This passage [which in the Vulgate reads]: Ero mors tua, o mors, ero morsus tuus, inferne [Death, I will be your death, Hell, I will be your bitefs, the apostle Paul reads 1 Cor. 15, 55. thus: "Death, where is your sting? Hell, where is thy victory?" Που σου, θάνατε, το χέντρον; που σου, ^οη, το νΐχος; ; on which it is necessary to speak a little more widely and carefully, because Paul is thought to speak strange things and things not pertinent to the matter, and not easily has any passage been translated so differently as this, Hos. 13, 14.
First of all, it is clear that the difference arose from the Hebrew text itself. For Jerome, Symmachus, and all our commentators testify constantly that in their copies they read the word XXX, that is, "I will be," whereas others, as the Septuagint, the fifth edition, and Aquila, testify that by transposing the letters (per metathesin) they read XXX, that is, "where?". With these agrees the Apo
Paul, who is certainly a very important authority, and no doubt was very learned in Hebrew, Yes, there are even now Hebrews who hold that XXX means "where?"and not "I will be", since "I will be" with full letters in Hebrew is XXXX, 2 Mos. 3, 12. 2 Sam. 7, 14. 1 Chron. 18, 13., 1) and only by omitting the at the end of the word (per apocopen) it can be taken for "I will be".
Although the reputation of the seventy interpreters is of little value to me, since they have often, whether it was done willingly or through ignorance, translated things that are quite far from the words and the opinion of the holy Scriptures, which cannot be defended by any reason, as Jerome proves in many passages, - yet he praises Aquila as a sharp and very exact interpreter, and the
1) The last two citations are according to the designation and counting of our German Bible; in the editions: 2 lisA. 7. 1?aral. 17.
fifth edition has had a reputation not to be despised, - so it seems to me nevertheless, since Paul agrees with them, that one must read absolutely just like him, and that Hosea wrote "where?", and not "I will be".
Then mors tua is not the same word with the one that follows: o mors, but XXXX, which is a completely different word in Hebrew. For if it be derived from the word, it signifies: thy pestilence, or thy pestilences in the plural. And I believe that this is how Paul read it, who translates, "Thy sting," and I hold that this is the correct reading. This is also supported by the word that follows: Where is, O hell, XXXX? which comes from the word that does not have two meanings, or is ambiguous, but is simple and unambiguous.
For the two words XXX and XXX. are in the Scriptures names of pestilences, as with the Latins the two words pestis and lues, and as XXX [pestilence] is more frightening than pestis [plague], since one has not yet been able to find a remedy for that disease, which soon kills, yes, which is rather a poison for nature than a disease, as Perottus says, so in Hebrew XXX is more frightening than XXX. Therefore some invent that they are names of evil spirits, about which one can look up Lyra and Burgensis in the 91st Psalm. Since Hosea connects the unambiguous with the ambiguous 121 as it were by repetition of the same thing (per tautologiam), then it is sufficiently evident that he thereby cancelled the ambiguity and limited the word to one meaning, and that he did not want to be read but XXX.
St. Paul translates XXX tua, by: "thy victory"; the Septuagint: thy sting, by which Paul rendered tua. Jerome: plaga tua [thy bite]; Symmachus: occursus tuus tuu8 [thy attack, as also the 91st Psalm, v. 6., has in Latin [the Vulgate]: Ab incursu [before the run-up], that is, from which the fifth edition and Theodotio: Plaga tua [your pestilence].
If you derive it from the word -on,
1) So has correctly the Jena edition. Wittenberg and Erlangen: ksbsb.
so 1/7^/ means your words, your things, your legal matters, in the plural. So runs Aquila and the fifth edition: Ubi sunt sermones tui? [Where are your speeches?] And the Septuagint: Που ή δίχη σου; ; where is your legal.
Your revenge, your punishment, your right? and the like, of which I will deal with later. For I consider this reading to be violent and forced.
It seems to me now that without preconceived opinion according to the Hebrew the words should be translated actually in such a way: Where are thy pestilences, O death? Where is your pestilence, O hell? But the prophet does not speak according to the letter of the pestilences or the accidental things, about which the physicians have to judge and speak; also not of the accidental death, but of the pestilences and the death, which are innate to us by nature, which rage and rage through the whole human race. These pestilences have also a young, healthy, strong, beautiful man, for all die, and all die by the same pestilences, as the 51st Psalm, v. 7. laments, "Behold, I am conceived in sins." But before I say more about this, let us first deal with Paul's text.
