2<\/strong>. Plead with your mother, plead<\/em> ] The repetition of the appeal shews its urgency. ‘Do not murmur against me’, Jehovah seems to say, ‘plead your cause against your own mother: Israel is the author of her own calamities.’<\/p>\n for she is not my wife<\/em> ] A parenthetical explanation of the expression ‘your mother’. Adultery has destroyed the relation of the wife to the husband, but not of the mother to the children. Comp. Isa 50:1<\/span>.<\/p>\n her whoredoms out of her sight<\/em> ] Rather, from her face<\/strong>, the index of obstinacy (comp. Jer 3:3<\/span>), as the breasts of shamelessness.<\/p>\n 2 7<\/strong>. The prophecy begins with a solemn admonition on the faithless conduct of Israel towards her Divine Bridegroom. The dramatis person<\/em> are the same as in chap. 1; only, whereas in chap. 1 the husband, wife, and children, are both historical persons and significant symbols, in chap. 2 they are obviously pure allegories. Israel becomes the adulterous wife, and Jehovah the aggrieved husband. The individual Israelites are the children. The appeal of Jehovah to the latter implies that they have not altogether given way to their inherited propensities; they can still be expected, at least in some cases, to cooperate for the extinction of a corrupt worship. Comp. 1Ki 19:18<\/span> ‘seven thousand in Israel which have not bowed unto the Baal’.<\/p>\n Plead with your mother, plead – <\/B>The prophets close the threats of coming judgments with the dawn of after-hopes; and from hopes they go back to Gods judgments against sin, pouring in wine and oil into the wounds of sinners. The mother is the Church or nation; the sons, are its members, one by one. These, when turned to God, must plead with their mother, that she turn also. When involved in her judgments, they must plead with her, and not accuse God. God had not forgotten to be gracious; but she kept not His love, and refused His friendship, and despised the purity of spiritual communion with Him, and would not travail with the fruit of His will. : The sons differ from the mother, as the inventor of evil from those who imitate it. For as, in good, the soul which, from the Spirit of God, conceiveth the word of truth, is the mother, and whoso profiteth by hearing the word of doctrine from her mouth, is the child, so, in evil, whatsoever soul inventeth evil is the mother, and whoso is deceived by her is the son. So in Israel, the adulterous mother was the synagogue, and the individuals deceived by her were the sons.<\/P> Ye who believe in Christ, and are both of Jews and Gentiles, say ye to the broken branches and to the former people which is cast off, My people, for it is your brother; and Beloved, for it is your sister. For when Rom 11:25-26<\/span> the fulness of the Gentiles shall have come in, then shall all Israel be saved. In like way we are bidden not to despair of heretics, but to incite them to repentance, and with brotherly love to long for their salvation .<\/P> For she is not My wife – <\/B>God speaketh of the spiritual union between Himself and His people whom He had chosen, under the terms of the closest human oneness, of husband and wife. She was no longer united to Him by faith and love, nor would He any longer own her. Plead therefore with her earnestly as orphans, who, for her sins, have lost the protection of their Father.<\/P> Let her therefore put away her whoredoms – <\/B>So great is the tender mercy of God. He says, let her but put away her defilements, and she shall again be restored, as if she had never fallen; let her but put away all objects of attachment, which withdrew her from God, and God will again be All to her.<\/P> Adulteries, whoredores – <\/B>God made the soul for Himself; He betrothed her to Himself through the gift of the Holy Spirit; He united her to Himself. All love, then, out of God, is to take another, instead of God. whom have I in heaven but Thee? and there is none upon earth that I desire besides Thee. Adultery is to become anothers than His, the Only Lord and Husband of the soul. Whoredom is to have many other objects of sinful love. Love is one, for One. The soul which has forsaken the One, is drawn here and there, has manifold objects of desire, which displace one another, because none satisfies. Hence, the prophet speaks of fornications, adulteries; because the soul, which will not rest in God, seeks to distract herself from her unrest and unsatisfiedness, by heaping to herself manifold lawless pleasures, out of, and contrary to the will of, God.<\/P> From before her – <\/B>Literally from her face. The face is the seat of modesty, shame, or shamelessness. Hence, in Jeremiah God says to Judah, Thou hadst a harlots forehead; thou refusedst to be ashamed Jer 3:3<\/span>; and they were not at all ashamed, neither will they blush Jer 6:15<\/span>. The eyes, also, are the windows Jer 9:21<\/span>, through which death, i. e., lawless desire, enters into the soul, and takes it captive.<\/P> From her breasts – <\/B>These are exposed, adorned, degraded in disorderly love, which they are employed to allure. Beneath too lies the heart, the seat of the affections. It may mean then, that she should no more gaze with pleasure on the objects of her sin, nor allow her heart to dwell on tilings which she loved sinfully. Whence it is said of the love of Christ, which should keep the soul free from all unruly passions which might offend him Son 1:13<\/span>, My Well-beloved shall lie all night between my breasts Son 8:6<\/span>, as a seal upon the heart beneath.<\/P> <\/p>\n Verse 2<\/span>. Plead with your mother<\/B><\/I>] People of Judah, accuse your mother, (Jerusalem,) who has abandoned my worship, and is become idolatrous; convince her of her folly and wickedness, and let her return to him from whom she has so deeply revolted.<\/P> <\/p>\n Plead; <\/B>argue the case, state it aright between me and your mother, then debate it fully; lay open either my displeasure, how great it is, or the effects of it already upon the house of Israel, or my menaces against them for the future, by my prophet Hosea: and next recollect the carriage of your mother of Israel; consider her sins, her lewdness, her adulteries, her unthankfulness, how notorious, how long, how multiplied and aggravated. <\/P> With your mother; <\/B>the synagogues, the whole body of the people Israel, which were emblemized in Gomer, the wife of whoredoms. <\/P> Plead; <\/B>ye that are sons or daughters of God amidst this degenerate, idolatrous nation, you that have any resentments for your Father, debate, or at least deal plainly with her, who is called your mother, and say how little right she hath to be called my wife, and how little reason I have to own myself her Husband. <\/P> She is not my wife; <\/B>in point of right she is not, for by her adulteries she hath dissolved the marriage covenant, and so abolished the relation, though in point of fact she is not cast off utterly; I have not sued out the divorce, nor turned her out of doors. but yet for all that she is no wife, nor hath any right to the honour, maintenance, or love of a wife. <\/P> Neither am I her husband; <\/B>I do not account myself bound by any covenant of marriage to love, maintain, comfort, or protect her; nor will I long do it, if by her continued lewdness she still violate her faith, and abuse my patience. Tell idolatrous Israel, that her God will deal with her as an abused husband will deal with an unreclaimed adulterous wife. <\/P> Let her therefore put away her whoredoms; <\/B>when you have pleaded, then make an offer to her yet once more, counsel, persuade, entreat, and encourage her to do what becomes a wife that would not be divorced; try if you can prevail with her to cast aside and to remove from her all evil practices and inclinations, to cast off spiritual whoredoms, which all her idolatrous practices are accounted to be. <\/P> Out of her sight; <\/B>either remove the idols, their temples, priests, and gaudy rites, for ever out of her sight, as they did, Isa 2:20<\/span>; or else cease from her whorish looks, her unchaste and immodest framing her face and gestures. <\/P> And her adulteries, <\/B>idolatries, which are spiritual adulteries, <\/P> from between her breasts:<\/B> by an immodest and lascivious manner of framing the breasts, and laying them open, these kinds of women here alluded to did entice adulterers; and so were idolatrous Israelites grown impudent in their idolatries, and courted others in shameless manner to turn idolaters also. <\/P> <\/p>\n 2. Plead<\/B>expostulate. <\/P> mother<\/B>that is, thenation collectively.