II. Historical Setting

There are two historical markers in the first chapter of Hosea that define our contextual parameters. The first is the introduction of the book that places Hosea ben Beeri, as one that is directly addressed by Yahweh during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehosh king of Israel (Hos 1:1). The second is the explicit reference to the massacre at Jezreel by the house of Jehu (Hos 1:4). The historical grounding of Hosea is, in our opinion, very important for a correct exegetical outcome. Those who deny the historical aspect of the book and adopt a purely rhetorical approach, do a grave injustice to the word of God and his illocutionary intent in the book.Footnote ⁵ The text itself is thoroughly dependant on redemptive history (Heilsgeschichte).Footnote ⁶ This basis will give certain grounding in our approach that actually minimizes the sign-act of Hosea and his marriage to Gomer, and gives priority to Yahweh, the one who addresses his people through the prophet Hosea. It is God's voice that the book has us contend with, and that voice is jilted, broken hearted, and determined to put things right with those who are his people, these people, with whom in all reality, don't deserve the privilege of being as such. The General come King Jehu (842BC), at first glance was a passionate man of God, who desired to see syncretism—which had been given unprecedented access to the life of Israel under the rule of Ahab—abolished and Israel return to monistic Yahwism as its only raison d’être.Footnote ⁷ However, when Jehu is given the opportunity to put things in order, the violence and senselessness of his acts portray a very different picture, a picture that Yahweh would remember well into the future.

Jehu exercised an insatiable bloodlust and exterminated the entire family of Ahab and all connected with it.Footnote ⁸ He then slaughtered a delegation from the court of Jerusalem and set on the worshippers of Baal, with whom he butchered with alarming zeal. “It was a purge of unspeakable brutality, beyond excuse from a moral point of view, which had, as we shall see disastrous consequences.”Footnote ⁹ When Jehu took the throne of Ahab it inaugurated a period of calamitous weakness, for all Israel's neighbors had been put off side by broken alliances and a period of economic and political turmoil would follow.Footnote ¹⁰ Though Jehu had purged Baal from the land, the worship of the golden calf still continued (2 Kings 10:28–30).

The text of Hosea will show that the action of Jehu is of special historical importance for the Israel of Hosea's day, for it betrays a significant departure from the ways of the Lord even though it is veiled in purging zeal. The killing of Baal worshippers was at best a peripheral act that avoided the real problem, the problem in which the Baals had been invited into the life of Israel by its monarchy and that this action had been accepted and promoted by the priestly leaders of the time. This state of affairs reached its despicable climax in Hosea's time. The massacre at Jezreel as a historical marker also serves to reveal Yahweh as a long-suffering covenant partner. Yahweh is no unthinking hot head ready to strike at any hint of betrayal. Yahweh suffers well past the point, where he rightfully could have brought an end to the covenant himself.

Approximately 108–116 years after the massacre at Jezreel, the veneer surrounding Israel was one of resurgent prosperity under the leadership of Jeroboam II (786–746). The physical dimensions of the kingdom rivaled the time under Solomon, yet ‘the northern state at least, in spite of its healthy appearance, was in an advanced state of decay, socially, morally, and religiously.’Footnote ¹¹ Greed and the unmerciful advantage taken over the poor gave physical evidence that Israel's heart was rotten. Our text will issue a series of indictments against the leadership of Israel and the syncretistic pluralism that had evacuated the priestly and prophetic office of its role of accountability (Hosea 4:1–14; 8:4). The rise of the monarchy had destroyed the solidarity characteristic of tribal society, Yahwism as a national religion was only paid lip service to.Footnote ¹² Jehu's purge of Baal Tyrian had not driven idolatry from the hearts of the people, especially from the heart of the priesthood, and in a state of great abundance and prosperity, Israel's national pride had assumed a presumptuous confidence on God's promises, while attributing the wealth of provision to the rain god Baal.