St. Paul cites 1 Cor. 15, 55. two scriptural passages and connects them with each other. The first is from Isa. 25, 8: "Death is swallowed up in victory." It is in the day that I also erred with many others in thinking that this passage of Isaiah was the same as that in Hosea Cap. 13, 14. [Vulg.]: "I will be thy death." The second is from this 13th chapter of Hosea, "Death, where is thy sting?"
First, we must speak of the former passage. Here Paul improves the seventy interpreters, since he says: "Death is swallowed up in victory", where those translated: The mighty reigning death has swallowed up; and he changes the active expression into the passive. For the saying of the Septuagint, that death violently devours all things, is neither here in place, nor worthy of spiritual and prophetic theology. For who does not know that we owe everything to death, ourselves and ours, as Horace says?
2) Erlanger: äi doreeüo.
The books of all pagans are full of this matter, and miserable experience teaches us the same thing constantly in every hour and in every moment, we may like it or not.
Therefore, rejecting the Septuagint's translation, Paul puts forward the right and spiritual view: it is not necessary to say that the very powerful death devours all, but that death, the exceedingly powerful devourer of all, has been devoured. Therefore he translates passively, "Death is swallowed up in victory." But it is sufficiently known that where the passive meaning is, at the same time the active is also set, and vice versa, as it entails the nature of things that stand in relation to each other (relativorum). They set one another and cancel one another out; namely, where there is an intertwined thing, there must also necessarily be something that intertwines. Since St. Paul therefore wanted to use the passive meaning, namely: death is devoured, he at the same time indicated that in the text of Isaiah the active meaning must be understood, not for death, but against death, and that the Septuagint translated it badly: It devoured the mighty death, in the nominative. But it should have been translated: He (namely, the Son of God) hath swallowed up death, in the accusative, into victory, or eternally. For this is how the Hebrew reads: He swallowed up death, or consumed, or plunged into eternity, or into victory.
"Into victory," which in Hebrew is XXXX, is, I believe, correctly translated by the apostle. The Hebrews know that the meaning of the word is as much as 1) to overcome, to have the upper hand, to be victorious, to be very powerful, to be foremost, to prevail, so that the sense is, "Death is swallowed up in victory," that is, after death is swallowed up, life has the upper hand, it rules, reigns, triumphs. For (as grammar teaches) it indicates the movement toward a place (motum ad locum), or (as the philosophers speak of their things) the final purpose and why it happens (finem ultimatum et gratia cujus), so that this victory is not Christ's active (activa) victory, but our suffering (finem ultimatum et gratia cujus).
1) Erlanger: [sss in dog instead of: [ssv id c^uod.
the (passive) victory that Christ has brought about for us through his victory; namely, death has also been swallowed up for us (through the victor Christ), so that life triumphs eternally, and death also has no hope whatsoever of ever returning, not even to battle, much less to victory or dominion, as it has hitherto and still has over us wretched people.
Thus Paul says Rom. 5:21: "That as sin reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life, by Jesus Christ our Lord." And again [v. 14.], "Death reigned from Adam even unto Moses." From this it is seen that Paul took the word, XXX, which our commentators have explained by eternal, everlasting, but the Septuagint by mighty reign, for conquer 2) and victory. And what can be said with greater truth than that he conquers and reigns mightily who, while his adversary has perished or been devoured, himself remains intact and glorious forever?
The other passage is this, which we have under hands, and which we have translated above from the Hebrew: "Where are thy pestilences, O death? Where is your pestilence, O hell?" This Paul renders thus X "Death, where is thy sting? Hell, where is your victory?"
Here it is necessary to know Paul's theology of sin in the letter to the Romans in the fifth, sixth and seventh chapter, because Hosea wants the same as Paul. Namely, the whole human race was corrupted and ruined at once by the sin that occurred through the first man, which is called original sin, 3) and this same sin was increased in the course of time by the actual sins (actualibus peccatis). At the same time, the punishments were also increased, because both increase every day.
This sin he calls the pestilences of death and the plague of hell, as he speaks [1 Cor. 15:56.], "The sting of death is sin," from which we, through Christ the
L) Erlanger: xrovineers instead of: pro vinoere.
3) Erlanger: voeat instead of: voeant.
Son of God, are liberated and redeemed. For without sin there would be no death, as it is said in Genesis 2:17: "Whichever day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die of death," that is, without sin thou wouldst live forever. But the nature corrupted by these pestilences and plagues, that is, by sin, is subject to death, and, as Paul says, Rom. 5:12, "so death has come to all men, because they have all sinned". Thus death reigns and triumphs by its pestilences, and hell by its pestilence, for sin is the power, dominion, force, yea, the juice, the poison, the contagion of death, and not in one kind only, but many pestilences.
