both because the stock of Ahab the idolater was slain there, whom you have imitated; and because to this place fittingly applies the threefold etymology of Jezreel, which I reviewed at the beginning of the chapter. For he alludes to it, as if to say: In this valley you will feel Jezreel, that is first, zeroa el, that is the arm of God, striking and killing you; second, because there will be Jezreel, that is izza ra el, that is God will scatter evil and destruction upon you; third, there will be Jezreel, that is zara el, that is God scattering you into Assyria and every wind and plague of the world. Leo Castrius brings another sense: The valley, he says, of Jezreel, that is of the seed of God, namely Christ, is Jerusalem; because Christ taught in Jerusalem, lived, was crucified and died, as if to say: Yet a little while, that is after a short time, namely 40 years after the cross of Christ, "I will visit the blood of Jezreel," that is of Christ crucified by the Jews, "upon the house of Jehu," that is upon the ten tribes, "and I will break Israel," that is all the Jews both from the ten and from the two tribes, "in the valley of Jezreel," that is in Jerusalem through Titus. For after the captivity of the ten tribes, they had grown back from the remnants of the captivity, and so both the kingdom of Israel and Judah were destroyed by Titus and the Romans. But this sense is not literal, as he himself contends, but allegorical and mystical and fitting. For if God avenged the blood of Jezreel, that is of Israel, so atrociously upon the house of Jehu; why would He not avenge most atrociously the blood of His only-begotten Son upon the Jewish nation, slain by it so perfidiously and wickedly? Tropologically, in like manner God will avenge and punish impious Christians, who, as the Apostle says, Hebrews cap. x, 29: "have trodden under foot the Son of God, and have counted the blood of the covenant, in which they were sanctified, an unclean thing, and have done despite to the Spirit of grace. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." considers both men and women, as sharers in idolatry, to be involved in this calamity; secondly, the daughter represents the weakness and debility of the Israelites, by which, on account of their sins, not so much the men as the women became enfeebled, and they could not resist the Assyrians: thus St. Jerome, the Chaldean Paraphrase, Cyril, Haymo, Hugo and the Rabbis; thirdly, these three sons represent the same thing, namely the calamity and destruction of the Israelites, but at the same time they represent three, as it were, parts and degrees of this calamity. And so the first Jezreel represents the slaughter of the line of Jehu, as is expressly said in verse 4: for while this line reigned, the kingdom of Israel was still strong and, as it were, masculine. But the line of Jehu was cut off in Zacharias his great-grandson, whom Sellum the tyrant slew. The second daughter represents the weak and infirm state which the kingdom of Israel had after Zacharias under Sellum, Manahem and Pekah, kings of Israel, when Shalmaneser by many robberies, calamities and captivities so wore down and attenuated the kingdom of Israel that it now inclined toward ruin. The third son represents the complete slaughter of the nation and the destruction of the kingdom under Pekah the penultimate, and under Hoshea the last king of Israel. Thus Isidore Clarius and R. David. For Pekah, an impious and cruel king, slaying one hundred thousand of the Jews, and besieging Jerusalem with Rezin king of Syria, stirred up against himself and his kingdom of Israel the wrath of God, and hastened its destruction, as Isaiah predicted, chapter viii, 6 and following. These three offspring could also represent three kings of the Assyrians, namely Pul, Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser, who laid waste and plundered the kingdom of Israel, until Shalmaneser, having taken Samaria, completely overthrew it. 6. And she conceived again, and bore a daughter. — Because the Israelites were hard and obstinate, hence they were to be struck with many blows of the Prophets. Therefore to the first son and sad oracle is added here a second oracle and portent, equally sad and threatening, indeed sadder and more threatening; as it were a second ram, which might strike and shake their iron breasts. Hear St. Cyril, book VI of the Glaphyra: "St. Hosea, he says, took a harlot as a wife, and did not deprecate infamous nuptials, and suffered himself to be the father of infamous children, whose names were, Not my people, Not obtained mercy. The Israelites opposed the predictions of the Prophets and neither received nor read the law of God. God therefore commanded him to do things which were, as it were, pictures of future things, so that future things might be plainly and openly depicted as on a certain tablet, so that they might fall upon the ears and eyes even of the unwilling, so that those who were wise might love better things: so that those whom they could might turn away from impiety:" As often as the Israelites saw these offspring of the prophet, so often did they behold themselves as in an image; and as often as they called them by their name, so often did they call and recount to themselves their own fates decreed to them by God; for example, when calling these boys they said: Come here Lo-ruhamah, that is Without mercy; come here Lo-ammi, that is Not my people, they tacitly said and thought to themselves: "The story is told of you with a changed name." You are whom this boy represents, he bears your person. You therefore are not the people of God, you are without mercy, whom God has rejected and reprobated.
1:6
Daughter. — This daughter represents the same thing as the first son of Hosea, Jezrahel, namely the devastation of Israel or the ten tribes. But why is the first a son, the second a daughter? I answer, the physical cause is that spouses are accustomed to beget now sons, now daughters. The symbolic cause is first, so that he may represent— And God said to him (Hosea): Call his name, Without Mercy, — so that through this offspring you may signify the Israelites unworthy of God's mercy and incapable of it, destined by God's just decree to certain destruction; whence explaining further he adds: "Because I will no longer have mercy upon the house of Israel;" the Septuagint: I will no longer add to love them, that is to say, Many times before I have had mercy on the Israelites afflicted on account of their sins and repenting, when I sent them Gideon, Samson, David, and other kings and judges, or avengers of the people: but now because they make no end of sinning and idolatry, and because they are obstinate and impenitent in their wickedness, I threaten that I will no longer have mercy, but without any hope of pardon or mercy, I will deliver them to the sword and fire of the Assyrians. In Hebrew for Without Mercy is לא רחמה Lo rachama. This therefore was the proper name of Hosea's daughter. Arias Montanus thinks that lo, that is, not, namely I will have mercy, pertains to Israel or the ten tribes; but to, namely rachama, that is, mercy, pertains to Judah; concerning which he adds: "And I will have mercy upon the house of Judah:" because Judah returned from captivity, not Israel. But this is more subtle than solid; for lo rachama is a single name, and signifies one thing, namely the abandonment of Israel by God: wherefore lo cannot be separated from rachama. The matter here concerns Israel properly, not Judah; but that is added only in passing: "And I will have mercy upon the house of Judah," so that through this the punishment of Israel may be increased, when he hears that he alone is destined to destruction, and vengeance is prepared for him, but mercy for Judah his neighbor and brother. But forgetting I will forget them. — In Hebrew כי נשא אשא להם ki nasa essa lahem, which is translated variously: for the Hebrew nasa signifies various things, namely to bear, to take away, to lift up, to spare. Wherefore first, the Chaldean translator renders: If they repent, sparing I will spare them. But this version is contrary to the name, Without Mercy. Second, Vatablus renders: Taking away I will take them from my face. Third, R. David: Lifting up I will lift up over them, namely, the enemies of the Assyrians. Fourth, the Septuagint, not rendering word for word, but the sense, render: Opposing I will oppose them, or rather, as others read, turning away I will turn them away. Fifth, others: Carrying away I will carry them away into captivity. Sixth, others: Deceiving I will deceive them, or seducing I will seduce them. For the Hebrew nasa, if it has a point in the right horn, signifies to seduce, to deceive. Seventh, Our translator and others render: Forgetting I will forget them, that is, plainly and entirely I will forget them; I will erase them from my memory, so that I will never again wish to think or speak of them. For the Hebrew nasa through he signifies to forget. For the letters aleph and he among the Hebrews are interchangeable, and often one is put for the other. Note the catachresis. For in God properly there is no forgetting of anything, inasmuch as he is endowed with supreme wisdom, and to whom all things both past and future are always objectively present: yet he is said to forget, when he casts off, neglects, and abandons someone, so that it appears to men that he has forgotten him. Just as therefore he is said to be angry, when he punishes; to remember, when he does good; to sleep, when he delays either punishment or reward: so to forget, when he neglects and casts off. St. Augustine beautifully says, book I of the Confessions, chapter iv: "You love, he says (O Lord), and are not inflamed, you are zealous, and are secure; you repent, and do not grieve, you are angry and are tranquil; you change your works, but do not change your counsel." Morally, the punishment of the sinner is great when God forgets him: because it is a sign of his impenitence and obstinacy, as much as of divine abandonment and reprobation. Such a one therefore can expect nothing of grace, nothing of wisdom, nothing of good from God, from whom, as from the sun, all light and all good must necessarily flow. The cause of this forgetfulness of God is that the sinner first forgets God; which is the cause of all his evils. Whence, that God might shake off this forgetfulness from his people, he cries out through Jeremiah, chapter ii, 32: "Shall a virgin forget her ornament, or a bride her stomacher? yet my people have forgotten me days without number." And Isaiah, chapter xvii, 10: "Thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation." And chapter li, 13: "Thou hast forgotten the Lord thy maker." And chapter xliv, 21: "Remember these things, O Jacob, and Israel, for thou art my servant: I have formed thee, etc., forget me not." On the other hand the Psalmist prays, Psalm xii, 1: "How long, O Lord, wilt thou forget me unto the end?" And Psalm xli, 10: "Why hast thou forgotten me? and why go I mourning whilst my enemy afflicteth me?" Furthermore God inflicts this punishment on the sinner justly and fittingly: for he who forgets God, by the law of retaliation deserves in turn that God forget him. Dost thou wish therefore that God forget thee not, but remember thee continually? forget him not, but remember him continually, always have him before thy eyes and in thy mind. Hence to blessed Catherine of Siena Christ gave this teaching: "Daughter, remember me, and I will remember thee. Think always of me, and I will likewise think of thee;" thus her Life has it. Wherefore St. Dominic used to teach his followers "to speak continually with God, or of God." And St. Thomas Aquinas used to say: "He is not religious who does not always have God in his mind." This is what the Prophet cries out, Isaiah lxiii, 7: "I will remember the mercies of the Lord." And Jeremiah, chapter li, 50: "Remember the Lord from afar." Thus Jonah in the belly of the whale, chapter ii, 8: "When my soul was in anguish, he says, within me, I remembered the Lord, that my prayer might come unto thee:" and soon God in turn remembered him, "and said to the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land." Again the Psalmist signifies the fruit of this remembrance, when he says Psalm lxxvi, 4: "I remembered God, and was delighted." And Psalm cxiii, 12: "The Lord hath been mindful of us, and hath blessed us." Therefore with Isaiah, chapter xxvi, 8, let us continually say: "O Lord, thy name and thy memorial are the desire of our soul. My soul hath desired thee in the night: yea, my spirit in my heart seeketh thee in the morning, I will watch early to thee." 7. And I will have mercy on the house of Judah. — Because Judah, although it had some impious kings, and some of the people, yet had many faithful and pious kings, whom the people followed: such as Jehoshaphat, Oziah, Hezekiah, Josiah and especially David, to whom God promised and swore, Psalm lxxxviii, mercy and a stable kingdom, and that Christ would be born from his seed. Israel however, with all its kings from the first Jeroboam, even to the last Hosea for 256 years, continually worshipped idols, namely the golden calves in Dan and Bethel, and therefore God was unwilling to have mercy on it, but utterly destroyed it; secondly, because Christ was to be born from Judah, for thus God had decreed. Note: I will have mercy is a virtue, but the sole and entire virtue. Mercy therefore as a virtue is in God, not as a passion. For mercy in God is an affection of benevolence, by which he desires to succor our misery and to lighten and remove it, or at least to mitigate it; in men however it is a virtue, and at the same time a passion, stirring up tenderness of soul, compassion and sense of another's misery, tears, lamentation, etc., which cannot be in God. For God is ἀπαθής and impassible.
1:7
Wherefore truly Lactantius, in his book On the Wrath of God, chapter xvi, reproves those who think there is no motion of mind, no affection in God, and adds: "And because there are certain affections into which God does not fall, such as lust, fear, avarice, sorrow, envy, they have said that he is wholly devoid of every affection; for he is devoid of these, because they are affections of vices; but those which are of virtue, that is, wrath against the wicked, charity toward the good, compassion toward the afflicted, since they are worthy of divine power, he has as his own, and just, and true." Whence also the Church prays: "O God, to whom it is proper always to have mercy and to spare," etc. In God therefore there is a true and proper act of mercy, equally as of charity, wisdom, and other virtues. For God, since he is life, has these vital acts of virtues; but these are not in him accidents, as they are in us, but are the same as his essence. For this essence, being immense and of infinite power, perfection and activity (for it is itself a certain immense and most efficacious act), contains in itself and absorbs all the acts of virtues, which in angels and men are divided and discrete, because they are finite and limited. Just as therefore the sea absorbs all rivers, and is not increased or swollen by them, because it is vast and as it were immense, so that in comparison with it rivers are like a drop, which it immediately absorbs; so also divinity is a sea, which absorbs all gifts and perfections, or rather contains them in itself. Again, just as the divine essence by reason of its immensity is the same as the Father, and the same as the Son, and the same as the Holy Spirit, which are three most distinct persons and really diverse, so much more does the same divine essence identify itself with intellect, will, love, and other divine powers and acts, both concerning itself and concerning creatures. For since it itself is fully and completely infinite in every direction, nothing whatsoever can be added to it; because whatever you think or wish, it already existed in it before, and it itself communicates that very thing to creatures without any diminishment or change of itself. For in it is such fullness of all good, that no addition can be imagined; such firmness, that no diminishment can occur. Whatever therefore is scattered throughout the whole multitude of angels, men, and all creatures of good; all of that is collected in God in simple unity, and that without limitation and infinitely. Hence it comes about that God through his most simple essence is formally wise, just, merciful, etc., and therefore is himself wisdom, goodness, justice, mercy, etc. The very essence of God by itself alone accomplishes what in creatures is accomplished by goodness, wisdom, mercy, and many other and most diverse virtues, but in the most eminent and unlimited manner. Who now would not love this good in which all good is? nay, who would love any other good, which compared with it is a shadow, and rather a privation of good than good itself? And I will save them in the Lord their God. — That is, through the Lord, by the aid and strength not of their own, but of the Lord. Note the Hebraism: for the Hebrews speak of themselves in the third person, as if they were speaking of someone else. Thus it is said in Genesis, chapter xix, 24: "The Lord rained upon Sodom fire from the Lord," that is, from himself. And in Numbers, chapter xii, 7: "But not so my servant Moses, who, etc., sees the Lord," that is, me, "plainly." The Chaldean renders it: I will save them by the word of the Lord their God, that is, by God's faithful and firm promise, by which he will actually provide the salvation he has promised from himself. Mystically by the word, that is, by his Son, who will assume flesh from the Jews and be born a man, as if to say, I will save them through Jesus, that is, the savior of the world. Thus St. Jerome and St. Hilarius, book IV On the Trinity, toward the end. Indeed Leo Castrius thinks the Prophet here speaks literally of Christ, who brought salvation to Judah, that is, to believers, and repelled Israel, that is, the unbelievers. But it is clear from what has been said that these are allegorical, not literal. Moreover, although these words are general and common to the whole Holy Trinity, yet mystically they can be appropriated to the Son: for to him is appropriated salvation, liberation and redemption. You will ask, concerning what salvation does the Prophet speak here literally to Judah? First, St. Jerome, Cyril, Haymo, Theodoret, Rupert, Lyra, Hugh and Vatable think that he speaks of that by which he delivered Hezekiah, and the two tribes from the hand of Sennacherib, by killing in his camps in one night through an angel 185,000 Assyrians, IV Kings cap. xix. Second and rather, the Prophet speaks of the salvation which Cyrus brought to the Jews by freeing them from the captivity of Babylon. For this was by far the greater, more desired, joyful, full, and universal salvation of all: and in this Judah is rightly opposed and preferred to Israel, who never returned from the Assyrian captivity. Thus the same authors cited a little before. (1) That opinion seems to be confirmed by this reason, that when God had said vers. 4, that the kingdom of Israel was to be destroyed, and indeed without mercy, now he opposes the better condition of the kingdom of Judah, which its citizens were to enjoy after exile. But that people did not obtain it by the noise of war, but by the benevolence of Cyrus and Darius, whose minds God wonderfully inclined toward the Jewish people. And I will not save them in bow, and sword, and war, and in horses, and in horsemen.—That is, not by arms and war, but by my mercy alone will I save them. Note: That the two tribes, namely Judah and Benjamin, returned from Babylon into Judea under Cyrus releasing them, is certain from I Esdras, cap. i. The same concerning the ten tribes which before the two had been led away into Assyria, namely that they returned thence into Samaria, St. Cyril in Hosea xi, Theodoret and Theophylactus in Hosea iii think. But the contrary, namely that these never returned from Assyria, is evident from this place, and from III Kings cap. xvii, 23, and from Josephus lib. XI Antiq. cap. v. And so the common opinion of St. Jerome here and in Malachi ii, of all Catholics equally as of the Hebrews. You will say, he predicts here that they will return, Hosea, vers. 11, cap. xi, 8 et seq., and cap. xii, 9, and cap. xiv, 6, and Ezekiel cap. xxxvii, 16 and 22, and Jeremiah cap. l, 4, and Tobias cap. xiv, 6, saying: "The destruction of Nineveh will be near: and our brethren who are scattered from the land of Israel, shall return to it." I answer: Hosea, Jeremiah, Ezekiel speak of the return and spiritual (not bodily) liberty which many of the Israelites, equally as of the Jews, obtained through faith in Christ, concerning which more below. But Tobias speaks of the return of the Jews not into Samaria, but into Jerusalem. For he says: "The house of God, which was burned in it, shall be built again: and there all who fear God shall return, and shall leave the nations their idols, and shall come into Jerusalem, and shall dwell in it." I confess however that not a few of the Israelites or Samaritans, Nineveh being destroyed where they were held captive, fled into Jerusalem, and there worshipped God with the Jews in the temple; and this seems to be hinted at by Tobias, when after the destruction of Nineveh he immediately adds: "And our brethren, who are scattered from the land of Israel, shall return to it." But this return was private of a few fleeing, not common and public, because it was accomplished neither by the public authority of the Assyrians or Chaldeans, nor by the common counsel and conspiracy of the Israelites (as the return of the Jews from Babylon was accomplished by the authority of Cyrus, and by the common consent of the people, under the leadership of Nehemiah and Esdras); but each one either remained in Nineveh, or returned into Judea, or migrated elsewhere, as it pleased each one, or was more convenient. In a similar way before, not a few faithful and pious Israelites, fleeing the idolatry of Jeroboam and the impending calamity of Israel, fled from Samaria into Judea, and there fixed their seat, as is evident II Paralipomenon xi, 16, and cap. xv, 9, and cap. xxx, 1, from Josephus lib. VIII Antiq. cap. iii. These, led with the Jews into Babylon, and thence brought back with them, were afterwards greatly multiplied. Many also in the very destruction of Samaria fled into neighboring Judea. Many also poorer ones were left in Samaria, to cultivate it, while the others were led into Assyria; just as in the destruction of Judea and Jerusalem, the Chaldeans left in it some Jews, that they might be vinedressers, farmers, etc., as is evident IV Kings cap. ult. 12. Whence to these, namely those descended from Zebulun and Naphtali, Christ preached Matthew iv, 13, and from these he chose most of the Apostles, as is evident Psalm lxvii, 28, and Isaiah ix, 1. Hence also Anna the prophetess, who was of the tribe of Asher, dwelt in Judea and Jerusalem, Luke cap. ii, vers. 36. 8 and 9. And she conceived, and bore a son (namely a third offspring). And he said to her (namely God to Osee, as is clear from verse 4): Call his name, Not my people. — The name therefore of the third offspring was לא עמי Lo ammi, that is, Not my people. Now first, Ruffinus and Albertus think this offspring signifies two tribes, namely the Jews cast off by God into the Babylonian captivity; Vatablus and Arias the same ones utterly destroyed by Titus and the Romans. But truly this chapter prophesies the destruction of Israel, or the ten tribes; not of two, or the Jews. For concerning these he said the contrary a little before in verse 7, namely: "I will have mercy upon the house of Juda, and I will save them." Secondly, others think the Cutheans are signified here, that is, the Assyrians, who were transferred by Salmanasar from Cuth and other places into Samaria, when he himself led the Israelites from there into Assyria. For the Cutheans were not the people of God, because together with the God of Israel they worshipped the idols of the Assyrians, as is said in IV Kings xvii, 41. But truly the Cutheans were not Israelites, but Gentiles. The Prophet therefore continues to prophesy concerning the destruction and desolation of Israel, or the ten tribes, and their complete rejection and reprobation by God, by the name of this third offspring he is commanded to represent, namely that Israel shall no longer be the people of God, but of the Gentiles and idols, and shall live among the nations, and there growing in offspring and strength, as a male child in paganism shall have become a strong and robust man. Thus St. Cyril, St. Jerome, Theodoret, the Chaldean, Rupert, Haymo and others.