Hosea's major target seems consistently to be the syncretistic cult of the North.Footnote ¹³ Baalism had continued to exert an influence in the life of the kingdom to the point where it had superseded Yahweh as the identified provider of life (Hos 2:7, 10). Linked to this were the fertility and prostitution cults.Footnote ¹⁴ Heschel says,

Baal and Ashtoreth were easy to worship.Footnote ¹⁶ These pseudo-gods placed no real ethical demand on the people. When Baalism is seen in the context of the northern state in the late eighth century, it is seen as promoting Baal as a fertility god only in the sense that he (supposedly) controlled the rain.Footnote ¹⁷ The time frame given in the opening of Hosea's prophecy is one strangled by Baal worship. What Ahab had started by giving over to the worship of Baal—that prompted the radical response of Jehu at Jezreel—is now at the time of Hosea a problem with more subversive traits. Syncretism was pervasive in the land.

The lax sexuality that accompanied the dedication to Baal may have developed into a fully functioning sex cult at the time of Hosea's ministry (Hos 4:14) of which Gomer is often associated. It is likely that the denial of God's word and the syncretistic practice that had been undertaken at the time was a justification for the indulgence of all the fleshly pleasures, not only at a cultic-sacrificial level but throughout all levels of society. More than likely, a justification for this behavior was the superficial prosperity and abundance of the nation at the time, which was attributed to Baal. The abomination of all this for Yahweh was that Israel had been led to believe that he looked upon all this favorably, while his word was eclipsed by drunkenness, debauchery and sexual license under the aegis of true religion.Footnote ¹⁸

With syncretism running riot among the leadership of the northern state, it is no wonder that it was inept politically. Within 25 years of Jeroboam II Israel was no more, in the ten years following Jeroboam II there were 5 kings, and of these five three ascended to the throne via assassination. In 734BC the anti-Assyrian coalition led by Remaliah of Syria and Pekah of Israel, marched against Ahaz of Jerusalem. Because of Ahaz's alliance with the Assyrian leadership, Assyria moved against the northern coalition swiftly, and annexed the nation under Tiglath-Pileser II (732BC).

In 732 Pekah was assassinated by Hoshea who first submitted and then rebelled against Assyria (2 Kings 17:3–4). Hoshea made overtures to Egypt and, under the impression that a weak and unimportant Egypt could play a role in Israel's liberation from Assyria, Hoshea withheld tribute from Shalmaneser V.Footnote ¹⁹ In 724 BC Shalmaneser responded to the defiance of Hoshea and attacked the northern state again. In 722 Samaria fell and Israel as a nation was to be no more. Hoshea presided over the downfall of Israel as a prisoner (2 Kings 9–10).Footnote ²⁰ Hosea prophesied during these times.

I have followed a structure that takes a linear movement throughout the first four chapters of Hosea in an effort to correctly view the whole of chapter two. The justification for this lies in the fact that the opening texts draw on a progressive linear view of history. The movement from Ahaz to Hoshea is clear and distinct. The text itself is deeply indebted to a historical understanding of redemptive implications. For example Hos 2:17 reflects on the early period of the exodus event as determinative for the covenantal life of the nation.Footnote ²¹ This view gives us a clear picture in regard to the real intent of the text and the role of the prophetic sign-act within that intention. The structure reveals Yahweh as the God that speaks, and the one that specifically addresses Israel through the prophet. In doing this Yahweh addresses Hosea himself to a lesser extent; Hosea is more the vehicle for the prophetic word.

It is Yahweh that does all the talking and gives all the prediction. Hosea does not actually get to speak until Hosea 3:3. Exegesis must realize a distinction between the children of Hosea in Hos 1:4–9, and the children of Israel, Hosea's brothers and sisters in 2:3. Our textual analysis will reveal greater detail but it is good for us to recognize that this distinction determines the voice in Hos 2. The voice in Hos 2 is Yahweh's and not Hosea's address to Gomer. It is the mother of Hosea's brothers and sisters that is being addressed by Yahweh, not the mother of Hosea's children.