Furthermore, these pestilences and this plague or sin usually behave quietly, as if they were resting and sleeping, but "at the door", as it says in Genesis 4:7, that is, sin is neither felt nor respected, as we see in the safe men and the Epicureans, although in this way all perish and die by it, even though in ignorance. Rom. 5, 1) 13. f.: "Where there is no law, sin is not respected. Because death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who did not sin" etc. And Rom. 7, 8. f.: "Without the law sin was dead, but when the commandment came, sin became alive again."
This is not what is being discussed here, but the sin that has been awakened, that is, recognized, by the Law. This shows that it is the pestilence of death and the plague of hell, because either it is only more aroused and rages, hating the law that forbids, as one says: Nitimur in vetitum etc. [We chase after what is forbidden etc.]. [We pursue what is forbidden etc.], 2) or leads to despair and blasphemy, through the sensation of divine wrath. Thus sin becomes exceedingly sinful, excites in us all kinds of lust, and kills by the commandment, Rom. 7, 13. 8. 11.
The Holy Spirit aims at these two forms of sin through the two words "death" and "hell". The excited sin knows that it is doing what is worthy of death, and it knows that it is doing what is worthy of death.
1) In the Latin editions erroneously: Rom. 4.
2) Cf. Walch, St. Louis edition, vol. VII, 1233.
that it goes through despair into hell. And as death kills the body, so hell snatches away the soul. Therefore, in the Scriptures these two oers are distinguished in such a way that
the grave, to the body, hell, to the soul. Ps. 6, 6.: "In death thou art not remembered; who shall give thee thanks in hell?" Ps. 115, 17: "The dead will not praise you, Lord, nor those who descend into silence."
Jerome says in this passage: "Between death and hell there is this difference: death is the separation of the soul from the body; hell is the place where souls are kept, either for refreshment or punishment, according to merit. He says this for the sake of the patriarchs, who confess that they are going down to hell. But how this place is, and what or how the souls are, act, behave in it, we do not know, because the Scripture does not say. It is admittedly held that after the resurrection of Christ there is no hell for the godly, although impudent men have invented purgatory instead of it. But those who understand what sin is, which is aroused by the law and causes despair, also understand what death and hell are. But it is surprising that instead of "your pestilences" Paul translates: "your sting" and instead of "your pestilence": "your victory". Did he perhaps also want to deviate from the Septuagint, or rather from those who take the pestilences and the pestilence in passive meaning? as those do who read: I will be thy pestilences, O death; I will be thy pestilences, O hell; namely, those which death and hell suffer from Christ the Son of God. And perhaps he wanted to avoid an ambiguity. For even if one reads, "Death, where are thy pestilences?" it is doubtful with us whether it is the pestilence by which death is killed, or the pestilence which kills us.
But he undoubtedly speaks with Hosea of the active pestilence of death, with which he kills us, just as, on the other hand, he speaks of our suffering resurrection, by which we are raised, not of the active per-
The personal resurrection of Christ, which brings about our resurrection, as the words of Paul say most clearly [1 Cor. 15, 54. f.]: "But when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and mortality shall put on immortality, then shall be fulfilled the word that is written, Death, where is thy sting? although our resurrection by necessary implication includes the resurrection of Christ, and again, as the nature of those things which are related to each other entails, and is preached quite clearly by the preceding word: "I will deliver them out of hell, and save them from death."
Perhaps he wanted to speak of such a great matter in a more frightening way, and to magnify the word of Hosea: "Thy pestilences", as a common word among the common people, by a word taken from the war camp and warfare or rather from robbers, namely "sting", by which death did not pierce and cut off the whole human race at once with a slow pestilence, but with whole force for eternity. For here one must pay attention to the emphasis in the "sting of death". For if only sting or point were said, it would be of little importance, since also the little bees and smaller worms have a point or sting.
But if you add "of death", 'then the top of the sting is greater than the whole world, and completely as great as death itself is, namely the lord and tyrant of the whole human race from the beginning of the world to the end. So it is when you say "the Word" alone; then one thinks of something small, namely the speech of a man, but when you add "God's", then the Word is greater than all creatures, even than death and hell.
If you call it a fever, a motherwort, a weevil, a little needle of death, you will not be called a man. For death has devoured the whole human race. Hence also Paul alone translates [the plague) of hell by: "the victory," as it were an eternal devouring, where the Septuagint have put stingers, as I said above. For hell devours by its 2^], that is, by sin, it reigns and triumphs over the whole human race, as if it should never be saved.