1:8
Thus on the other hand Isaiah, chapter viii, 3, is commanded by God to call his son Shear-Jashub, that is, a remnant shall return; so as to signify the remnants of the Jews to be converted to God and Christ, as I said there. Such prophetic names, and as it were omens imparted by God, are frequent in Scripture, as: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church," Matthew xvi, 18. Thus Christ called James and John Boanerges, that is, sons of thunder, thundering and flashing forth lightning, namely. Thus Isaiah, chapter viii, 1, says the name of the child Emmanuel shall be: "Make speed to the spoil, hasten the prey." In a similar manner the Poet said: Let there be Maecenases, and Maroes will not be lacking, Flaccus. And Virgil, eclogue iv, calls Julius Caesar, pierced with 23 wounds in the senate house, Daphnis, and sings his apotheosis: "Daphnis with wonder sees the threshold of Olympus strange, And clouds beneath his feet, and stars he sees. The very groves resound: A god, a god is he, Menalcas!" Furthermore the gentiles often took or changed names from the event, either present or future. Thus among the Greeks, as Cicero testifies, in the book On Oratory, Tyrtamus, afterwards from eloquence Euphrastes, finally from the divinity of speaking found the name of Theophrastus. Of philosophers, Homer, who had received the name from his grandfather Aristocles, from the breadth of his chest, or rather from the very broad abundance of his most happy genius for disputation, was called Plato, as Plutarch testifies in his Life of Plato. Among the Romans that Tyrian, who was previously called Malchus (which in the ancient language of the Hebrews and Phoenicians means king), finally at the wish of Longinus Cassius his teacher, from the purple of kings renamed himself Porphyrius. Thus Porphyrius in the Life of Plotinus. Thus also Emperors newly created received new names or cognomens. Severus the African, to please the Roman people, took the cognomen of Pertinax; Julianus, to satisfy the luxurious soldiers, took the cognomen of Commodus. Thus Herodian, book II. Thus now in the sacrament of Confirmation it is permitted to anyone to change his name; indeed even upon entering Religion many change it, so that for example among the Franciscans they receive the name of Francis, among the Dominicans of Dominic, among the Benedictines of Benedict, so that with the name they always set before their eyes the virtues of the founders of their Order, and strive to emulate them and express them in their conduct. "Because you are not my people, and I will not be your God." — In Hebrew, I will not be to you, namely, God, governor, guardian, provider, nourisher, father, mother, as I have been hitherto. How great is the happiness and blessing to be the people of God, and to have God as father; on the other hand how great is the unhappiness not to be the people of God, and to have God as enemy, Moses describes at length in Leviticus, the whole chapter xxvi, and in Deuteronomy, the whole chapter xxviii. Mystically these three offspring signify three degrees of sin, and three gradations of the sinner, by which he gradually rushes into hell. For the first offspring Jezreel, that is, the seed of God, namely lost and poured out, and as it were slain, as he said in verse 4, signifies the first degree of sin, by which the sinner intent upon his allurements neglects and does not heed the admonitions, sermons, inspirations of God, and therefore God gradually withdraws those and his grace from him. Hence he descends to the second degree, which is impenitence and obstinacy, so that he is without mercy. Thence he rushes to the third, so that he is not of the people of God, but reprobated by God is thrust into hell. 10. And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which is without measure, and shall not be numbered. — Here the Prophet passes to another matter, and turns from sad things to joyful ones in his usual manner. Whence the Hebrews and Lyra begin here the second chapter. For which reason Theodoret and Cyril less correctly connect these with the preceding ones by way of exaggeration in this sense, as if to say: My decree concerning the destruction of Israel remains and will remain firm, even if he should grow as the sand of the sea, and become innumerable. For the contrary is signified by "and it shall be," and what follows. Therefore at this place the Prophet rises from carnal Israel to spiritual, from earthly goods to heavenly and divine things.
1:10
Lest anyone object and say: How, O Prophet, do you preach that Israel is to be destroyed and cut off, when God promised to Abraham that his seed, namely Israel, would be like the sand of the sea innumerable, Genesis xxii, 17; he meets this and responds that this is true and shall be true, but in spiritual Israel, not carnal. You will ask, when and by whom was this prophecy fulfilled? First, Hugo thinks it was fulfilled through Hezekiah, who in II Paralipomenon xxx called Israelites from everywhere to worship God in Jerusalem; likewise through Josiah, who instituted a solemn Passover, to which both Israelites and Jews flocked from everywhere. These therefore then constituted one head for themselves, namely the pious king Josiah or Hezekiah. But Hezekiah called the Israelites at the beginning of his reign, when Samaria had not yet been cut off, nor the Israelites dispersed. But Hosea speaks here of Israelites already dispersed, indeed rejected, to be gathered again by God; whereas Josiah after Samaria was cut off did gather them dispersed, but few; but Hosea says they will be innumerable. Second, Rufinus, Theodoret and Hugo think it was fulfilled under Cyrus; for then the Israelites mixed with Jews, under the leadership of Zerubbabel, returned from Babylon to Jerusalem. But these too were very few. I say therefore first that this prophecy began to be fulfilled by Christ, who evangelized both Israelites and Jews by himself; for he preached in Galilee and Samaria, and specifically in the land of Zebulon and Naphtali, as St. Matthew says, chapter iv, 15; and from there he called and gathered his Apostles. Again shortly after Samaria received the word of God through Philip, for which reason St. Peter and St. John were sent there, Acts chapter viii. Add that daily more from Israel are converted. Finally all Israelites will be converted at the end of the world, as the Apostle says Romans xi, 26, and then this prophecy of Hosea will be perfectly fulfilled. Thus St. Jerome and Christopher a Castro here. But because these Israelites are and will be few, nor can they be called innumerable, hence I say second, by Israelites are understood also gentiles converted to Christ, and in them this prophecy is perfectly fulfilled. For these are innumerable, and these are true Israelites according to the spirit, not according to the flesh; because according to faith they are sons of Abraham and Israel, and consequently heirs of the blessing and goods promised by God to both. For by faith they are incorporated into the family of Abraham and Israel; and therefore they are called and before God are sons of Israel, just as sons adopted civilly are called and are sons and heirs of the adopter. The sense therefore is, as if to say, Although I have said that Israelites according to the flesh are to be destroyed and cast off by God, nevertheless the promise made to Abraham, Genesis chapter xxii, 17, in which he says: "I will bless thee, and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and as the sand of the seashore;" shall not fail nor be made void, because in their place into the family of Abraham others will succeed and be adopted who from the gentiles believe in Christ, and will be sons of Abraham according to faith and spirit; for these will be like the sand of the sea almost innumerable. That this is so is evident first, because the Apostle, Romans ix, 25, expressly explains this passage of Hosea concerning the gentiles, and from it against the Jews proves that not only Jews, but also gentiles will be partakers of Christ's calling and grace: "Whom also, he says, he hath called us not only from the Jews, but also from the Gentiles, as in Hosea he saith: I will call that which was not my people, my people; and her that was not beloved, beloved; and her that had not obtained mercy, one that hath obtained mercy. And it shall be in the place where it was said unto them: Ye are not my people, there they shall be called the sons of the living God." Then he proves that Israelites, or Jews also are to be called and saved through Christ, but few, not innumerable, from Isaiah saying: "But Isaiah crieth out concerning Israel: If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved," etc. What could be clearer? You will say: The words of Hosea are to be understood literally of the natural Israelites, but the Apostle accommodates them to the Gentiles only by analogy and similitude; because just as the Israelites, so also the Gentiles were not the people of God, but called by Christ they were made the people of God, as St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus and Christopher a Castro explain. But this cannot be said. For first the Apostle speaks didactically, and argues scholastically against the Jews, and proves from this place of Hosea that the Gentiles are to be called by Christ; therefore Hosea spoke truly and properly of the Gentiles. Otherwise the Jews would have answered Paul, and would have eluded his argument by saying: Hosea speaks only of the Israelites, not of the Gentiles; therefore you, O Paul, wrongly and falsely draw, nay distort his words to the Gentiles. Second, because the Apostle clearly teaches elsewhere that the blessing of Abraham and promised to Israel, and the goods which Hosea and other Prophets promise to the Israelites and their posterity through Christ, do not pertain to carnal Israelites, but to spiritual ones, that is to believers both from the Gentiles and from the Israelites; and the best interpreter of the Prophets is St. Paul. Hear him clearly pronouncing this, Rom. ix, 6, thus solving and explaining similar places of the Old Testament objected by the Jews: "Not that the word (the promise made to the posterity of Abraham and Israel) of God hath fallen away; for not all that are of Israel, are Israelites; neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called, that is, not they that are the children of the flesh, are the children of God; but they that are the children of the promise, are counted for the seed," etc.; and Gal. iii, 6: "Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice. Know ye therefore, that they who are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God justifieth the Gentiles by faith, told unto Abraham beforehand: In thee shall all nations be blessed. Therefore they that are of faith, shall be blessed with faithful Abraham." Therefore this promise of Hosea pertains to the Gentiles imitating the faith of Israel and believing in Christ. Third, this is the common exposition of the Fathers: namely, that by Israel here are understood both the Gentiles and the natural Israelites converted to Christ. Thus St. Jerome, Cyril, Rufinus, Haymo, Hugo, Albert and others here, and St. Augustine, lib. XXI Against Faustus, cap. lxxxix; and often elsewhere, Cyprian, lib. I Testimonies against the Jews, cap. xix; Tertullian, lib. IV Against Marcion, cap. xvi; Irenaeus, lib. II, cap. iv; Prosper, lib. II On the Calling of the Gentiles, cap. xviii; Primasius, Anselm and St. Thomas on Rom. ix. Finally, the very words that follow plainly signify this, in which he says that those who at some time were not the people of God, are to be called sons of the living God, to be gathered into one Church under one head Christ, to ascend from the earth, and this great day to be Jezrael; which all things befit the faithful Gentiles more than the Israelites. And it shall be in the place where it shall be said (that is, was said both by God and by men, thus Vatablus; whence the Septuagint translates, where it was said) to them: You are not my people; it shall be said to them: You are the sons of the living God. — Understand this place not as Chaldea, into which the Jews were led away, as Albert wishes; nor as Jerusalem and Judea, as Haymo and Hugo think; but any place in the whole world where there shall be believers and those believing in Christ, thus from the Chaldean St. Jerome and St. Augustine, lib. I to Simplicius, Quest. ii, nay St. Peter, epist. I, cap. ii. For writing to Christians dispersed through Bithynia, Pontus, Galatia, Asia, etc., to whom he himself had preached the Gospel, and graphically explaining these words of Hosea, he says: "You are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people. Who in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God; who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy." Therefore this place is the Church of Christ dispersed everywhere among the Gentiles and throughout the whole world. Sons of the living God. — This is the greatest dignity and exaltation of man, by which we become sharers of the divine nature, as St. Peter says. Truly St. Leo, sermon 6 On the Nativity: "All gifts," he says, "this gift exceeds, that God calls man son, and man names God father." Wherefore the same, sermon 1 On the Nativity: teaches that man ought to imitate God the Father, and to put on his character, so that he may live a divine life, not an earthly one, not an animal one: "Recognize," he says, "O Christian, thy dignity, and made a sharer of the divine nature, do not degenerate into the old baseness by returning to thy former conversation;" and sermon 6: "Let the chosen and royal generation of his regeneration answer to its dignity: let it love what the father loves, and in nothing dissent from its author, lest the Lord again say that word of Isaiah cap. 1: I have nourished and exalted sons, and they have despised me;" but let it follow that word of Christ, Matt. v: "Be ye therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect." These therefore "are born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God;" like unto the only-begotten Son of God, to whom the Father from eternity said: "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee." Moreover, "of the living" has emphasis, as if to say: They are not sons of dumb and dead gods, not of idols; but sons of the true and living God, who is himself divine and uncreated life, and breathes it forth and communicates it to them. Note: In this generation and sonship the father is God, the seed is prevenient grace, the mother is the will consenting to it and cooperating, the offspring is the just man, the soul is charity. Again the exemplar of this sonship is the sonship of the Word of God; for just as God the Father from eternity begot a son consubstantial and equal to himself in all things, so in like manner in time he begets sons, who by grace are that which the Son of God is by nature. Our sonship therefore is an image of divine sonship. This is what the Apostle says, Rom. viii, 29: "Whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren;" and vers. 14: "Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba, Father." He proves the same thing by adding: "For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ; yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him." It is done through the Holy Spirit. — Moreover, that we may inspect this adoption by God more deeply, and wonder at and revere it, it is to be noted that in it not only is grace and charity infused into the soul, and other gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit himself is given, who is the first and uncreated gift, which God gives to men. God could have made us just and holy in justification through infused grace and charity, and that would have been great grace and beneficence of God, even if he had not adopted us as his sons; but not content with this, he willed to make us just in such a way that at the same time he would make us and adopt us as sons. Again, he could have made this adoption by giving us only charity, grace and created gifts; for grace is a participation of the divine nature in the highest degree, namely insofar as divinity can be participated by a creature not only naturally, but also supernaturally. Greater therefore than the former would have been this benefit of God. But the immense goodness of God, not content with this, willed at the same time to give us himself, and through himself to sanctify and adopt us. Wherefore the Holy Spirit of his own accord joined himself to his gifts, grace and charity, so that whenever these are infused into the soul, at the same time with them and through them he infuses himself personally and substantially, according to that word of the Apostle: "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us," Rom. v, 5. Wherefore the Apostle calls him the spirit of adoption of sons: "For you have not," he says, "received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. For the Spirit himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God; And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ; yet so, if we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him," Rom. viii, 13; and: "Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God," ibid. vers. 14; and: "Because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father," Gal. iv, 6. This therefore is the supreme condescension of our God, and equally our supreme dignity and exaltation, whereby receiving charity and grace, we simultaneously receive the very person of the Holy Spirit, who of his own accord inserts and attaches himself to charity and grace, and through these inhabits us, vivifies us, adopts us, deifies us, and impels us to all good. Do you wish for greater things? Receive them. The Holy Spirit, descending personally into the soul of the just, brings with him the other divine persons, the Father and the Son, inasmuch as he cannot be separated from them. Therefore the whole Trinity comes personally and substantially to the soul which is justified and adopted, and remains and dwells in it as in his own temple, so long as that soul endures in justice, according to that passage of 1 John iv, 16: "He that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him;" and 1 Corinthians vi, 17: "He that is joined to the Lord, is one spirit." This is what Christ, about to die, in that most divine prayer to the Father, asked for and obtained, saying: "That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us," John xvii, 21, namely that they may