Hosea’s prophetic role is indicated by the expression the word of the Lord that came to. This appears in the openings of several prophetic books (Joel 1:1; Mic. 1:1; Zeph. 1:1), and similar wording is associated with the prophetic ministries of Ezekiel (1:3), Jonah (1:1; 3:1), Haggai (1:1) and Zechariah (1:1). The call to prophetic ministry was initiated by God: his word came to the prophet, who proclaimed it to the people.
The prophet’s name, which comes from the Hebrew yāšaʿ (‘to help, deliver’), reflects God’s ultimate goal for his people. It is shared by four other figures in the Old Testament: it was the former name of Joshua (Num. 13:8, 16); it was also the name of Israel’s last king (Hoshea), of an official who signed Ezra and Nehemiah’s renewed covenant (Neh. 10:23) and of one of the leaders of the tribe of Ephraim (1 Chr. 27:20).1
We know nothing of Hosea’s father, Beeri.2 The name means ‘my well’, suggesting an expression of joy at the birth of a child. It may have had significance to the original audience, though the reference to Beeri may have been included to distinguish the prophet, particularly from King Hoshea, who was contemporary with Hosea and presided over Israel’s downfall.
As noted, Hosea’s ministry is set during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam son of Joash king of Israel,3 placing it in the eighth century bc, during the most recent Assyrian resurgence. Similar lists of Judean kings are noted by the southern prophets Isaiah (1:1) and Micah (1:1), though they do not refer to northern rulers. Amos 1:1 refers to Uzziah and Jeroboam, but that is not unexpected since Amos was a southerner who prophesied in the north. It is surprising for a northern prophet to list the names of southern kings, and, particularly, to list them first. This has strengthened the view that Hosea’s message was redacted in a Judean context, and that the superscript was part of that redaction.4 It is also a little surprising that only Jeroboam is mentioned, since allusions to the chaotic situation prior to the fall of Samaria indicate that Hosea’s ministry extended into the reigns of other Israelite kings. One suggestion is that the superscription was originally linked to chapters 1–3 and refers to the beginning of Hosea’s ministry (Mays 1969: 21; Wolff 1974: 3–4; Emmerson 1984: 2; Macintosh 1997: 1–4). Alternatively, if the superscription was given its present form by Judean editors, references to further Israelite kings, during what may well have appeared to be a confusing period of history, would not have been directly relevant to the new audience, and so might not have been included (Stuart 1987: 1). Another possibility is that Jeroboam was viewed as the last significant king of Israel, and his death was seen as the prelude to the end of the northern kingdom (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 148; Garrett 1997: 42; McComiskey 1998: 10–11).
Whatever the history of its composition, the superscript now stands as the title for the whole book. Key to that is the opening expression The word of the Lord. Through the course of the book, Yahweh speaks through his prophet. That may be through the sign-act of Hosea’s marriage, or through prophetic oracles. In each case, though, it is the word of Yahweh that first confronts the prophet and is then brought before the people.
The superscript also sets the prophecy against a particular historical background. While the word of God has relevance to a much wider audience, and Hosea’s message may have been applied to a southern as well as a northern context, that word also comes at a particular point in time and space. Yahweh remains intimately involved in the affairs of his people and speaks both through his continuing activity in their history and into their historical situation.
These verses are written in the third person. While it is not impossible that Hosea is the author, it seems more likely that they were written by someone else, who was familiar with the prophet’s family circumstances.
The section comprises a series of sign-acts: symbolic outworkings of the divine word in the prophet’s life which are evident to his audience and which reinforce the message. These take the form of divine commands, each followed by an explanation. The first is to marry a promiscuous woman (1:2), which Hosea obeys by marrying Gomer (1:3). Central to this sign-act is the idea that the covenant relationship between Yahweh and his people, established at Sinai, is likened to a marriage and that breaking the covenant represents spiritual adultery. Gomer’s unfaithfulness to Hosea thus reflects Israel’s unfaithfulness to Yahweh, and that idea is programmatic for the whole book. The result of unfaithfulness is judgment on the nation, and that is reflected in further sign-acts associated with the symbolic naming of Gomer’s three children (1:4, 6, 9). National judgment is also linked with judgment on the house of Jehu, who had killed Ahab’s son Joram (2 Kgs 9:24) and made himself king in a bloodthirsty coup, marked by the murder of seventy other sons of Ahab (2 Kgs 10:6–7) and the massacre of those in Jezreel who had supported Ahab (2 Kgs 10:11), and of the rest of his family in Samaria (2 Kgs 10:17). Jehu was also responsible for the deaths of Ahaziah, king of Judah, also a descendant of Ahab (2 Kgs 8:18, 26), and forty-two members of his family (2 Kgs 9:27; 10:13–14). Both judgments were effected through the death of Jeroboam II, who was the last significant member of Jehu’s dynasty, and whose demise led to the sequence of chaotic events that culminated in the fall of Samaria.
