A commentary on the prophecy of Hosea by Edward Pococke.

VER. 1. When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.

WHEN Israel was a child, then I loved him &c. when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Ci, by others more ancient, as well as by some modern it is rendred quia because; so by the vulgar Latin, and before it by the LXXII. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the printed Arab. also following 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 &c. because ever since Israel was a child, I loved him, and so the Syriack also 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 quia dum puer esset Israel, dilexi eum. That the Hebrew particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ci signifieth both these, viz. when and because, there is no doubt: and that several other uses and significations it also hath, and among them quamvis although, by which some do here also render it. That ours do well in reading it when, rather than because, may ap∣pear by Jerome, who though he render it, quia, because, yet expounds it by dum, while as or when, and by what k others note, as fol∣lowing his authority, that though this particle may seem to render a cause, yet here it doth not. And so Calvin, though he retain that rendring of it by quia because, yet notes that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ci is not here taken causaliter, as denoting a cause, but is adverbium temporis, an adverb of time, importing cum, when. If any take it otherwise, why they do so we shall see in their interpretation of the following words, in which they take a peculiar way, different from what is commonly received, according to which if it be rendred because, as a reason of Gods now punishing them for their ingrati∣tude, and so joyn these to the preceeding words, when must be understood, because when &c.

Israel was a child] was, as necessarily un∣derstood, is supplyed. A child, so rendred by most, puer by the vulgar Latin, by the Chal∣dee 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the LXXII. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an infant, the MS. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a young man, so Capito adolescens. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Naar, so rendred, is of some latitude, as to its signifi∣cation, and is therefore used not only for a young child, (to which it is looked upon as most properly belonging, as if he were so called, as if we should say 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ninar, ex∣cussus ex matris utero, one newly moved or cast out of his mothers womb although by l some understood as of a child yet in the womb) but also for a youth, a young man of greater growth and strength; and such also may, as the learned m Nic. Fuller observes, be called excussi, from the same signification of moving, as being expediti, vividi, alacres, ad quaevis ministeria muniaque obeunda expediti, i. e. lively and nimble for performing any service or business: it is therefore also somtimes used for a servant, or such as are imployed about some service. That it doth in its proper signification imply a contradistinction from old age, is ma∣nifest, as from other places, so from that Ps. 37.25. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I have been young, and now am old. It is by n some ob∣served to be properly attributed to men till twenty five years old, by o others but till fourteen: yet doth R. Tanchum note, that they do sometimes call by that name 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 even an old man, and he instanceth in Joseph, who was so called when he was thirty years old, and p Rehoboam when he was four∣ty two, and Joshua even when he was above sixty, as he notes on Jos. 6.23. where those two men whom he sent for spies against Je∣richo, are called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nearim young men, which in the preceeding verse are called

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 anashim men. But it is hereby mani∣fest that this name is attributed, not in respect to the age only, but in respect also to the con∣ditions or qualities of men, like to those which ordinarily are in those of such age, as by reason of their weakness in understanding and want of manly parts or experience; as where Jeremy saith of himself, I cannot speak, for I am 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 naar, a child, Jer. 1.6. that is q 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 unexperienced; and in what is said of the forementioned Rehoboam, that the King was 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a child, (or as ours translate it, young and tender hearted,) though he were of that age which we have mentioned, so that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 one that is unexperienced and unpractised in mat∣ters may be called Naar, though he be of full age (or old,) as Abuwalid, that we may give his words out of his dictionary, because not print∣ed, speaks; & so in ours & in other languages also would such a one be called properly enough a child. By like reason may on the contrary side one that is, though in older age, as active and vigorous as in youth, be by that name called.