participate in one and the same Holy Spirit, and be united in him, and through him to the other divine persons; so that in him all may be one, because the Holy Spirit, who is participated in by all, and who is in all, is one and the same. Whence all are one in a single indivisible thing, namely in the Holy Spirit, just as the three divine persons are one in one divine nature, which is singular and indivisible. Thus St. Cyril explains it, book XI on John, chapter xxvi, St. Athanasius, oration 4 Against the Arians, and from them Toletus. In justification therefore, and adoption of the soul, grace and charity are infused, and with them the Holy Spirit, and the whole Godhead, and the Holy Trinity, which has substantially, as it were, annexed and enclosed itself in these gifts of his, so that he may substantially unite us to himself, sanctify us, deify us and adopt us; by which adoption we first receive the supreme dignity of divine filiation, so that in reality not only accidentally through grace, but also as it were substantially through nature we are sons of God, and as it were gods: for God truly communicates and gives his nature to us; secondly, through the same as sons we receive the right to heavenly inheritance, namely to beatitude and all the goods of God our Father: thirdly, through the same we obtain the wonderful dignity of works and merits, namely that our works as it were of substantial sons of God, so to speak, are of the greatest dignity, value and worth, and are plainly commensurate and condign to their reward, namely eternal life and heavenly glory, inasmuch as they proceed as it were from God himself and the divine spirit, who dwells in us, impels us to them, and cooperates in them. From what has been said it follows first, that inherent justice, or justifying grace, by which we are sanctified and adopted as sons of God, is not one simple quality, as some imagine, but comprises many things, namely remission of sins, faith, hope, charity, and other gifts, and the Holy Spirit himself the author of gifts (and consequently the whole Holy Trinity). For all these things are infused in justification, as man receives them, as the Council of Trent says, session VI, canon vii. It follows secondly, that those are deceived who in justification and adoption think that the Holy Spirit is given only as to his gifts, not however as to his substance and person. For the contrary is taught by St. Bonaventure in I Sentences, distinction xiv, article 2, Question i, in which he shows throughout that the Holy Spirit is given not only personally as charity and the other gifts of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit himself is also given, who is the first and uncreated gift, which God gives to men. God could in justification through infused grace and charity have made us merely just and holy, and that would have been great grace and beneficence of God, even if he had not adopted us as his sons; but not content with this, he willed to make us just in such a way that he would at the same time make and adopt us as sons. Again, he could have made this adoption by giving us only charity, grace and created gifts; for grace is a participation of the divine nature in the highest degree, namely insofar as the Godhead can be participated in by a creature not only naturally, but also supernaturally. Greater therefore than the former would have been this benefit of God. But the immense goodness of God, not content with this, willed to give us himself at the same time, and through himself to sanctify and adopt us. Wherefore the Holy Spirit of his own accord annexed himself to his gifts, grace and charity, so that whenever these are infused into the soul, at the same time with them and through them he infuses himself personally and substantially, according to that saying of the Apostle: "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us," Romans v, 5. Wherefore the Apostle calls Him the spirit of adoption of sons: "For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear; but you have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry: Abba, Father. For the Spirit Himself giveth testimony to our spirit, that we are the sons of God. And if sons, heirs also; heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ; yet so, if we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him," Rom. viii, 15-17; and: "Whosoever are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God," ibid. vers. 14; and: "Because you are sons, God hath sent the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying: Abba, Father," Galat. iv, 6. This therefore is the supreme condescension of our God, and equally our supreme dignity and exaltation, whereby receiving charity and grace, we at the same time receive the very person of the Holy Spirit. are of the greatest dignity, value and worth, and are truly commensurate and congruous with their reward, namely eternal life and heavenly glory, inasmuch as they proceed, as it were, from God Himself and the divine Spirit, who dwells in us, impels us to these things, and cooperates with us in them. From what has been said it follows, first, that inherent justice, or justifying grace, by which we are sanctified and adopted as sons of God, is not a single simple quality, as some imagine, but embraces many things, namely the remission of sins, faith, hope, charity, and other gifts, and the Holy Spirit Himself the author of gifts (and consequently the whole Holy Trinity). For all these things are infused in justification, as man receives them, as the Council of Trent teaches, sess. VI, can. vii. It follows, secondly, that those are deceived who in justification and adoption think that the Holy Spirit is given only as to His gifts, but not as to His substance and person. For the contrary is taught by St. Bonaventure in I Sent. dist. xiv, art. 2, Quæst. i, where he shows throughout that the Holy Spirit is given to the just not only in effect, but also in His own person, as it were an uncreated gift, so that He may be their perfect possession. The same is taught by the Master of the Sentences, lib. I, dist. xiv and xv, from St. Augustine and others. And Scotus, Gabriel, Marsilius in the same place. The same is clearly asserted by St. Thomas, I part. Quæst. xliii, art. 3 and 6, and Quæst. xxxviii, art. 8, where he shows that the proper name of the Holy Spirit is gift, because He Himself is given to all the just. St. Thomas is followed by his disciples, and our Fathers Vasquez, Valentia, and especially Suarez, lib. XII De Deo trino et uno, cap. v, num. 8, 11, 12, who infers from this that the Holy Spirit in a new way according to His substance begins to be present in the soul of the just, in which way He was not before, and cites for this opinion St. Leo, St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and thus asserts it to be so certain that he judges the contrary to be an error. And he proves it from Holy Scripture: I Cor. vi, 19: "Your bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost, whom you have of God." Rom. v, 5: "The charity of God is poured forth in our hearts, by the Holy Ghost, who is given to us." I John iv: "He that abideth in charity, abideth in God, and God in him." John xiv: "Whom the Father will send in My name." And vers. 17: "He shall abide with you, and shall be in you." And vers. 23: "We will come to him, and will make our abode with him." And John xvi, 7: "If I go, I will send Him to you." Suarez gives the reason, num. 12: "Because," he says, "the gifts of grace by their force and as it were by a connate right, demand a real and personal presence of God in the soul, sanctified by such gifts: for if we imagine by impossibility that the Holy Spirit were not otherwise really present within the soul, by the very fact that the soul were affected with such gifts, the Holy Spirit Himself would come to it by personal presence, and would remain as long as grace endured in it." In a similar way, he says, the Word is present to the humanity of Christ, and, if by impossibility He had not been present to it before, He would now become personally and intimately present to it through hypostatic union. He then adds a moral reason, namely that through grace there is brought about the most perfect friendship between God and man, which demands the presence of the friend, namely the Holy Spirit, who remains in the soul of His friend, so that He may be intimately united to it, and may dwell in it as in His temple, be honored, loved and adored. From this communication of the very person of the Holy Spirit and divinity itself, there follows the soul's most intimate union with Him, elevation, and as it were deification, and consequently the most perfect adoption, namely not only through grace, but also through divine substance; because through it we obtain not only the right to the inheritance of God the Father, but also participation in the divine nature, and the Holy Spirit Himself and divine sonship, not only accidentally, but as it were substantially, in the sense in which I spoke a little before. For just as among men he is properly called father who communicates his nature to his son, so God, by giving us the Holy Spirit along with gifts and through gifts, communicates His divine nature to us, and in this way properly and perfectly makes us and adopts us as sons. Whence St. Basil, in his homily On the Holy Spirit, says that the Saints on account of the indwelling Holy Spirit are gods. For it was said to them by God: "I have said: You are gods, and all of you the sons of the Most High," and from this he proves that the Holy Spirit is God. "For it is necessary, he says, that the Spirit be divine, and be from God, who is the cause of divinity to gods." Now just as the formal cause of the former adoption through grace is grace itself, so of this second adoption, which is made through the communication of the Holy Spirit Himself, the formal cause is the Holy Spirit Himself dwelling in the soul of the just, but the medium is grace itself. It follows thirdly that our adoption, although it is one in itself, is nevertheless twofold in virtue. The former is that by which we are adopted as sons of God through created charity and grace infused into the soul. For this is the highest participation in divine nature. The latter is that by which through grace we obtain the Holy Spirit Himself and His divine nature; and through Him we are as it were deified, and enrolled as sons of God. Moreover, both this adoption is begun here through grace, but will be perfected and confirmed in heaven through eternal glory, by which we shall actually obtain possession of God's inheritance (and that firmly and immovably, without any fear or danger of ever losing it), and shall be intimately united with God and enjoy Him through the beatific vision, by which in a new way God will communicate Himself substantially to the blessed soul, and will flow into it intimately and most sweetly, and will insinuate Himself. Of this the Apostle speaks, Rom. viii, 23: "We ourselves also groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption of the sons of God," that is, the possession of the inheritance to which we have been adopted. And St. John, Apoc. xxi, 3: "Behold, he says, the tabernacle of God with men, and He shall dwell with them. And they shall be His people, and God Himself shall be with them and be their God." And verse 7: "He that shall overcome shall possess these things, and I will be his God, and he shall be My son." It follows fourthly that, just as Christ is the natural Son of God, both as God through eternal generation and as man through hypostatic union, so we are adoptive sons of God, but far more nobly than are adoptive sons of men. For they receive nothing physical from the adopting father, but only a moral denomination, through which they obtain the right to his inheritance: but we receive from God grace, and with grace the very nature of God, so that just as among men he is properly called father who communicates his human nature to another and begets a man, so God is called father not only of Christ, but also of us: because He communicates His nature to us through grace, which He communicated to Christ through hypostatic union, so as to make us His brothers, according to that passage Rom. viii, 29: "Whom He foreknew and predestinated to be made conformable to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn amongst many brethren." And John i, 12: "He gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in His name: who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." Morally, from these things learn how great and how inestimable is the benefit of divine sonship and adoption. Few know it to be of such dignity as I have now shown it to be: fewer still ponder it with the weight it deserves. Surely each one ought to admire it in himself with reverence, and teachers and preachers ought to explain and inculcate it to the people in the manner in which I have now expounded it, so that the faithful and holy may know themselves to be animated temples of God, and to carry God Himself in their heart: and therefore may walk divinely with God, and converse worthily with so great a guest, who accompanies them everywhere, is present everywhere, observes them everywhere. With good reason the Apostle, I Cor. vi, 19: "Know you not, he says, that your bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost, who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? For you are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body." And St. Leo, sermon 1 On the Nativity: "Recognize, he says, O Christian, thy dignity, and having been made a partaker of the divine nature, do not degenerate into the old baseness by returning to thy former way of life. Remember of what head and of what body thou art a member. Recall that thou hast been snatched from the power of darkness and translated into the light and kingdom of God. Through the sacrament of baptism thou hast been made a temple of the Holy Spirit. Do not drive away so great a dweller by wicked deeds, and do not subject thyself again to the servitude of the devil; for thy price is the blood of Christ, who shall judge thee in truth, because mercy hath redeemed thee." And St. Augustine, sermon 24 On the Seasons, volume X: "The first, he says, nativity is from male and female: the second nativity is from God and the Church. Behold, they are born of God. Whence it came to pass that he dwelt in us. A great change: he was made flesh, this one spirit. What is this? What manner of condescension, my brethren? And lift up your minds to hope for and to receive greater things; do not add yourselves to worldly desires. Ye are bought with a price: for you the Word was made flesh, for you who were the Son of God, was made the son of man, that you who were sons of men, might be made sons of God." The same in Psalm 52: "Sons, he says, of men are they when they do evil; when they do well, sons of God. For God maketh these sons of God from sons of men, because from the Son of God God made a son of man. See what that participation of divinity is! For the Son of God became a partaker of our mortality, that mortal man might become a partaker of his divinity. He who promised thee divinity showed forth in thee charity." Hear also St. Cyril of Jerusalem, catechesis 7: "Knowing this therefore, he says, let us conduct ourselves spiritually, that we may be made worthy of the adoption of God. For they who are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God, etc. Lest perhaps this also be said to us, if ye were the children of Abraham, ye would do the works of Abraham. For if we call him father, who judgeth the work of each without respect of persons, not without fear shall we pass the time of our sojourn or pilgrimage, not loving the world, nor the things that are in the world. For he that loveth the world, the charity of the Father is not in him. Therefore, beloved, let us glorify our heavenly Father by our works, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. Let us cast all our care upon him: for our Father knoweth what things we have need of." Hear also St. Ambrose, book V On Faith, chapter 3: "In those, he says, in whom God seeth his Son according to his image, he adopteth them through his Son into the grace of sons: so that as we are according to image to image, thus through generation we are called into adoption of sons." And soon after: "Be ye perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect. But if he is perfect according to the fullness of his majesty, we are perfect according to the progress of advancing virtue." This is what, marveling and wondering, St. John inculcates to Christians, epistle 1, chapter 3, verse 1: "Behold, he says, what manner of charity the Father hath given us, that we should be called and should be the sons of God. Dearly beloved, now we are the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know that when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is." Consider in human affairs how great is the dignity to be the son of a prince, a king, an emperor (for this son is by this very fact more dignified than all other men of the whole kingdom), and know that the same holds in divine matters, to be reckoned a son of God. To be therefore a son of God is immeasurably more than to be a king, a pontiff, an emperor, a lord of heaven and earth; nay, more than to be an angel, an archangel, a cherub, a seraph. How therefore is this sonship of God to be desired, how to be received, how carefully to be preserved, and, if it be lost, to be recovered! How great thanks are to be given to God for it by any just man? How great confidence, love and reverence ought the just man himself to exercise and conduct himself with God, as a son with a father, continually? Indeed, as with Noe, Enoch, Abraham, he is perfect in his generation and walketh with God; and he is more familiar with angels than with men. Truly St. Cyprian, book On Spectacles: "Never, he says, shall he marvel at human works, whosoever hath known himself to be a son of God. He casteth himself down from the height of his nobility, who can admire anything after God." The same, treatise On the Lord's Prayer: "When, he says, we say God our Father, we ought to act as sons of God; so that as we are pleased with ourselves because of God our Father, so he also may be pleased with us. Let us conduct ourselves as temples of God, that God may be seen to dwell in us, so that we who have begun to be heavenly and spiritual, may think and do nothing but spiritual and heavenly things."