By allowing the text to freely unfold itself, one is constrained by the text and its intention. It is unwilling to allow fanciful, exegetical self-aggrandizement.Footnote ²² Instead, it brings us into direct confrontation with the God that speaks; a God that makes declarations. It is His utter disgust with a people that have prostituted themselves with syncretistic libertinism, and justified their actions with self-aggrandizement and dubious hermeneutics that is at the heart of this passage. The syncretistic self-evaluation of the leadership in the northern kingdom has tempted the determined love of God to act decisively where the leadership had continually failed to do so. But though God's act against the people will entail a great upheaval and judgment, the determined love of God—with whom Hosea is in sympathy—will prevail and create a new day. The new day will come as surely as judgment is upon the nation.

The word comes at a specific historical point (Hos 1:1–2). The Lord begins to speak and he addresses Hosea. The first chapter moves through the progression of address and narrated response. Hosea does not speak, just obeys. God has addressed Hosea and created a sign-act in response to the nature and act of the nation. The children of Hosea's obedience are signs for and against the nation. When the Hebrew text transitions into Hos 2,Footnote ²³ it is the voice of Yahweh speaking in direct fashion, not even in a narrative sense as per Kirby.Footnote ²⁴ Hos 2 has the tone of a juridical indictment procedure. But it is given in a monological direction as God speaks and Hosea listens. We are invited, as readers to listen and respond appropriately.

Hos 2:1–3 specifically locates the thread of hope in a concrete historical progression (2:2), and makes it abundantly clear that the text is an address of Yahweh to his people, those that are Hosea's brothers and sisters. The shift into Hos 2:4 then puts the complete burden of the indictment on the mother of Hosea and his siblings (Israel) not the mother of Hosea's children. Theologically the ‘Mother’ stands as the apostate priesthood that has implicated the people (children of whoredom) by their treachery and unfaithfulness. In no sense is this a direct address by Hosea to Gomer. The text only allows for that particular address to take place in Hos 3:2, and even then it is an act of love and redemption on the part of Hosea towards Gomer as a sign-act in sympathy with Yahweh. Even in this part of the text Hosea's act is overshadowed by the Lord's love for the Israelites. Hosea's narration in Hos 3:4–5, makes it clear that the prophecy is broader than the marriage of Hosea and Gomer. It is cast in such a way that the whole of Israel is directly challenged, a later redaction would give the text specific implication for Judah and then still later it speaks to the following generations that entertain the idea of a syncretistic lack of faithfulness.Footnote ²⁵

III. Translation And Exegesis Hos 2: 1–2Footnote ²⁶

The transition into Hos 2 is one of pre-emptive hope. Yahweh is speaking in concrete terms of what will and will not happen. It also forms an inclusio with Hos 2:24–25, that gives the second part of a twofold meaning to Jezreel.Footnote ³¹ God, in his ability to create a new understanding of Jezreel; will plant his seed, spora Theo, as a response to his ‘yielding’ on that day 2:23. With Jezreel planted in the land, it will come to pass that the negative sign-act of Hosea's children will be created in a new and merciful light. The call in the plural to Hosea's brothers and sisters sets the stage for Yahweh's confrontation with the ‘mother’ that must take place. It is a stage that justly sees the ‘mother of whoredom’ ultimately responsible for the children of whoredom, and will make good the deception while acknowledging that the children by nature have contributed to the downfall of the nation.

Who is the mother? Who is she that is to be directly challenged by Hosea on behalf of his brothers and sisters? In our estimation, the ‘mother’ is the nation of Israel's leadership that was supposed to represent and commend the Mosaic covenant to the people.Footnote ³² Hos 4:1–14 give this a more precise definition by implicating the priesthood. In saying this, the text does not fully exonerate the people of Israel, vs.4 pre-empts the blame game by holding all to account. Yet the text lays a particular blame at the feet of the priesthood.Footnote ³³ They are the mother of whoredom that must be destroyed (4:5). The charge against them is that they failed to communicate the knowledge of God (daath elohim). The priesthood was unable to instruct and guide the nation with this knowledge because they had rejected it themselves (4:6). The whole point of the marriage sign-act between Hosea and Gomer is to portray Hosea's deep sympathy with Yahweh's struggle. Hosea had embodied the daath elohim. Heschel reveals that among the nuanced meanings that daath elohim has, one of them is to have sympathy, pity or affection for someone, based on an experiential knowledge of that person. This was the very thing that the priesthood of Israel had abandoned.Footnote ³⁴

The priesthood is implicated in this terrible manifestation of all that is non-covenantal. Because of their apostasy, the nation will pay a heavy and ultimate price, for they are the children of whoredom (2:6). The priesthood have forsaken/forgotten Yahweh's providence and attributed it to Baal (2:7,10,11). The power of Yahweh's conviction and determined love is given emphatic expression in the repetition of the term ‘I will’. He uses it some 26 times in this chapter alone.