The word being capable of such different uses, that signification of it will be to be taken, which the scope and sense of the place where it is used, requires. In this place here, Israel, not a single person, but a collective body, yet spoken of as one, (as so called also in the New Testament by the title of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 pue∣ri ipsius his child, where ours render it his ser∣vant,) it may be considered in what regard they were as a child, when God set his love upon them; and the most convenient way seems to be in respect to their tenderness, weakness, and impotency, which was in them at their being in Egypt; or the r condition that they were in, when God brought them out thence, merely by his power, not any thing then appearing in them, whereby to help themselves, or deliver themselves from the bondage that they were in. Prima aetas populi fuit in Aegypto, saith Grotius, the s first age, the childhood of Israel, was in Egypt, there they were altogether as a child, for ignorance, rudeness, weakness, and want of help, (and we may with some adde, for t ma∣lice, and for u stubborness, refractoriness, and unruliness also, though the former seem the more proper respects here,) yet then, saith he, I loved him. If any read, because Israel was a child, and I loved him, sure it can import no other reason, than because he could not then have deserved love, but only had need of pity and help, out of mere free aund undeserved love. But we reading, when he was a child, then (for 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ve, which signifies and, and is by w some omitted in rendring, will so also signify,) I loved him, imports the same, viz. that God x freely set his love upon them, more than on other people, making them his peculiar, when yet they y had not deserved, nor could de∣serve love; as formerly he loved z Jacob their father, and preferred him before Esau, when they were both together in the womb, and had not done any thing, the one to deserve love, the other hatred.

If we should take in here (as we said) to∣gether with the weakness of a child some other ill qualities, which in some children are found, of foolishness, peevishness, way wardness and stubborness, of which Israel in that age of them was too guilty; then might we with a some read, (otherwise rendring the particles which we render when, and then) although Israel were a child, yet I loved him, which would still set forth the freeness of his love, but the former seems more convenient.

These wayes of exposition do suppose the nouns, both Israel and child, to be of the no∣minative case, as by the most, both Jews and Christians, ancient and modern, they are (and I think rightly) taken to be, yet is b there a translation of great note, (which per∣haps some few others follow) wherein Israel is made the genitive case; it runs thus, quia puer Israelis est & diligo eum, ideo &c. be∣cause he is the child of Israel and I love him, therefore &c. What their reason is for forsaking the generally received, and plain way of con∣struction of those words, we shall better per∣ceive, after we have looked somthing into the following, and seen how they make the depen∣dence of one on the other to be differently also from what others do. Those words according to what ours and most others render, are, and called my son out of Egypt; but according to that translation, ideo &c. therefore have I called &c.

In the margin in our Bibles with reference to these words is cited Matt. 2.15. as direct∣ing us to look on them as that spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, which was fulfilled in Christs being carryed into Egypt, (v. 14. and thence again called and brought back into the land of Israel v. 20, 21.) and so are these places usually looked on as one and the same, first uttered here by the Prophet, and then out of him quoted, and applyed by the Evan∣gelist, which making them as parallel one to the other, gives occasion of questioning, or en∣quiring concerning whom they were here spo∣ken and intended at first by the Prophet, whe∣ther concerning Israel, to whom & of whom in the preceeding and following words he was

speaking; or concerning Christ, of whom the Evangelist saith the Lord spake them by the Prophet; or concerning both: then how they were fulfilled, either in Israel or in Christ, or in both. These things are largely discussed and examined by several Expositors c on this place and on St. Matthew, and d other Tracts, and it will be necessary that we should speak somthing of them. But before we so do, it may be convenient to speak somthing also as previous to it; as first, concerning the rendring of the words, whether that which our Translators, and most others, give agree∣able to what St. Matthew gives in his Greek, be exactly agreeable to the Hebrew here in the Prophet. Secondly, whether it be ne∣cessary to say that the Prophet by St. Mat∣thew meant, (seeing he gives not his name) was Hosea, and the words by him cited be these words, or else that he meant some other Prophet, and referred to some other place of Scripture, and some other words by that Prophet there uttered.

