A commentary on the prophecy of Hosea by Edward Pococke.

v. 14. For Israel hath forgotten his ma∣ker, and buildeth temples; and Ju∣dah

hath multiplied fenced cities: but I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devour the palaces thereof.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Vayishcach Israel, for Is∣rael. That which is rendred, for, is the Con∣junction 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ve, which properly signifies, and, and is so by others rendred; yet no doubt may it be rendred well enough, d 1.1 for, if the sense require it, and being so rendred seems to give such connexion between the preceding words and the following, as if what here fol∣lows were a farther reason why God would now remember their iniquity, and visit their sins, and cause them to return into Egypt; viz. because they had forgotten their maker, &c.

e 1.2 Some render it, Denique, lastly, as an in∣ference of a conclusion of what he had said. Which way soever it be rendred, this verse farther declares both the fault of Israel and their punishment consequent thereon, taking in together Judah, which had not been be∣fore named, though, according to Abarbinel, comprehended. The fault or sin is, first, that Israel had forgotten his maker; which he may be well said to have done, in respect either to what hath been before said of them, as that of their silver and gold they made them Idols, and contrary to Gods institution they multi∣plied Altars, and in that they (v. 12.) so far neglected Gods law, that it was accounted as a strange thing to them; or else (which seem∣eth nearer) in regard to what here follows, that they built temples, and multiplied fenced ci∣ties. They that did these things contrary to Gods ordinance, whatever relation they would pretend to him, having him perhaps much in their mouths, and crying, My God we know thee, (as v. 2.) may deservedly be said to have forgotten him; it being not ne∣cessary that by forgetting God should be meant a total loosing of all knowledge of him, but f 1.3 sufficient to make them to be said so to do, when they want that affection which ought to follow the memory of a true knowledge of him, as by what they are accused of before, and after, it appears they did. The Chaldee therefore well paraphraseth it, hath left the service, or worship of &c. The MS. Arabick, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hath cast off his maker.

Their sin in forgetting God is aggravated by the title given him, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Osehu, his ma∣ker. This title here seems so used as to put them in mind not onely of that benefit com∣mon to them all, viz. that God made them men, but of that peculiar prerogative, in that he made them Israel, viz. his peculiar people, whom he had especial regard to, and by taking them into a nearer relation to him∣self than any other nation, ennobled them and exalted them above others, as owning himself for their God, and them for his peo∣ple; yea his children, his first-born, whom he would have especial care of, and defend and protect by his mighty power from all evils, and bless with extraordinary blessings of all sorts; whom having redeemed out of Egypt, he framed into a great people, and seated in the land of promise. So Kimchi explains the word in that sense, in which he saith it is used Deut. 32.6. Is it not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hu a'sheca, he that hath made thee? i. e. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, hath made thee great, or magnified thee? In which it is used also where he saith, God * 1.4 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who made Moses and Aaron, i. e. advanced. So that it is well looked on by g 1.5 Expositors as com∣prehending all the great prerogatives that God gave to the seed of Abraham, whereby he distinguished them from other people, by the enjoyment of which they certainly were obliged to acknowledge him their ma∣ker in a more eminent manner; and the me∣mory of these his benefits ought to have kept them in a greater love and fear of him, and stricter obedience to him, and sole and per∣petual dependance on him; and great stupi∣dity must it be in them to forget these things, for a perpetual putting them in mind of which, he used such care by calling on them in the law, and by the mouths of the Pro∣phets, besides many other ways which he constituted to keep them in perpetual memo∣ry thereof; yet do they forget him, and leaving their duty to him, and dependance on him, not only forfeiting it by their disobedi∣ence, but obstinately casting it off, and de∣spising it, do what follows, Israel buildeth temples, and Judah hath multiplied cities.

The word rendred; temples, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 He∣caloth, the plural from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Hecal, which is used elsewhere in Scripture both for a temple, and for a palace. It signifies, I suppose, any great, lofty, or magnificent building, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Haicalo in the Arabic is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 an high or lofty building, as also any great things, from the theme 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which signifies, to be great and high. If it be rendred, temples, then may it be understood (as by the Chaldee it is) of such as they built to their Idols, to worship them therein, (al∣though to have built any even to God him∣self, besides that one at Jerusalem, had been utterly unlawful to them. If it should be

rendred Palaces, or the like, then of such strong buildings or forts (as * 1.6 others) built for defence for themselves. And for such Aben Ezra thinks it here understood, and Kimchi also saith it may be convenient here to take it as it stands in conjunction with what Judah is taxed for, of building fenced cities. In either way taken it argues Israel to have forgotten their Maker, and not to have right thoughts of him, in that having rebelled against him, and hearing his threats against them for it, they turned not again by repen∣tance to make peace with him that they might find still protection from him, but, to defend themselves against him their Maker, trusted either to Idols whom they thought to please by building temples to them, or to strong holds; both of their own making.

