3<\/strong>. in the Lord’s land<\/em> ] ‘For I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel’, Num 35:34<\/span>. The expression originated in the popular belief that as, for example, Chemosh was the God of the Amorites, so Jehovah was the God of the Israelites (Jdg 11:24<\/span>), a belief which could lead even Jonah to imagine that he could ‘flee unto Tarshish from the presence of Jehovah’ (Jon 1:3<\/span>).<\/p>\n shall return to Egypt<\/em>, &c.] A repetition of the threat so well calculated to deter the Israelites from disobedience (see on Hos 8:13<\/span>).<\/p>\n shall eat unclean things in Assyria<\/em> ] Comp. Eze 4:13<\/span>, ‘Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their bread defiled among the nations whither I will drive them.’ The prospect held out is not that the captive Israelites would be reduced to the necessity of eating prohibited food, but that, since all heathen lands were ‘unclean’ (Amo 7:17<\/span>), all the products of the soil would also be unclean. The ‘uncleanness’ in both cases was caused by the absence of sanctuaries dedicated to Jehovah. See the foll. notes.<\/p>\n They shall not dwell in the Lords land. The earth is the Lords and the fulness thereof – <\/B>Yet He had chosen the land of Canaan, there to place His people; there, above others, to work His miracles; there to reveal Himself; there to send His Son to take our flesh. He had put Israel in possession of it, to hold it under Him on condition of obedience. Contrariwise, God had denounced to them again and again; if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, ye shall not prolong your days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to possess it Deu 30:17-18<\/span>. The fifth commandment, the first commandment with promise Eph 5:2<\/span>, still implies the same condition, that thy days may be logit in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. God makes the express reserve that the land is His. The land shall not be sold forever, for the land is Mine, for ye are strangers and sojourners with Me. Lev 25:23<\/span>. It was then an aggravation of their sin, that they had sinned in Gods land. It was to sin in His special presence. To offer its first-fruits to idols, was to disown God as its Lord, and to own His adversary. In removing them, then, from His land, God removed them from occasions of sin.<\/P> But Ephraim shall return to Egypt – <\/B>He had broken the covenant, whereon God had promised, that they should not return there (see above the note at Hos 8:13<\/span>). They had recourse to Egypt against the will of God. Against their own will, they should be sent back there, in banishment and distress, as of old, and in separation from their God.<\/P> And they shall eat unclean things in Assyria – <\/B>So in Ezekiel, The children of Israel shall eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them Eze 4:13<\/span>. Not to eat things common or unclean was one of the marks which God had given them. whereby he distinguished them as His people. While God owned them as His people, He would protect them against such necessity. The histories of Daniel, of Eleazar and the Maccabees (Dan 1:8<\/span>; 2<\/span> Macc. 6; 7), show how sorely pious Jews felt the compulsion to eat things unclean. Yet this doubtless Israel had done in his own land, if not in other ways, at least in eating things offered to idols. Now then, through necessity or they were to be forced, for their sustenance to eat tilings unclean, such as were, to them, all things killed with the blood in them, i. e., as almost all things are killed now. They who had willfully transgressed Gods law, should now be forced to live in the habitual breach of that law, in a matter which placed them on a level with the pagan. People, who have no scruple about breaking Gods moral law, feel keenly the removal of any distinction, which places them above others. They had been as pagan; they should be in the condition of pagan.<\/P> <\/p>\n Hos 9:3<\/span><\/p>\n They shall not dwell in the Lords land.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n The Lords land<\/strong><\/p>\n Before, God was to them as a father taking maintenance away from them, leaving them to suffer want: but here His anger increases, and He puts them out of His house; as a nation out of His land. God would make them know that it was His land, that they were but tenants at will, and enjoyed the land upon conditions of obedience. It is a good meditation for us to dwell upon, that we are Gods stewards; the Lord is the great landlord of all the world. The earth is the Lords, and the fulness thereof. The land of Canaan was Jehovahs land in some special senses.<\/p>\n 1. <\/strong>It was a land that God had espied as a special place for His people.<\/p>\n 2. <\/strong>It was the land of promise.