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._"