1:11
11. The sons of Juda and the sons of Israel shall be gathered together. — Then the natural sons, namely the Jews and Israelites, who shall be converted to Christ, says St. Jerome, Haymo, Albert, Vatable, Arias and a Castro: then the sons of Juda and Israel according to the spirit, namely the gentiles, who shall be added to the family of Juda and Israel, and shall pass into it, imitating the faith of Abraham in Christ, and thus they shall be his adopted sons: "they shall be gathered," I say, into one Church of Christ. I know that St. Augustine in the places cited and Lyra distinguish these two things, and understand by Israel the gentiles, by Juda the Jews: on the other hand St. Jerome and Rupert understand by Juda the gentiles, by Israel the Jews converted to Christ. But I think this distinction is not necessary; for since by Israel and Juda are fundamentally understood the true Israelites and Jews who shall be converted to Christ; symbolically and mystically, however, the gentiles to be converted to Christ, who shall be associated with the converted Jews and Israelites in one and the same Church; I do not see why, or how in the faithful gentiles we ought to, or can distinguish Israel from Juda. Wherefore I judge that in the gentiles Israel is not separated from Juda; but the gentiles are associated with and added to both Juda and Israel faithful and believing in Christ, and therefore they are called both Juda and Israel. And they shall set to themselves one head. — Namely Christ the leader and guide, and his vicar the Roman Pontiff. And they shall ascend out of the earth. — He alludes to the return from the captivity of Babylon, as the Chaldean, Theodoret and Hugh note, as if to say: Just as formerly the Jews oppressed in Babylon, and as it were slaves proceeding with bent neck and head, when they were freed through Cyrus, thence went forth with raised head exulting and ascended to Jerusalem: so in like manner from the spiritual captivity, by which under sin and the power of the demon imprisoned, the Jews, Israelites and gentiles were held, they shall be freed through Christ, and thence shall go forth, and joyful and exulting shall ascend and go into the promised land, namely into Jerusalem, that is into the Church both militant on earth, and through it into the triumphant in heaven. This passage from infidelity, paganism and Judaism to faith and the Church is called an ascent, first, because it was from darkness and prison into light and a city, namely into the sublime Church, and into the admirable light of God, as St. Peter says; second, because it was a passage from servitude into freedom; for slaves proceed with bent neck, depressed and as it were descending; the free, however, with neck erect, and as it were ascending proceed. Third, the word ascend denotes that the life of Christians is not earthly, as is that of the unfaithful; but heavenly, and that they ascend from the earth in mind and conversation into heaven: "For our conversation is in heaven," as St. Paul says. Fourth, Lyra and Ribera add, by the voice of ascending is signified the increase and propagation of faith and the Church, as if to say: The faithful shall ascend out of the earth, that is they shall grow gradually, and spread widely throughout the whole world and propagate themselves like a fountain, which springing forth from the earth gushes forth waters, but small ones, which however partly by the continual gushing forth of the fountain, partly by the confluence of other fountains and streams so grow, that they make a great lake or river. Thus ascend is taken for grow, Jerem. xlvi, 7, where of Pharao and his numerous army it is said: "Who is this that riseth up like a flood, and his waters are moved like the rivers? Egypt riseth up like a flood, and his waters shall be moved like rivers, and he shall say: I will ascend and cover the earth." And of the armies of Nabuchodonosor, cap. xlvii, 2: "Behold," he says, "waters ascend from the north, and shall be like an overflowing torrent, and shall cover the earth." Thus Ezechiel, cap. xix, 3, says: "And she brought up one of her whelps, and he became a lion;" for brought up in Hebrew is to make ascend, that is exalted him and promoted him to be king. And the Psalmist, Psalm. xcvi, 9: "Thou art exalted very much," in Hebrew thou hast ascended very much (O Lord) above all gods, that is before all the gods of the nations thou hast exalted and enlarged thy strength and glory. Because (in Hebrew כי ki, which often is not causal, but assertive and admiring, and means the same as indeed, certainly, truly) great is the day of Jezrael. — "Great," that is most celebrated, most joyful and most happy. Thus the Romans called great those days which put an end to great troubles, long labors and miseries, and therefore were most joyful, most desired and most auspicious. Thus concerning this same day of Osee, namely the days of the Messiah, the Sibyl sang in Virgil, eclogue iv: Great months shall begin to proceed. Thus Mathematicians call Great the year in which the seven planets, having completed their own courses, agree with each other, concerning which Cicero, book II On the Nature of the Gods: "Great," he says, "is the year, which contains twelve thousand five hundred fifty-four years, after which the Platonists said there would be a return and revolution of all things." Thus Christ brought back the great year, when he repaired all things, and restored them to their original beginning and happiness. On the other hand, small days are called days of humiliation, poverty and distress, Zacharias iv, 10: "Who," he says, "despised the small days?" in which namely Zorobabel laid the small and exiled foundations of the new temple. Now Jezrael, that is the seed of God, is called the people of God, or the Church gathered from Jews, Israelites and gentiles, whose head is Christ, whom the Apostle, Galatians vi, 16, calls "the Israel of God." The sense therefore is, as if to say: Indeed great, illustrious, auspicious, admirable, and thrice and four times blessed will be that day, that age, in which the Israelites and Jews, both natural and mystical and adopted, namely gentiles converted to Christ, formerly scattered and wandering, shall be gathered into one, so that they may become Jezrael, that is one people, one Church, namely children of the living God, so that they may place for themselves one head Christ, and begin to ascend from earth to heaven. O how happy, how new and never before seen, how clear and glorious will be, and what a change will it bring to each of the faithful and to the whole world, that day in which lo ammi shall become ammi, that is not my people shall become my people; in which lo rachama shall become rachama, that is she who was without mercy shall be full of the grace and mercy of God. Thus Albert, Haymo, Hugh, Lyra and Vatablus. O how salutary, august, heavenly and blessed will be that day, that age in which shall be born, shall preach and shall reign Jezrael, that is the Son of God, namely Christ the Lord, who Jezrael, that is the blessed seed, namely very many faithful, holy and glorious sons shall bring forth to God through preaching and heavenly life, both his own and that of his Apostles! Thus St. Jerome, Rupert, Albert, Leo Castrius, Emmanuel and Mariana. Hence this day of Jezrael can be understood as the day of the Incarnation, Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension of Christ, and Pentecost, or the sending of the Holy Spirit, and the preaching of the Apostles throughout the whole world. For by all these things Christ has worked and works daily our salvation, and has begotten and begets us to God; whence Haymo interprets the great day of Jezrael as the whole time of Christianity, namely all that has flowed from Christ and shall flow to the end of the world; for in all this time Jezrael, that is the Church, or the people of God, is begotten and propagated. Hence first, Leo Castrius here, and St. Cyril in the Glaphyra, book V, understand these things of the day of the Incarnation and Nativity of Christ: Great, they say, is the day of Jezrael, because from Jezrael, that is from the seed of God, namely from the Holy Spirit was conceived the Son of God; concerning whom the Psalmist said: "This is the day which the Lord hath made;" and Paul: "Behold now is the acceptable time, behold now is the day of salvation;" and Jeremiah, chapter xxxi, 22: "The Lord hath created a new thing upon the earth, a woman shall compass a man;" and Isaiah, chapter ix, 6: "A little child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, God, the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace." Indeed the Sibyl also in Virgil, eclogue iv, sings thus of him: A great order of ages is born anew: Now returns the Virgin, return the Saturnian kingdoms, Now a new progeny is sent down from high heaven, Dear offspring of the gods, great increase of Jupiter. Do thou but smile on the infant boy, at whose birth the iron race shall first cease, and a golden race shall arise throughout all the world, Chaste Lucina, favor him. Secondly, great will be the day of Jezrael, in which namely the Son of God, about to suffer and to die on the cross most cruel, "for the nation, and not only for the nation, but that he might gather together in one the children of God that were scattered," as St. John says, chapter xi, 52. For these are Jezrael, that is, "the seed whom the Lord hath blessed," Isaiah lxi, 9, concerning whom the same Isaiah says chapter vi, 13: "The holy seed shall be that which shall stand in it." Thirdly, great shall be the day of Jezreel, namely when the seed of God, that is Christ, shall rise again and revive. "Great," says Rupertus, "shall be the day, and great shall be the illumination of the seed of God, which is Christ; the seed, I say, rising from the dead, with whom rising together they shall certainly ascend from the earth, doing what the Apostle says: If you be risen with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God; mind the things that are above, not the things that are upon the earth. For you are dead, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. Thus indeed, the first ascension being made, which is the first resurrection, at length the bodies also shall ascend from the earth, which shall be the second resurrection; and they shall follow their head as members joined to the head, and as Christ himself expressed it, saying: Wheresoever the body shall be, there shall the eagles also be gathered together." Hence fourthly, the great day of Jezreel shall be the day of judgment and resurrection, when Christ the judge shall discern the seed of God from the seed of the devil, namely the elect from the reprobate, and shall call them forth to blessed and glorious life, and shall lead them with him into heaven to eternal triumph. Thus Cyril: "Great," he says, "truly is the day of Christ, when he shall raise up all who have finished their life, and he shall come down indeed from heaven, and shall sit upon the throne of his glory, and shall render to each according to his works." Whence concerning this day Joel says, chapter ii, 11: "Great is the day of the Lord, and terrible exceedingly: and who can bear it?" and verse 31: "The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before the great and terrible day of the Lord come. And it shall come to pass, that every one that shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, because in mount Sion and in Jerusalem shall be salvation, as the Lord hath said, and in the residue whom the Lord shall call." Behold these are the days of Jezreel. Again Jezreel signifies the arm of God. Thus all these days are Jezreel, that is days and works of the great arm, that is of great virtue and divine power: thus Arias. In like manner great was the day of Midian, namely when Gideon broke the Midianites, and freed the Hebrews from their yoke, which day was a type of this day of Christ our redeemer, concerning which therefore Isaiah sings, chapter ix, 4: "Thou hast broken the yoke of his burden, and the rod of his shoulder, and the scepter of his oppressor (namely the devil, O Christ), as (Gideon did) in the day of Midian." Where note: In this same valley of Jezreel Gideon overthrew the Midianites, as is said in Judges vi, 33, so that the Prophet plainly seems to allude to it here. See what I have said concerning the day of Midian on Isaiah ix, 4. This therefore is the great day of Jezreel, when through Christ incarnate that great mystery of the calling and adoption of the faithful was accomplished, which the Apostle so wonders at and admires in all his epistles. Whence Ephesians ii, 11, stirring up the Gentiles to thanksgiving and jubilation: "Remember," he says, "that you were at one time Gentiles, etc., were without Christ, alienated from the conversation of Israel, and strangers to the testaments, and had no hope of the promise, and were without God in this world. But now in Christ Jesus you, who were at one time afar off, are made nigh in the blood of Christ." And soon after: "Therefore now you are no more strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and the domestics of God." Hence again struck with wonder he exclaims: "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!" Romans xi, 33. Tropologically: The great day of Jezreel is for the Church, when many converted to it have become Jezreel, that is seed, that is children, of God. Such was the day when Constantine the Great, converted, converted the world subject to him. Great is the day for a nation or city, when freed from the yoke of heretics or Turks, it has passed into the liberty of the children of God, and into the kingdom of Christ, so that it ought perpetually to remember it, and with rejoicing sing with the Psalmist: "This is the day which the Lord hath made; let us be glad and rejoice therein." Thus great is the day for a faithful soul, when baptized and made faithful; when having relapsed into sin through penance it returned to the grace of God; when from the tumults of the world called by God to the state of perfection, it made profession; when initiated into the priesthood, etc. For on these days, either simply or more excellently, it has become Jezreel, that is seed or daughter of God, so that it ought deservedly to celebrate them returning each year with great thanksgiving, praise and jubilation, and to sing with the Blessed Virgin: "My soul doth magnify the Lord. And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Because he that is mighty hath done great things to me, and holy is his name. He hath showed might in his arm." Thus the great day of Jezrael was that on which Judith, slaying Holofernes, liberated the fatherland, which the Hebrews therefore celebrated with an annual feast, as is evident from Judith, last chapter, verse 31. Thus great was the day of Jezrael on which Esther rescued the Jews destined for slaughter, which posterity therefore commemorated annually with the feast of Purim, that is, of lots, Esther chapter ix, verses 26 and 31. Thus great was the day of the Encaenia, that is, the dedication of the temple, both first accomplished through Solomon, III Kings viii, and restored through Esdras, I Esdras vi, and afterwards through Judas Maccabaeus, I Maccabees iv, 52. Thus great was the day of Nicanor slain by Judas, and the annual feast, I Maccabees vii, 49. Thus great was the day of the sacred fire given from heaven to Aaron, and recovered under Judas Maccabaeus, by which victims were to be burned, II Maccabees i, 18. Thus great a day, indeed a year, was the fiftieth, namely the jubilee, Leviticus xxv.
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.
1:1