<\/p>\n 3. <\/strong>It was a land given by oath (Gen 24:7<\/span>).<\/p>\n 4. <\/strong>It was a land which the Lord brought His people into by a mighty hand, and with an outstretched arm.<\/p>\n 5. <\/strong>It was a land divided by lot. The possession that any man had was ordered by God Himself by lot.<\/p>\n 6. <\/strong>It was a land wherein God dwelt Himself, a land that God called His own rest. It was the land wherein were the ordinances and worship of God, and His honour dwelt there, and so it had a peculiar blessing upon it above every land on the face of the whole earth.<\/p>\n 7. <\/strong>It was a land over which Gods eye was in a more special manner.<\/p>\n 8. <\/strong>This land was typical of the rest of the Church in heaven. Then it would be a great judgment of God to drive men out of this land for their sin. To be cast out of those mercies which God by an extraordinary providence has brought to us is a sore and grievous evil. (Jeremiah Burroughs.<\/em>)<\/p>\n<\/p>\n And they shall eat unclean things in Assyria<\/strong>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p>\n The sting of Divine judgment<\/strong><\/p>\n Here we have the degradation of sin. To be ceremonially clean or pure was the joy and pride of Israel. The Jews would not eat things that were common or unclean, and by this mark they were distinguished from other people. Whilst Israel lived even in nominal piety, how superficial soever it might be, God gave him protection against degradation; but when Israel turned away adulterously from God, and sought satisfaction at forbidden fountains and altars, then the Lord brought upon Israel the misery of this degradation and shame. Israel was forced to eat things that were unclean, things that were killed with the blood in them, things that revolted the sense of the nation, and went dead against all the prejudices of education. Thus a badge was taken from the shoulder of Israel, a distinction was removed from the chosen people; they could have borne reproaches on the ground of moral disobedience with comparative indifference, but to have social boundaries and distinctions broken down was a judgment which Israel keenly felt. But the Lord will seize the sinner at some point, for He cannot be baffled in judgment or thwarted in the application of His righteousness. The Lords judgments are ordered according to our apostasy; God will strike most where we feel most; He will follow our pride and our vanity, and smite them so as to bring upon them our keenest shame. God will not content Himself with some general judgment; He will specifically scrutinise and either reward or punish according to the result of His inquest. (Joseph Parker, D. D.<\/em>)<\/p>\n Verse 3<\/span>. But Ephraim shall return to Egypt<\/B><\/I>] See on Ho 8:13<\/span>.<\/P> <\/p>\n They, <\/B>who worship idols, and give my glory to them, depending on them, and ascribing to them what I alone give them, <\/P> shall not dwell in the Lords land; <\/B>though they have been in possession many years, and though now they seem out of fear of losing it, being great at home and in peace with neighbours abroad, yet in midst of this prosperity and security, let them note it, they shall not much longer dwell in the Lords land, which God gave them according to promise, with express condition that they should obey him and fear him, and him only, Deu 6:2<\/span>,3<\/span>, and with express menace of exile and ruin if they forgot God, Deu 8:19<\/span>,20<\/span>. This land, which is the Lords propriety, and theirs only on condition, and this condition broken, shall be their possession no longer. <\/P> Ephraim shall return to Egypt; <\/B>many of Ephraim, for it is not meant of all or the most part; but of the more timorous, wary, and who consult their safety beforehand, many shall flee into Egypt, and shift out of the enemies reach. So again Hos 9:6<\/span>. <\/P> They shall eat unclean things in Assyria; <\/B>the residue who flee not into Egypt shall be carried captives, and in Assyria be forced to eat forbidden meats, called here unclean, such as polluted the eater. <\/P> <\/p>\n 3. return to Egypt<\/B>(See on Ho8:13<\/span>). As in Ho 11:5<\/span> it issaid, “He shall not return<\/I> into . . . Egypt.”FAIRBAIRN thinks it is notthe exact country that is meant, but the bondage state<\/I> withwhich, from past experience, Egypt was identified in their minds.Assyria was to be a second Egypt to them. De28:68<\/span>, though threatening a return to Egypt, speaks (De28:36<\/span>) of their being brought to a nation which neither theynor their fathers had known,<\/I> showing that it is not the literalEgypt, but a second Egypt-like bondage that is threatened. <\/P> eat unclean things inAssyria<\/B>reduced by necessity to eat meats pronounced unclean bythe Mosaic law (Eze 4:13<\/span>). See2Ki 17:6<\/span>.