<\/I> The address is to “her children,”that is, to the individual<\/I> citizens of the state (compare Isa50:1<\/span>). <\/P> for she is not my wife<\/B>Shehas deprived herself of her high privilege by spiritual adultery. <\/P> out of her sight<\/B>rather,”from her face.” Her very countenance unblushingly betrayedher lust, as did also her exposed “breasts.”<\/P><\/p>\n Plead with your mother, plead<\/strong>,…. The congregation of Israel, as the Targum; the body of the Jewish nation, which, with respect to individuals, was as a mother to her children; see Mt 21:37<\/span>, that is, lay before her, her sin in rejecting the Messiah, the Head and Husband of his true church and people; endeavour to convince her of it; reprove her for it; expostulate with her about it; argue the case with her, and show her the danger of persisting in such an evil, as the apostles did, Ac 2:23<\/span><\/p>\n for she is not my wife, neither am I her husband<\/strong>; for though there had been such a relation between them, yet it was now dissolved; she had broken the marriage covenant and contract, and God had given her a bill of divorce, Jer 31:32<\/span> or, however, as she behaved not as a wife towards him, showing love and affection, honour and reverence, and performing duty, and yielding obedience; so he would not carry it as a husband towards her, nourishing and cherishing her, providing for her, and protecting and defending her; but leave her to shift for herself, and to the insults and abuses of others; having been guilty of idolatry, which is spiritual adultery, as the Israelites before the captivity were; and as the Jews in Christ’s time were guilty of rejecting the word of God, and preferring their own traditions to it: hence it follows,<\/p>\n let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight<\/strong>, or “from her face” e,<\/p>\n and her adulteries from between her breasts<\/strong>; alluding to the custom of harlots, who used to paint their faces, and to allure with their looks, words, and actions, and to make bare their breasts, or adorn them, or carry in them what were enticing and alluring. These adulteries and whoredoms, which are the same thing, may signify the many idolatries of the people of Israel before their captivity, and which were the cause of it; or the sins of the Jews before their dispersion; or their evil works, as the Targum, by which they departed from God and the true Messiah, and went a whoring after other lovers: thus they rejected, transgressed, and made of none effect the commandments of God by their traditions; paid tithe of mint, anise, and cummin, and neglected the weighty matters of the law; sought not the honour of God, but that which comes from men; and therefore confessed not the true Messiah, though under convictions of him, and went about to establish their own righteousness, and submitted not to his; these were the idols of their hearts, and the whoredoms and adulteries the Jewish converts, that truly believed in Christ, are ordered to exhort them to put away. The Septuagint and Arabic versions are, “I will take away her whoredoms c.”,<\/p>\n e “a facie sua”, Calvin, Pagninus, Piscator, Cocceius “a faciebus suis”, Montanus, Schmidt.<\/p>\n What the prophet announced in Hosea 1:2-2:1, partly by a symbolical act, and partly also in a direct address, is carried out still further in the section before us. The close connection between the contents of the two sections is formally indicated by the simple fact, that just as the first section closed with a summons to appropriate the predicted salvation, so the section before us commences with a call to conversion. As Rckert aptly says, “The significant pair give place to the thing signified; Israel itself appears as the adulterous woman.” The Lord Himself will set bounds to her adulterous conduct, i.e., to the idolatry of the Israelites. By withdrawing the blessings which they have hitherto enjoyed, and which they fancy that they have received from their idols, He will lead the idolatrous nation to reflection and conversion, and pour the fulness of the blessings of His grace in the most copious measure upon those who have been humbled and improved by the punishment. The threatening and the announcement of punishment extend from Hos 2:2<\/span> to Hos 2:13<\/span>; the proclamation of salvation commences with Hos 2:14<\/span>, and reaches to the close of Hos 2:23<\/span>. The threatening of punishment is divided into two strophes, viz., Hos 2:2-7<\/span> and Hos 2:8-13<\/span>. In the first, the condemnation of their sinful conduct is the most prominent; in the second, the punishment is more fully developed.<\/p>\n “Reason with your mother, reason! for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband: that she put away her whoredom from her countenance, and her adultery from between her breasts.” <\/em> Jehovah is the speaker, and the command to get rid of the whoredom is addressed to the Israelites, who are represented as the children of the adulterous wife. The distinction between mother and children forms part of the figurative drapery of the thought; for, in fact, the mother had no existence apart from the children. The nation or kingdom, regarded as an ideal unity, is called the mother; whereas the several members of the nation are the children of this mother. The summons addressed to the children to contend or reason with this mother, that she may give up her adultery, presupposes that, although the nation regarded as a whole was sunken in idolatry, the individual members of it were not all equally slaves to it, so as to have lost their susceptibility for the divine warning, or the possibility of conversion. Not only had the Lord reserved to Himself seven thousand in Elijah’s time who had not bowed their knees to Baal, but at all times there were many individuals in the midst of the corrupt mass, who hearkened to the voice of the Lord and abhorred idolatry. The children had reason to plead, because the mother was no longer the wife of Jehovah, and Jehovah was no longer her husband, i.e., because she had dissolved her marriage with the Lord; and the inward, moral dissolution of the covenant of grace would be inevitably followed by the outward, actual dissolution, viz., by the rejection of the nation. It was therefore the duty of the better-minded of the nation to ward off the coming destruction, and do all they could to bring the adulterous wife to desist from her sins. The object of the pleading is introduced with . The idolatry is described as whoredom and adultery. Whoredom becomes adultery when it is a wife who commits whoredom. Israel had entered into the covenant with Jehovah its God; and therefore its idolatry became a breach of the fidelity which it owed to its God, an act of apostasy from God, which was more culpable than the idolatry of the heathen. The whoredom is attributed to the face, the adultery to the breasts, because it is in these parts of the body that the want of chastity on the part of a woman is openly manifested, and in order to depict more plainly the boldness and shamelessness with which Israel practised idolatry.