Understanding the Backdrop
From Ellison via Constable's Notes:
“For us alliances between nations are such a commonplace of life that we can hardly imagine a nation standing alone . . .
“It should have been fundamental, however, for Israel that no foreign alliances were possible. The reason was quite simply that in those days the secular state did not exist, and so in practice it was impossible to distinguish between a state and its gods. In an extant treaty of peace between Rameses II of Egypt and Hattusilis the Hittite king it is a thousand of their gods on either side who are the witnesses to and guarantors of it.[86] So even a treaty on equal terms with a neighbouring country would have involved for Israel a recognition of the other country’s deities as having reality and equality with Jehovah. To turn to Assyria or Egypt for help implied of necessity that their gods were more effective than the God of Israel.”
“For us alliances between nations are such a commonplace of life that we can hardly imagine a nation standing alone . . .
“It should have been fundamental, however, for Israel that no foreign alliances were possible. The reason was quite simply that in those days the secular state did not exist, and so in practice it was impossible to distinguish between a state and its gods. In an extant treaty of peace between Rameses II of Egypt and Hattusilis the Hittite king it is a thousand of their gods on either side who are the witnesses to and guarantors of it.[86] So even a treaty on equal terms with a neighbouring country would have involved for Israel a recognition of the other country’s deities as having reality and equality with Jehovah. To turn to Assyria or Egypt for help implied of necessity that their gods were more effective than the God of Israel.”
Breaking up fallow ground is what a farmer does when he plows land that has remained untouched for a long time, even forever (cf. Jer. 4:3). This is a figure for confessing sins and exposing them to God when they have remained unconfessed under the surface of life for a long time.-Constable
"Throughout the book you will see that he refers to Israel and Ephraim. Ephraim was the largest tribe in Israel and sometimes the whole nation was referred to as Ephraim." -Bible.org
This commentary from the NET notes granted me more insight into the double meaning of the word husband and baal as used in this verse:
"There are wordplay on the terms אִישׁ (’ish) and בַּעַל (ba’al) here. The term אִישִׁי(’ishi, “my man, husband”) is a title of affection (Gen 2:23; 3:6, 16) as the counterpart to אִשָּׁה (’ishah, “woman, wife”). The term בַּעְלִי (ba’li, “my lord”) emphasizes the husband’s legal position (Exod 21:3; Deut 22:22; 24:4). The relationship will no longer be conditioned on the outward legal commitment but on a new inward bond of mutual affection and love. -NET notes
The nuances of meaning point to the intimacy of the relationship and to the liberation and enlarging scope of the relationship in the future. To some extent, are we all constrained in our relationships with God and with each other? At least to the extent that it depends upon our abilities. We have moments of unfaithfulness to God--some more than others--yet He continually forgives. He made a way past this through His Son, loving us as Hosea loved his wandering wife. It's a powerful picture.
And, how does God view our lives and our individual hopes and aspirations? To what extent are the individual threads of our lives inherently subjugated and folded into His sovereign plans. An orthodox view seems to suggest entirely. Yet we are also called to act and be involved. It's the whole question of free will vs. predestination over again and confusing. This is about all I can make of it when I push myself into uncomfortable places.
Pawns?
One of my abiding questions in this book and in larger Bible is---are we merely pawns in the hands of a sovereign benevolent God? How to reconcile the bizarre reality of a God who asks a man to marry a prostitute as an object lesson? It reminds me of unsettling elements in the book of Job. Why is a "good" man allowed to be tested? Why were these prophets put through the wringer? Why are we sometimes put through the wringer? I feel like it's all pieces of a much grander question of God's dominion over man. What about the "innocent" children in both of these stories that are pulled into the whirlwind of their parents' lives? What about the people in this world that endure the sins of others or of the nation of their birth?And, how does God view our lives and our individual hopes and aspirations? To what extent are the individual threads of our lives inherently subjugated and folded into His sovereign plans. An orthodox view seems to suggest entirely. Yet we are also called to act and be involved. It's the whole question of free will vs. predestination over again and confusing. This is about all I can make of it when I push myself into uncomfortable places.
“To the modern Western mind, it might seem unfair that the priests’ mothers and children should be punished for their sins. But the concept of corporate guilt and punishment was common in ancient Israel and is frequently reflected in the Hebrew Bible.”[55] Chisolm via Constable
No comments:
Post a Comment