<\/P><\/p>\n They shall not dwell in the Lord’s land<\/strong>,…. The land of Israel, or Canaan; which, though all the earth is the Lord’s, was peculiarly his; which he had chosen for himself, and for this people; where he had his temple, and caused his Shechinah or divine Majesty to dwell in a very special manner, and where his worship and service were performed. So the Targum calls it the land of the Shechinah or majesty of the Lord. Sometimes it is called Immanuel’s land, where the Messiah Immanuel, God with us, was to be born, and dwell, and where he did. Kimchi wrongly interprets this of Jerusalem only; and others of Judea; but it designs the whole land of promise, which God save by promise to the fathers of this people, and put them in the possession of, the tenure of which they held by their obedience; but they not living according to will, and in obedience to his laws, who was Lord of the land, sole Proprietor and Governor of it, he turned them out of it, and would not suffer them to continue any longer in it; and which was a great punishment indeed, to be driven out of such a land, a land flowing with milk and honey, and where they had been favoured with privileges and blessings of every kind;<\/p>\n but Ephraim shall return to Egypt<\/strong>; or the ten tribes; that is, some of them, who should flee thither for refuge and sustenance; when the Assyrian should invade their land, and besiege Samaria, they should go thither again, where their ancestors had formerly been in a state of bondage: this is prophesied of them, De 28:68<\/span>;<\/p>\n and they shall eat unclean [things] in Assyria<\/strong>; that is, Ephraim or the ten tribes, the far greater part of there, should be taken captive, and carried into Assyria, and there eat food which by their law was unclean, as things sacrificed to idols, swine’s flesh, and many others; or food that was not fit for men to eat, which nature abhorred; such bread as Ezekiel was bid to make and eat, Eze 4:9<\/span>. This may be understood even of them that went to Egypt for help against the Assyrians, or for shelter from them, or for food to eat in the time of famine; who should be brought back again, and carried into Assyria, and there live a miserable and an uncomfortable life; who had been used to enjoy corn and wine, and plenty of all good things, to which these unclean things may be opposed.<\/p>\n “They will not remain in the land of Jehovah: Ephraim returns to Egypt, and they will eat unclean things in the land of Asshur.<\/em> Hos 9:4<\/span>. They will not pour out wine to Jehovah, and their slain-offerings will not please Him: like bread of mourning are they to Him; all who eat it become unclean: for their bread is for themselves, it does not come into the house of Jehovah.” <\/em> Because they have fallen away from Jehovah, He will drive them out of His land. The driving away is described as a return to Egypt, as in Hos 8:13<\/span>; but Asshur is mentioned immediately afterwards as the actual land of banishment. That this threat is not to be understood as implying that they will be carried away to Egypt as well as to Assyria, but that Egypt is referred to here and in Hos 9:6<\/span>, just as in Hos 8:13<\/span>, simply as a type of the land of captivity, so that Assyria is represented as a new Egypt, may be clearly seen from the words themselves, in which eating unclean bread in Assyria is mentioned as the direct consequence of their return to Egypt; whereas neither here nor in Hos 9:6<\/span> is their being carried away to Assyria mentioned at all; but, on the contrary, in Hos 9:6<\/span>, Egypt<\/em> only is introduced as the place where they are to find their grave. This is still more evident from the fact that Hosea throughout speaks of Asshur alone, as the rod of the wrath of God for His rebellious people. The king of Asshur is king Jareb<\/em> (striver), to whom Ephraim goes for help, and by whom it will be put to shame (Hos 5:13<\/span>; Hos 10:6<\/span>); and it is from the Assyrian king Salman<\/em> that devastation and destruction proceed (Hos 10:14<\/span>). And, lastly, it is expressly stated in Hos 11:5<\/span>, that Israel will not return to Egypt, but to Asshur, who will be its king. By the allusion to Egypt, therefore, the carrying away to Assyria is simply represented as a state of bondage and oppression, resembling the sojourn of Israel in Egypt in the olden time, or else the threat contained in Deu 28:68<\/span> is simply transferred to Ephraim. They will eat unclean things in Assyria, not only inasmuch as when, under the oppression of their heathen rulers, they will not be able to observe the laws of food laid down in the law, or will be obliged to eat unclean things from simple want and misery; but also inasmuch as all food, which was not sanctified to the Lord by the