Yahweh pronounces that he will move against the priesthood with the intention of compelling her back to himself, the previous husband (2:9). It is difficult with the transition from vs.9 to vs. 10 to perceive whether he has already tried to lure her back with thorns and a wall and that she has still failed to recognize that he was the one that has provided for her all along. The honour of Baal is the focus of the priesthoods affections (2:10) which clouds the minds of the people. Hos 2:10 also serves as another direct implication of the priesthood as the whoring mother.

So Yahweh will withhold his provision. He will expose the nation and her pseudo-gods for what they really are. Hos 2:12 is a direct challenge to the gods she had prostituted herself with. He will stand against her with absolute authority and ability; the gods are challenged to do otherwise, to save her out of his hand if they can. Ironically, the nation has forgotten the last battle between Yahweh and Baal. Elijah set the task before the prophets of Baal on Mt Carmel by placing the sacrifice before the storm/rain/lightning god (1 Kings 18:16–46). There was no storm, no god of the Baals defending their claim over apostate Israel, only the consuming fire of Yahweh that put the so-called rain/lightning god to shame. Yahweh holds out the same challenge to the priesthood of Israel, but with the fulfilment of Hosea's prophecy Baal is once more exposed as impotent. In fact Israel is shown to be the type of whore that is not worth a whole lot to her captor anyway and Hosea buys Gomer back for a mere 15 shekels of silver and a homer of barley (3:2).

The captivity is perceived in the abandonment of her inheritance (2:13–15). It will grow wild for being unattended. Her glorious festivals will be brought to an end. The picture of the priesthood acting all solemn and priestly at the festivals dedicated to Baal, is not overlooked by Yahweh, it is abominable, a threat of the highest degree to the covenant, an act that betrayed the heart of the people as wicked, an act that broke the covenant.

Luther's German translation of vs. 15a has an interesting play on words “so I will afflict on her the days of the Baals.” It appears that the priesthood and her children will receive what Baal is actually capable of, nothing. They will be carried off into a foreign land helpless and powerless against her destruction. Vs. 15 ends a series of indictments and their implied declarations of judgment by laying full blame at the feet of the priesthood. They had courted their pseudo lover, but forgotten the one that truly and always loves her, the sigh of a determined yet broken lover. Brokenness however, will not be permitted as the last word. Vs. 16–25 are the sure words of the one with authority as creator over his creature, the one that will create a new time.

Hosea's prophecy is deeply embedded in the historical-redemptive ‘dumb facts’ of Israel's past. Yahweh, in his determined love, will create a new exodus. But this time Israel will recognize her faithful husband. For at a given time he will once again lead her into the desert, speak kindly to her and replenish her inheritance. What was once a place of confusion (Achor), will become a gate of hope that harks back to the euphoric days of Israel's liberation from Egypt. Some scholars determine a problem with this idealization of the first exodus event. But it is easy enough to picture the rapturous delight of the crossing of the sea and the song of Moses and Miriam, as being central to the faith history of Yahweh and his people. It was not until the refusal at Kadesh Barnea (Deut 1:19–46) that things began to go wrong for the people. So it is possible to reflect on the time before Kadesh Barnea as a time of youthful exuberance. In this new time it will be Baal that is forgotten, Yahweh will be given willing credit where it is due.

At this time Yahweh will make a new covenant with creation. It is so pervasive that it will reach as high as the birds in the heavens and even to the depths of the worms under the ground. The covenant and creation theology alluded to here speaks of a concrete renewal of provision for Yahweh's people. The political apostasy followed by Israel in their attempt to make security arrangements with their neighbours will be eclipsed by Yahweh's strong hand, and she will dwell safely. The new covenant will be an eternal one. It will be dependent on Yahweh's faithfulness alone.