As to the first, I think, we may well affirm, that the Translation which ours, and others with whom they agree, is very literal and accurate beyond any other that is given or can be given, the words having all their plain signification, and the construction being very genuine. All that I know may be possi∣bly objected against it, is that the letter 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 in libni, in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 rendred vocavi filium meum, I have called my son, usually put as a sign of the dative case, and signifying to, would require that a verbal rendring should be, e clamavi ad filium meum, or f vocavi fi∣lio meo, I called to my son out of Egypt. But as such a translation would pervert the mean∣ing, as giving to suppose him who called to be in Egypt, and that he thence called to one that was out of Egypt, contrary to all that was done either as to Gods calling of Israel, or Christ; so is there no reason at all to say that a verbal translation would require that import to be put on that letter: it being ma∣nifest that without any such, or other, signi∣fication it is put in construction with verbs, g barely as a note of an accusative case go∣verned by them, so it is manifestly with this same verb here used Gen. 1.10. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and God called layabbashah, the drie land earth, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and lemikveh hummaim, the gathering of the waters called he seas; so in an example neerer to the construction of these words, Gen. 31.4. and Jacob sent 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 vayikrah le-Rachel vleleah hassadeh, and called Rachel and Leah into the field, where is the very same use of that letter prefixed to the noun as here, without any significa∣tion of its own given it. And h some learned men therefore note, that the verb which we have here, governing its case with that letter, prefixed to it, often doth signify accersere, to call one, viz. per nuntium, by a messenger sent to call him, as God did the Israelites out of Egypt by Moses, his Son Christ by an Angel, though there be here no mention of the Mes∣senger, but of him who sent him in his name to call. Of the fidelity therefore and exact∣ness of this rendring of the Hebrew, which we have agreeing to the Greek in St. Matthew, there is no doubt; there cannot any be given more punctually agreeable to the words, and and no other so agreeable do we find.

Some Jews do somthing differently render it, as the Author of the MS. Arab. translation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and out of (or from) Egypt have I named him my son, according to which way Kimchi also gives this meaning, out of Egypt, that is, from that time I began to call him my son; they seem to follow the Chaldee, which hath, out of Egypt I called them sons. But sure this doth not so exactly answer word for word, making an addition of a supply of the pronoun him, betwixt I called, and my son, which is not at all in the Hebrew. Other wayes that they take are nothing neerer, as those in Kimchi, I called to Pharaoh for Israel my son, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I called to him when (or whereas) he was my son; or perhaps righter, as a MS. copy hath it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that he should be my son. Yet Abarbinel seems to look on it to be rendred as we do, while he thus explains the words, out of Egypt 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I called my son, inasmuch as I sent and said to Pharach Israel is my son, my first born, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and I called my son thence, that he might come to serve me.

But it is no wonder that the modern Jews perceiving what advantage Christians make of the words, so rendred as they are by them, and by St. Matthew cited, should avoid as much as they could that rendring, and put any other signification on them that might bear any probability; it is more to be wondred that the LXX. anciently should render them so differently as they do from the Hebrew: instead of what is therein said, and called my son out of Egypt, rendring 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and out of Egypt have I called his sons, which translation makes a wide diffe∣rence betwixt what Hosea according to them should here say, and what St. Matthew cites as the words of the Prophet, and what in the

Hebrew, as now read, they here sound. But this seems so inconvenient, that i a noted learned man, as great a defender of the LXX as any, not flying to a various reading, as if they read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 libnau, as Cappell supposeth, saith, sane LXX Interpretes sic vertisse stul∣tum est existimare, that it is a foolish thing to think that the seventy Interpreters did so render, and that therefore the plural 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sons, crept in for the singular 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, son, whether by the fault of the copies, or fraud of the Jews. Yet a long while hath this gone for the real version of the LXX in this place. So Euse∣bius took it to be, and saith that Aquila reading it in the singular, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, did it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, addicting himself to the Hebrew. St. Je∣rom also looked on it as so, while he hence takes an argument to shew that St. Matthew cited this place, juxta Hebraicam veritatem, according to the Hebrew truth, and not ac∣cording to the LXX, and according to that reading doth the printed Arab. translation read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and out of Egypt I called his sons.