presentation of the first-fruits, was unclean food to Israel (Hengstenberg). In Assyria these offerings would cease with the whole of the sacrificial ritual; and the food which was clean in itself would thereby become unclean outside the land of Jehovah (cf. Eze 4:13<\/span>). This explanation of is required by Hos 9:4<\/span>, in which a further reason is assigned for the threat. For what we have there is not a description of the present attitude of Israel towards Jehovah, but a picture of the miserable condition of the people in exile. The verbs are pure futures. In Assyria they will neither be able to offer wine to the Lord as a drink-offering, nor such slain-offerings as we well-pleasing to Him. For Israel could only offer sacrifices to its God at the place where He made known His name by revelation, and therefore not in exile, where He had withdrawn His gracious presence from it. The drink-offerings are mentioned, as pars pro toto <\/em>, in the place of all the meat-offerings and drink-offerings, i.e., of the bloodless gifts, which were connected with the z e bhachm <\/em>, or burnt-offerings and thank-offerings ( sh e lamm <\/em>, Num 15:2-15<\/span>, Num 15:28-29<\/span>), and could never be omitted when the first-fruits were offered (Lev 23:13<\/span>, Lev 23:18<\/span>). “Their sacrifices:” zibhchehem <\/em> belongs to (shall be pleasing to Him), notwithstanding the previous segholta <\/em>, because otherwise the subject to would be wanting, and there is evidently quite as little ground for supplying ‘ from the preceding clause, as Hitzig proposes, as for assuming that here means to mix. Again, we must not infer from the words, “their slain-offerings will not please Him,” that the Israelites offered sacrifices when in exile. The meaning is simply that the sacrifices, which they might wish to offer to Jehovah there, would not be well-pleasing to Him. We must not repeat as the subject to the next clause … , in the sense of “their sacrifices will be to them like mourners’ bread,” which would give no suitable meaning; for though the sacrifices are called bread of God, they are never called the bread of men. The subject may be supplied very readily from k e lechem <\/em> (like bread) thus: their bread, or food, would be to them like mourners’ bread; and the correctness of this is proved by the explanatory clause, “for their bread,” etc. Lechem ‘onm <\/em>, bread of affliction, i.e., of those who mourn for the dead (cf. Deu 26:14<\/span>), in other words, the bread eaten at funeral meals. This was regarded as unclean, because the corpse defiled the house, and all who came in contact with it, for seven days (Num 19:14<\/span>). Their bread would resemble bread of this kind, because it had not been sanctified by the offering of the first-fruits. “For their bread will not come into the house of Jehovah,” viz., to be sanctified, “for their souls,” i.e., to serve for the preservation of their life.<\/p>\n The Prophet proclaims here a heavier punishment — that the Lord would drive them into exile. It was indeed a dreadful repudiation, when they were deprived of the land of Canaan, which was the Lord’s rest, as it is called in the Psalms, (Psa 132:14<\/span>.) While they dwelt in the land of Canaan, they lived as it were in the habitations of God, and could have a sure hope that he would be a father to them: but when they were thence expelled, the Lord testified that he regarded them as aliens; it was the same as when a father disinherits his son. The Prophet now threatens them not only with the want of food, but also with repudiation, which was far more grievous — They shall not dwell, he says, in the Lord’s land <\/p>\n There is an elegant play on words in the verbs here used; ישבו, ishebu, and ושב, usheb; the one is from ישב, isheb, and the other from שוב, shub. ‘They shall not dwell in the Lord’s land; but Ephraim shall return into Egypt:’ and the other circumstance is still more dreadful. In Assyria they shall eat what is unclean; for it was the same as if the Lord intended to blend that holy people with the profane Gentiles, so that there should be afterwards no difference; for the uncleanness of which the Prophet speaks would have the effect of destroying the distinction which the adoption of God made between that people and the profane nations. It was indeed by badges that the Lord retained the people of Israel, when he ordered them to abstain from unclean meats: but when they differed nothing, as to common food, from the Gentiles, it was evident that they were rejected by God, and that the holiness which belonged to them through the free covenant of God was obliterated. They shall eat, then, what is unclean in Assyria; that is, “They shall not now be under my care and protection; they shall live according to their own will, as the other nations. I have