<\/p>\n The summons to repent is enforced by a reference to the punishment. Hos 2:3<\/span>. “Lest I strip her naked, and put her as in the day of her birth, and set her like the desert, and make her like a barren land, and let her die with thirst.” <\/em> In the first hemistich the threat of punishment corresponds to the figurative representation of the adulteress; in the second it proceeds from the figure to the fact. In the marriage referred to, the husband had redeemed the wife out of the deepest misery, to unite himself with her. Compare Eze 16:4<\/span>., where the nation is represented as a naked child covered with filth, which the Lord took to Himself, covering its nakedness with beautiful clothes and costly ornaments, and entering into covenant with it. These gifts, with which the Lord also presented and adorned His wife during the marriage, He would now take away from the apostate wife, and put her once more into a state of nakedness. The day of the wife’s birth is the time of Israel’s oppression and bondage in Egypt, when it was given up in helplessness to its oppressors. The deliverance out of this bondage was the time of the divine courtship; and the conclusion of the covenant with the nation that had been brought out of Egypt, the time of the marriage. The words, “I set (make) her like the desert,” are to be understood as referring not to the land of Israel, which was to be laid waste, but to the nation itself, which was to become like the desert, i.e., to be brought into a state in which it would be destitute of the food that is indispensable to the maintenance of life. The dry land is a land without water, in which men perish from thirst. There is hardly any need to say that these words to not refer to the sojourn of Israel in the Arabian desert; for there the Lord fed His people with manna from heaven, and gave them water to drink out of the rock.<\/p>\n The Prophet seems in this verse to contradict himself; for he promised reconciliation, and now he speaks of a new repudiation. These things do not seem to agree well together that God should embrace, or be willing to embrace, again in his love those whom he had before rejected, — and that he should at the same time send a bill of divorce, and renounce the bond of marriage. But if we weigh the design of the Prophet, we shall see that the passage is very consistent, and that there is in the words no contrariety. He has indeed promised that at a future time God would be propitious to the Israelites: but as they had not yet repented, it was needful to deal again more severely with them, that they might return to their God really and thoroughly subdued. So we see that in Scripture, promises and threatening are mingled together, and rightly too. For were the Lord to spend a whole month in reproving sinners they may in that time fall away a hundred times. Hence God, after showing to men their sins adds some consolation and moderates severity, lest they should despond: he afterwards returns again to threatening, and does so from necessity; for though men may be terrified with the fear of punishment, they do not yet really repent. It is then necessary for them to be reproved not only once and again, but very often. <\/p>\n We now then perceive what the Prophet had in view: he had spoken of the people’s defection; afterwards he proved that the people had been justly rejected by the Lord; and then he promised the hope of pardon. But now seeing that they still continued obstinate in their vices, he reproves again those who had need of such chastisement. He, in a word, has in view their present state. <\/p>\n Almost all so expound this verse as if the Prophet addressed the faithful: and with greater refinement still do they expound, who say, that the Prophet addresses the faithful who had fallen away from the synagogue. They have and I have no doubt, been much deceived; for the Prophets on the contrary, shows here that God was justly punishing the Israelites, who were wont to excuse themselves in the same way as hypocrites are wont to do. When the Lord treated them otherwise than according to their wishes, they expostulated, and raised up contention — “What does this mean?” So do we find them introduced as thus speaking, by Isaiah. [Isa 58:1<\/span>.] There, indeed, they fiercely contend with God, as if the Lord dealt with them unjustly, for they seemed not conscious of having done any evil. Hence the Prophet, seeing the Israelites so senseless in their sins, says, Contend, contend with your mother. He speaks here in the person of God: and God, as it has been stated, uses the similitude of a marriage. Let us now see what is the import of the words. <\/p>\n When a husband repudiates his wife, he fixes a mark of disgrace on the children born by that marriage: their mother has been divorced; then the children, on account of that divorce, are held in less esteem. When a husband repudiates his wife through waywardness, the children justly regard him with hatred. Why? “Because he loved not our mother as he ought to have done; he has not honoured the bond of marriage.” It is therefore usually the case, that the children’s affections are alienated from their father, when he treats their mother with too little humanity or with entire contempt. So the Israelites, when they saw themselves rejected, wished to throw the blame on God. For by the name, “mother”, are the people here called; it is transferred to the whole body of the people, or the race of Abraham. God had espoused that people to himself, and wished them to be like a wife to him. Since then God was a husband to the people, the Israelites were as sons born by that marriage. But when they were repudiated, the Israelites said, that God dealt cruelly with them, for he has cast them away for no fault. The Prophet now undertakes the defence of God’s cause, and speaks also in his person, Contend, contend, he says with your mother In a word, this passage agrees with what is said in the beginning of Isa 50:1<\/span>, <\/p>\n ‘<\/p>\n Where is the bill of repudiation? Have I sold you to my creditors? But ye have been sold for your sins, and your mother has been repudiated for her iniquity.’ <\/p>\n Husbands were wont to give a bill of divorce to their wives, that they themselves might see it: for it freed them from every reproach, inasmuch as the husband bore a testimony to his wife: “I dismiss her, not that she has been unfaithful, not that she has violated the bond of marriage; but because her beauty does not please me, or because her manners are not agreeable to me.” The law compelled the husband to give such a testimony as this. God now says by his Prophet, “Show me now the bill of repudiation: have I of my own accord cast away your mother? No, I have not done so. Ye cannot accuse me of cruelty, as though her beauty did not please me, and as though I had followed the common practice approved by you. I have not willingly rejected her, nor at my own pleasure, and I have not sold her to my creditors, as your fathers were sometimes wont to do, as to their children, when they were in debt.” In short, the Lord shows there that the Jews were to be blamed, that they were rejected together with their mother. So he says also in this place, Contend, contend with your mother; which means, “Your dispute is not with me:” and by the repetition he shows how inveterate was their perverseness, for they never ceased to glamour against God. We now see the real meaning of the Prophet. <\/p>\n In vain then do they philosophise, who say that the mother was to be condemned by her own children; because, when they shall be converted to their former faith, they ought then to condemn the synagogue. The Prophet meant no such thing; but, on the contrary, he brings this charge against the Israelites, that they had been repudiated for the flagitious conduct of their mother, and had ceased to be counted the children of God. For the comparison between husband and wife is here to be understood; and then the children are placed as it were in the middle. When the mother is dismissed, the children indignantly say that the father has been too inhuman if indeed he wilfully divorces his wife: but when a wife becomes unfaithful to her husband, or prostitutes herself to any shameful crime, the husband is then free from every blame; and there is no cause for the children to expostulate with him; for he ought thus to punish a shameless wife. God then shows that the Israelites were justly rejected, and that the blame of their rejection belonged to the whole race of Abraham; but that no blame could be imputed to him. <\/p>\n And for a reason it is added, Let her then take away her fornication from her face, and her adulteries from the midst of her breasts The Prophet, by saying, “Let her then take away her fornications”, (for the copulative ו, vau, ought to be regarded as an illative,) confirms what we have just now said; that is that God had stood to his pledged faith, but that the people had become perfidious; and that the cause of the divorce or separation was, that the Israelites persevered not, as they ought to have done, in the obedience of faith. Then God says, Let her take away her fornications. But the phrase, Let her take away from her face and from her breasts, seems singular; and what does it mean? because women commit fornication neither by the face nor by the breasts. It is evident the Prophet alludes to meretricious finery; for harlots, that they may entice men, sumptuously adorn themselves, and carefully paint their face and decorate their breasts. Wantonness then appears in the face as well as in the breasts. But interpreters do not touch on what the Prophet had in view. The Prophet, no doubt, sets forth here the shamelessness of the people; for they had now so hardened themselves in their contempt of God, in their ungodly superstitions, in all kinds of wickedness, that they were like harlots, who conceal not their baseness, but openly prostitute themselves, yea, and exhibit tokens of their shamelessness in their eyes as well as in every part of their bodies. We see then that the people are here accused of disgraceful impudence as they had grown so callous as to wish to be known to be such as they were. In the same way does Ezekiel set forth their reproachful conduct, <\/p>\n ‘<\/p>\n Spread has the harlot her feet, she called on all who passed by the way,’ (Eze 16:25<\/span>.) <\/p>\n We now then understand why the Prophet expressly said, Let her take away from her face her fornication, and from her breasts her adulteries: for he teaches that the vices of the people were not hidden, and that they did not now sin and cover their baseness as hypocrites do, but that they were so unrestrained in their contempt of God, that they were become like common harlots. <\/p>\n Here is a remarkable passage; for we first see that men in vain complain when the Lord seems to deal with them in severity; for they will ever find the fault to be in themselves and in their parents: yea, when they look on all impartially, they will confess that all throughout the whole community are included in one and the same guilt. Let us hence learn, whenever the lord may chastise us, to come home to ourselves, and to confess that he is justly severe towards us; yea, were we apparently cast away, we ought yet to confess, that it is through our own fault, and not through God’s immoderate severity. We also learn how frivolous is their pretext, who set up against God the authority of their fathers, as the Papists do: for they would, if they could, call or compel God to an account, because he forsakes them, and owns them not now as his Church. “What! has not God bound his faith to us? Is not the Church his spouse? Can he be unfaithful?” So say the Papists: but at the same time they consider not, that their mother has become utterly filthy through her many abominations; they consider not, that she has been repudiated, because the Lord could no longer bear her great wickedness. Let us then know, that it is in vain to bring against God the examples of men; for what is here said by the Prophet will ever stand true, that God has not given a bill of divorce to his Church; that is, that he has not of his own accord divorced her, as peevish and cruel husbands are wont to do, but that he has been constrained to do so, because he could no longer connive at so many abominations. It now follows — <\/p>\n (2) Plead with your mother<\/strong> . . .Contend, or plead in judgment. Let the awakened conscience of the present generation rise up in judgment with the nation as a whole. By mother we are to understand the nation Israel, viewed as a collective abstract; and by the children (Hos. 2:4<\/span>) the inhabitants who are units in the total aggregate. Ammi<\/em> and Ruhamah<\/em> without the negative prefix, show that this awakening of conscience has given them back their privileges.<\/p>\n Render, That she may put away her whoredoms<\/em> from her face: i.e.,<\/em> her meretricious guiles, her unblushing idolatry, her voluptuous service of gods that are no God. This strong image was constantly on the lips of the prophets, and had been burned by cruel sorrow into the very heart of Hosea. It acquired portentous meaning in the hideous impurities of the worship of Baal-peor and Ashtoreth, against which the Jehovah worship was a tremendous protest.<\/p>\n APPLICATION OF THE SYMBOLIC ACTS AND NAMES IN Hosea 1, 3<\/span> Hos 2:2-23<\/span><\/p>\n Chapters 1-3 are not arranged in what appears to be the logical order: chapter 3 attaches itself to Hos 1:9<\/span>; Hos 3:1<\/span>, continues the story of Hosea’s domestic life. He is told to go and “love a woman beloved of her friend, and an adulteress.” Marti thinks, but without good reason, that this act is entirely independent of chapter 1. The symbolism would be destroyed if the woman of Hos 3:1<\/span>, were any other than Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim (Hos 1:3<\/span>). Lo-ammi <\/em> (Hos 1:9<\/span>) suggests the step in the domestic drama which is left unrecorded. The woman had fled from her home to give herself more freely to her shameful practices; Hos 3:2<\/span> seems to imply that she had become the slave concubine of another. Hosea, impelled by love and adivine impulse, buys her back, though for a while he does not restore her to the full privileges of wifehood (Hos 3:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n This entire history is presupposed in Hos 2:2-23<\/span>; Hos 3:4-5<\/span>, which sections contain the application of the prophet’s own experience to the history of Israel. The historical persons in Hos 1:2-9<\/span>, and Hos 3:1-3<\/span>. the prophet, his wife, his children, here become allegorical figures. Israel is the adulterous wife, Jehovah the deceived but still loving husband; the individual Israelites are the children. Some of the latter have remained free from the sins of their mother. To these Jehovah addresses himself, that they should attempt the restoration of the faithless wife and mother, Israel, to the wronged but yearning husband, Jehovah. The utterance opens with a description of Israel’s whoredom (Hos 2:5<\/span>), which is followed by an announcement of the evil consequences of the faithlessness (Hos 2:6-13<\/span>); it closes with a delineation of the efforts to be put forth by Jehovah to win back the faithless wife, and of the glories awaiting her when she comes to her senses (Hos 2:14-23<\/span>).