beginning "of the Lord hath spoken," [Pg 199]
etc., for "the beginning of speaking." [Hebrew: ivM dbr ihvh], _the day
of_ "_the Lord spoke_," instead of, "the day on which the Lord spoke."
Similar constructions occur also in Is. xxix. 1, and Jer. xlviii.
6.--The _Fut._ with _Vav Conv._, [Hebrew: viamr], "and then He spoke,"
carries forward the discourse, as if there had preceded: the Lord began
to speak to Hosea. There is here a _constructio ad sensum_. It is
intentionally, and in order the more distinctly to point out the idea
of the beginning, that the prophet has made use of the noun [Hebrew:
tHlt], not of the verb. The construction of [Hebrew: dbr] with [Hebrew:
b], with the signification "to speak to some one," may be explained
thus:--that the words are, as it were, put into the mind of the hearer
in order that they may remain there. Several interpreters erroneously
translate, "spoke through:" others, following _Jerome_ (the last is
_Simson_), "spoke in;" as if thereby the act of speaking were to be
designated as an inward one. The difference between outward and inward
speaking disappears in the vision; and, for this reason, we cannot
imagine that there is any intention of here noticing it particularly.
Everything which takes place in the vision is substantially, indeed,
internal, but in point of form it is external. Moreover, [Hebrew: dbr]
with [Hebrew: d] several times occurs in other passages also, where the
signification, "to speak to some one," is alone admissible. Thus 1 Sam.
xxv. 39, where _Simson's_ explanation, "David sent and _ordered_ to
speak _about_ Abigail," is set aside by ver. 40. The analogy of the
construction of the verbs of hearing and seeing with [Hebrew: b] is
likewise in favour of our explanation.[1]--A wife of _whoredoms_ and
_children of whoredoms_. The wife belongs to whoredoms in so far as she
is _devoted to them_; the children, in [Pg 200] so far as they
_proceed_ from them. For we cannot suppose that the children themselves
are described as given to whoredom. Such a thought would here be
altogether out of place. For whoredom is here only the general
designation of adultery, as, by way of applying it to the case in
question, it is immediately subjoined, "away from Jehovah." The subject
of consideration is only the relation of the wife and children to the
prophet, as the type of the Lord; and with this view, it is only the
origin of the children from an adulterous wife which can be of
imp