Here again you see that Paul is pleased with this meaning of nn, that it is taken as "victory", which is otherwise translated by "to the end", "forever", because he who is victorious and has the upper hand remains when his adversary perishes, as Ps. 9:7 (Vulg.): "The swords of the enemy are fallen to the end," that is, to victory; and Ps. 10:11 (Vulg.): "He hath hid his face, that he should not see to the end," that is, victory. 1) Thus death devours through all men to the end, that is, in victory, because, since all die, he continues and triumphs.
This is truly a beautiful person poetry, in which death and hell are presented as enemies of human nature, terrible by their weapons, by the sting, XXX, XXX, victor, Trium
phators who mock us forever by their victory, that is, the sin and sickness of our nature, which the Son of God by Himself threw down for us, as David did Goliath, and lifted up for eternity and victory.
Now it is easy, if one feels like it, to reconcile the interpretations of the others as: Death, where are thy speeches? the speeches, the words, the things of death, with which he handles, are the very sin and handwriting, which came into being by statutes, as Paul says Col. 2, 14. whereby he convicts, accuses, and condemns us of our guilt. For what else can death say, claim, boast against us than this word: You have sinned; by your sin you are
1) Compare Luther's interpretation of these Psalm passages in the St. Louis edition, Vol. IV, 694 and 779.
1410 L. xxiv, 532 f. Interpretations on the Prophets. W. vi, svs8-A "i. 1411
guilty of me, by the right of sin I devour you eternally? Death does not speak or act with any other creature than with man, because he alone has sinned. No animal sins. But he speaks against us nothing but judgment and conducts his case, or as the Septuagint translates it.
The same can be done with bite, run, attack, and how others may have translated it differently. For since all agree that they speak of death and hell and the kingdom thereof, but Paul clearly says that sin is the means or instrument with which death and hell operate, by which they devour, reign, and do everything against the human race, sin itself can be called the stumbling block without danger, triumph, and do all things against the human race, sin itself may without danger be called the sting, the spear, the bite, the pestilence, the pestilence, the poison, the wound, the running, the victory of death and hell, and all that by which man can be killed and damned. Only one must nevertheless take care that the Hebrew text of Hosea retains one, and indeed a certain, grammatical meaning of the words, which Paul and others may have put into images in various ways without impairing the sense. For even Paul does not care whether one says sting or pestilence etc., if one only understands that this sting, pestilence etc. is nothing other than sin. But this is enough of this.
Now let us go through the whole sermon of Hosea at the end of the thirteenth chapter [v. 12. ff.]: "The iniquity of Ephraim is bound together." I believe that it is known to all that the prophets, but especially Hosea, have given briefly summarized discourses and, as it were, the themes, or rather the summaries, of their sermons. Thus Hosea, since in this sermon he undoubtedly gave a very detailed speech about the law, about sin, about the grace of the future Christ and his kingdom, finally summarized and concluded everything in a summa and very short main pieces, saying:
1) Erlanger: opinnri, Wittenberger and Jenaer: äawnari. We have followed the latter reading.
The iniquity of Ephraim is bound together," as if to say, "We have often spoken much of the law, but the more we teach, the more we sin. We do not judge anything by the teaching of the law; only it is so necessary to teach the law, that the people may know that they are lost sinners, convicted by the law, and that they need another teaching, which goes beyond the law, namely, of the forgiveness of sins, and of the Holy Spirit, who is to be given through the promised and future Messiah, namely, to another and eternal life. Therefore he says:
Cap. 13, 12. The iniquity of Ephraim is bound together, and their sin is kept.
I know that Job 14:17 says: "You have sealed my transgression in a bundle", which he wanted to be understood as the sin that was kept and should be punished. But since in this place it is added: "Their sin is kept" (absconditum-covered), I follow this opinion, that Hosea prophesies of the new testament, that is, of the forgiveness of sins, as Daniel [Cap. S, 24.] says, that the sin is sealed. And Ps. 32:1: "Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sin is covered."
For the sins to be covered is, as the 51st Psalm, v. 11, says, that the face is turned away from the sins. And Jer. 31, 2) 34. and Isa. 43, 25.: "to remember sins no more". For W'. 130, 3. Vulg.): "If thou, O Lord, wilt take heed of sin (which is done by the law bringing it to light, instructing about it, accusing and condemning it), O Lord, who shall stand?" So also Job 14:16 [Vulg.] says: "Now thou hast numbered my steps, but spare my sins," which in Hebrew is expressed thus: Take not heed to my sin.