<\/p>\n The faithlessness of Israel, Hos 2:2-5<\/span><\/em>.<\/p>\n 2<\/strong>. <\/strong> Plead <\/strong> [“Contend”] The urgency of the appeal is indicated by its repetition. The individual Israelites who are still sensitive to the divine influence are addressed; they are urged to “exert a corrective, reforming influence on the corrupt aggregate” in order to avoid more serious consequences. The nation is called their mother <\/strong> Out of love to her they should work for her best interests. <\/p>\n She is not my wife, neither am I her husband <\/strong> The marriage tie is already dissolved through her whoredom; and unless she repents there is no reason why she should not be utterly cast off. <\/p>\n Out of her sight <\/strong> Literally from her face; <\/em> as the next clause shows, to be understood literally. The expression of the countenance reveals the character (Jer 3:3<\/span>). <\/p>\n Adulteries from between her breasts <\/strong> Interpreted by some as referring to the wearing of amulets between the breasts in honor of the deities with whom the Israelites committed adultery; but of such a custom we have no knowledge. It is better understood as another bold expression of her adulterous character, the shameless uncovering of the breast. Another possible interpretation is to regard the abstract adultery <\/em> used for the concrete adulterer, <\/em> a usage not uncommon in Hebrew. The adulterer who lies between the breasts (Son 1:13<\/span>) is to be driven away. 3. If this is not done she must suffer the consequences of her wrongdoing. <\/p>\n Lest I strip her naked <\/strong> Seems to have been one way of punishing an adulteress (Eze 16:38-39<\/span>). <\/p>\n As in the day that she was born <\/strong> At the time of the Exodus; then Israel had nothing. All she acquired subsequently she owed to Jehovah; but if she continues in her disloyalty to him he will withdraw his support, and she will relapse into a state of complete destitution. <\/p>\n Wilderness <\/strong> In punishment for Israel’s adulteries the land will be robbed of its glory and fertility; the fruitful fields will be turned into a dreary desert. The same thought is expressed in the next clause: as a result of drought the land will become utterly desolate. People and land are not kept apart; both will suffer.<\/p>\n The last clause of Hos 2:3<\/span> should be combined with the first clause of Hos 2:4<\/span>. <\/p>\n And slay her with thirst <\/strong> The final punishment of an adulteress was death (Lev 20:10<\/span>; Deu 22:22<\/span>; Eze 16:40<\/span>). In this case Israel, or rather the land, will perish of thirst, that is, drought. <\/p>\n Her children <\/strong> The inhabitants of the land must share in the punishment of the mother, because they are children of whoredoms. <\/em> As said above, the children are the individual Israelites; in their individual capacity they manifest the same tendencies as the nation as a whole. The phrase, therefore, means not simply children born of a mother with unchaste tendencies, but children possessing such tendencies, and indulging in unchaste practices.<\/p>\n The guilt of Israel is described further in Hos 2:5<\/span>; the verse thus supplies the ground for the earnest appeal in Hos 2:2<\/span>. <\/p>\n Played the harlot <\/strong> Openly she violated her obligations to Jehovah; such conduct is rightly called shameful. <\/em> It was also premeditated; deaf to all exhortations, she declared firmly, <\/p>\n I will go after my lovers <\/strong> Or, paramours. <\/em> By these are meant not the surrounding nations, but the Baalim (Hos 2:13<\/span>), the gods of the native Canaanites. Among the latter no supreme deity seems to have been worshiped; separate districts each had its own deity. The worship of these probably arose in connection with agriculture. “The local Baals fertilized each his own district by his streams and springs, and hence they were the owners this is the meaning of the term Baal of these naturally fertile spots.” In time they were regarded also as the spenders of rain; and the Baals were worshiped as the givers of fertility and prosperity. When the Israelites came into the land they, though nominally continuing to worship Jehovah, were to some extent influenced by the natives, so that they came to see in these Baalim the givers of “every good and perfect gift,” and to pay them the homage belonging exclusively to Jehovah. Herein consisted their whoredom which the prophet condemns. The Baal against whom Elijah fought was an entirely different deity. Several products are enumerated as being ascribed to the power of the Baalim. These, the most important, are only samples; everything else was thought to come from them. <\/p>\n Bread <\/strong> Food. <\/p>\n Water <\/strong> Because of its scarcity prized very highly by an agricultural people. <\/p>\n Wool and flax <\/strong> From which clothing was made. <\/p>\n Oil <\/strong> See on Joe 1:10<\/span>. <\/p>\n Drink <\/strong> Literally, drinks. <\/em> Wine and other drinks made of fruit, such as dates, figs, raisins. Food, clothing, and articles of luxury were all traced to the Baalim. For this disloyalty to Jehovah, Israel must be punished. Jehovah must vindicate himself.<\/p>\n “Contend with your mother, contend, for she is not my wife, nor am I her husband, and let her put away her whoredoms from her face, and her adulteries from between her breasts, lest I strip her naked, and set her as in the day that she was born, and make her as a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst.”<\/p>\n The context now has in mind Israel’s state rather than that of Hosea’s family. It is on the basis of the hope of once again being accepted that the people of Israel are to contend with their mother (clearly here the state of Israel as the fallen wife of YHWH) because of her proved unfaithfulness. That unfaithfulness is the reason why she is no longer His wife, and he is not her husband. The words ‘she is not my wife, nor am I her husband’ have the ring of an official pronouncement of divorce, although probably to be seen as not yet pronounced. Unless she repents, the marriage covenant between them is about to be quashed. And the contention of her children is to be that she should put away her unfaithfulness, and her idolatry, lest she be totally exposed in the sight of the nations by having her nakedness exposed, and by being desolated and turned into a semi-desert. The indication is that repentance is still open to Israel even now, if only she will turn before it is too late.