But it is sufficient to us at present to say, that this translation of theirs doth not pre∣judice or disprove that rendring, which we take, of the words in the original, according to which St. Matthews citation exactly agrees with them. And this being clear, the next thing which we proposed concerning the Pro∣phet by St. Matthew cited, whether he be Ho∣sea or some other, and the words by him re∣ferred to be these here, or not, will I suppose, be made clear in the affirmative. k Eusebius, though he himself appear to think otherwise, seems to represent it as a thing doubted of, while he intimates, that some not satisfyed that the words by St. Matthew cited agree with this place, looked to what is said by Ba∣laam, Num. 24.8. where is said according to the LXX 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as by him referred to. And before him l Origen faith, that to some those words in the Gospel seemed taken from that place in the book of Numbers, others to be taken out of Hosea. But it is no wonder that any among the an∣cient Greeks, who looked on that reading of the LXX, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his sons, as most au∣thentick, should think them not so well to agree with the words of the Evangelist, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the singular: but it is more to be wondred that that learned man, whom before we mentioned, and who, as we said, thinks the reading 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, sons, to be an error, and that it ought to be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, son, should yet elsewhere positively affirm, that that place in Num. 24. is verily that place which the Evangelist designed, when he said, out of Egypt have I called my son, adding this for caution, nequis somniet ex Oseae c. 11. v. 1. verba esse deprompta, i. e. least any should dream that the words are taken out of Hosea, without any reason added to his assertion, and he seeming to have been of another mind in the place above cited from him. Surely if it be a dream so to think, it is an ancient one, and of long continuance, and such as future ages will not easily be awakened from, except greater reason be brought than the bare assertion of one or more, be they never so learned. St. Jerom, though in his Comment on St. Matthew he mentions also that other place as consonant to it, thought it to be nullum dubium, a thing that would not be doubted of by any but that St. Matthew∣took hence his testimony. And of the same mind have been ever since the most (that I may not say all) Interpreters, so that if the matter were to be decided by authority and consent of most, the cause would go on this side; but withall, reason is for it also: for when the words in Hosea and in St. Matthew are wholly and punctually in meaning the same and answer, being interpreted word for word, letter for letter one to the other, who shall doubt but that the Prophet, by whom God spake, referred to by the Evangelist, is this Prophet, in this place of his.

That place cited out of Numbers, though as to the scope it may be thought so far to concur with this, as that one may be illu∣strated by the other, yet in words and ex∣pressions, whether we take it according to the Hebrew or the Greek, (for of any diffe∣rence betwixt them two it will not here con∣cern us to take any notice) there is such dif∣ference betwixt that and the words, as quoted by St. Matthew, that they by him written cannot be said to be the same which was by that Prophet spoken. No Jew will ever yeild to it, and, if we give up this place, will bid us look where we can find any such thing spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, as the Evangelist saith there was; it will not satisfy them to say, we find somthing tending to the same purpose. But besides this, which also seems to be of some moment, consider by whom those words in Numbers were spoken, and by whom these, and thence shall we be the better able to judge, whom the Evange∣list referres to, though he doth not by name express him. Those were uttered by Balaam, the story of whom we have in Numbers 22, 23, 24th. chapters. He saith there of himself c. 22.38. that the word that God put into his mouth that he would speak, as before v. 35. God had commanded him that that only he should speak, and it is said Chapter 23.5. and so Chap. 23.16. that God put a word