1 ) Osee 2) Amos 3) Micha 4) Ioel 9) Abdias 6) Iona. Iam quaeri potest, unde iste ordo repetatur. Vetus est traditio * , eum ex ratione temporis quo singuli prophetaverint derivari ; asserit enim S. Hier.: « in quibus tempus non praefertur in titulo, sub illis eos regibus prophetasse (vos admonitos volo), sub quibus et hi qui ante eos habent titulos prophetaverunt » ( Praef. in proph. M. 28, 1016 ) ; idque saepius inculcat v. g. ad Ioel 1, 1 scribens : « tempora in quibus prophetavit eadem debemus accipere, quae et in Osee legimus » ( M. 25, 930 ). Atque revera ii, quorum titulis reges sunt adscripti, serie temporis inter se subsequuntur : agmen ducit Osee ?n diebus Oziae regis luda.. et in diebus leroboam regis Israel, sequitur Amos ei aequalis iisdem regibus duobus adscriptus ; Michaeas autem prophetavit im diebus loatham, 1. Eandem affert rationem Theophylactus in prooemio expos. s. proph. M. 126, 569. Achaz et Ezechiae ; Sophonias in d:ebus losiae ; Aggaeus in anno secundo Darii regis in mense sexto, Zacharias eodem anno in mense octavo. De aliis haec statui possunt : Malachias certo vaticinatus est post Aggaeum et Zachariam ; nam 14, 6 et seq. 3, 10 cultus Dei in templo iam ex aliquo tempore exercetur ; populus iam diutius in terra versatur 12, 1'1 et demum eadem, quae Nehemias reprehendit, a Malachia vituperantur ; cf. 2, 11; 3, 8- 10 et Neh. 13, 10 - 14. 23 seq. Habacuc quoque serie temporis rite est collocatus. Nam, uti ex eius vaticinio elucet, munus obiit antequam Chaldaei Palaestinam invaderent, et controversia solum agitari potest, utrum prioribus Iosiae annis an iam ultimis Manassis vates exstiterit. Neque dubium est, quin etiam Nahum suo loco enumeretur. Vaticinium enim respicere videtur cladem a Sennacherib Iudaeis illatam (cf. 14, 9. 12; 2, 1. 3; immo 2, 14 optime explicatur ex Is. 36, 13; 31, 9) et certo est compositum, cum expugnatio Thebarum urbis Aegypti (No-Amon ; Alexandria populorum in vulg.) esset adhuc recenti memoria animis hominum impressa. Iam ex inscriptionibus assyriacis discimus, eam urbem captam fuisse ab Asurbanipal, filio et successore Asarhaddon, in secunda eius in Aegyptum expeditione, quam suscepit contra Urdamani (Rud-Amon), qui post Tharacam (Tirhaqa) regnum tenuit. Quare haud immerito colligimus, Nahum circa annum 660 a. Ch. vaticinatum esse (cf. Schrader, Keilinschr. und das A. T. 2. ed. p. 450. 432.) ; iure igitur subsequitur Michaeam, qui sub Ezechia exstitit. Unde ceteris omnibus suo temporis ordine recensitis restat quaestio de Ioel, Iona, Abdia, eaque gravior et maiori obscuritati obnoxia. Pauca interim sufficiant. Atque Ioel quidem ponitur ante Amos cum hic versum 1, 2 proferat ex abrupto, qui suo in contextu apud Ioel legitur, quem igitur Amos notum iam esse supponit. Neque negari poterit, Abdiam merito eo loco inseri, dummodo quis verbis prophetae bene expensis perspexerit, non esse sermonem de chald«ica urbis expugnatione, verum illos tangi eventus, de quibus etiam Amos cp.1 et Ioel 3, 6 loquuntur (plura vide in Prolegg. ad Abdiam, infra). Ionas autem, cum ipsius patrisque nomen congruat, idem ille Ionas esse videtur, qui sub Ieroboam II vixerit cf. 4 Reg. 14, 23 ; unde rite adnumeratur cum Amos, qui in diebus Ieroboam vixit et ante Michaeam, qui in diebus loathan munere est functus. Quae cuin ita sint, traditio illa de ordine temporis haud infirmis innititur fundamentis. reliquos superantem — at nonne secundum epicrisin Masoretharum numerus versuum apud Osee est 197, et apud Zachariam 211? quare si ex ambitu ordinem repeti Keil vult, Zacharias ' primo loco debuit incedere! — eos autem, quorum tituli tempus non prae se ferrent, ita fuisse dispositos, ut singulis prophetis in terra Iuda singuli adderentur ex terra Israel oriundi, et Ioel quidem utpote rmaiorem cum Osee maiore, Abdiam minorem cum Amos, lona cum Michaea et Nahum cum Habacuc;loel quoque ideo ante Amos immediate, quia Amos a versu loelico ordiatur ; Abdiam autem post Ámos, quia eius de Edom oraculum Taior videri potuerit explicatio vaticinii ab Amos 9, 12 propositi ; Ionam vero ante Michaeam collocatum videri, non solum quia ante Michaeam vates exstiterit, sed etiam quia eius ad gentes legatio optime ad Abdiae oraculi initium adnectatur : legatum ad gentes misit. — Verum minora haec sunt et valde incerta ; neque sane iis robore suo destituuntur ea, quae de ordine temporis observato demonstravimus. Ordini a Keil proposito etiam subscribit tamquam probabilissimo recentissimus prophetarum minorum interpres Trochon (Les petits prophétes ; Paris 1883 p. III). Il. —Quaenam potissimum exstent commentariorum subsidia. Ex titulo antiquitatis primo loco commemorari oportet S. Ephraem Syri explanationes in septem minorum prophetarum : Osee, Ioel, Amos, Abdiam, Michaeam, Zachariam, Malachiam . Exstant syriace et in versione latina, quae tamen saepe nimis est verbosa neque satis accurate et fideliter textum originalem reddit, in editione operum S. Ephraem, Romae facta an. 1140 et adornata a Petro Benedicto S. Y. — Non sunt per modum commentarii continui, cum sat multi versus sine ulla explicatione transmittantur ; neque certa methodus observatur, cum modo sensus literalis, modo solum allegoricus, modo uterque exprimatur. — Aetate subsequitur Theodorus Mopsuestenus, cuius commentarii in proph. min. integri servati sunt (OR. 66, 123 — 636). Magnis eum laudibus ornat, qui eos commentarios in fucci edidit, Angelus Ma?us ( cf. M. 1. c. 118) — at sane desideratur apud Theod. M. interpretandi genus magis lucidum, modus dicendi magis simplex ac perspicuus, accuratior rerum sententiarumque explanatio et. etiam, quod nequaquam minimum est, maior in explanandis vaticiniis messianicis fides; rarius enim vera de Christo vaticinia agnoscit, pleraque ad Christum accommodari posse opinatus. Alios interpretes, qui ante ipsum laboraverint, nomine non effert ; raro ex iis, quos sola appellatione «vig citat, aliqua effert, raro refutat. De eo cf. Cornely, Introd. I p. 623. 1. Etiam S. Hier. eum vocat « inter duodecim longissimum » ; prol. in Zachar. Pluribus nominibus commendandi sunt S. Hieronymi commentarii in prophetas minores (M. 235, 813 — 15'8). Primus ille mentionem infert, qui et quomodo ante ipsum commentarios condiderint : scil. Origenes in Osee, Zach. et Mal. ; Apollinaris Laodicenus in Osee et Mal. ; Didymus in Osee et Zach. ; Hippolytus in Zach. (cf. 1. c. 819. 1418. 1543 ). In prol. ad Osee praeterea commemorat « longissimum Pierii tractatum, quem in exordio huius prophetae die vigiliarum Dominicae passionis ex temporali et diserto sermone profudit. Et Eusebius Caesariensis in octavo decimo libro Ebzyyexz; a«xc5eíeog quaedam de Osee propheta disputat ». Ex hisce temporum iniuria nihil ad nos pervenit. Quod tamen ex iis, quae S. Hier. innuit, non multum erit dolendum. Apollinaris enim « nimia brevitate lectorem ad perfectam intelligentiam ducere non potest » (ita de eius in Osee librum), similiter in Mal. « non tam interpretationem quam interpretationis puncta » conscripsit. Origenes autem parvum in Osee scripsit libellum, « volens ostendere quaecumque contra Ephraim dicuntur, ad haereticorum referenda personam.. et aliud volumen axégaAc» xat ax£Aeotcv, quod et. capite careat et fine ». In Zach. autem « duo tantum Origenes scripsit volumina, vix tertiam partem a principio libri usque ad visionem quadrigarum edisserens ». Et de eius in Mal. commentariis hoc iudicium fert S. Hier.: « scripsit in hunc librum Origenes tria volumina ; sed historiam omnino non tetigit et more suo solus in allegoriae interpretatione versatus est, nullam Ezrae faciens mentionem, sed angelum putans fuisse qui scripsit » (1. c. 1543). Utiliora sane erant, quae Didymus composuit ; eum enim S. Hier. valde coluit et « virum sui temporis eruditissimum » vocat, qui tres libros eo petente in Osee dictavit, quinque alios in Zach. — Demum 5S. /lier. in prol. ad Ionam de compluribus expositoribus ita iudicat nominibus suppressis : « scio veteres ecclesiasticos tam graecos quam latinos super hoc libro multa dixisse et tantis quaestionibus non tam aperuisse quam obscurasse sententias, ut ipsa interpretatio eorum opus habeat interpretatione et multo incertior lector recedat, quam fuerat antequam legeret » (1. c. 11177). — Quibus autem ipsius S. Hier. commentarii commendentur, notum est : veterum versiones saepe affert et expendit, sensum historicum non negligit, quae Christum et Ecclesiam spectant, praeclare proponit ; praeterea multa inserit, quae et dogmata et mores respiciunt ( cf. Cornely, Introd. I p. 633 ). Inter graecos laudandus est Theodoretus, Cyri episcopus, qui suo modo i. e. breviter, perspicue, apte sensum literalem explicat ( M. 81, 1545 — 1988) et eadem ratione omnes 12 prophetas exponit. Uberiore sermone, quo praeter res historicas multas plurima quoque moralia et mystica pertractantur, prophetas prosecutus est S. Cyrillus Alexandrinus ( M. 14, 9— 1062). Ex horum potissimum explicationibus TAeopAylactus pauca de suo addens suos conflavit commentarios in Osee, Habacuc, Ionam, Nahum, Michaeam ( M. 126, 563 — 1189) ; operis rationem ita ipse declarat : « cum in mandatis mihi dederit pia et literarum amantissima imperatrix, ut ex vetustis in prophetas elucubratis commentariis unum aliquod volumen componerem, brevitati simul et claritati consulens, quaeso eos, qui forte legent, ne temere iudicent.... ; quoniam autem trifariam isthaec prophetarum oracula exponere a pia imperatrice sum iussus, cum id alicubi praestiterim, alibi vero pro mearum imbecillitate virium praestare non potuerim, quaeso, ne istud etiam acerbiore iudicio mihi vitio vertatur; non enim omnia eiusmodi sunt, quae triplicem expositionem recipere commode queant ». De iis inter alia vide Cornely, Introd. I p. 626 seq. 642. Inter latinos mentione dignus commentarius inter opera Rufini receptus et olim Rufino adscriptus, quare eum sub nomine Ps. Ruf. allegamüs ; complectitur tres solum prophetas : Osee, Ioel, Amos ( M. 21, 959-1104). Auctor ille saepe iusto acerbius in S. Hier. sententias invehitur — quare eum Rufinum esse multi opinati sunt — alia tacito nomine S. Hier. cum approbatione et doctrinae specie sua facit. Dicendi genus saepe est implexum ; ceterum utiliter consuli potest. Sunt, qui Orosium eius commentarii auctorem censeant (cf. M. 1l. c. Cornely l. c. p. 633). Nihil pro re exegetica praebet S. Paterii expositio, quae ex «testimoniis» S. Gregorii M. est collecta ; aliqua enim effata S. Patris allegorica et mystica ad paucos versus afferuntur ( M. '19, 1001-1018). — Haimo- ^is, episcopi halberstatensis, enarratio in duodecim prophetas minores (M. 1171, 11- 294) ferein omnibus commentarios S.Hier. ita sequitur, ut eos in breviorem formam redactos referre omnino videatur !. Multa quoque ipsius S. Hier. verbis suis commentariis inseruit R. D. D. Rupertus, abbas tuitiensis, sed et multa de suo addidit et historica, sed praesertim allegorica et quae ad pietatis exhortationem et institutionem spectant (M. 168, 9-836). Vide quoque Cornely l. c. p. 641. 654. Methodus scholastica in expositione, quae frequentibus et subtilioribus divisionibus textuum et argumenti partitione frequentiore cernitur, deprehenditur in enarratione duodecim prophetarum Alberti Magni, episcopi ratisbonensis ; singulos textus, immo saepe singula verba diligenti aliorum locorum similium allegatione illustrat, qua in re prorsus miram S. Scripturae cognitionem prodit, cum sine concordantiarum (quas vocant) adminiculo tot e diversis libris locos apte congesserit. Ceterum cum utilitate consulitur b. Albertus et eius explanationes aptae ac solidae invenientur non paucae. Exstant eius in duodecim prophetas commentarii in operum eius tomo octavo, Lugduni 1631. — Ingens commentandi discrimen deprehendes inter Rupertum et Albertum ; ille diffusus, per longas digressiones in varia doctrinae et allegoriae capita excurrens ; hic brevis, concisus, per singula sacri textus verba sobrie incedens et singulos libros, capita, partes logice dividens ac subdividens !. Qui saeculis posterioribus operam impenderunt prophetis minoribus, sunt praecipue hi : Robertus Holcoth 1349 (cf. Quetif et Echard, Scriptores Ordinis Praedicatorum, 1,631) ; Simon de Heintun t 1360 : moralia super prophetas minores (Quetif l. c. 648) ; Simon Anglus t 1391 : commentaria super prophetas minores (Quetif II, 821) ; Iulius Dacus 1 ante 1400 : lectura super XII prophetas minores (Quetif l. c. I, 29) ; Joannes Pedro t 1410 : commentaria in prophetas XII minores (Quetif l. c. I, 843) ; Matthias Aquarius 11591 : postillae in XII pr. m. (Quetif II, 303). Hisce multo notior, celebrior, longeque utilior est Benedictus Arias Mon- (anus t 1598, qui praeter Bibliam regiam edidit Commentarium in 12 prophetas minores, Antwerpiae 13711, 1382 (cf. Nicol. Antonius, Bibliotheca Hispana nova I, 208. H. Hurter S. I. Nomenclator literarius, I, 131). Etiam Francisco Foreiro, celebri Isaiae commentatori, attribuuntur commentarii in prophetas minores (cf. Nic. Antonius l. c. I, 426). Paulus Palacios de Salazar evulgavit : in 12 prophetas minores commentaria (1381 in Portugallia; 1583 Coloniae), quae laudantur «docta plane, erudita et gravitate plena» (cf. Hurter l. c. 166 ; Nic. Antonius l. c. HI, 162). Michael de Palacios, eius frater vere germanus non solum sanguine, sed etiam studiorum genere et excellentia inter alia scripsit : explanationes in XII prophetas minores secundum omnes sacrae scripturae sensus, Salmanticae 1393. (cf. Nic. Antonius l. c. II, 162). Petrus Figueiro, regularis canonicus in monasterio regio s. Crucis conimbricensi scripsit in 12 prophetas minores commentaria, quae in operum eius toma posteriore, Lugduni 1615, edita sunt. Ipse iam 1392 fatis cessit (cf. Hurter 1. c. 169). Etiam Blasius Viegas S. I. (11599) reliquit opus in prophetas minores (cf. Nic. Antonius I, 930). Verum hos omnes longe superat Franciscus Ribeira S. 1. (1 1991) ; repetito excusi sunt : Commentarii in XII prophetas minores, sensum eorundem prophetarum historicum et moralem, saepe etiam allegoricum complectentes, Romae 1390 ; Salmanticae 13598 ; Coloniae 1599 ; 1600 ; Lutetiae 1611 ; Duaci 1612. Sensum historicum dilucide et saepe feliciter explicat ; textum hebr. respicit, in hoc tantum minime imitandus, quod eum repugnantem etiam cum versione vulg. conciliare studet. Laudes viri docti lege apud Vc. Antonium I, 466 ; Hurter l1. c. 166; Cornely l. c. 676. — Eam sequitur methodum, ut singulas partes exponat primo historice (et ea etiam hodierno interpreti sint utiliter consulenda), dein secundum allegoriam, demum secundum tropologiam (ubi multa praeclare disputat pro pia meditatione et applicatione s. Scr.). Saepius edita sunt !, quae Christophorus de Castro S. l. (t 1615) scripsit : Commentariorum in 12 prophetas libri 12 cum paraphrasi. Praemittitur Isagoge ll. 4, in quibus omnia, quae pertinent ad vaticinium naturale, artificiale et propheticum exponuntur ; Lugd. 1613 ; Moguntiae 1616 ; Antwerpiae 1619 (cf. Hurter 1. c. 331). — Commentarios in prophetas omnes (Romae 1625) reliquit Fabricius Paulutius (Y. 1625 ; cf. Hurter l. c. 616). — Magni nominis et meriti inter exegetas iure habetur Caspar Sanctius (Sanchez t 1628) S. I. qui optima paraphrasi et commentariis prophetas illustravit ; sensum literalem et historicum diligenter et saepe valde feliciter investigat, ubertim exponit, magna eruditione ex literis sacris, scriptoribus ecclesiasticis et profanis declarat, aliorum interpretum sententias fideliter refert, subtili iudicio expendit et demum, quod inter exegetae merita pro eo tempore non est ultimo loco collocandum, ab allegoricis expositionibus abstinet. Brevi is est Sanctius, ut nullo modo liceat interpreti eius volumina negligere (cf. Hurter |. c. 603). Tropologiam praecipue excoluit Thomas Colona O. Cap. (t 1646) : Commentaria moralia super duodecim prophetas minores, Panormi 1644 (Hurter l. c. 8171) ; exercitationes in prophetas maiores et minores edidit (Parisiis 1630) Henricus Lud. Castanaeus (Chasteigner de la Roche-Posai), episcopus pictaviensis (t 1651 ; cf. Hurter l. c. 802) ; commentarios in 12 prophetas minores elaboravit Joannes Phelippaeus (Phelipeaux) S. I. (t 1643 ; cf. Hurter 1. c. 806). Commentarium literalem et moralem gallice edidit Franciscus Pean de la Coullardiere (T 1680), Parisiis 1680 (cf. Hurter ]. c. tom. II p. 123). Demum nominandus est, Andreas Patrono S. I. (t 1132), qui Neapoli 1743 duobus tomis in prophetas minores commentarios conscripsit (cf. Hurter |. c. 1309). Merito vero oblivioni dantur commentaria acerrimi Ianseniani Francisci Joubert (117163), quae spiritu sectae referta sunt et millenariorum somnia tuentur (cf. Ilurter 1. c. II, 1308 in nota). Ex recentiore tempore cum laude commemorandus est Petrus Schegg, die kleinen Propheten, 2 t. (Regensburg 1854). Mentione valde dignus est commentarius satis amplo sententiarum delectu et multorum librorum subsidio commemorato instructus, quem edidit sacerdos parisiensis, Trochon (Les petits prophétes ; introduction critique, traduction francaise et commentaire, Paris 1883). Speciatim locos messianicos sedulo pertractat Laurentius Reinke, die messianischen Weissagungen, t. Ill. IV. (Giessen, 1861. 