Luther's translation renders the NIV's use of ‘respond’ with erhören, which is to ‘answer.’Footnote ⁴² ‘Response’ is a correct translation by the NIV for theological reasons. It presupposes that something first happens and then Yahweh responds. What does God respond to? In our rendition God actually acts in response to prayer. The asking of Jezreel is eventually answered (2:24). In responsive answer, which indicates more than mere listening, God initiates a chain reaction of creative providence. It is God that has power over the heavens as opposed to Baal the pseudo rain god.

When God answers/yields to the heavens against his rightful and justified cause for complete retribution, the heavens yield, give over their resource to the earth and the earth shall yield corn, wine and oil. The very things for sustaining life that were once wrongly attributed to Baal are given their true provenance. They are located in the creative and loving act of God. This abundant re-creation by God will, by implication, lay the fertile ground in which Jezreel will be planted. This life sustaining chain reaction started by the forgiving and yielding nature of God's determined love will ultimately sustain, bring to yield, Jezreel. Hos 2:25 rounds out the inclusio that began in 2:1. The inclusio keeps the central focus on God's redeeming love and his re-creative power. The marriage metaphor serves this overall theme.

IV. The Marriage Metaphor

This insight by Childs highlights our conviction that the marriage of Hosea plays and important yet ancillary role in the prophecy. It is in the text for the purpose of saying something significant about God, yet it is limited in this role because the nature of hope is located outside Hosea's marriage and in the pure and powerfully determined will of God. Some may see this treatment of Hosea under God's direction as unethical, yet Hosea, in sympathy with God, is willing to incarnate a very difficult marriage—fully aware of Gomer's propensity for adultery—for the sake of his brothers and sisters under God's direction. Hummel calls it an ‘eschatological suspension of ethics’.Footnote ⁴⁴ It speaks of a God that is free to take action in the face of covenantal crisis. The use of the marriage metaphor by Yahweh gives a precise indication of the essence of Israel's failure, she has broken the marriage vow between herself and her faithful and devoted lover. An interesting aspect is that Gomer does not repent in the text. After Yahweh clearly portions out the share of culpability across the priesthood and nation, he calls Hosea to make the move, against Mosaic Law,Footnote ⁴⁵ in a bid to take Gomer back. She is offered back to Hosea it seems without much struggle by her captor.

The actual historical marriage of Hosea and Gomer also serves to drive home the existential nature of the knowledge of God, the daath Elohim. Hosea is drawn into the pathos of the subjective God, a God that feels deep pain and rejection. For Hosea it is an emotional solidarity with Yahweh.Footnote ⁴⁶ This deep sympathy and experience of God serves as a sign-act against the priesthood whom had forsaken the knowledge of God, and therefore failed to instruct the nation. This lack of genuine experiential knowledge by priest and nation is one of the main indictments condemning them to judgment.

V. Daath Elohim

“Hosea's central complaint against the people is that they do not know God.”Footnote ⁴⁷ This knowledge of God (daath elohim) compasses inner appropriation, feeling, and the reception into the soul. It also means to have sympathy, pity or affection for someone. In this regard Hosea is contrasted with the priests and people of Israel, for they lived in a time of prosperity and Hosea lives with the twofold burden of a marriage gone wrong and the experiential knowledge of impending destruction. Israel prospers superficially as a nation and they do not know God. Though Hosea suffers terribly, he has daath elohim.Footnote ⁴⁸

