A commentary on the prophecy of Hosea by Edward Pococke.

V. 11. I gave thee a king in mine anger, and took him away in my wrath.

The words in the Hebrew are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Etten leca melec beappi veekkach beebrati, in which him, which ours put in after took, is not expressed but supplied, as looking on the word king, expressed after the first verb, to be necessarily understood also after the second. But here is farther ob∣servable, that the verbs in the Hebrew are of the future tense, so that they would lite∣raly sound, I will give, and I will take; and accordingly they are by some rendred, as by the Vulgar Latin, dabo, and auferam: and then sound as if they were spoken of a thing that was to be done, a king that was yet to be given; which cannot properly be taken of any king of their own nation, which had al∣ready been given them. Drusius thinks it may be meant of the king of Assyria, whom in his anger he would make to have domi∣nion over them. But this is by o 1.1 others ex∣cepted against, in as much as the following words, that he would take him away in his wrath, cannot agree to him, seeing the taking away of him would not have been a sign of wrath toward Israel, but a thing most ac∣ceptable to them; unless the first that was to be given being understood of the king of As∣syria, the second that was to be taken away should be understood of Hosea the present king of Israel.

* 1.2 Others that the notion of the future tense may be retained to the verbs, look on the words, though referring to an history of things long since in part past, yet so ordered, as if they had been then spoken, when those things were all yet to be done, and to be as it were what then God answered or resolved, when they said, give me a king or princes, viz. p 1.3 as if at that time he had said, I will give thee a king in mine anger, and will take him away in my wrath; both which they take to have been fulfilled in Saul. That God gave him in anger is manifest by what hath been already mentioned of the story, and that they were made sensible of it, appears by what is farther recorded of those unusual storms of thunder and rain in the day of their wheat harvest: even for that end, as Samuel tells them, it was that they might perceive and see, that their wickedness was great, which they had done in the sight of the Lord in asking them a king, 1 Sam. 12.17, 18. which they could not but at the sight thereof acknowledge, as they did v. 19, all the people said unto Samuel, pray for thy ser∣vants unto the Lord thy God that we die not, for we have added unto all our sins this evil to aske us a king: and that he took him away in his wrath, the history of his destruction makes likewise evident, which is in the c. 31.7. of the same book, where it is likewise said after the description of his sad death, that when the men of Israel saw that the men of Israel fled be∣fore the Philistines, and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook the cities and fled, and the Philistines came and dwelt in them. So far was it from what they promised to themselves, that their king and princes should defend them in all their cities. Nor was it therefore likely that those that they now had, should do more for them. This way of exposition of the verb by the future tense doth Ribera commend and prefer before any others, although he do not understand the word only of Saul, but the first concerning the giving of a king, of him, and the following which concerns the taking away a king, of other kings, and par∣ticularly of the last, Hosea, who was then king when they were carried captives: although he say, that it may be understood of other following kings as well as of Saul. As if God should say, that they having been urgent on him to give them a king, it should repent them of their request, in as much as in those times, when they had most need of the help of kings, he would give them such ill ones, which should be pernicious to them, and such as he would quickly take away, as Za∣charia, Shallum, Menachem, and others, as appears in the history 2 K. 15. In the future likewise doth the MS. Arab. render the verbs 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will set over thee a king in anger, and q 1.4 take, or carry captive, in my wrath. So Castalio, regem tibi & iratus dabo, & saeviens auferam. But others think it more agreeable to the place and meaning to render them, according to

that promiscuous use of tenses which is usual, at least the first verb, in some preter tense, I gave; for they that agree in that, do not as to the second so fully accord; some rendring that also in the preter tense, I took away; others in the future, I will take away; and some render both in the present tense, do, I give, and, recipio, I do take.

Among those that render both in a preter tense are the LXX, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and I gave thee a king in mine anger, and had (him,) in my wrath, or as other copies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which may be rendred, r 1.5 sustinui, patienter tuli, I suffered, or patiently did bear; w^ch would make another sense than is usually given of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ekkach, which signi∣fying in general to take, is here usually under∣stood of taking away; as if it were meant, that as God gave them a king in anger, so he did also suffer him to continue only in anger and wrath, and for evil to them. But Jerom notes that generally Interpreters did yet here render it by abstuli, which is the same by which most do also render the Hebrew, ekkach, though, as we said, signifying generally to take, yet as the MS. Arab. notes, used also for taking away, as Gen. 14.11. Amongst those also that put both in the preter tense is the Chaldee, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I did set over thee a king in mine anger, and removed, or took away, [him] in my wrath; the Syriack likewise 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to the very same meaning. The printed Arab. also which follows the Greek, instead of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hath 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Latin renders, & prehendi eum in furore meo, of which word of his, I think, we may note that as it signifies to lay hold on, so perhaps it may denote to take away by death, in as much as that word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 kobe∣da, in the passive voice, signifies to be dead, taken hold on, or taken away by death.