Judah seems here also taxed as guilty in the same kind with Israel, in that it is said, and Judah hath multiplied fenced cities, which is not so to be understood as if it were unlawful to build fenced cities or fortify themselves a∣gainst their enemies by such advantageous means (as appears by what Nehemiah did, by Gods direction, and approbation) but that they do it not with forgetting God or casting off obedience to him, neglecting to put their trust in him, as if without he kept the city or countrey, it could by any the strongest for∣tifications be secured, or as if they without him could, or he without them could not, de∣fend them. As guilty in this kind they are taxed Isaiah 22.8. where reckoning up what care they took for fortifying their city, he adds, but ye have not looked unto the Maker thereof, neither had respect unto him that fashion∣ed it long ago, v. 11. as elsewhere upbraiding them with their fenced cities, he shews to what end they built them, adding as an Epi∣thet, wherein they trusted, Jer. 5.17.

Thus then their sin being described, the ill consequent or punishment thereof follows, But I will send a fire upon his cities, and it shall devoure the Palaces thereof, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Veshalachti, But I will send, others, And I; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ve is and, but not improperly as the sense requires sometimes, as here by ours, translated, But; and so shews the vanity of their trust in the strength of those cities; They multiply them, but to what profit as long as they do it against God, as if by this means they could stand out against him? By excluding him they do but shut themselves up to that destruction which thereby provoked he will send on them, which is expressed by saying, he will send a fire upon them to devour their cities and the pa∣laces thereof; which may either be properly understood of fire by which they should be consumed, or of some h 1.7 other destruction which should be as great and terrible as if their cities and palaces were consumed by fire. But we may well literally understand it, read∣ing in the history the i 1.8 2 Kin. 25.8. concern∣ing their chiefe city Jerusalem, that therein Nebuzaradan captain of that guard to Nebu∣chadnezzar, burnt the house of the Lord, and the Kings house, and all the houses of Jerusalem, and every great mans house burnt he with fire; and we may well think that the other cities were so dealt with; reading in Isaiah, your countrey is desolate, your cities are burnt with fire, Isaiah 1.7. some refer it to what was done before by Senacherib, who came up a∣gainst the fenced cities of Judah and took them, 2 Kings 18.13.

This Judgment was executed on them by the enemy, by him the fire was kindled and blown, yet doth God say that it is by his sending. If they had subsisted in their fenced cities and strong holds, their defence must have been imputed to God, who only is the k 1.9 rock the fortress and deliverer of his, from whom they may find salvation; that they can∣not save or secure them, but are together with them, destroyed, is from him. All things, both for safety and destruction, are by him ordered, and he therefore never to be for∣gotten through vain hopes and confidence in any other. They have forgotten him, there∣fore shall all this evil come upon them, and their strong holds shall not secure them. There is here a little difference, concerning the per∣sons whose cities and whose palaces are here spoken of, because literally 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 bearau will signify, his cities, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 armenoteha, her palaces. R. Tanchum saith it should be regularly 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 armenotau in the masculine gender, his palaces, and so would they both agree to one viz. Judah and others think it solved by considering that proper names of people, as we have before seen, are indifferently put in either gender, and the affixe therefore in either may be referred to Judah, l 1.10 others think the first referred to Ju∣dah and the second to Israel: no doubt they are both threatned, as both peccant, and what should befall one, should befall the o∣ther; so that if spoken of one, it would give to conceive the same of the other, and there is no need of standing here on this Grammar nicety. Aben Ezra refers the latter, not to the people but to the cities viz. to the pala∣ces of every one of their cities.

Notes

• d 1.1

  Et, pro Nam. Grot.
• e 1.2

  Jun. Trem. Tarnov.
• f 1.3

  Rivet. Pare.
• * 1.4

  1 Sam. 12.6. where a MS. Arab. renders it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and R. Tanchum 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 who chose. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Kimchi.
• g 1.5

  Trem. Rivet.
• * 1.6

  Trem.
• h 1.7

  Kimchi.
• i 1.8

  and 2 Chron. 36.19. and Jer. 39.8.
• k 1.9

  Ps. 18.2. 1 Sam. 22.
• l 1.10

  Abarb. Jun. Grot.