Limburg lays the blame for the lack of knowledge (daath elohim) specifically with the priests and theologians who have failed in their tasks (Hos 4:4–10).Footnote ⁵⁰ Zimmerli makes the added distinction between knowledge and ‘acknowledgement’ as per the NIV.Footnote ⁵¹ Von Rad sees it as a particular knowledge, the personal knowing reflected in the German Gotteserkenntnis.Footnote ⁵² The daath elohim implies acknowledgement in the total conduct of the person concerned, the very opposite of what the nation had done, as was graphically revealed in their licentious and forbidden acts.Footnote ⁵³ Ward says ‘without the knowledge of God, there was no creative centre, no source of morality.’Footnote ⁵⁴ This insight by Ward harks back to the creative sustaining process of God yielding up life giving order (Hos 2:23–25). It also echoes the creation narrative and the key function of the creative word of God. Without this embodiment of the word of knowledge, Israel was destined to fall. Its psalmic liturgy continually calls them back to this creative word/torah (Ps 119).Footnote ⁵⁵ It is in the acknowledgement of God and the embodiment of his word that God uses as means to actually bring his saving history to pass. ‘Heilsgeschichte is a course of history which is kept in motion, and guided to its God ordained good, by the constantly intruding divine word.’Footnote ⁵⁶ When the course of salvation history is threatened by the apostasy of the priesthood and its effect on the nation, God is compelled to act decisively against them, for them.

VI. Eschatology, Typology And The New Time

Judgment is not the last word for Yahweh in relation to his people. He is a determined lover that redeems his guilty partner using his own means. He is able to create and foretell a new time. Yahweh speaks of a new exodus (Hos 2:17) that will outshine the former one, for it will be eternal (2:21). Hummel, in our opinion correctly sees the messianic fulfilment in Jesus as the pivotal event in the creation of a new time.Footnote ⁵⁷ In Jesus the Davidic king is restored to the throne (Hos 1:11; 3:5). The new covenant inaugurated in Jesus is prefigured in the Hosea text, for it is obvious that ‘the movement in thought is from covenant breach to covenant renewal.’Footnote ⁵⁸ Hosea accounts for a resurrection in the new time (Hos 6:1–3, 1 Cor 15:3–5). Hummel thinks ‘it is possible that Hosea originated the metaphor of God—later Christ—as the groom of the people of God.Footnote ⁵⁹ In an essay dedicated to the messianic and eschatological aspects of Hosea's text, Pentiuc finds several very strong connections to the new covenant period.Footnote ⁶⁰ He understands that woven throughout Hosea is an understanding that messiah would come to rectify the failure of the monarchy.Footnote ⁶¹ In connection to the Diaspora and end of the northern states history, Pentiuc finds in Hosea the fulfilment of the promise made by Yahweh to Israel as being embodied in the Christ event, ‘the Lord's resurrection is a typological embodiment’ of Israel's revival, which will be fulfilled literally at the end of time when the new Israel, all who believe in Christ, will be raised up.Footnote ⁶²

In this light, Luther inaugurated a new epoch in typology.Footnote ⁶³ It is the typological sense running throughout Hosea's text that gives some remarkable understanding of the broad scope of Yahweh's plan for salvation. ‘The Old Testament is dominated by a form of typological thinking, namely, that the eschatological correspondence between beginning and end (Urzeit und Endzeit).’Footnote ⁶⁴ The difference between allegory and typology is that allegory is rigidly attached to the text, whereas typology is ‘astonishingly free of attachment to the word or the letter, yet bound to a much greater degree by the historical sense.’Footnote ⁶⁵ It is because of this that Luther in his lectures on Hosea can distinguish the woman of whoredom as a typological representation of the apostate Roman curia. This methodology allowed the text of Hosea to move into his sitz im leben and charge the apostate church with the same apocalyptic doom faced by the nation of Hosea's time. “One sees from Hosea 2:16–20, that already within the Old Testament the dumb facts of history had become prophetic, and had come to be viewed as prototypes to which a new and more complete redemptive act of God would correspond.”Footnote ⁶⁶ It is in this line of thought that Von Rad answers the question: “what part do we have with Old Testament Israel?” The answer for him is that we are deeply connected to it, for it is the same God and the same redemptive line.Footnote ⁶⁷ In this sense Hosea speaks directly to us today, by building out the historical and textual locution and allowing the text to take its right place as illocutor of Yahweh's intention. “The references of the Old Testament statements to the New is not restricted to the person and life of Christ, but embraces the whole/entire Christ event as this is witnessed in the New testament, including its ecclesiological aspect.”Footnote ⁶⁸ This is our calling as people that live under and by the word of God.