me;" but of this, there is no trace. It is only in ver. 5 that, with an _after_, the conversion is reported. In favour of that false interpretation it is said, and with some plausibility, that the explanation would otherwise be more extended than the symbol: The latter would contain the outward dealing only; while the former, in ver. 5, would contain at the same time its salutary effect. But, even according to this explanation, the words would not correspond with ver. 5. _Here_, the showing of mercy would be announced without the mention, even by a word, of the sincere return to the husband--and this, altogether apart from the גם, would be quite unsuitable, and would, moreover, be opposed by the analogy of chap. ii. 9--while, in ver. 5, not the showing of mercy, but only the reformation, would form the subject. In that case, it ought not to have been said, "They shall return to the Lord," but rather, "The Lord shall return to them." But this plausible reason falls to the ground, along with the unfounded supposition that the two last verses contain the explanation. The correct view is, that the explanation is limited to ver. 4. Ver. 5 must be considered as an appendix, in which, without any figurative covering, the effect is described which will be produced upon the nation by these outward dealings. The symbol and its explanation extend only as far as the main object of the prophet in the section under review,--that object being to present the impending captivity in its true light, and thereby to secure against levity and despair when it should appear. Ver. 4. "_For many days the children of Israel shall sit without a king, and without a prince, and without a sacrifice, and without a pillar, and without an Ephod and Teraphim._"