1862). | lam ii essent recensendi, qui integram s. Scripturam commentariis illustrarunt et ideo inter interpretes quoque prophetarum minorum adnumerari debent. Verum cum nuper in Prolegomenis ad Iobum eos maximam partem adscripserimus et cum eorum mentio satis ampla facta sit in Introductione generali a Cornely conscripta i. e. in primo huius Cursus s. Scripturae volumine (p. 618 et seq.), hoc loco idem catalogus non erit repetendus. Insuper vide longam interpretum eorumque operum enumerationem quam sedulo concinnavit Vigouroua (Manuel biblique I, 214 et seq.). Interpretes protestantes recensere supersedeo. Eos invenies enumeratos apud Rosenmüller, Scholia in vetus Testamentum (Lipsiae 1812), partis septimae vol. I p. 41 et seq. Keil, Lehrbuch der Einleitung ; p. 213. De Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch der hist. — krit. Einl. (8 editio) p. 448; etc. Sufficiat duos nominasse, unum e rationalistarum castris : die zwoelf kleinen Propheten, erkl. von Dr. Ferd. Hitz!g (3. ed. Leipzig 1863), alterum, qui piis atque inter suos orthodoxis accenseri debet et qui solide ac docte textum hebr. explanat : Carl. Friedrich Keil, Biblischer Commentar zu den zwolf kleinen Propheten (Leipzig 18606). Ut conspectum hunc absolvamus, ii quoque addendi sunt, qui unum alterumve ex prophetis minoribus commentariis explicarunt : ex quibus potissimum hos accipe : Ven. Guiberti Tropologiae in prophetas Osee et Amos ; prostant apud M. 156, 331-450. Hugo de S. Victore : Adnotatiunculae elucidatoriae in loelem et Expositio moralis in Abdiam (M. 1715, 321-406). In Osee scripserunt : Osortus (T1580) qui in Zachariam quoque commentaria composuit et praecipue sententiarum ordinem et nexum respicit ; laudatur a Duptn et Calmet (cf. Hurter l1. c. I, 58) ; Leo de Castro (t 1586) commentaria in Oseam prophetam ex veterum Patrum scriptis, Salmanticae 1386 (cf. Hurter ]. c. 1, 164) ; Hieronymus de Guadalupe commentaria in Hoseam prophetam christianae philosophiae praeceptis pie accommodata, adiectis observationibus etc, Caesaraugustae 1581, Venetiis 4385 et saepius (cf. Hurter 1. c. 169) ; Thogias de Sousa (t 1510) commentaria in prophetias Osee et Ioelis (cf. Quetif l. c. II, 213) ; Franciscus de Franchis, enucleavit Oseam t. 3 Panormi 1643. 1647. 1650, quibus titulus Salvator mysticus (cf. Hurter |. c. 818). Cum laude nominandus est Franciscus Vavasseur S. L (T 1681), inter cuius opera etiam exstat commentarius in Oseam.- Ex recentissimo tempore commentarius adest magna laude dignus et solida explanatione insignis, quem Antonius Scholz edidit : Commentar zum Buche des Propheten Osee, Würzburg 1882 (-de quo uberius iudicium tuli in «Stimmen aus Maria Laach» t. 93. (1882, 9) p. 299). Ad prophetam Ioel adnotandi sunt : Gilbertus Genebrardus O. S. B. (t 1597), a quo editus est Ioel propheta cum chaldaica paraphrasi et commentariis Salomonis Iarhii, Abrahami Aben-Ezra et Davidis Kirahi, latine, Parisiis 1563 (cf. Hurter l. c. 196) ; Ludovicus de Alcazar S. I. (t 1613) in opere «in eas V. T. partes quas respicit Apocalypsis libri 9» Lugduni 1631 libro S. explicat Ioelis cap. 3; Habacuc cap. 3; Zachariae vaticinium cap 1-'1 (cf. Hurter l. c. 343) : ex nostro tempore Adalbert Merz, die Prophetie des Ioel und ihre Auslegung von den aeltesten Zeiten bis zu den Reformatoren, Halle a. S. 18/9 ; de quo libro sermo erit in Prolegg. ad Ioel. Interim dicere sufficiat, librum esse utilem non ipsa explanatione, sed enarratione sententiarum et explicationis methodo priscorum interpretum ; auctorem vero, utpote rationalistam, saepius uti sermone virulento et acerbiore ; interpretes iudaicos eorumque opiniones sedulo et fuse exponi. Denique Antonius Scholz scripsit : Commentar zum Buche des Propheten Ioel, Würzburg 1883; de quo vide plura in Prolegg. et explicatione infra. De Ionae explicatione scripserunt : Marcellinus Evangelista O. Min. (t 1599) edidit expositiones in Ionam, Camerini 13884 ; Gabriel d'Acosta (T 1616) reliquit commentarios in Ionam et in Malachiam ; Franciscus Salinas S. I. scripsit commentarios literales et morales in Ionam, Lugduni 1632, 1635 ; Franciscus a Vitrio, Neapoli 1643 (cf. Hurter l. c. 193. 133. 811. 818) ; Angelus Pacinchelli O. Praed. (t 1660) pro concione declamavit lezioni morali sopra Giona profeta, quae saepius editae sunt Perusiae 1631. 1603. Venetiis 1664. 17101 (cf. Quetif l. c. II, 592). Ex tempore recenti Franciscus Kaulen : librum Ionae exposuit, Moguntiae 1862 ; idque literaliter (p. i-18), allegorice (p. 9-113), moraliter (p. 114-145). Literalis expositio dilucida est et illustrata etiam ex Iudaeorum commentariis, praecipue ex Aben-Ezra, Iarchi, Kimchi ; allegorica et moralis apta ad pietatem nutriendam, utilis ad doctrinam neque iniucunda. Ad Michaeam praeter eos, quiriam nominati sunt, notari potest Caspar Grarar, cuius commentarius editus est Salmanticae 1510 (Hurter 1. c. 93). Ad Nahum : Hector Pintus hieronymianus (t 1584) : prophetia Nahum cum explanatione et observationibus ex hebraeo ; opera eius omnia prodierunt 3 vol. Lugduni, Parisiis 161'1 (cf. Hurter l. c. I, 160) ; Augustinus de Quiros S. Y. (t 1622) scripsit commentarios exegeticos literales in prophetas Nahum et Malachiam, Hispali 1622, Lugduni 1623 (Hurter l. c. 612). In Habacuc edidit exegemata (doctis variisque antiquitatum, linguarum et historiarum notis referta, teste Andrea Scoto ; elegantia, pia atque erudita secundum Possevinum) Antonius Guevara, Matriti 1583. 1393. Augustae Vindelicorum 1603. Antwerpiae 1609 (Hurter l. c. 410). Antonius Agellius surrentinus clericus regularis, episcopus accernensis (t 1603) reliquit inter alia opera «quae vel severioribus criticis Calmeto, Dupinio ac Simonio maxime commendata sunt», commentarium in prophetam llabacuc, Antwerpiae 169i (Hurter l. c. 368). Etiam Cornelius Iansenius, episcopus iprensis (t 1638) reliquit Analecta in Proverbia Salomonis, Ecclesiasten, Sapientiam, Habacuc !' et Sophoniam, Lovanii 1644. 1649 (cf. Hurter l. c. 6271). In Zachariam prophetam commentaria, Salmanticae 1511, edidit Didacus de Zuniga (etiam Stunica, Estunica) O0. Erem. S. Aug. (t 1889 ; cf. lHurter 1. c. 13). Commentariorum in Malachiam, quos Gabriel d' Acosla, Quiros condiderunt, aliorumque v. g. Osorii in Zachariam iam supra mentio facta est. Demum silentio minime sunt praetermittenda opera quibus Lar. Reinke praeter vaticinia messianica propriis libris illustrata complures ex minoribus prophetis explanavit : Der Prophet Malachi (Giessen, 1856), Der Prophet Zephanja (Münster, 1868), Der Prophet Haggai (Münster, 1860), Der Prophet Habakuk (Brixen, 18770), Der Prophet Micha (Giessen, 18'i4) ; magna cum diligentia in veteres versiones inquirit, cum solida rerum explanatione quaestiones philologicas et aliorum opiniones discutit, librorum subsidia amplissima enumeratione recenset. Varia sed maximam partem incerta et fabulosa de vita et genere mortis prophetarum traduntur in vitis prophetarum, quae exstant inter opera Epiphanio falso adscripta (M. 43, 403-414), in Chronico Paschali (M.92, 3359-398), apud Isidorum hispalensem : de ortu et obitu Patrum (M.83, 143) ; aliqua etiam leguntur apud Eusebium (M. 22, 1261-1267) et apud Hesychium, presbyterum hierosolym. in epitome duodecim prophetarum (M. 93,1348-1369). De Osee nihil aliud certo notum est, nisi quod ex ipsius libro colligi potest. Ex eo autem constat, ipsum in regno israelitico per multos annos munere prophetico functum esse. Eiusdem regni illum civem fuisse, plerique censent, idque ex eius dicendi genere et colore, in quo quippe dialectus quaedam ad Palaestinae septemtrionem et ad syriacam linguae indolem plus minusve accedens deprehendatur, facile coniici posse putant. At alii eum origini iudaicae vindicare volunt rationibus, uti fit in re prorsus incerta et inexplorata, tenuibus prolatis. Per multos annos eum oracula fudisse et populi scelera reprehendisse, ipsa libri inscriptio 1, 14 aperte prodit. Nam etsi apud aliquos in dubio relinquatur, utrum temporis illa designatio ab ipso Osee libro sit adiecta, an ea debeatur vel Esdrae, ut olim aliquibus placuit, vel oraculorum 12 prophetarum collectori, ut alii malunt (cf. v. g. Calm. Scholz), eius tamen inscriptionis fides atque integritas nullo modo in controversiam vocari potest. Quare si extremos vitae leroboam annos et primos Ezechiae regis computaveris (adverte, quae ad 1, 14 adnotavimus) et regiae aliorum potestatis annos, quos in sacris literis legimus, Ioatham scil. et Achaz, attenderis, prophetam per 60 eoque amplius annos muneris partes explevisse fateberis. Diu scilicet Dei providentia per eundem prophetam populum voluit erudire, quo magis ei, qui testis fuerit conditionis prosperioris sub Ieroboam et ruinae ingruentis, fides adhiberetur, si populum neque per Dei beneficia neque per varias castigationes ad meliorem frugem reduci potuisse verissime obiurgaret. Neque ea desunt in libro, ex quibus aliquo modo colligi potest eum etiam post populi ruinam esse vaticinatum (cf. 19, 9; 13, 10; 14,2.5) ; ita leremias quoque alio tempore sed simili regni iudaici conditione et urbi cadenti adstitit et prolapsam luxit frustra conatus ruinae ingruenti remedia afferre, attamen divinorum consiliorum praeco et utilissimus pro electis ex Israelet pro tempore futuro insignis. Rationes chronologicas hic discutere non est in animo. Sufficiat paucis innuere quae sententiae potissimum ferantur de iis regibus, quorum tempore Osee vaticinatus est. Ita pro subsequentibus quoque prophetis simul sufficienter ratio temporis indicabitur. Atque tempus quidem Oziae (Azariae) designatur ab anno a. Ch. 811 - 758 (ita Oppert, Salomon et ses successeurs p. 99) ; an.810 - 7759 (Keil, Commentar üb. d. Bücher d. K. p. 142 ; Zschokke, hist. s. ant. test. p. 236) ; an. 809 - 757 ( Al. Schaefer, bibl. Chronol. p. 140) ; an. 787 - 136 ( Neteler, Zusammenhang der alttest. Zeitrechnung mit der Profangesch.). lidem tempus Ioatham (lotham ) assignant ab an. 738 - 743 ; an. 91 - 744 ; an. 736 - 724 ; tempus Achaz ab an. 148 - "191 ; an. 144 - 796 ; an. 721 - 706 ; tempus Ezechiae ab an. 7277 - 698 ; an. 26 - 683 ( Schaefer ) ; an 1071 - 679 ( Neteler ) ; magis recedit, uti videtur, a sententia communiter recepta JVeteler. Accurate res discutitur in libello ab Al. Schaefer edito (Münster, 1879). .Veteler in altero fasciculo, sub eodem titulo an. 1885 edito, pauca quaedam in annorum computatione mutavit ; assignat enim regi loatham an. "37 - 792; regi Achaz an. 92 - "10'i ; regi Ezechiae an. '140 - 682. Pseudo - Epiphanius (de vitis proph. M. 43, 405) prophetam natum esse asserit in Belemoth in ditione tribus Issachar ; idem legitur apud Ephr. in initio explanationis, qui simul addit eum in terra eadem esse sepultum (aliorum testimonia vide apud Sanct.), alii Belemon nominant, quod nomen Scholz ad Too-5yi Baal - Meon vel Beth - Meon (cf. plenum nomen Beth — Baal — Meon legitur Ios. 13, 17) in tribu Ruben refert; indeque. natum esse opinatur commentum talmudicum, patrem prophetae fuisse Beera, principem in tribu Ruben, quem Theglathphalasar captivum duxerit (1 Par. 5, 6). Ceterum prope Dothain Esdrelonem versus vici Belma sive Belemon mentio fit Iudith 7, 3. — Ad colorem aramaizantem referri possunt fere haec : 9, 6 cop pro vsog ' ; 10, 14 DNp pro Bp ; forma tiphil »noaon, quae 14, 3 occurrit; saepius M cernitur pro usitato 53 cf. 13, 15 ; ad haec etiam referri possunt nnm 13,4; XM prO Dex 13, 10 ; et si scriptioni fides est adhibenda, illud quoque peculiare deprehenditur, quod olim Ephraimitis fatale erat cf. Iud. 19, 6, poni scil. & (D) pro 2 cf. 2, 8; 8, 4, 9, 12 et probabiliter etiam meta 9, 7. 8; et forte wt 1, 6. Alia, sed magis dubia, recensita invenies apud Keil, Scholz. Magna sedulitate Scholz (Einleitung XXIX et seq.) collegit locos, qui ex Osce deprompti apud alios s. scriptores imitatione expressi cernuntur, neque minus, qui ab ipso Osee de aliis transsumpti leguntur, praecipue vero, quos ex Pentateucho in usum suum converterit. Quae inquisitio magni meriti habenda est, cum tot sint hodie viri critici, qui Pentateuchum ad iuniorem originem reiiciendum esse statuunt. Similem catalogum locorum, quo res et verba Pentateuchi prophetae nostro nota fuisse demonstratur, etiam exhibet Laur. Reinke, Beitraege zur Erkl. d. a. T. vol. 8 p. 159. Osce in libro suo, quem ab ipso propheta compositum et in eum quo cernitur ordinem redactum esse (libri inscriptione 4, 4 forte excepta) omnes fatentur (cf. de Wette-Schrader, Lehrbuch der hist. krit. Einl. ed. 8 2. 284), compendium proponit eorum, quae sub variis regni israelitici regibus et fatis docuerat et monuerat. Sub Ieroboam II enim regnum israeliticum floruit et bellicis expeditionibus augebatur (4 Reg. 14, 93-27). Deus enim vidit afflictionem Israel amaram nimis ; at haec Dei miserantis opitulatio mentes populi ab idololatria reliquisque sceleribus non avertit; ipse leroboam non recessit/ab omnibus peccatis leroboam filii Nabat, qui peccare fecit Israel (& Reg. 14, 24); similiter populus luxuriei et impietati indulgebat, id quod reprehensionibus ab Osee et Amos factis satis superque comprobatur. Post Ieroboam regnum intestinis quoque seditionibus concutiebatur diu multumque, id quod caedibus et coniurationibus factis satis superque patet. Nam Zacharias, filius leroboam post sex menses regni a Sellum publice percussus et interfectus est (l1. c. 15, 10) ; Sellum iam post unum mensem a Menahem regno et vita spoliatus est ; Menahem vero crudelitate et caedibus regnum occupavit et ope Assyriorum, quos mille talentis argenti in sui subsidium conduxerat, confirmavit (l. c. 15, 16-20). Eius filius Phaceia iterum coniuratione et caede deiectus est a Phacee, sub quo magna israelitici regni pars ab Assyriis occupata et in captivitatem abducti sunt multi (l. c. 13, 29). Phacee vero ab Osee interfectus est. Is, ultimus rex Israel, factus est servus Salmanasar regis Assyriorum eique reddidit tributa ; at Osee ope Aegyptiorum iugum assyriacum excutere conatus demum sibi regnoque israelitico exitium ultimum adscivit (l. c. 17, 3-6). Omnes autem reges isti fecerunt, quod malum erat coram Domino. In ea rerum conditione Osee munere prophetico functus est. Scelera reprehendit, Dei castigationes annuntiat, spem instaurationis ostendit atque describit. Haec generatim. Liber apte tribus partibus dividitur. Prima cp. 1-3 continetur ; altera a cap. 4 usque ad 9, 9 protenditur ; tertia reliqua libri parte 9, 10-14, 10 absolvitur. Incipit vates ab actione symbolica ; se iussum esse narrat ad Dei foedus cum populo repraesentandum matrimonium inire cum muliere ablecta ; tribus ex ea liberis procreatis ea nomina imponit, quibus triplicis ruinae quae iamiam immineat, adumbratio cognoscatur, cladis scil. regiae domus, dissolutionis regni, populi in exsilium eiectionis. Sed interitui subiungit spem et promissionem instaurationis (cp. 1). Tali argumenti summa proposita iam cp. 2 populi crimina exagitat et condignas poenas a Deo iri inflictum denuntiat ; at pro Dei misericordia illas in fines salutares, ut scil. miseriis pressi ad Deum redeant, a Deo iri directum declarat. Novum quod post castigationem ineundum sit foedus sanctitatis et pacis ferax fore declarat. Demum cp. 3 denuo actione symbolica — adulteram uxorem ab omni commercio secludit — et populi infidelitatem et poenam captivitatis adumbrat. Ita prima pars simul totius libri argumentum iam praeoccupat, adeo ut ea quae subsequuntur non sint nisi maior quaedam illius explicatio et illustratio. Et altera quidem parte scelera praecipue reprehenduntur. Primo omnes alloquens filios Israel eos in Deum esse rebelles, legis Dei contemptores demonstrat, qui rerum prosperitate ad mala patranda abutantur ; idololatriae stultitiam et scelera ei adiuncta perstringit, quibus interitum sibi adsciscant (cp.4). Dein ad populi duces potissimum sermonem dirigit, qui populo sint laqueo et ruinae, quare insigni vindicta divina prosternentur, quam auxilii ab exteris efflagitatione adeo non avertent, ut eam augeant et plane ineluctabilem reddant. Át tribulatione populus Dei electus erudietur et Dominum salutis auctorem quaeret (5-6,3). Tum oratione tertia accusationem eousque prolatam auget enarrans, Deum varios adhibuisse et adhibere conatus, quibus ad meliorem frugem eos revocet. At eorum fides evanuit ; tamquam apostatae facti sunt ; omnes, etiam Iuda, etiam principes vitiorum igne accensi et divina spernunt et humana iura subvertunt. Inde factum est, ut gentium moribus et indole imbuti Deo sint fastidio ab eoque varie fuerint afflicti ; at quo magis a Deo puniebantur, eo magis ad exterorum opem et auxilia diffluunt, Deum vindicem spernentes neque salutis largitorem Dominum deprecantes (6, 4-1, 16). Ita sane Dei foedus abiecerunt, ut reges contra Dei voluritatem sibi constituerent et idola colerent. Indolem igitur regni theocratici funditus everterunt neque tot legibus scriptis atque promulgatis in officio continebantur ; quare ruinae implicabuntur ; eam iam luctuosissimam fore annuntiat et exsilii calamitate et luctu contineri declarat, ut scelerum multütudini poenae magnitudo quasi ex aequo respondeat (8, 1-9, 9). Quo Dei consilium miseratione plenum, populi vero contumacia clarius illustretur, 4n tertia parte propheta ex instituto recenset, qualia beneficia Deus populo impenderit, quid vero populus rependerit ; dein prosequitur salutis oriturae promissionem et descriptionem ; prisca enim illa beneficia simul pignora sunt, quibus Deus salutem messianicam in populo electo oriundam se daturum spopondit. Quare ex opposito inter se comparat propheta, quomodo Deus populum dilexerit, potentia rebusque secundis auxerit, lege sua erudierit — at qua ratione illi se peccatis maculaverint, donis Dei sint abusi, ex prisco iam tempore ad idololatriam deflexerint et luxuriae indulserint. Quare excidio perimendi sunt et castigatione ad frugem meliorem reducendi (9, 10 — 10, 15). Comparationem institutam prosequitur vates cp. 11 ; beneficia commemorat liberationis ex Aegypto, eruditionis per prophetas, suavis providentiae atque curae divinae in rebus angustis iis impensae ; ex adverso populi idololatriam et contumaciam et rebellionem