Therefore Hosea wants this: The acceptable time and day of salvation will come, when the law will be finished or fulfilled by Christ, the iniquity of Ephraim will be closed up and bound together, forgiven.
2) In the issues: asr. 33.
and the sin will be covered and buried, as it were, which is revealed, made public and spread out through the law. Then, however, it will be gathered together and, as it were, be confined in a bundle, so that it will no longer stand open before the eyes of God, and not made known to the outside world, still accuse and show its power.
V. 13: For they shall be afflicted like a woman in childbirth.
This is understood of a wholesome childbearing and pain, of which Isa. 26, 16. is said: "Lord, when there is affliction, one seeks you." And soon after [v. 17 f.]: "As a woman with child, when she is about to give birth, is afraid and cries out in her pain: so it is with us, O Lord, before thy face. Then we also are with child, and are afraid, and scarce draw breath." Jer. 31, 19: "When I was converted, I repented; for after I was wrought, I smote myself on the hip," etc., for this is the manner of women in childbearing, as Jeremiah says [Cap. 30, 6]. And Micah 4:10: "Dear one, suffer such pain, and caw, O daughter of Zion, as one in childish distress. For thou must indeed go out of the city, and dwell in the field."
For the forgiveness of sins and grace work the killing of the flesh, the hatred of self, and the destruction of sin in the flesh. Then it arouses persecution, as is known by the example of the whole church. These are the salutary birth pains. It is hard to the flesh, especially to Ephraim, that the glory 1>of the law should be killed, and that it should kill the righteousness of works in itself. This is in truth killing the old man and stripping him with his works [Col. 3, 9.], not only with the gross and manifest sins, but with the apparent and most holy services, in which they trusted and were sure and certain of glory before God.
Because they are careless children (Ipse filius non sapiens).
That is, now the servant has become a son, and a new man from the old. He sees and considers that he is foolish and
Now he understands that another word, namely the gospel, is necessary, by which he is instructed that he should boast of the Lord, and that what he formerly considered gain, he now regards as harm, and he recognizes that he must become a fool in order to become wise. This was the hardest thing for this people, and most of them rejected this foolishness of the cross and remained in the life and glory of their own righteousness and wisdom. But this recognized foolishness is blessed and salutary.
The time will come when they will not remain before the wailing of the children.
Under the law, there was a time when they were constantly in need of children and never gave birth; they were inferior to the law, but they did not achieve the righteousness of the law. For the law brought nothing to perfection, but only showed justice, but did not provide it. This is how it goes in the law, that one always learns and never comes to the knowledge of the truth, because "the children have come to birth, and there is no strength to give birth", that I use the words of Hezekiah [Is. 37, 3. So there was nothing but mourning and suffocation of the children, because no flesh is justified by the works of the law.
But at the time of grace, Ephraim is no longer in the misery of children, because all are born of God, through the most blessed birth, because the mother herself has powers. Thus it is said in the 110th Psalm, v. 3: "Thy children shall be born unto thee as the dew out of the morning glow." And Isa. 54, 1.: "Boast, you barren, you who do not give birth; rejoice with glory and exult, you who are not pregnant. For the lone woman hath more children, neither she that hath the man." Thus Zion stands not in the lamentation of children, but in the joy of many children. Isaiah speaks abundantly about this in many places.
1) In the Erlangen edition, there is the note here: "In rnLNA. eoll. len: Lsulae 37. (them! )". - Everything is in order. What is the Erlangen edition wondering about? Probably it has taken L^eekias not for Hezekiah but for Ezekiel, but, as it is wont to do, it has not looked up the biblical passage.
V. 14. But I will deliver them from hell and save them from death.
These are words in the person of the incarnate Son of God and Savior, who is the end of the law; he who believes in Him is righteous [Rom. 10:4]. For the law provokes wrath and leads to hell, but not out again; it kills, but does not make alive again. This is very well known from the Gospel. For he redeemed us not with silver and gold, but with his own body and with his own precious blood [1 Pet 1:18 ff].
Death, where is your sting? Hell, where is your victory?
Enough has been said about this above. But the other conception: Death, I want to be your death, hell, I want to be your pestilence, pleases me very much and rightly, and is at the same time quite true and exceedingly lovely, yes, according to the nature of things that refer to each other (ex natura relativorum) it follows from the former. But in this place I have wanted to explain Paulum, 1 Cor. 15, 55. according to grammar, therefore I have had to refer that view to another place. This I wanted to add here, the rest is in the interpretation.