under consideration is remarkable also, inasmuch as it
furnishes a proof for the custom of designating the kingdom of God from
its existing seat and centre, and thus furnishes us, for other passages
also, with the right of freeing the thought from the figurative
clothing.

A _further_ reason against referring _the_ altar to the altar at
Bethel, is, that the latter enjoyed no such pre-eminence in the
kingdom of Israel. The temple at Bethel was, to the ten tribes, by no
means what the temple at Jerusalem was to Judah. The law regarding the
unity of the place of worship was, among the ten tribes, regarded as
non-existing. Even in the verse immediately preceding, in viii. 14, Dan
and Beersheba had been mentioned as the chief seats of the Israelitish
worship; and in chap. iv. 4, Gilgal appears beside Bethel as possessing
the same importance. In chap. v. 5, Bethel, Gilgal, and Beersheba are
mentioned together. Hosea, in chap. viii. 11, reproves Israel for
having made many altars to sin. Hence, there did not exist in Israel
an altar [Greek: kat' exochen]. Such an altar existed only in
[Pg 370] Judah. Nor had the sanctuary at Bethel such importance,
as that it could be considered as the spiritual abode of the
whole people.--_Hofmann_ (_Weissagung u. Erfuellung_, S. 203) raises
the following objection against the reference to the altar at
Jerusalem:--"The prophet, it is true, reproves the sins in Judah as
well as those in Israel; but it is only to the kingdom of Jeroboam that
he announces destruction, while to the house of David he promises that
Jehovah would raise it up from its fallen condition." But in opposition
to this objection, we need only refer to ii. 5: "And I send fire in
Judah, and it devours the palaces of Jerusalem." Passages such as i.
14, 15, ii. 3, absolutely forbid us to make an exception of the palace
of the king; and, by chap. vii. 9, where destruction is announced to
all the sanctuaries of Isaac, we have as little warrant for excepting
the temple. To assume any such exceptions, would be contrary to the
analogy of all other threatenings. _Hofmann_ further objects (l. c. S.
204), "As the threatening announcement of the prophet had last remained
suspended over Israel, we are at liberty to think of the altar at
Bethel only." But already, in the third chapter, all Israel is
addressed, according to ver. 1; and we may further refer to v. 25,
where likewise Israel can mean only the whole people,[2] while in vi.
1,