perstringit poenamque etsilii et gladii denuntiat ; at poena soluta Deum miseratorem ac servatorem suos esse reducturum pollicetur. Dein alia ex parte degenerem populum Deus per prophetam aggreditur et reprehendit : Iacobi patris exemplum patientiae, pietatis, obedientiae iis proponit, et quantum a parentis mente et indole defecerint et Canaanitarum similitudinem et mores et idololatriam in se expresserint, iis exprobrat ; quare divina ultione poenas luendas ostendit et quantum castigationum iam experti sint, tangit ; verum cum sibi ipsi sint perniciei, Deum fidelem promissa sua gloriose impleturum et ab interitu eos revocaturum in piorum solatium iterato affirmat (12, 4 — 13, 13). Ultima denique cohortatione breviter primo iudicium impendens delineat modumque docet, quo ad Deum redire debeant, humili scil. supplicatione et humanae abiectione fiduciae. Qua ratione si ad Deum reversi fuerint, Deum opem illis laturum abundantissimam et fore promittit, ut Israel denuo floreat et salutem acceptam late diffundat. Quae vaticinia ut serio animis perpendant, hortatur ( 13, 15 — 14, 10). Brevi hoc conspectu iam elucet, in libro hoc compendium proponi et summam illorum, quae pro varia temporum conditione propheta uberius sane atque explicatius populo inculcaverit. Tempore Ieroboam illa sane exsecutus esse censendus est, quae Dei beneficia populo collata, ruinam regiae domus, populi luxuriam et idololatrjam spectant ; in perturbationibus subsequentibus ea latius certe proposuit, quae iustam Dei vindictam, quam iam tunc in se experiebantur, ostenderent ; cum vero Menahem ad Assyrios deflecteret aliis contra ad Aegyptios confugientibus, et cum Osee ab Aegyptiis opem efflagitaret, illa pronuntiavit, quibus vana ea esse conamina, irrita, Deo exosa demonstraret. Scelerum reprehensionem continuo ut adhiberet, regum impiorum populique morum corrup- numero pauci tamen certe inter impios aderant prophetae discipuli ) solatio erigeret, peccatores bonorum promissione, spe et desiderio meliore demulceret et divina ita disponente providentia temporibus quoque futuris per vaticinia divinae veritatis et salutis messianicae testimonium exhiberet. Dicendi genus Osee breve est, concisum, sensu turgidum; quare saepe etiam obscurum, quandoque fere aenigmaticum. S. Hier. rem acu tetigit dicens : « Osee commaticus est et quasi per sententias loquens» ( praefatio in XII proph.). Anc. — Inscriptio praemittitur toti libro communis (1, 1) . Generatim in hac parte tria proponuntur : populi peccatis dediti castigatio, via et praeparatio salutis, eius salutis indoles atque descriptio. Haec autem ita vates exsequitur, ut primo ad Domini foedus cum populo repraesentandum se iussum esse a Domino narret, connubium cum muliere olim fornicaria contrahere; liberos ex ea susceptos tres iis nominibus designare iubetur, quibus regiae domus clades, regni israelitici interitus ipsiusque populi a Domino reprobatio et in exsilium eiectio per gradus quosdam exprimantur (1, 2-9). Poenae vero denuntiationi immediate subdit eam, quae ex divina promissione iam olim patriarchis facta necessario consequitur, instaurationem populi Dei futuram, numero fidelium, sanctitate, concordia, Dei favore insignem (1, 10 - 2, 1). Hoc quasi prooemio praemisso iam secundo longiore oratione populi crimina imagine mulieris adulterae prosequitur et condignas castigationes minatur, quas Deus eo consilio inflicturus est, ut miseria attriti demum resipiscant. Propter peccandi obstinationem in summas calamitates delabentur, quibus Dei eiusque favoris olim habiti memoria innovatur (2, 2-1; 8- 13) ; ita castigatio in utilitatem cedet ; in exsilio positus populus ad Dei vocem animum advertet, idololatriam abiiciet, Deus autem novum foedus inibit cum populo, quod sanctitate et pace inviolabili erit insignitum ( 2, 14- 24). Tertio demum actione symbolica —— uxorem adulteram ab omni commercio secludit — viam declarat esse ad illam salutem populi captivitatem (3, 1-85) . Oziae, loathan, Achaz, Ezechiae, regum Iuda, et in. diebus leroboam, filii loas regis Israel » . — Ipsa nomina loquendique formulae, quibus prophetae utuntur: verbum Domini, visio, dizit Dominus etc., testantur, quantopere se a Deo res suas, quas annuntient, cormmmunicatas accipere et solo impulsu divino agi iis fuerit persuasum. Neque enim ullo pacto se ipsi muneri prophetico ingerunt neque suam auctoritatem, scientiam, prudentiam praetendunt, sed tamquam iuris ac missionis titulum verbum Domini ad ipsos factum suis libris praefigunt (cf. ler. 4, 2. Ioel 4, 4. Mich. 1, 1. Soph. 1, 1) vel visionis mentionem faciunt ( cf. Is. 14, 1. Am. 4, 1. Abd. 1. Nah. 1, 4. Hab. 4, 4). Ipsa inscriptionis ratio, qua temporis spatium sat longum exprimitur ( cf. Proleg.) , in subsequentibus summa tantum capita argumentorum et sermonum ab Osee habitorum per modum compendii nobis proponi ostendit, idque dicendi genere, quod plerumque uti quam maxime concisum est ita plane rebus et sensibus turgidum atque fecundum, - egregie confirmatur. Quis enim putaverit, sermones adeo rebus et cogitationibus infertos adeoque intellectu difficillimos plebeculae ita a propheta esse propositos, uti eos litteris consignavit ? Sed quae per multos annos fusiore oratione ac planiore docuerat, ea demum in compendium redacta popularibus reliquit, pretiosum sane Dei in suum populum benignitatis et providentiae documentum et divinorum consiliorum, quibus futura quoque saecula gubernentur, monumentum. - Reges legitimos domus David et primo loco nominari et sedulo per integram seriem recenseri, nemo mirabitur, qui promissiones stirpi Davi- - dicae factas (9 Reg. 1, 44 etc.) vel vaticinium a Iacob prolatum « non recedet sceptrum de Iuda » prophetam nostrum rite perspexisse non negaverit. Id potius mireris, quod regis quoque Israel mentionem facit. Rationem affert haud incongruam Rup. hanc : « quia contra quos Elias et Eliseus ceterique prophetae steterunt idololatras reges Israel, contra ipsos etiam dirigebatur prophetia haec, ut inexcusabilis esset cum suis regibus impoenitens Israel » .. Hoc enim titulo se in regno Israel prophetasse («immo magis contra Israel » Lap. ) Osee indicat. Aliis alia insuper placet ratio, quam a temporis designatione desumunt, volüisse scil. vatem edicere, se non extremis tantum Oziae regis annis munus propheticum auspicatum esse, verum iam prioribus ' ( cf. Rib. Lap. ). Eo vero potiore iure etiam propheta'Ieroboam regem nominare potuit, quia non solum revera regnum per. 41 annos obtinuit, verum etiam tertius erat a Iehu, cui Deus usque in quartam generationem thronum regni Israel pro ultione in domum Achab exercita promiserat (4 Reg. 10, 30 ) . Cur autem vates desubsequentibus regibus Israel tacuerit, ratio cernitur in misera Israel perturbatione ; Zacharias enim filius Ieroboam regnum non obtinuit nisi post varia bella intestina ! et solum tenuit per 6 menses; reliqui qui secuti sunt rebelles erant qui caede patrata et coniuratione facta sine ullo iusto titulo regni possessionem invadebant ; ita Sellum, filius Iabes ( 4 Reg. 15, 10) , ita Manahem, filius Gadi (1. c. v. 14 ), ita Phacee filius Romeliae (l. c. v. 25) , ita demum Osee, filius Ela (1. c. v. 30). Quare mirum non est, neminem ex his titulo illo honorifico salutari a vate neque principio libri prophetici inscribi. |. — .
1:2
Osee munus propheticum auspicari actione debet, quae populi attentionem quam maxime excitet. Iuvenis enim morum integritate celebratissimus mulieri, quae eousque fornicaria erat, matrimonio se copulare iubetur a Domino : quo illam adumbret Domini benignitatem summam; qua populum in Aegypto misere tabescentem et vitiis oneratum ad foedus et amicitiam suam elevaverit. Hoc suo matrimonio propheta populo et Dei miserentis summam clementiam et qua ipsi fidelitate et integritate serviendum sit et quomodo grati animi vices pro tantae dignitatis culmine persolvendae sint, vivis quasi coloribus proponit. Cernunt enim in muliere illa conditionem suam pristinam abiectam, miseram, indignitate plenam ; cernunt gratuitam ad dignitatem populi Dei elevationem ; et cum mulier illa per prophetam effecta sit uxor fidelis, pudica, casta, eique certe sancta animi religione, veneratione, gratitudine devinciatur, quae fides et devotio ab ipsis iure merito sit expostulanda erga Deum foederis, in imagine viva cernunt expressum. Quae omnia repetitis vicibusa propheta iis explicata per singula fuisse atque inculcata, ratio ipsa muneris prophetici demonstrat. | Osee : vade, sume tibi uxorem fornicationum et fac tibi filios fornicationum, quia fornicans fornicabitur terra a Domino » ; — principium loquendi i. e. cum Dominus singulari modo se Osee. manifestare eique revelationem et allocutionem divinam indere inciperet, id quod statim ab initio ab eo postulavit et à quo communicationis divinae principium sumpsit, erat mandatum hoc : vade etc. (cf. Theod. Hier. 2* loco, Haimo, Rup. Rib. Sanct.). Ita commode textus intelligitur, nam Osee primum omnium prophetarum, qui scripto aliquid reliquerint, alloquium Dei in animo accepisse (Hier. 1* loco, Lap.), nec certo probari potest, nec hoc loco effertur, cum omnis comparatio vel aequiparatio desit, talem autem supplere arbitrarium sit existimandum. Illud principium in omnibus versionibus veterum exstat ; insuper sensus commodus et aptus adest ; nam quia illud mandatum et grave molestumque erat et primo aspectu satis singulare, certe ad animi vatis dispositionem plane natum factumque est, ut explicite statuat a tali exordio communicationem Dei secum incepisse, hoc fuisse « principium loquendi in Osee », ut diceret Dominus etc. Quare minime opus est, cum recentioribus quibusdam ( Hitz. Scholz ) « principium » tamquam glossema delere et ad diasceuastae cuiusdam sedulitatem referre, qui vocem primo margini adscripserit, ut libri initium designaret, vel qui hoc modo Osee primum omnium prophetarum, quorum libri exstent, fuisse voluerit indicare '. Nervose dicitur «loqui n Osee» i. e. in eius animo fieri revelationem, ibique futurorum notitiam illuxisse, ut ait Cyrillus, qui ad Hab. 2, 4 ; Ps. 84, 9 ; Zach. 1, 9 lectorem remittit, vel ut Rup. loqui in corde per occultam suae virtutis inspirationem. Vade mandati vim effert ; frequens est talis ad imperativum appositio (cf. Ez. 3, 4. 11); sume tibt i. e. tamquam uxorem accipe (ita npo Gen. 4, 19; 6, 2; 42, 19; 1 Sam. 25, 43 etc.) mulierem fornicationum i. e. quae antea multum vitiis dedita erat et qua talis nota et infamis. Quo autem consilio hoc proponatur, dubitari nequit. Nam populi electió et foedus Domini ita iam: in Pentateucho describuntur, ut foederis quasi matrimonialis, quod Dominus cum populo tamquam sponsa a se electa inierit, notio subsit (cf. Ex. 19, 5. Lev. 20, 26. Num. 14, 33. Deut. 4, 94 ; 5, 2; 14, 2 etc.) ; huic omnino affirie est, si cultus idolorum nomine fornicationis accusatur Lev. 1'1, ^ ; 20, 5. Ex. 34,15. Quare prophetae matrimonio id exprimitur, quod Ez. 16 habetur; Deus enim, ut ait S. Hier., suscepit populum Iudaeorum fornicationi et libidini servientem ; «fornicata est enim (verba sunt S. Cyr.) spiritualiter in Aegypto ! Iudaeorum synagoga.. ceterurn ita proiectam visitavit miseratus Deus et denua pudicam reddere molitus est et propemodum contubernalem». Unde quantum misericordiae et gratiae Deus populo suo impenderit et ad quale digni tatis fastigium eum evexerit, cum ex omnibus hanc gentem sibi sponsam elegerit, propheta matrimonio suo debet ad vivum exprimere. Inde iam accusatio ingrati animi in populum oritur, qui huius dignitatis oblitus Deo fidem non servavit. Ex officio vero prophetico consequitur, vatem hanc suae actionis significationem populo explanasse et cohortationibus suis ad meliorem frugem revocare esse conatum. Quid vero populo immineat, ni resipiscat, nominibus liberorum suorum per quosdam veluti gradus declarat. Quod in vulg. legitur fac tibi, neque in hebr. neque in gr. neque apud Syrum, neque in interpretatione S. Hier. ' habetur, deest etiam, ut Brug. notat : «in multis libris, etiam antiquis Epanorthotae» ; at verum est interpretamentum. lubetur enim propheta ex tali muliere liberos sibi procreare. Hunc esse sensum mandati, ex ipsa exsecutione quae subiungitur apparet ; nam v. 3 nil aliud refertur quam mandati accepti impletio, idque ea forma iisque verbis, quae ad ipsum mandatum quam maxime accedant ; notum est autem, quoties hoc in s. literis cernatur, ut scil. iussio prius, dein iussionis exsecutio eadem rerum et verborum serie narretur. Quare cum legamus:et abiit et accepit (in hebr. eadem verba adsunt, quae v. 2 np" D». et concepit et peperit ei filium et tum demum alterum Dei sequatur mandatum, omnino dicendum est, iussum esse prophetam filios gignere. Nam quod aliis (Keil, Scholz) placet et iam S. Hier. in medio relinquit, prophetam iuberi filios a meretrice iam susceptos alere et 1. Falso Schegg asserit, Israel ante foedus exhiberi virginem puram — quare vult Osee adoptare, neque ad v. 3 aptum est, neque alia fit horum filiorum mentio in explicatione subsequente actionis symbolicae. . Cur autem filii a propheta in legitimo matrimonio geniti vocentur fili fornicationum, non una est interpretum sententia ; alii censent, quia mater antea mulier erat fornicaria (Tir. Lap. Men. Rohling) ; sed bene advertit Rib. : «licet Hieronymo non displiceat, sententia tamen dura est et violenta» ; quare (sicut alii, ut Barh.) ipse rationem nominis inde petit, quod ipsi filii fornicationibus se dederint, et consentit Sanct. At vehementer mihi displicet, quod propheta tam male vel educaverit filios suos vel in eos invigilaverit ; et quid quaeso ad populi eruditionem conferret, si prophetae filii in turpia se vitia profunderent? nonne ipse derisui potius foret et contemptui, quam salutari exemplo atque institutioni ? Quare ita vocantur, non quia ipsi admittunt fornicationes, sed quia suis nominibus jn signum esse debent atque portentum (ut ait Rup. et sim. S. Ephr.) eorum, quae agenda sunt inter gentem istam et Dominum ; vocantur filii fornicationum i. e. filii, qui nativitate et nomine destinantur, ut populi peccatis contra Deum i. e. fornicationibus poenam debitam in symbolo repraesentent, qui futuri sunt in signum et comminationem pro populo fornicario, pro veris filiis fornicationum (2, 4). Idcirco additur : quia fornicans fornicatur terra ! ... conditionem exhibet praesentem atque perdurantem, cui remedium Dominus vel poenae praedictionem adhibere vult. Cur populi scelera nomine hoc veniant, bene Ps. Ruf. expendit : « quia enim notus in Iudaea Deus unam gentem quam sibi sociaret, elegerat et quasi instar coniugis intervenientibus legis tabulis, de qua filios instituendo generaret, assumpserat, eos appellat pudicos, qui inviolata religione iura custodiunt, illos vero e contrario turpes atque pollutos, qui cultus sacri foedera errorum infectione et haeresis consectatione violaverunt. Qua imagine nimirum et magnitudinem caritatis erga pios et vehementiam severitatis, qua hosce impios persequatur, expressit, quia non solum sicut censor aut iudex, sed quasi fremens ad vindicandum maritus exsurgat ». Insuper notum est, magnam cultus idololatrici partem spurcitiis constitisse. | a Propheta Domini voci obedit, idque eadem verborum forma, qua mandatum insonuit, narrat
1:3
v. 3 « et abiit et accepit. Gomer, filiam Debelaim, et concepit et peperit ei filium». — Notat Theod. M. : « nomen patremque dicit, ne forte quod dictum est, purum figmentum, sed ut vera historia habeatur ». Quare a curiosa quoque nominum investigatione abstinendum esse censeo ; neque enim mulieris eiusque patris nomen symboli ratione inditur, illud autem, etsi nunc non cudatur, sed mulieri et patri semper infuerit, tamen non sine symbolica significatione efferri, certo nequit demonstrari. Àccedit, quod nominum explicatio satis incerta est et dubia. Gomer frequenter explicatur consummata, perfecta (cf. Hier. Rib. Lap. Keil), quam vocem alii in laudem mulieris eiusque pulchritudinis vertunt, alii in sceleris vituperium ; Scholz idem esse nomen opinatur, quod Ier. 99, 3 ; 36, 10 Gemaria legitur i. e. Dominus retribuit. In patris nomine multi cum S. Hier. xaA&cag cernunt, i. e. «massam pinguium caricarum, quas in morem laterum figurantes, ut diu illaesae permaneant, calcant atque compingunt» (Hier.), idque ad filiae indolem describendam traducunt «quae fruentibus suavis videtur et dulcis, perfecta filia voluptatis» (Hier., quem latini sequuntur) ' — sed satius est dicere, nomina rei gestae veritatem testari eo magis, quia non symbolica apparent ; nam explicationes illae nimis coactae videntur. Cum dicatur ef peperit ei, omnis adulterii suspicio, quam hic ingerere volunt (Schegg), sane excluditur. Quomodo filius iste sit in signum atque portentum et quid igitur propheta suis ad populum concionibus potissimum proponere debeat, Dominus eum docet :
1:4