in his mouth, and said unto him, say thus; part of which saying is like unto that which we have cited out of c. 24. only with diffe∣rence of the numbers, viz. v. 22. God brought them out of Egypt, and in the cited c. 24.2. it is said that the Spirit of God came upon him, and that he took up his parable and said, prefacing with that Elogy of himself, as a man whose eyes were open, and which heard the words of God, and saw the vision of the Almighty, said, among other things that which they would have St. Matthew to referre to, though in dif∣fering words, God brought him out of Egypt, v. 8. That he spake then great things, and true things by way of prophecy, is manifest, and therefore some of the Jews look upon him as a great Prophet, of as high degree among the Gentiles, as Moses was in Israel. But a learned man among them, R. Tanchum, on Josh. 13.21. saith, that as to all that they fasten their high opinion and commendations of him upon, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a spiders thread is stronger than it, and that on due consideration of the texts of Scripture it will appear so to be. Surely it appears, how∣ever God was pleased to put those words into his mouth, at that time to shew to him and Balak, that there was no enchantment against Jacob, neither any divination against Israel, as he is forced to confess c. 23.23. yet that his business was to seek for enchantments, v. 1. and his desire to find them, and seeing he could not find them, yet to shew that he did not speak what good he did of Israel, either out of love to God or his people, he gave what m counsel he could against them to turn them from God, and to defeat that good which God had forced him to pronounce to them, Num. 31.16. and in the book of Joshua there∣fore is he called by his right title, the Sooth∣sayer, not the Prophet c. 13.22. nor is he called so elsewhere in the Old Testament; in the New indeed, St. Peter calls him Pro∣phet, but branding him with such a chara∣cter of an erroneous Prophet, a Prophet that loved the wayes of unrighteousness, a mad Pro∣phet, as is as bad as if he had called him Sooth∣sayer, or any worse name, 2 Pet. 2.15, 16. How then should we think that St. Matthew so changing his words, as to make them more plainly appliable to Christ, should cite him by the honorable title of the Prophet, with∣out any note but that of excellency put upon him. The Jews would have easily denied both his fidelity in citing the words, and the credit of that Prophet. But the words being expresly here spoken by Hosea, a known true Prophet, for such by all taken, who constant∣ly spake from the Lord, and only what the Lord spake to him, and we saying that St. Matthew took them from him, and meant him by the Prophet, nor any Jew nor Apostat, Julian or any other can deny either him to be a Prophet of undoubted credit, or the words in St. Matthew cited to be the same with those that Hosea here spake, only they will say that he erred in his applying them to Christ: against which calumny, the authority of the Evangelist, and the Spirit by which he was moved and directed in his writing, are to all Christians a sufficient defence.

These things being premised, it remains that we enquire what the person or persons are of whom these words are spoken, and how in him or them fulfilled; and here are dif∣fering opinions, some thinking them to be spoken only of Israel, others only of Christ, others of both. The first is of the Jews or such others as deny Christ and the Gospel, as Julian the Apostat by Jerom cited, who say that the words are spoken of Israel, and there∣fore not of Christ, and by the Evangelist falsly applied to him: to which Jerom suggests as an answer, that it being granted that they were spoken of Israel, yet this doth not hin∣der but they might be spoken of Christ also, affirming that ea quae 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 praecedunt in aliis, jux ta veritatem & adimpletionem referuntur ad Christum, that such things as were typically before fulfilled in others, may in respect to the truth and perfect completion be referred to Christ.

But here seems to lay an n objection in fa∣vour of them, and against those that think Christ here fore-spoken of, viz. that he that is by God called my son, is in the next verse ac∣cused of stubborness and rebellion, of which they will grant the Israelites of those times when the Prophet lived, yea more anciently, even from the time of their going out of Egypt, before their defection in later times, to have deserved to be accused, which the Christians will by no means grant concerning Christ. To this an easy answer may be framed by comparing this verse, the latter part of which is by Christians directed by St. Matthew, re∣ferred to Christ, and the following verse out of which the objection is taken; viz. by ob∣serving that the person spoken of is put in the singular number, and so may be spoken of Israel looked on as one collective body, and so as a single person, called by God his son, viz. his son by adoption, and yet looked on as in the years of innocency, and beloved by God, and not accused of rebellion, and so might be a type of Christ, the only begotten Son of God, his beloved Son in whom he was always well pleased, and to whom what was then said of them might in an higher measure agree, and so the name of son in a more ex∣cellent