The same way of rendring both verbs by a preter tense follow also divers modern Inter∣preters, as Pagnin, the Tigurine and Munster, Calvin and our English, both ancienter and new. According to these if it be demanded what king is said to have been given in anger, who to have been taken away in wrath, if it be said that it was Saul, according to what hath been said of him in that former way of Arias Montanus, it may seem to hold of him; he was long before this was spoken both given and taken away, and in both were signs of God's anger and displeasure: yet doth not this satisfy all, and there is difference about it. s 1.6 Others therefore understanding the first of Saul, as given in anger, in the second place un∣derstand Zedechiah the last king of the Jews as taken away in wrath. Against this may be, and is, objected, that however the first may be well understood of Saul, who was king over the whole twelve tribes, yet the second cannot be properly meant of Zedechiah, who was king only of the two tribes, Judah and Benja∣min, seeing what is here spoken concerns par∣ticularly the ten tribes of Israel, which obje∣ction likewise lies against understanding in the last place Josiah, whom t 1.7 some also name: and therefore others look as understood Jero∣boam the first, whom God gave in displeasure u 1.8 against Solomon, and he also may be said to have been taken away in wrath, his family being destroyed, as Abarbinel notes, and Hoseah the last king of them. But against this likewise may be excepted, if the word be rendred in the preter tense, because when this was spoken Hosea was not yet taken away: which objection may be solved by saying, that the preter tense, according to the frequent use of Prophetick language, is put for the future, to denote the certainty of the thing to come, as sure as if it were already done; or else by taking, abstuli, I took away, to denote as much as, w 1.9 auferre decrevi, I have determined to take away; or indeed by rendring it as in the Hebrew it literally sounds, by the future, auferam, I will take him away.

All such scruples are avoided by another way which others take, viz. by not looking on the words to respect only such or such a particular king, but the whole succession of the kings of the ten tribes, and the condition that Israel was in through the often change of them, and the unsetledness of their kingdom under them, and the certain destruction which by that means they should ere long be brought to; so that it should appear, that as their king∣dom was given in Gods anger against Solomon, so it should be taken away in x 1.10 greater anger against them for their continuing in Idolatry and other wicked courses, according to that threat from God above cited. This meaning Grotius thus expresseth, dedi jam saepius, id est, iratus peccatis vestris, sivi vos per seditiones ac caedes mutare reges pro libitu, i. e. I gave thee a king, i. e. I have often given, i. e. being angry for your sins I suffered you by sedition and slaughters to change your kings as you listed, and I will take away, viz. per Assyrios, by the Assyrians, who should take away their last king, and put an end to their kingdom. This meaning Junius and Tremellius giving, render (as we said) the verb in the present tense, do tibi regem, I give thee a king in mine anger, & recipio cum, and take him away in my wrath, adding their

note, Jam vides ut reges tibi paulo momento obtrudam & detrudam arbitratu meo propter indignationem meam, thou already seest how I set up kings over thee and put them down at my pleasure through my wrath, for in those times, mutationes fuerunt quamplurimae regum in Israele, there were very many changes of kings in Israel, as appears 2 Kings c. 15. and c. 17. So that it is not ill by y 1.11 some explained, dare vo∣bis soleo, I use to give to you, and take away from you, a king in mine anger. Which way so∣ever of these the words be understood, and of what kings soever among them, the thing in∣ferred is still plain, that Israel having re∣belled against God and forsaken him, do in vain either expect that he should continue to help or defend them, or rely on any other for help and defence. They seem to rely on this, that God having given them a king, he had by this obliged himself to protect then their king, and they might confide in him for safety, as given them for that end by God; but he sheweth them that this was no assurance to them of defence, his giving them first a king was no token of his favour to them, but a thing though extorted from him by their in∣stance, yet accompanied with his displeasure. He had promised indeed by the mouth of Sa∣muel, that notwithstanding their folly in that their first request, he would, if they should faithfully for the future serve and obey him, make their king a blessing to them, 1 Sam. 12.13, 14. but withall threatned, that if they should still do wickedly, they should be con∣sumed both they and their king, c. 16.25. so that it should appear that his first gift was ac∣companied with displeasure, and his taking it away, with greater, leaving them open to the assaults of their enemies without any to save them. From this scope of the words we should not recede, as neither from the propriety of them, if we should read or understand, I can give thee a king in mine anger, and take him away in my wrath, and so will it warn them that they are vain in thinking the power of their king shall save them, when God will withdraw his help from them and their king. This effect of God's wrath, why Israel now grown to the height of wickedness by their long continuing in Idolatry, should expect to have made good against them, the next words declare.

Notes

• o 1.1

  Riv.
• * 1.2

  Ar. Mont.
• p 1.3

  Jerom reports it as from Jews, Eo tempore quo dicebas, da mihi regem & principes, ego tibi respondebam per Sam. quod daturus tibi essem regem in furcre meo, & ablaturus in indignatione mea.
• q 1.4

  He adds a note that he renders 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I will take, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 as taking it to be in the same signification as in 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and they took, i.e. took away all the goods of Sodom, Gen. 14.11.
• r 1.5

  Nobilius.
• s 1.6

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, there be who so interpret it, saith Kimchi.
• t 1.7

  Dr. Stokes.
• u 1.8

  1 K. 11.9. &c.
• w 1.9

  Brenn.
• x 1.10

  So the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is looked on to denote, such as, modum transit, Drus. &c.
• y 1.11

  Tarnov.