towards
the woman must necessarily be of the same extent, and of the same
nature, as the love of God towards the people of Israel, since the
[Hebrew: ahb] and the [Hebrew: kahbt] exactly correspond with each
other; that only conjugal love is suitable to [Pg 192] the image; that
this view falls, of itself, to the ground when [Hebrew: re] is referred
to the prophet, as it must be; that, in such circumstances, no
satisfactory account can be given of the purchase of the woman, etc. To
all these suppositions there is, moreover, the common objection that,
according to them, no account can be given of the omission of very
important circumstances which the prophet leaves to his hearers and
readers to supply from the preceding symbolical action. Two things only
are pointed out, viz., the appropriation of the woman by the prophet,
ver. 2, and the course which he pursues for her reformation, ver. 3.
Every intervening circumstance--the criminal, long-continued
unfaithfulness of the wife--is passed over in silence. If we suppose an
outward action, this circumstance cannot be accounted for. For we are
not at liberty to draw, from the first case, any inference bearing upon
the second. The latter would again have required a complete account.
But if we suppose an inward transaction, everything is easily
explained. The question as to whether it was Gomer, or some other
person, does not come up at all. If Gomer was only an _ideal_ person,
that which applied to her was equally applicable to the second _ideal_
wife of the prophet; since both typified the same thing, and without
having an independent existence of their own, came into consideration
as types only. Thus, very naturally, the second description was
supplemented from the first, and the prophet was allowed abruptly to
point out those circumstances only which were of special importance
in the case before him.

6. If the whole be viewed as an outward transaction, there arises a
difficulty, by no means inconsiderable, as regards the children
mentioned in chap. i. These had been begotten in adultery. Even
although the mother did reform, they could yet never be considered by
the prophet as, in the full sense, his own. There would then arise a
great difference between the type and the thing typified. But if we
suppose a transaction merely inward, this difficulty vanishes. The
physical impossibility then no longer comes into consideration. That
which is possible in the thing typified, v