degree; and by their being called out of Egypt by Moses, his, by an Angel, foreshewed, so as that what the Pro∣phet here speaks, might concern the history of them, yet had not its due and intended completion, till the like was done in Christ▪ But in the following verse they are spoken of in the plural number as more, in which re∣gard they could not properly be a type of one, and, again, spoken of as a degenerate re∣bellious people, who were spoken to in such language as could not belong to Christ. God therefore so ordered his words in the mouth of the Prophet, as to shew which were to be referred to Christ, and which not; and the Evangelist therefore making use only of those which belonged to him, cannot be objected against from the other. This I suppose is a plain nulling of the mentioned objection, without making use of such other answers as o some give, viz. that the ingratitude in the text mentioned, is only of the type (to wit Israel) not of the antitype (i. e. Christ) for that many things are said of types which agree not to the antitype, there being a great diffe∣rence inter figuram & rem, the figure and the thing, according to that of Chrysostom, Opor∣tet figuram babere minus quam veritatem, quia alioquin non fursset figura futurorum, The fi∣gure must needs have less than the truth, other∣wise it could not have been a figure of things to come: sure that may be a type of a thing in one respect which is not in others, and so this answer falls in with the former. But St. Matthew's authority affirming those words to pertain to Christ and such things as had their accomplishment in him, is of more au∣thority than that of the Jews or any following their way, and above all objections that they can make against it; and therefore do all that acknowledge Christ and the Gospel, look on those words, as, when they were spoken, a prediction of Christ and what was to be done in him, in the usual way of prophetical lan∣guage, spoken as of a thing already done, it being as certain in its due time to be done, as if it had been already past.

Yet among these is, as we intimated, great variety; some in the first place, looking on them as so spoken, simply and properly of Christ, and not of Israel; and these again in different wayes, some taking not only these last words of the verse, but those also that go therein before, to be spoken of him, and him alone. So Junius and Tremellius, who there∣fore, whereas others render the first words Ci naar Israel, by because, or when Israel was a child, I loved him &c. changing the constru∣ction render (as we above said) quia puer Israelis est, & diligo eum, because he is the child of Israel, and I love him, and then the following words, ideo &c. therefore out of Egypt have I called my son; and in their notes they so explain their meaning, as to look on it as a promise or declaration of mercy, and the ground or cause thereof interposed in the midst of judg∣ment, and great punishments threatned; shew∣ing that the love of God to his people was from eternity: and seeing this free love of his is founded in Christ, therefore though it had been just in God to deprive them perpe∣tually of it by reason of their great wicked∣ness, yet he was constant in this his love to them, and therefore did recall Christ out of Egypt, whither he was withdrawn (which withdrawing of his might seem to portend the depriving of his love these who did not receive him coming to them) back again into the land of Israel. So that they make the words to include this argumentation, as in the person of God, I do love him, viz. Christ my son, and therefore whomsoever he loveth and in∣tercedeth for, those will I also love: but he loveth Israel, for he is puer primogenitus Israelis, the first born child of Israel, interceding with me for him, therefore will I do good to Israel in him whom I love, and for this end will I call him back out of Egypt; & this being given for the im∣port of the words, Junius looks upon them as that they ought to be expounded as St. Matt. expounds them, of Christ, the natural son of God, not of Israel his adopted son, and so p literally and historically to be understood of him, even the whole verse.

On this exposition by q some is this censure given, that it is pia••sed non solida, pious but not solid, as lying open to that objection of the Jews before mentioned. But that which we have there said concerning that objection, may shew that it is not valid either against this or any other way of exposition which Christians bring; yet seems his exposition liable to such other objections which make r some, who have him otherwise in great esteem, to desert him in this.

This construction of the first words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 when Israel was a child, by rendring them, quia puer Israelis est, because he is the child of Israel, so as to make them also belong to Christ, seems too harsh to others, who yet will have the following words to be un∣derstood, as he understands them, literally of Christ. They therefore thus frame the sense, when, i. e. although Israel was a child, weak, impotent, or s stubborn, having nothing de∣sirable or lovely in him, I loved him, and there∣fore called, t vocare decrevi, determined to call for his good and the saving of him, my son,