<\/p>\n The picture of Israel which is drawn is vivid. It depicts a prostitute with painted face (compare Jer 4:30<\/span>), welcoming lovers to her breasts (or having provocative ornaments on her breasts), because she has rejected YHWH and chosen to entertain false religion (a Yahwism tainted with Baalism), with the consequence that she will be stripped naked and exposed in the burning sun unless she changes her ways. In the event it would be the stripping naked and exposure which would be her lot.<\/p>\n Stripping naked and exposure to others was probably a recognised way of dealing with unfaithful women (compare Eze 16:37<\/span>). There may also be here a reference to the wilderness days which followed Israel’s ‘birth’, when Israel was outside the land and subject to the problems of the semi-desert, with the thought that she will again be cast out of the land.<\/p>\n Hos 2:2<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>Plead, <\/em><\/strong>&c.<\/strong> These words are directed to those pious persons who still remained among the ten tribes, and who were required to reprove, and use their best endeavours to reform that general corruption which the nation had contracted by its idolatry. In the day that she was born, <\/em>&c., Hos 2:3<\/span>., alludes to the situation of the Hebrews in Egypt, plunged in idolatry, oppressed with cruel servitude, and almost deprived of hope. See Eze 16:5-6<\/span>. <\/p>\n But yet remember how the Lord pleads with his people under their rebellions. Here the whole Church is represented as our mother; and called in to hear of her backslidings; that when Christ was married to her she should run after her lovers. There is somewhat uncommonly gracious, and blessed, in this view of Jesus marrying our nature, by uniting that nature to the Godhead. And of all subjects of endearment, surely this is the highest, and the best. Reader! I know not what your feelings are on this subject; but to my view, I know of no encouragements to lead my poor sinful soul to the mercy seat of God in Christ, amidst all my unworthiness, equal to this; that Christ hath taken my nature up with him to the highest glory; and in that nature, that there is one in the throne whom the Father heareth alway. I feel a thousand blessings in this one consideration, that poor, and wretched, and polluted, as I am, in this body of sin and death, which I carry about with me; yet in that pure, and holy part of my nature, in the Person of Christ Jesus, Jehovah’s law hath been magnified, and made honorable; so that a gracious acceptation is given to all his people, in Him, the beloved. When I think of this, and what the Church is in Jehovah’s sight, as beheld and accepted in Christ Jesus, I am content to be stript and become naked, as in the day I was born, that I may be washed in Jesus’s blood, and clothed in Jesus’s righteousness.<\/p>\n Hos 2:2 Plead with your mother, plead: for she [is] not my wife, neither [am] I her husband: let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts;<\/p>\n Ver. 2. Plead with your mother, plead<\/strong> ] Here of right begins the second chapter (the former verse being not so fitly separated from the former chapter), and it is nothing else but a commentary upon the first, as Pareus well noteth. For the prophet here proceedeth in accusing the people of disloyalty and ingratitude: whereupon he denounceth a divorce and punishment: and then foretelleth their repentance and return into favour with God under the kingdom of the Messiah. Now the end wherefore both the accusation and the promise is here reiterated, is not so much to confirm what had been before affirmed, as to set forth the means whereby this cast off people was to be at length added unto the Church: viz. partly by external means (as sharp sermons and sore afflictions), and partly by the internal grace of the Spirit of God, and good affiance of his love sealed up to them, by various spiritual and temporal favours conferred upon them; as so many love tokens. Come we now to the words of this verse; where Oecolampadius begins the chapter: Plead with our mother, plead<\/em> It is verbum forense,<\/em> saith Mercer; an expression borrowed from pleaders at the bar: q.d.<\/em> Be in good earnest with her, rebuke her roundly and openly, according to the nature of her offence: that she may be sound in the faith, and ashamed of her perfidiousness. What though she be your mother, and in that respect to be honoured by you, yet she is a perverse rebellious woman, as Saul once said of his son Jonathan’s mother, 1Sa 20:30<\/span> (how truly I inquire not: malice little regards truth, so it may gall or kill), and therefore to be barely and boldly told her own. Besides, we cannot better show our respect to parents than by seeking their souls’ health, and by dealing fairly but freely with them therein. Not as Walter Mapes (sometime Archdeacon of Oxford) did by his mother Church of Rome: for relating the gross simony a<\/em> of the Pope in confirming the election of Reginald, bastard son of Jocelin, Bishop of Sarum, into the see of Bath, he thus concludes his narration, Sit tamen Domina materque nostra Roma baculus in aqua fractus: et absit credere quae vidimus:<\/em> yet let our lady and mother Rome be as a stick put into the water, which seems to be broken, but is not so: and far be it from us to believe our own eyes against her. Was this charity? or stupidity rather? Charity may be ingenuous, but not servile and blockish. It is not love, but hatred (if Moses may judge), to suffer sin in a dearest friend to pass uncontrolled, Lev 19:17<\/span> . Good Asa deposed his own mother for her idolatry: and our Edward VI would not be drawn by any persuasion of friends or fear of enemies, to indulge his sister, the Lady Mary, to have mass said in her house. The truth is, those Ammis and Ruhamahs that have found mercy from God, they have their hearts so fired up thereby with a holy zeal for him, that they cannot endure to see him dishonoured, but must appear and plead for him against any in the world. Again, as any one is more assured of his own salvation by Christ, the more he thirsteth after the salvation of others; as we see evidently in St Paul, that vessel of mercy. I am persuaded, saith he, or I am sure, that neither life nor death, &c., shall ever separate me from God’s love in Christ. And what follows in the very next words, but this, “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also hearing me witness in the Holy Ghost; that I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ, for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites,” &c., Rom 8:38-39<\/span> ; Rom 9:1-4<\/span> . And how effectually and convincingly he pleadeth with them to draw them to Christ and hold them close to him, that golden Epistle to the Hebrews will well witness to the world’s end. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n For she is not my wife<\/strong> ] For I have put her away by a bill of divorcement, Isa 50:1<\/span> , with a Habe tibi quae tua sunt<\/em> (which was the form of divorce among the Romans), Take thine own things and be gone. Now, the Jewish synagogue had nothing she could properly call her own, but sin and misery: when God first took her, she had not a rag to her back, Eze 16:10<\/span> , nor any kind of comeliness, but what he was pleased to put upon her, Eze 16:14<\/span> . But she (foolish woman and unwise, Deu 32:6 ), trusting in her borrowed beauty, played the harlot, and poured out her fornication on every one that passed by: his it was, Eze 16:15<\/span> . The synagogue of Rome is such another meretrix meretricissima quae gremium claudit nemini,<\/em> as her own sons say of her, by way of commendation. St John calleth her the whore, the great whore, Rev 17:1<\/span> ; Rev 17:15<\/span> ; and further telleth us that she sitteth upon her paramours in a base manner, in an unseemly sort, she sitteth upon their very consciences, and keeps them under by force: whereas Stephen, king of Poland (one of her sons, but not altogether so obsequiuus), was wont to say, that God had required three things to himself, sc.