v. 4 «et dixit Dominus ad. eum : voca nomen eius lezrahel, quoniam adhuc modicum et visitabo sanguinem Iezrahel super domum lIehu et quiescere faciam regnum domus Israel». — Yehu electus erat a Domino, ut percuteret domum Achab et ulcisceretur sanguinem prophetarum et sanguinem omnium servorum Domini (& Reg 9, '1) ; id factum est in Iezrahel; ibique praeprimis criminis illius in Naboth Iezrahelitam commissi Iezabel poenas luit secundum verbum Domini : « canes comedent Iezabel in agro Iezrahel» (3 Reg. 21, 23- 4 Reg. 9, 36). Pro ultione hac exercita Iehu a Domino laudatur et accipit promissionem : «filii tui usque ad quartam generationem sedebunt super thronum Israel» (& Reg. 10, 30), quare sanguis lezrahel, qui mox visitandus sit super domum Iehu, non potest esse strages illa in domum Achab edita. Sunt quidem, qui reponant, Iehu Deo iubente sanguinem effudisse, sed malo animo, dominandi libidine, non iustitiae divinae studio, ideoque sanguinem illum repeti ab eius domo ( Keil) ; «at hanc. responsionem (ut iam habet Rib.) verba Domini refellunt laudantis lehu et magnam eius operi mercedem pollicentis... quis dicat iratum fuisse Dominum, cum haec dicebat, aut malo animo factum esse, quod tantopere laudatur »? Insuper cur Deus crimen Iehu nunc demum in eius pronepote vel abnepote puniret? Quare sanguis lezrahel ! caedem refert iniustissimam Naboth Iezrahelitae illatam, propter quam Achab et lezabel poenas dederunt ; similes igitur caedes, similes iustorum oppressiones, «occisionem populi mei» (Hier.) reges ex stirpe Iehu commiserunt, quorum scelerum poenas mox sunt luituri. Et revera de singulis sacri libri referunt : non recessit Jehu a peccatis leroboam (4 Reg. 10, 29. 31), eius filius Joachaz fecit malum coram Domino secutusque est peccata Ieroboam (4 Reg. 13, 2) ; idem de Ioas (l. c. v. 11), de leroboam (1. c. 14, 24), de Zacharia (l. c. 15, 9) ; cum idololatria autem caedes et iniustitias sociari et iura omnia violari, libri sacri satis superque probant. Duo minatur vates : instare interitum regiae domus Iehu — eaque exstincta est caede Zachariae per Sellum perpetrata 4 Reg. 15, 10 — et regni israelitici dissolutionem et abolitionem. Duos eventus coniungit tempore quidem dissitos, at causarum nexu ligatos; insuper a morte leroboam regnum Israel continuis fere perturbationibus, coniurationibus, caedibus regum fuit concussum et exstinctioni praeformatum. Ceterum /ezrahel nomen est urbis in tribu Issachar (Ios. 19, 18), ubi Achab rex saepe commorabatur (3 Reg. 18, 45 ; 21, 4), 12 millia passuum distans a Scythopoli ; postea nomine 'Ec?párAa, hodie Zerin vocata. Appellationem urbs in colle praerupto quasi in alta specula sita a planitie et campis latissimis atque fertilissimis hausit, qui secundum S. Hier. plus quam decem millibus tenduntur passibus ; est enim Iezrahel 5wy3n Deus seminat, Dei segetes i. e. praeclarae (Scholz), ipsaque vox Deum commemorat, qui seminat (cf. Ephr.) i. e. rerum et eventuum cursum praeparat, dirigit ; unde filio prophetae imposita et nativa sua significatione vaticinatur et illa rerum in Iezrahel gestarum notione scelera damnat, ultionem indicat ; qualis ea futura sit et proinde quid vox illa quam maxime insonare debeat audientibus, declaratur
1:5
v. 5 « et ?n illa die conteram arcum Israel in valle lezrahel » ; — i. e. bellicam Israel virtutem, potentiam letali vulnere iri prostratum ; cladem igitur insignem praedicit Israelitis ibi infligendam ; quam in bellis cum Assyriis gestis illatam esse, apud omnes constat (cf. Hier.). Nomina Israel et lezrahel ipso sono affinia arcte inter se iungit, ut quomodo /Jezrahel scelerum et vindictae divinae memoriam audientibus revocat, ita eadem in Israel quoque iam adesse et mox magis magisque explicari significet. Ea est igitur nominis vis, ea adhortatio populo proposita, ut ab iniustitia desistant, ut Deum rerum moderatorem suspiciant, ut cladem divinitus infligendam metuant, atque, nisi resipiscant, omnem suam fortitudinem, popan, virtutem bellicam esse conculcandam sciant. Hanc vero comminationem et admonitionem fructus non tulisse, ex graviori quod subsequitur signo colligitur. Quare haud immerito CAald. post v. 5 haec inserit : et addiderunt facere opera mala. — Unde additur « magnum prioris sententiae incrementum » (Rup.) :
1:6
v. 6 « et concepit adhuc et peperit filiam. Et dixit.et : voca nomen eius Absque misericordia, quia non addam ultra misereri domui Israel,. sed. oblivione obliviscar eorum ». — Filiam parit, non ut ablata fortitudine status rerum fragilis (Hier. Haimo, Rib.) vel miseratione indigens (Schegg) significetur, sed ut omnes, viros et feminas, ea clade esse involvendos repraesentetur (Lap. Men. Scholz) ; solet enim universalitas exprimi utroque sexu nominato ; cf. Is. 3, 1. Ier. 48, 19. Nomen quae misericordiam non consequitur (hebr.) iudicium illud, quod v. 4. 5. minatus erat, non misericordia temperandum indicat, sed fore £n furore, in ira (Ps. 6, 1; quale ne fiat, David deprecatur), neque adhibitum iri moderamen illud, quod Deus regibus domus David peccantibus promisit : « arguam eum in virga virorum et in plagis filiorum ho- Tninum » (2 Reg, "1, 14). Hucusque tali moderamine etiam in Israel usus est, neque vero eineen: ; immo illorum etiam memoriam abiicere vult. Rem expendit Ps. Ruf. : « his geminae pondus sententiae continetur ; neque enim solum ait tempore miseriarum misericordiam denegabo, sed eos nec in memoriam meam redire permittam ; esset enim licet in extremo languore solatium; si vel quocumque tempore memoriam eorum, quos abiecisset, assumeret », Emphatica est locutio ; oblivione obliviscar ; hebr. N'?N Niz1— vulg. interpretatio sensum bonum effert et satis facile explicatur ex /"121!; alii hebr. vertunt ; tollendo tollam eos, auferendo auferam eos (ita Syrus, Rib. Scholz — cf. etiam Lap.) i. e. proiiciam in exsilium ; sed haec castigatio magis spectat ad sequens poenae augmentum ; alii : non ignoscam (Hitz. Keil), sed id post minas antecedentes satis languide additur: Quo magis confundantur, vel etiam « ut filios Israel a nequitia deterreat, ut eos eorumque virtutem imitari velint, quo misericordiam ab ipso consequantur » ( Theoph.) et etiam, ut omnia sua voluntate iis accidere ostendat, mentionem addit regni Iudaeorum (Theod. M.) : v. "1 « et domui Fuda miserebor et salvabo eos in Domino Deo suo ; et non salvabo eos tn arcu et gladio et in. bello et in equis et in equitibus ». — Normam regni (heocratici statuit, cuius robur sit in Dei ope, non in bellico apparatu (cf. Deut. 28, '1. Ios. 24, 12. Ps. 19, 8; 32, 1'1 etc.) ; emphasin habet, quod per partes fit enumeratio : arma recenset, quibus eminus et cominus pugnatur ; 1n bello i. e. reliquis belli adiumentis ; demum currus falcatos et equestrem apparatum ! commemorat. Promissio haec verbotenus impleta est, cum Assyrii terra Israel vastata, regno destructo, habitatoribus in captivitatem abductis (cf. 4 Reg. 15, 29; 11, 6) ante urbem sanctam insigni clade ab angelo inflicta prosternerentur sub rege Sennacherib (4 Reg. 19, 34. Is. 36. 37), de qua strage hunc locum interpretes ? explicant ; verum norma illa salutis conferendae latius quoque patet, neque solum in liberatione per Cyrum facta (Rib. Lap. Sa, Tir.) manifestatur, sed totius providentiae supernaturalis, qua Deus suos salute donare vult, regulam generalem enuntiat. Valet enim in Dei gubernatione, quod iam monuit Deut. 8, 1'] : « ne diceres in corde tuo : fortitudo mea et robur manus meae haec mihi omnia praestiterunt » ; cf. Is. 1, 9 ; 98, 16. Etiam id inculcatur, salvationem domui luda stabili Dei decreto esse adnexam, ita ut quicumque promissionum divinarum particeps esse velit, ad domum Iuda accedat. necesse sit ; in ea enim $ola regnum Davidicum consistit et templum et urbs sancta cum sacerdotio legitimo ; omnes autem promissiones divinae stirpem Davidicam, montem templi, urbem Sionem respiciunt ibique quasi in suo fonte et centro colliguntur (cf. 2 Reg. 1, 14. Is. 2, 1. Mich. 4, 1). Excidium Israeli per gradus quosdam denuntiatur (ut. Lap. bans prosequitur) : secunda enim prophetae. filia afflictiones sine misericordia subeundas repraesentat; congruo temporis intervallo propheta symbolum hoc popularibus explicat; ipsa quoque narrationis mora et per singulos eventus facta distinctio iudicium gradatim enuntiari et devolvi indicat ; quare
1:8
v. 8 « et ablactavit eam, quae erat Absque misericordia. Et concepit et peperit. filium.
1:9
v. 9 Et dixit : voca nomen eius : non populus meus ; quia vos non populus meus, et ego non ero vester ». — Postquam munus maternum filiae Lo-ruchamah persolutum est, « nascitur quasi e vestigio nec ita multo post alius infans » (Cyr.) ; nam propheta in liberis suis signa et portenta populo proponere iussus erat, « ut quoties illos populus videret, toties irae minarumque Dei recordaretur et futurorum malorum imagine terreretur » (Rib.). Tertius filius tertium et summum iudicii gradum exprimit : populi in exsilium abiectionem et foederis olim initi dissolutionem ; Deus hereditatem illam suam et peculium quod sibi ex omnibus gentibus elegerat (Ex. 19, 5), in Israel abiicit, Israel ut gentem alienam, inimicam a suo pacto resecat, se iam non illorum Deum, gubernatorem, tutorem, provisorem, nutritorem, patrem fore edicit, illos hostibus conculcandos relinquit (cf. Sanct. Lap.). Ita propheta exsilium illud, quod Ahias propheta iam Ieroboam vaticinatus erat (3 Reg. 14, 15. 16), instare indicat.
1:10
v. 10 « Et erit numerus filiorum Israel quasi arena maris, quae sine mensura est et non numerabitur. Et erit in loco ubi dicetur eis : non populus meus vos ! dicetur eis : filii Dei viventis » ! — Cum enim adsint promissiones Abraham factae, quae totidem fere verbis h.l. referuntur (cf. Gen. 15, 5 ; 1'1, 22 ; 28, 14; 32, 12), cum exsistant vaticinia de Pacificatore ex Iuda regnoque eius aeterno, cui obedientiam exhibituri sint populi (Gen. 49, 10 hebr.), haecque vaticinia süirpi Davidis sint adnexa et psalmis iam ex Davidis et Salomonis tempore (Ps. 2; "14; 109) celebrata, facile patet, cur propheta post minas immediate instaurationis magnificae promissionem subiungat. Sed cum Abraham multarum gentium pater sit constitutus a Deo (Gen. 11, 5), et cum Moysi dixerit Deus : « dimitte me, ut irascatur furor meus contra eos et deleam eos faciamque te in gentem magnam » (Ex. 32, 10), elucet, quomodo reiecto populo hoc Deus alios suscitare possit, qui vere Israelitae sint, qui menteet, indole patriarcharum illorum fidem, pietatem, religionem exprimant. Quare in hoc vaticinio de numero ingenti Israelitarum, quod abiectionem Israelitarum secundum nativitatis et originis iura immediate excipit, illa summi momenti veritas aperte proponitur, velle Deum veros Israelitas ex gentibus sibi deligere. Idem consequitur ex argumentatione S. Pauli Rom. 9, 24. 25 (cf. 4 Petr. 2, 10). Primum igitur versus membrum omnino universale est; alterum modum indicat, quo promissiones illae implendae sint; scil. eo modo, ut fiant et dicantur filii Dei viventis ii, qui alieni fuerint a Deo : Deus scil. vivus, qui ipse est vita et se tamquam vitae largitorem manifestat et « ea, quae non sunt, vocat tamquam ea quae sunt», nova quadam creatione vel quasi generatione eos suos efficit filios ; idque praestat tam aperte et luculenter, ut haec filiorum adoptio ab omnibus agnoscatur et praedicetur ; neque enim fili? Dei viventis in obscuro aliquo angulo ignoti latent, sed ubi et a quibus olim ludibrio habiti sunt tamquam Deo exosi et a Deo abiecti, ibi iam et ab iisdem filii Dei agnoscuntur et laudantur. Cernitur scil. in hac adoptione virtus quaedam supernaturalis, efficacia vigoris, splendor dignitatis, ita ut admirabundi et Deum viventem et eos filios Dei viventis nominent. Haec vis sane epitheto illi, quod tam explicite apponitur, inest (cf. Lap). Haec vero instauratio initium ducit a reditu in terram sanctam :
Bene Hup. nexum cum sequentibus exhibet : « dicat nunc aliquis : quid ergo Dei fiet de proposito ? proposuerat namque Deus et. promiserat Abrahae de semine eius populum sibi adducere innumerabilem sicut stellas coeli, et inito foedere firmaverat, quod esse deberet Deus eius et Deus seminis eius... quid ergo fiet de proposito Dei? numquid excidit verbum Dei »? etc. (sim. Lap.). Dei promissiones hominum malitia non evacuantur, neque Dei consilia hominum perversitate subvertuntur ; quare immediate vates pergit
1:11
v. 41 « et congregabuntur filii Iuda et filii Israel pariter et ponent sibimet caput unum et ascendent de terra, quia magnus dies lezrahel » ; — est scil. commune prophetis, praedicere exsilium, reditum ex exsilio, instaurationem magnificam, et quia reditus ex exsilio est prolusio et praeparatio quaedam ad promissa illa sublimiora (messianica) adimplenda, duo illa, reditus et instauratio, saepe simul adumbrantur (cf. Is. 40, 1-12. Mich. 2, 12. 13. ler. 34, 91. 92 ; 33, 12. Ez. 34, 13. Am. 9, 11; loel 3, 4. Soph. 3, 183 etc.). Tunc aberit divisio illa adeo funesta et apostasia ab uno rege Davidico, uti revera redeuntes ex Babel unam rempublicam sub uno duce Zorobabel constituerunt (Ephr. Barh. Cyr. Theoph.) ; at haec adumbratio erat congregationis illius sub uno capite i. e. rege theocratico magno ex stirpe David, de quo Ez. : « et suscitabo super eos pastorem unum et pascet eos et servum meum David et erit eorum pastor » (34, 23 — cf. Cyr. Rib. Lap.). Pariter, vel una, simul dicit vates regni utriusque divisionem reprehendens ; ascendere de itinere hierosolymitano adhibetur. Demum indicat ad tale fastigium felicitatis et salutis viam sterni calamitate illa et afflictione, qua in campo lezrahel per Assyrios arcus Israel erit confringendus (cf. v. 5); quia magnus i. e. vere humiliatio illa et depressio magnum quiddam est et propter fines maxime salutares a Domino immittitur, quippe quae humana potentia destructa et regno impio cadente sacram illam unionem, concordiam, et reditum praeparet, Magnum jgitur Deus proclamat diem, non quia magnam miseriam infert, sed quia miseria haec (cf. Ephr.) melioris conditionis praeparatio est et via ; inde quid humanae superbiae et potentiae deiectio apud Deum valeat, perspicitur. Similiter Ps. Ruf. : « tantum in illo statu felicitatis locabuntur, ut magnum diem Iezrahel fuisse fateantur i. e. vel illud tempus quo adversa coeperunt, et hoc assumet in memoriam populus liberatus, ut gaudia eius ex comparatione grandescant ». - Aliis placet, verba haec statim transferre ad tempus messianicum, tamquam est explicatio commendari eo, quod 2, 1 etiam alia nomina omine optimo prolata de tempore messianico dicuntur. At propius tamen ob v. 5S prior expositio adiacere videtur, praesertim quia ex vocis etymo demum 2, 91 propheta arguit. . Instaurationis epocham vates ita delineat, ut et prima impletionis inchoatio et plena rerum sub Messia perfectio apte attingatur. Quare ad Pauli explicationem (Rom. 9, 25) Ps. Ruf. haud incongrue haec scribit : « gentium magister ostendit, quod evangelii tempore felicitatis huius promissio compleretur; non utique ut negaret illud. quod totius prophetiae textus inculcat : resolutionem videlicet captivitatis quoque babylonicae fuisse promissam, sed ut ostenderet quam intelligentiae regulam custodire in propheticis libris debeamus : i. e. ut cum sub narratione iudaicarum rerum ingentius quam unius gentis mediocritas caperet aliquid promeretur, et ex parte in illo populo nosceremus fuisse completum, etiam per theoriam * aliis quoque, i. e. cunctis gentibus, convenire ». Promissio vero etiam populum iudaicum in exsilium fore eiiciendum aperte supponit; perspexit Osee, res iudaici etiam regni ita labi, ut antiquae illae minae (Lev. 96, 33. Deut. 30, 1. 3 Reg. 9, 6-9) iam in opus sint deducendae : si autem aversione aversi fueritis. . . auferam Israel. . . et templum proiiciam. Nova rerum conditione ut quam maxime laetentur eiusque bona inter se adprecentur, hortatur propheta :
1:1
… 1, 11-16; Ezek. 4, 1-5, 4; Jer. 4, 20 ff.; Is. 5, 9; 22, 14; Ezek. 9, 1; Jer. 20, 7-12; 23, 28; Mic. 3, 8; Is. 6, 6-9; Jer. 1, 17-19; Ezek. 3, 8-9). The hagiographer or biblical writer is therefore the intermediary through whom God speaks or writes (Hos. 1, 1-2; Hag. 1, 7; Mal. 1, 1), he is the mouth of God (Jer. 15, 19; Is. 30, 2, in accordance with Ex. 4, 15 ff.; 7, 1). Some symbolic actions describe plastically the divine influence on …
1:3
… The prophet Hosea was obliged to marry her by a command of God, who intended to take the prophet's marriage as a symbol of His relations with the people of Israel (cf. Hos. 1:3 ff.).
1:4
… Moreover, he too followed the superstitious practices of his predecessors, worshiping the golden calf in the schismatic sanctuaries of Bethel and Dan (II Kings 10:29). In any case his cruelties, of which a sad memory was preserved in Israel for nearly a century (Hos. 1:4), cannot in any way be imputed to Elisha, who by the command of the Lord anointed him king. …
… Meanwhile internal disorder begins again (743), with the frenetic and tumultuous succession of kings and dynasties: Zechariah, last of the line of Jehu, is killed (cf. Hos. 1:4), after six months of reign, by Shallum, who remains on the throne a single month. …
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Douay 1609-10), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.