i. e. Christ, out of Egypt. This way leaves no place for that former objection of the Jews, as not making him, whom he calls my son, the same with him that is called a child: so that though the next words might seem to taxe that child of ingratitude and rebellion, yet do they not at all belong to that son, or cast any aspersion on him; nor do I find any other objection of moment made against this exposition. It is objected that they translate the particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ci by quia, because, whereas it should rather be rendred (as it is by ours) quando, when: but they, though they retain that ancienter translation of it by because, yet in their exposition do not insist on it, but ra∣ther otherwise, making the sense of it to be rather when, or whereas, or u quamvis, although. Secondly, that they make 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Naar, a child, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Beni my son, to be referred to two persons, whereas they are evidently idem sup∣positum. But why they should not be spoken of two different, if the sense so require, as they think it to do, what reason is there? Thirdly, that it would be too abrupt men∣tion of it, in the midst of a discourse con∣cerning Israel: but if this be but a farther de∣claration of that, wherein God's love to Israel his child mentioned was made evident, there is no reason to say so neither.

Yet a later learned man for such reasons thinks, that that way is not to be followed, but rather another, by them on deliberation and much arguing refused, as being plainer, and more generally both by ancient and more mo∣dern taken, and with good reason still to be re∣tained: which is, so to look on the words, as to be understood of, and referred to, both Israel and Christ, as declaring, when they were spoken, what had been done in the one, and should be done in the other. But these who so take the words, as referred to both, take not the same way in the applying of them. Some looking on them, as by Hosea literally spoken of Israel; who were by God called his son, and by him called out of Egypt, will have them by St. Matthew spoken of Christ only by way of application, as aptly expressing what was done in him, when he also who was truly the son of God, was called out of Egypt, whither, being a child, to avoid He∣rod's cruelty he was carryed, God by an Angel warning Joseph to bring him back again, after Herod's death, into the land of Israel; so as any other known words in the Scripture, or any other Author, might be ap∣plyed to express any other thing, though not at all intended by them when they were spo∣ken, or him that spake them so done, as to be aptly expressed thereby, and they may be said to be fulfilled in that being done, which so well agreed with what they described, or the signification of them, so as no other words could be better fitted to describe what was then done also. But this certainly cannot fill up the measure of what is said by St. Mat∣thew, that that in Christ was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet, out of Egypt have I called my son: for certainly this expression can import no less than that the calling of Christ out of Egypt was by God then intended, when he called Israel out of it, and that the words which he put in this Prophet's mouth con∣cerning a description of that love shewed to them at that time, in so calling them, did con∣tain a prophecy or prediction of that love which he would shew to them, and all man∣kind, in calling in due time, as he did, his son Christ also out from thence; so that till his so calling him, that prediction of what he in∣tended, could not be said to be fulfilled, but by his so calling him had its due and full completion. That exposition therefore of theirs, that these words are to be referred to Christ, only by way of application, is reje∣cted as too slight.

Others therefore from of old have gene∣rally looked on them, as bearing a double aspect, viz. to what had been done formerly in Israel, and to what was to be done after∣wards in Christ, which St. Matthew there∣fore shews, where and how it was done in Christ, and all that was intended by God in the words by the Prophet uttered, fulfilled in him. In this meaning they concurre in the general, and I suppose intend all the same thing, yet much differ between themselves in their expressions, and contest about them, viz. how or in what several manners things may be said to be fulfilled, and how what was spoken from the Lord by the Prophet, was fulfilled in Israel and in Christ; whether alle∣gorically, typically, historically, or mystically, making use of such schoole terms as may ra∣ther puzzle an ordinary Reader, than help him in understanding the meaning. That which I suppose will be sufficient for him, if he follow this way, for perceiving the agree∣ment, and making out the consent between the two Testaments, (viz. the Old, in which many things were so w done, as well as spoken, by way of prediction, as that the accomplish∣ment thereof was to be looked for under the New; and the New, in which the fulfilling of them is to be found,) to know and to grant, as to this present case is; that if the words be