hitherto preserved them under some restraint; but now, as they will not bear to live under my law, they shall have their own liberty, and shall be profane like the rest of the world, so that they shall become involved in all the defilements and pollutions of the Gentiles.” This is the meaning. <\/p>\n And now we ought to consider, whether it be right, when we are among idolaters, to conform to the rites approved by them. This place, no doubt, as other places, most clearly shows, that nothing more grievous can happen to us than the doing away of all difference between us and the profane despisers of God, even in the outward manner of living. Had the Prophet said, “The Israelites shall now be hungry in a far country; — the Lord has hitherto fed them with plenty, for he has performed what he had formerly promised by Moses; this land has in every way been blessed, and has supplied us with great abundance of wine, wheat, and oil; yea, honey has flowed like water; but they shall now be constrained to pine away with want among their enemies:” — Had the Prophet said this, it would have been a grievous and severe denunciation; but now he fills them, as it has been already said, with much greater horror, for he says, ‘They shall eat what is unclean.’ There seemed to be some great importance belonging to the external rite: but the outward profession was the badge of divine adoption. When therefore the people loosened the reins and ate indiscriminately any meat, and made no choice according to the directions of the law, then the distinction was removed, so that they ceased to be the people of God. It is the same also, at this day, with those who turn aside from a sincere profession of their faith and associate with the Papists; they renounce, as far as they can, the favour of God, and abandon themselves to the will of Satan. <\/p>\n Let us then know that it is a dreadful judgement of God, when we are not allowed to profess our faith by outward worship; and when the ungodly so rule, as to put us under the necessity of which the Prophet here speaks, even of eating unclean things, that is, of being implicated in their profane superstitions. It is then a favour, to be highly valued, when we are permitted to abstain from all defilements and to worship God purely, so that no one may contaminate himself by dissimulation: but when we are compelled, under the tyranny of the ungodly, to conform to impure superstitions, it is a sign of the dreadful judgement of God; and there is nothing by which any one can excuse himself in this respect or extenuate his fault, as many do, whom yet conscience bites within, though they deem it sufficient to spread forth their own excuses before the eyes of men. But there is nothing by which such men can either flatter themselves, or dazzle the eyes of the simple; for it is an extreme reproach, when people, who ought to be sacred to God and to profess outwardly his pure worship, suffer themselves to be polluted with unclean food. It follows — <\/p>\n (3, 4) Canaan, the land of Jehovah, is holy, Assyria unholy (Amo. 7:17<\/span>), where there was no temple or sacred ordinances. Since meat was not a divinely sanctioned food, except in connection with a Jehovah festival, it became in the land of exile unclean. This became true in the eyes of Hosea of all eating. In the family every feast was a Eucharistic sacrifice (W. R. Smith, Old Testament in the Jewish Church,<\/em> pp. 235 and 237). (Comp. Eze. 4:13<\/span>.)<\/p>\n ‘They will not dwell in YHWH’s land,<\/p>\n But Ephraim will return to Egypt,<\/p>\n And they will eat unclean food in Assyria.<\/p>\n They would no longer be allowed to live ‘in YHWH’s land’. They had overlooked the fact that the land was YHWH’s (Lev 25:23<\/span>) and that they were being bad tenants, and could therefore be expelled. But it was something that they should have known, for it had been clearly spelled out in Lev 26:33-39<\/span>; Deu 28:64<\/span>. YHWH had delivered them from bondage in Egypt into His own land, but now they would ‘return to Egypt’ (compare Hos 8:13<\/span>; Hos 9:6<\/span>; Hos 11:5<\/span>) and eat unclean food in Assyria. ‘Return to Egypt’ was probably symbolic of being trodden down and returned to slavery, although almost certainly many refugees would flee to Egypt, and in the final analysis many would return from Egypt (Hos 11:11<\/span>). Hosea possibly considered it a rather poignant fact that some would opt to return to bondage in Egypt, seemingly the last thing that any Israelite would want. But the main destination for the captured exiles would be Assyria. They would ‘eat unclean food’ there because the food would not have been sanctified by the offering of the firstfruits, and they would probably also in many cases be driven to eat what food was available, which would not necessarily be ‘kosher’ (compare<\/span>Eze 4:13<\/span>).