<\/em> ex nihilo aliquid facere, scire futura, et dominari velle conscientiis,<\/em> that is, to make something of nothing, to know things to come, and to bear rule over men’s consciences. How she forceth men to commit folly with her by the cruel Inquisition; and bow she hireth others for preferments (Luther was offered a cardinalship; Bessarion of Nice was won over to her by such an offer; Thomas Saranzius was of a poor shoemaker’s son made bishop, cardinal, and pope, all in one year, and called Nicolas V; the like might be said of Aeneas Sylvius, Canon of Trent, afterwards Pope Pius II), and for a price too, is notoriously known to the Christian world. Stratagem nunc est Pontificium ditare multos ut pii esse desinant,<\/em> saith a good author. It is one of the pope’s stratagems to enrich men that he may oblige them to himself, and bring them into his own vassalage (John Baptist. Gelli. Dialog. 5). In various towns of Germany (as at Augsburg, &c.) there was a known allowance by the year for such Lutherans as would become Papists. Thus this whore of Rome imitateth her in the text: of whom it is elsewhere complained, Eze 16:33<\/span> , “They give gifts to all whores” (and so buy repentance at too dear a rate, Nolo tanti paenitentiam emere,<\/em> Dem.), but “thou givest thy gifts to all thy lovers, and hirest them that they may come unto thee on every side for thy whoredom: yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldst not be satisfied,” Eze 16:28<\/span> . It was but time therefore that God should cast her off as now no wife of his, but an adulteress of the devil, as she showed herself notably in the Trent Conventicle: where with a whore’s forehead that refused to be ashamed, Jer 3:3<\/span> , she not only established by a law their abominable idolatry, but also set forth that heathenish decree, whereby she equaleth (at least) the Apocrypha to the holy Canon, the vulgar puddle to the Hebrew and Greek fountains, unwritten verities and traditions to the sacred Scriptures: and further addeth, that the Holy Ghost himself is not to be hearkened unto speak he never so plainly and expressly, nisi accedat meretricis purpuratae effrons interpreratio,<\/em> unless she may have the interpreting of his meaning according to her way. O monstrous impudence, deserving a divorce! True it is that God hateth putting away, Mal 2:16 Isa 50:1<\/span> ; he tells these Jews that he had not given their mother a bill of divorcement, ut solent morosi et crudeles mariti,<\/em> as cruel and froward husbands used to do for every light offence. But what he had done this way, he was merely compelled to it; as not able to wink any longer at their flagitious practices. Hear his own words, “Thus saith the Lord, Where is the bill of your mother’s divorcement whom I have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? Behold, for your iniquities you sold yourselves; and for your transgressions is your mother put away.” And yet not so far put away either, but that if she repent, she may be received again: and that is no small mercy. See Jer 3:1<\/span> , “They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the Lord.” Lo, God is above law; and his mercy is matchless: he will do for his people what none else in like case would ever he drawn to do: Mic 7:18<\/span> , “Who is a God like unto thee?” saith the prophet, by way of admiration. David never came near his concubines more after Absalom had gone in to them; and Ahithophel judged that act would be such an injury, as David would never put up with, and therefore gave that pernicious counsel. But God’s thoughts are not as man’s thoughts, neither are our ways his ways, of mercy, and multiplied pardons. But “as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are his ways higher than our ways, and his thoughts than our thoughts,” Isa 55:8-9<\/span> . We are not to measure things according to our own model; and to have as low thoughts of God and his goodness as those miscreants once had of his power when they demanded, “Can God prepare a table for us in the wilderness? Can he give us water out of the rock?” Surely a finite creature cannot believe the infinite attributes of God thoroughly, without supernatural grace: which therefore must be implored, and every one of us excited not to cast away our confidence which hath so great recompense, so great encouragement: but to say to our mother, and each to other, “Put away your whoredoms,” &c., “Cast away all your transgressions,” Eze 18:31<\/span> . “Ye have done all this wickedness” (saith Samuel to the revolted people of his time), but what of that? “yet turn not aside from following the Lord”: for that were to add rebellion to sin, as Herod to all his other hateful practices added that of beheading the Baptist. Do not therefore turn aside from following the Lord, but go home again to him, and he will speak peace. “For the Lord will not forsake his people for his great name’s sake: since it hath pleased the Lord once to make you his people,” 1Sa 12:20-22<\/span> . He chose you for his love: and now loves you for his choice; yea, he cries after you, as once, “Return, you blacksliding children, and I will heal your backsliding.” Oh that you would reciprocate and say, “Behold, we come unto thee; for thou art the Lord our God,” Jer 3:22<\/span> . <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight<\/strong> ] Not out of my sight (as a Lapide readeth it, neither according to the original, nor yet his own Vulgate translation), but “out of her sight,” or from her face, b<\/em> and her adulteries from between her breasts. Sed quid hoc sibi vult?<\/em> saith Calvin here. But what may be the meaning of this? It surely seemeth harsh to say that women play the whores, either with their faces or with their breasts: and yet it is not unknown to the learned what Archesilaus the philosopher said to a young wanton, that cast lustful looks and lascivious glances upon others: Nihil interest quibus membris cinaedi sitis, posterioribus an prioribus:<\/em> You may be naughty packs more ways than one. And Plutarch tells of a certain orator, that said of an impudent fellow: Quod in oculis haberet non<\/em> sed<\/em> , that he had in his eyes not pupils, but punks. c<\/em> And St Peter saith of the heretical sects of his time, that they had eyes full of the adulteress (so runs the original, ), and that could not cease to sin, 2Pe 2:14<\/span> . It is evident enough (saith Calvin) that the prophet in this text alludeth to the manner of harlots painting their faces, decking or laying out their breasts to allure lovers. Filthy dressing and naked breasts (saith another divine), this is whoredom between the breasts. A third calleth naked breasts and wrists, abhorred filth. Jerome saith, If a man or woman adorn or carry themselves so as to provoke others to lust after them, though no evil follow upon it, yet the parties shall suffer eternal damnation; because they offered poison to others, though none would drink it. In Scripture, women taxed for this were notorious wicked persons, and usually whores: as Tamar, Jezebel, those damsels, Isa 3:12<\/span> ; Isa 3:16-17<\/span> Dives,<\/em> the