looked on as concerning Israel, (to whom the Prophet was now from God speaking) as shewing what great good things God had done for them, to the aggravating of their wicked∣ness, who so rebelliously and ungratefully behaved themselves towards him, and shew∣ing how justly therefore they deserved those severe judgments, which for that their ingra∣titude he now threatned them with, how they were really fulfilled in them, the histo∣ry of the Old Testament sheweth; if as con∣cerning Christ, in whom he yet retained mercy and loving-kindness for them, to whom St. Matthew directs us to referre them, how they were in him really fulfilled, the histo∣ry of the New Testament declares: and that however they, as historically uttered, were of old fulfilled in them, yet they did con∣tain then a prophecy of Christ, and were far∣ther to be fufilled in him, is that which St. Matthew doth also evidently shew. x Which how far Hosea was then when he spake them, aware of, will not be necessary to enquire, we being taught by St. Peter (1 Epist c. 1. v. 10, 11, 12.) that the Prophets themselves were not fully acquainted with all the cir∣cumstances belonging to the fulfilling of those things, which the Holy Ghost spake by them. But that it was intended by that Holy Spirit when he put into the mouth of Hosea those words, is that which St. Matthew plainly shews, and that what is denoted by them y was in due time to be so (as it was) ful∣filled by God's calling Christ out of Egypt; and so was among those things, by the ful∣filling of which in him he was to z be known, that it was he that was to come, and there was no other farther to be looked for, in whom they were to have their accomplishment.

One thing more may be added as necessia∣ry to be observed, in this way and any other way of exposition which we shall take, that St. Matthew sets down only these words of Hosea, out of Egypt have I called my son, as ne∣cessarily to be fulfilled in Christ, and not any more; so making Israel a type of Christ only in this regard, that they under the name of God's son were called out of Egypt, as God determined in due time to call thence him his son, and therefore for the certainty of it speaks of it as already done, and doth not add any other word or thing, which should be fulfilled in him, for making good what was spoken of the Lord by the Prophet: so that it is not necessarily concluded from him, that any other word here in the Prophet should be referred to Christ, and that therefore no argument taken from the following words which do not belong to him, may be of vali∣dity to prove that these also do not. These do without doubt belong to him, the Holy Ghost who directed St. Matthew, giving that testimony to them; the others do not, as will appear by taking them into consideration.

Notes

• k

  Ribera.
• l

  Trem.
• m

  In Cap. Concord.
• n

  Schindl. Lexc.
• o

  Buxt. Lexc. Rabb.
• p

  2 Chron. 13.7. for he was one and fourty years old, when he began to reign.
• q

  R. Tanch.
• r

  See c. 2.15.
• s

  See Vat. Drus.
• t

  Chr. à Cast. malignitate infans Theoph.
• u

  Tarnov.
• w

  Merc. Trem. Lively.
• x

  Deut. 7.7.
• y

  Ezek. 16.4. &c. 23.3. &c.
• z

  See Drus.
• a

  Rivet. Tarnov.
• b

  Jun. Trem.
• c

  Ribera, Pare. Rivet. Tarnov.
• d

  Jun. Parallela, SPanhem. Dub. Evang.
• e

  Calv.
• f

  Trem.
• g

  So in the Syriac also, as appears by the translation of St. Matthew's words in that language, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• h

  Lively.
• i

  Voss. de LXX. Interpr. c. 24.
• k

  De Demonst. Evang. l. 9. c.
• l

  Homil. 17 in Num. 24.
• Voss. de Sybil. Orac c. 13.
• m

  Mic. 6.5. see Nehem. 13.2.
• n

  Judaeorum argumentum, Pare. Judaeorum objectio, Rivet.
• o

  Pare.
• p

  Jun. Parall. l. 1. parall. 6. p. 17. Piscator on Matt. is of the same mind.
• q

  Pare.
• r

  Rivet. Tarnov.
• s

  Tarnov.
• t

  Rivet.
• u

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 saepissime accipitur adversative pro quamvis, quod hic vertunt quia vel quando, Tarnov.
• Spanhem.
• Bucer. Jansen.
• w

  Ribera, Commune est omnibus libris quod voces aliquid significent, sed speciale est huic libro, quod res significatae per voces aliud significent, Lyra.
• x

  See Pare. and Spanhem.
• y

  Ideo hoc impletum fuit quia praedictum fuit, & ideo praedictum ut imple∣retur, Spanhem.
• z

  Ut ex complemento circumstantiarum omnium Jesum esse Christum ostendent, Riv.