<\/p>\n Hos 9:3<\/span><\/em><\/strong>. <\/strong>But Ephraim shall return to Egypt<\/em><\/strong><\/strong> When Salmaneser made the ten tribes captive, such as were able to escape the conqueror fled into Egypt, having implored the aid of that country against the Assyrians. It appears from the last clause, that the ten tribes, however inclined to idolatry, had before their captivity attended to the laws which prohibited the eating of unclean flesh. <\/p>\n Looking with an eye to the captivity in Babylon, the Lord threatens Israel with removing them from the holy land. Indeed, an unfaithful wife ought not to dwell under the roof with her injured husband. The Lord is very jealous for his honor. And when that Israel no longer dwells in the Lord’s land, how shall she enjoy the Lord’s sacrifices?<\/p>\n Hos 9:3 They shall not dwell in the LORD’S land; but Ephraim shall return to Egypt, and they shall eat unclean [things] in Assyria.<\/p>\n Ver. 3. They shall not dwell in the Lord’s land] Because they would not live by the Lord’s laws, they shall therefore be turned out of his house (so this land was called, Hos 9:8 ) as rebellious children, that are a disturbance and a disgrace to their father’s family; they shall hold no longer as tenants of him, the chief landlord, because so backward to send a lamb (as rent or a homage penny) to the ruler of the land, Isa 16:1<\/span> ; they were tenants at will, and held upon condition of obedience, Lev 18:28<\/span> , it was divided among them by lot; Joshua divided it among them, and left none to himself. The people gave him a portion, and he was content with it; though it were but a mean one in the barren mountains, as Jerome noteth. He had the promise that God would never leave him nor forsake him; and he well knew that if he trusted in the Lord, and did good, he should “dwell in the land and be verily fed,” Psa 37:3<\/span> . He and Caleb were of another spirit, and fulfilled after God; therefore they only of all that generation entered the promised land, the Lord’s land; which because Moses might not do, it was a great grief to him. These idolaters here are threatened to be cashiered and cast out of this good land, and to have their pleasant land laid desolate, to be spewed out, as the Canaanites had been before them, Lev 18:28<\/span> , and so consequently to be deprived of God’s favour, help, and protection; and altogether disprivileged, yea, disinherited. This was a heavy judgment to them, and must be a warning to us, that yet live in the bosom of the Church, and under the joyful sound; that we forfeit not our present enjoyments, that we sin not away our precious privileges, as the seven Churches and others have done. Alterius perditio tua sit cautio.<\/em> We stand upon our good behaviour, as they did; see Deu 30:19-20<\/span> . <\/p>\n <\/p>\n But Ephraim shall return to Egypt<\/strong> ] Which they ought to have been sensible of as a punishment long since threatened, Deu 28:68<\/span> , see Hos 8:13<\/span><\/em> , See Trapp on “<\/em> Hos 8:13 “<\/em> though now, of their own accord, they returned to it, for fear of the Assyrian (whom by their false dealing they had justly incensed), yet that should not shelter them, but God’s hand would find them out, and fetch them thence into captivity. Often they had been warned not to go down to Egypt for help; and they must needs be hard bestead that fled thither. True it is, that the Egyptians are renowned in histories for a thankful people (Diod. Sic. l. 2), and the Israelites are charged not to abhor an Egyptian, because they were once strangers in his land, and had tasted of his courtesies, Deu 23:7<\/span> . But in addition, they could not but know how hardly the Egyptians had dealt with their forefathers, and bow treacherously also with them; and that they ought not, de iure,<\/em> concerning the law, to have returned thither upon any terms. Sed Deus quem destruit dementat,<\/em> Bug God, who he destroyed, makes mad, and although here they were resolved for Egypt, yet, Hos 11:5<\/span> , God resolveth otherwise; and voluntas Dei necessitas rei,<\/em> his will shall stand when all is done. <\/p>\n <\/p>\n And they shall eat unclean things in Assyria<\/strong> ] Things forbidden by the law, as swine’s flesh, &c.; they shall be forced to eat or starve; they must not look for liberty of conscience in Assyria, nor have that favour to make a difference of meat as Daniel had, Dan 1:8<\/span> , but as Ezekiel baked his barley cakes with man’s dung, even so, said the Lord, shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the heathen whither I will drive them. So haughty they were grown, that their father’s house could not hold them; therefore they shall be glad of husks with hogs (as that prodigal), they shall eat as the