ii. 10 (οὐκ ἠλεημένη), render the word more accurately than Paul, in

Rom. ix. 25 (οὐκ ἠγαπημένη). Hence it is never used of man's love to God, but only of the love of God to man,--of His mercy. The only passage which seems to contradict this, Ps. xviii. 2, is not to the purpose, as, there, the _Kal_ is used. But the female sex, being weaker, stands in greater need of the compassion of men, than does the male. Is. ix. 16. The female child places the neediness and helplessness of the people in more striking contrast with the refusal of help from Him who alone can bestow it. The רחמה is either _Participle_ in _Pual_ which has cast off the מ, or the 3d fem. _Pret. in pause_; thus _Cocceius_, who explains it by: "She has not obtained mercy." It is in favour of the latter view, that according to _Ewald_, § 310 b, לא does not often stand before a _Participle_. The words, "_I will not continue_," refer to the former great manifestations of divine mercy, and especially the last under Jeroboam, which the people still, at that time, enjoyed; compare 2 Kings xiii. 23: "And the Lord was gracious unto them, and had _mercy_ upon them, and turned towards them because of His covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not destroy them, neither cast them from His presence." Upon this contrast, also, rests the mild expression, "I will not have mercy,"--an expression which, in virtue of this contrast, becomes stronger than any other. Several interpreters here lay peculiar stress upon the circumstance, that "the _house_ of Israel" is spoken of. This, the kingdom of Israel, they say, as an independent state, is given over to everlasting destruction; it is only single individuals who shall obtain mercy after they have joined the house of David. But the supposition that "house of Israel" is used in this sense, is altogether unfounded. The house is equivalent to the family; and the prophets speak of "a house of Israel" after the destruction, no less than before it. The words in ii. 6 (4), "I will not have mercy upon her children," and the circumstance that she who is here called Lo-Ruhamah is afterwards called Ruhamah, also militate against referring "house of Israel" to the state. The right view rather is, that the denial of mercy [Pg 211] must not be understood absolutely, but relatively. It is not for ever that mercy shall be denied to them, but for a time,--until God's punitive justice shall have been satisfied. Just as Israel shall not always remain Jezreel, Lo-Ammi shall, at some future time, become again Ammi.--The last words are, by the greater number of recent interpreters, almost unanimously explained: "That I should forgive them." But, in that case, we can perceive no reason why the _Inf. abs._ should be placed before the _tempus finitum_. Why should the verbal idea here be rendered so emphatic? In addition to this, the extreme feebleness of the sense would be remarkable. Nothing would be said that would not be already implied in the words, "I will not continue any more to have mercy." But, on the other hand, we obtain a very suitable sense if we translate thus: "I will take away from them." The object is not mentioned, just because _every thing_ is to be understood. The prominence given to the verbal idea is then accounted for from its being contrasted with the _having mercy_, which implies _giving_. There is then, moreover, a very striking contrast with the standing phrase נשא עון ל, or also simply נשא ל: I shall take away from them, not, however, as hitherto, their guilt (compare Amos vii. 8), but all that they have. _Calvin_ had previously directed attention to the circumstance that the following verse also is in favour of the translation by _tollere_: "_Servare et tollere inter se opponit propheta._" Chap. v. 14 may also be compared, where נשא is used in a similar manner, the object being likewise omitted: "I will tear and go away, I will take away, and there is none that delivereth."

Ver. 7. "_And I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and I save them by the Lord their God; and I do not save them by bow, and by sword, and by war, and by horses, and by horsemen._"

Several interpreters suppose that mercy is here promised to Judah as a _consolation_ to Israel, inasmuch as the latter should partake in it. But this view is erroneous. From the antithesis to ver. 6, it is evident that mercy is here promised to Judah for the time when Israel shall not find mercy; and we are not at liberty to anticipate the time described in ii. 1-3, when both become partakers of mercy. This is apparent also from the circumstance that in vers. 8, 9, the threatening of punishment [Pg 212] to Israel is still continued. It can then only be the intention of the prophet, by describing the mercy which Judah their brethren should experience, to sharpen the goad, more effectually to rouse Israel from their false security, and to direct their attention to the bad foundation of the entire constitution of their political and ecclesiastical affairs, in consequence of which they considered as legitimate that which, in Judah, was only an abuse. As the showing of mercy to Judah runs parallel with the withholding of it from Israel, we can, primarily and chiefly, think only of the different fates of the two, during the Assyrian dominion. The wonderful deliverance of Judah on that occasion is foretold by Isaiah, xxxi. 8, in a similar manner: "And Asshur falls through the sword not of a man, and the sword not of a man devours him." We must not, however, limit ourselves to this event; a preference of Judah over Israel, a remnant of divine mercy appeared, even when they were carried away into captivity. During its continuance, they were not altogether deprived of marks of the continuance of the divine election. Prophets continued to labour among them, as immediate ambassadors of God. Wonderful events showed them in the midst of the Gentiles the superiority of their God, and prepared the way for their deliverance. They maintained, in a far greater degree, their national constitution; and, _lastly_, their affliction lasted for a far shorter time than did that of the Israelites. Contrary to all human expectation, their affairs soon took a favourable turn, in which only a comparatively small number of their Israelitish brethren partook, while, for the rest, the withholding of mercy continued. But it is just by means of this contrast with the lot of Judah, that the announcement of the lot of Israel appears in its true light. Without this contrast, one might have imagined, that the announcement of the prophet did not go beyond his human vision. It would, of course, appear highly probable that a kingdom so weak as that of Israel,--weak, especially when compared with those great Asiatic kingdoms which were great already, and yet were continually striving after enlargement,--a kingdom, moreover, placed in the midst between these kingdoms, and their natural enemy and rival, Egypt--should not have been able to maintain its existence for any length of time. But this probability existed in a far higher decree in the case of the kingdom of [Pg 213] Judah, which was smaller and weaker still, and which had suffered much through Jehoash the father of Jeroboam (2 Kings