rich man, Luk 16:19-31<\/span> Lupa Romana,<\/em> the Roman wolf, Rev 17:3<\/span> . Our Henry VI, when a mask of women were presented unto him, whereof some of them showed their naked breasts, he left the presence, crying, “Fie, fie, ladies, in sooth ye are to blame, to bare those parts to the eyes of man that nature appointed modesty to conceal.” Frederick the Emperor, seeing some country wenches, near Florence, in dancing to show their naked legs, Eamus, said he, meretricum hic ludus est non virginum,<\/em> Let us go hence, for this is not maids’ play, but whores’ rather. That younker in the Proverbs was met by a woman with the attire of a harlot, and subtle of heart, or trussed up about the breasts, with her upper parts naked, like a bedlam. So Levi Ben Gersom, she met him with her naked breasts, yea, with something else naked, d<\/em> which modesty forbids to name, as some construe that text, Pro 7:10<\/span> . So she caught him and kissed him, Hos 2:13<\/span> , with strange impudence: and no question but having caught him, her lust grew more flagrant: as by unclean touches of the face and breasts men are more enkindled. Hence that of our Saviour in expounding the seventh commandment, Mat 5:30<\/span> , “If thy right hand offend thee,” sc.<\/em> by dalliance and wanton touches, “cut it off,” &c. Hippocrates observeth that there are venae et viae ab utero ad mamillas,<\/em> veins and passages that go from the belly to the breasts; and that is the reason he gives of the temptation to lust that is in the breasts. “Keep thyself pure,” saith St Paul to his son Timothy. And again, “The younger women exhort with purity,” or chastity. It is not safe to pry into the beauty of young women. Ut vidi ut perii, &c.<\/em> The eyes are those windows of wickedness and loop holes of lust. “Let her therefore put away her whoredoms out of her sight.” And let not the strange woman “take thee with her eyelids,” saith Solomon, Pro 6:25<\/span> . For prevention hereof, in Chrysostom’s time, the women were separated from the men in the church by a wooden wall. And Tertullian saith to the Christian women, Iudicabunt vos Arabiae feminae ethnicae, &c., <\/em> The heathen women of Arabia shall judge you: for they do not only cover their faces but their heads too; and rather than they will have any part appear naked, they will let the light but into one eye. In Barbary, they say, it is death for any man to see one of the Xeriffe’s concubines; and for them too, if when they see a man (though but through a casement) they do not suddenly screech out. Millions of people have died of the wound in the eye. Aholah and Aholibah, that is, Israel and Judah, no sooner saw the Assyrians (those desirable young men), though but portrayed upon the wall, but they doted upon those paramours, and received them into the bed of love, Eze 23:16-17<\/span> . Et divaricavit tibias suas,<\/em> Eze 16:25<\/span> , and multiplied their whoredoms. The very sight of the altar at Damascus set Ahaz agog to have one of the same fashion, 2Ki 16:10<\/span> . And Jeroboam, coming out of Egypt, where the ox was worshipped, brought home two calves with him; and set them up at Dan and Bethel. The Nicodemites and Familists hold it no sin to be present at idol service, and allege a text for it out of Apocryphal Baruch. But Mr Burroughes, a good interpreter, well observeth, that that which is intended specially here, in these words, “Let her put away her whoredoms out of her sight, and her adulteries,” &c., is, that they should not be content merely with change of their hearts, to say, Well, we will acknowledge the Lord to be the true God, and our hearts shall wholly trust in him; but for these external things, what great matter is in them? Oh no, they must abstain from all appearance of evil, from the badges of idolatry, &c. Thus he. Those badges or ensigns of idolatry they usually carried between their breasts (saith another author), to testify that the idol had their hearts; whereas Christ should have been there, Son 1:13<\/span> , who to show his dear love to his Church appeared to John, girt about the paps with a golden girdle, Rev 1:13<\/span> . See Trapp on “<\/em> Rev 1:13 “<\/em> Cor sedes amoris.<\/em> The heart is the seat of the affections. Hence God calleth for it; “My son, give me thine heart”: and the devil strives for it, Luk 22:3<\/span> Act 5:3<\/span> . Once he strove about a dead man’s body, Jdg 1:9<\/span> , but his design therein was to have set up an idol for himself in the hearts of the living. His eldest son and successor, the pope, useth the same policy. It was a watch word in Gregory XIII’s time, in Queen Elizabeth’s days, My son, give me thy heart: dissemble, go to Church, be a Papist in heart, and then do what ye will: take the oath of allegiance, supremacy, anything that shall be put to you, I will absolve you. Do but carry a crucifix between your breasts (that is the place where they wear such idols), and kiss it when you have sworn (as Louis XI of France used to do), and it shall suffice. An oath upon the conscience of a popish idolater is like a collar upon a monkey’s neck, – that he will slip on for his master’s pleasure and slip off again for his own. Pascenius scoffs King James for the invention of the oath of allegiance. Equivocation the Jesuits have invented, or revived rather, ad consolationem afflictorum Catholicorum,<\/em> for the comfort of afflicted Catholics, as Garnet and Blackwell profess. So impudent is idolatry, such frontless whoredoms appear in their very faces, they openly prostitute themselves; Imo volunt extare signa foeditatis sum,<\/em> saith Calvin, here they hang out their filthy superstitions in the sight of the sun, as Sodom: they set them upon the cliff of the rock, as Jerusalem, Eze 24:7-8<\/span> , ut similes sint publicis scortis,<\/em> like common whores that solicit lovers, and send to them, as she, Eze 23:2-21<\/span> . It was a sad complaint God made, Hos 7:1 of this prophecy, “When I would have healed Israel, then the iniquity of Ephraim was discovered, then it broke forth as the leprosy in their foreheads”: their fornications were not only covert, but overt. Their whoredoms in the face were their worshipping the two golden calves and Baalim (saith Pareus); their “adulteries between their breasts” were their trust in idols, in the arm of flesh, in confederacies, &c., when they would seem nevertheless to trust in God alone: as now the Papists profess to do, and have therefore coined diverse nice distinctions of worship, per se, et per accidens, proprie, et impropriae,<\/em> and a hundred the like evasions. But there is no hiding of their asses’ ears by these subtilties. Dr Reynolds, in his Books de Idolatria Romana,<\/em> hath (among others) proved them rank idolaters. Weston writes, that his head ached in reading that book; but they all yield it unanswerable: and yet they “repent not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood, which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk,” Rev 9:20<\/span> . But, as those that make them are like unto them, so are all those that trust in them, stockish and stupid; given up to the efficacy of error, to believe a lie, yea, and that against common sense, Isa 44:17<\/span> , which is no small stumblingblock to both Jews and Mahometans. <\/p>\n<\/p>\n a<\/em> The act or practice of buying or selling ecclesiastical preferments, benefices, or emoluments; traffic in sacred things. D <\/p>\nFuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible <\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n