heathens, since they would needs act as the heathens. They thought it was hard with them in their own land, when the floors and the winepress would not feed them, Hos 9:2<\/span> ; but now it is far worse, when, forced by hard hunger, they are glad of any meat, be it clean or unclean; neither have they any more mind to be so merry with other nations, as Hos 9:1<\/span> , or cause so to be; their stomachs craving, and themselves (with Drusus in Tacitus) ready to eat the stuffings of their bed; or (with the Jews in the last siege of Jerusalem) not only to feed upon dogs, rats, cats, &c., but the leather of their shoes, belts, shields, bridles, yea, ox dung was a precious dish unto them, and the shreddings of pot herbs cast out and trodden underfoot (Pontanus. Hegesippus).<\/p>\n return to Egypt. See Hos 8:13; Hos 11:5. Compare Eze 4:13. <\/p>\n in Assyria. See 2Ki 17:6. 2Ki 11:11. <\/p>\n shall not: Lev 18:28, Lev 20:22, Deu 4:26, Deu 28:63, Jos 23:15, 1Ki 9:7, Mic 2:10 <\/p>\n the Lord’s: Lev 25:23, Jer 2:7, Jer 16:18 <\/p>\n but: Hos 9:6, Hos 8:13, Hos 11:5, Deu 28:68, Isa 11:15, Isa 11:16, “Not into Egypt itself, but into another bondage as bad as that, ” and, Eze 4:13, Dan 1:8, Act 10:14 <\/p>\n in Assyria: Hos 11:11, 2Ki 17:6 <\/p>\n Reciprocal: Lev 11:8 – they are unclean Num 35:34 – I dwell 2Ki 17:18 – removed 2Ki 18:11 – the king Psa 101:8 – cut off Isa 26:10 – in the Isa 27:13 – and they Jer 7:15 – the whole Lam 5:6 – to the Egyptians Eze 13:9 – neither shall they be Hos 7:8 – he hath Hos 7:11 – they call Hos 7:16 – this Hos 9:15 – I will drive Joe 1:6 – my Amo 7:17 – die Mic 2:5 – cast Act 11:8 – unclean<\/p>\n Hos 9:3. This verse gives the reason for prediction of the preceding one; that Israel was to be deprived of dwelling in the Lord’s land, which means Palestine. Ephraim means the 10*trlbe kingdom, and so named because its capital city was located in the possession of that tribe. Return to Egypt; not literally, but into a bondage ae bad as the Egyptian enslavement was. Eat unclean things in Assyria is literal, referring to the exile of the ten tribes into the land of Assyria.<\/p>\n Hos 9:3. They shall not dwell in the Lords land, but Ephraim shall return into Egypt God will turn them out of that inheritance he gave to their fathers, and they shall be carried into captivity or become exiles a second time in Egypt. When Shalmaneser made the ten tribes captive, such as were able to escape the conqueror fled into Egypt, having implored the aid of that country against the Assyrians. And they shall eat unclean things in Assyria They have transgressed my law, in eating unclean things in their own land; and the time shall come when they shall be forced by their imperious masters the Assyrians to eat unclean things, whether they will or not. They will have no choice left them, but, as slaves, will be forced to eat what is given them.<\/p>\n Israel would not remain in the Promised Land but would go into captivity (cf. Deu 11:8-21). Assyria, likened here to Egypt (cf. Hos 7:16; Hos 8:13; Hos 11:5), would be the place the Israelites would eat unclean food (i.e., no longer be independent; 2Ki 17:6; Eze 4:13; Amo 7:17). She would eat defiled food in a defiled land because she had defiled herself with sin.<\/p>\n "The place of their captivity was first called ’Egypt’ (cf. Hos 8:13) in order to show its general character; then Assyria was named as the actual place the people would be taken to (cf. Hos 11:5)." [Note: Wood, "Hosea," p. 204.] <\/span><\/p>\n "Egypt" is a metonymy for exile because it was the original place of Israel’s captivity (cf. Deu 28:68).<\/p>\n They shall not dwell in the LORD’s land; but Ephraim shall return to Egypt, and they shall eat unclean [things] in Assyria. 3. in the Lord’s land ] ‘For I the Lord dwell among the children of Israel’, Num 35:34. The expression originated in the popular belief that as, for example, Chemosh was the God … Continue reading “Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Hosea 9:3”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-22222","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commentary"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22222","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22222"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22222\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22222"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22222"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/bible-commentary\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22222"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell<\/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: 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
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)<\/b><\/i><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"