2. The opening could be understood as a temporal clause: When the Lord began to speak through Hosea; or, possibly, as a heading for the sequence of commands that follow: ‘the beginning of the Lord’s speaking through Hosea’ (see lxx). The call of a prophet was generally seen as important, giving validity and authority to the message (e.g. Isa. 6:8–9; Jer. 1:4–10; Amos 7:14–15; Jon. 1:1–2). While there is no reference to a specific call, this appears to mark the start of Hosea’s ministry. There is debate as to whether the Hebrew preposition bĕ should be translated ‘through’ (cf. Num. 12:2; 2 Sam. 23:2; 1 Kgs 22:28)5 or ‘to’ (cf. Num. 12:6; Hab. 2:1) (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 154–155; Macintosh 1997: 7–8). Both indicate Hosea’s prophetic status. The latter is possible in that Yahweh gives instructions relating specifically to Hosea. However, the prophet’s response to those divine commands results in public actions by which Yahweh speaks through him to the nation. Given that the prophetic role is, primarily, to communicate God’s word, there is, perhaps, not too much difference between them. A key point is that the message communicated to the people, however mediated, is essentially from God.
Go, marry a promiscuous woman is the first of four commands. The term translated marry is, literally, ‘take to you a woman/wife’, which is a standard expression relating to marriage.6 As already noted, there is debate about whether this statement should be understood literally, as a command to marry a woman whom Hosea knew to be promiscuous, or proleptically, as a reinterpretation of the divine command in the light of Hosea’s later discovery that his wife, whom he married in good faith, was unfaithful. In my view, primarily because Hosea portrays the relationship between Yahweh and Israel as having an idealized beginning (2:14–15; cf. Jer. 2:2), the latter understanding is more likely.
Hosea is commanded to marry an ʾēšet zĕnûnîm (promiscuous woman),7 and zĕnûnîm is also applied to the children (yaldê zĕnûnîm; nrsv: ‘children of whoredom’) who are to be born. This may suggest that the children, who also represent the nation, share the same tendency towards unfaithfulness (Wolff 1974: 13; see also Bird 1989: 80–81). When related to Hosea’s family life, it may suggest that some of the children were born as the result of adulterous relationships (Knight 1960: 40; Routledge 2018: 36), or, more straightforwardly, that they are the children born in the context of Hosea’s relationship with a promiscuous woman.
With each command, Hosea is also given an explanation of the significance of the symbolic action. In this case, Gomer’s unfaithfulness mirrors the unfaithfulness of Israel and emphasizes, both to Hosea and to his audience, the extent and seriousness of that sin. The land, here, may be a reference to the northern kingdom. However, in view of the prophet’s interest in Judah as well as Israel, it may refer to both kingdoms. Their unfaithfulness includes worship of the ‘Baals’, and making alliances with other nations, which involved allying, too, with their gods and so was also a form of idolatry.
3. Hosea demonstrated his obedience to the divine command by marrying Gomer. The Hebrew text here says, simply, ‘he took’ Gomer, and that expression could suggest a sexual relationship outside marriage. However, following on from verse 2, where the extended expression does refer to marriage, this should be understood in the same way.
Some have tried to attach symbolism to the names Gomer and Diblaim,8 but that seems unlikely. If they were symbolic, we would expect their significance to be explained, as is the case with the names of Gomer’s children. It has also been suggested that Diblaim might be a reference to Gomer’s home town, Diblathaim, in Moab (cf. Jer. 48:22). This too seems unlikely. It is better to take these simply as the names of the figures involved.
Following the marriage, Gomer bore Hosea a son. Despite her possible adultery, the first child is specifically described as being his, literally ‘to him’ (lô).
4–5. The name of Hosea’s first child points to judgment on the dynasty of Jehu. Jezreel was the scene of some of the massacres that marked Jehu’s overthrow of the family of Ahab. It was located in a relatively flat valley, the Valley of Jezreel, which was suitable for chariots and was the scene of some significant confrontations (e.g. Judg. 6:33; 1 Sam. 29:1). The city, and surrounding region, was politically and militarily strategic, and Ahab had a palace there (1 Kgs 21:1) (Aster 2012).
Commentators differ over the significance of the references to Jehu and the massacre at [literally, ‘bloods of’] Jezreel. Translations appear to suggest that Yahweh will punish Jehu’s dynasty for the blood that Jehu shed at Jezreel. However, despite the negative appraisal in 2 Kings 10:31, that particular action had divine sanction and approval (2 Kgs 9:6–10; 10:17, 30), and it seems odd to make it, so much later, a basis for judgment. It may be that Jehu’s action was excessive. Or maybe, by killing Azariah of Judah and massacring his family, he went beyond God’s purpose; though, as a member of Ahab’s family, Azariah might be regarded as a legitimate target. But if Jehu had overstepped the mark, why was he initially commended, and why has judgment been delayed for so long?
The construction here, the verb pāqad with the preposition ʿal (‘on, upon’), has the sense of ‘to bring . . . upon’. That can mean ‘to punish . . . for’ (e.g. Exod. 20:5; 32:34), but that formula is not always appropriate (e.g. Lev. 26:16; Jer. 15:3). Here it may mean, not that the house of Jehu is being punished for the bloodshed at Jezreel, but that the judgment visited on Ahab’s dynasty through Jehu will now be visited on Jehu’s own house (Moon 2018: 34). While Jehu’s actions against Ahab’s family may have been sanctioned, his subsequent disobedience was not (2 Kgs 10:29–31). By the time of Jeroboam II, the sin of Jehu’s dynasty and of Israel has reached a crisis point, and the result is divine judgment on both.
Breaking Israel’s bow points to military defeat. This anticipates the fall of the nation to Assyria. The reference to the Valley of Jezreel continues the play on the name Jezreel. This was a place of important battles, including military defeats. The Israelites had camped at Jezreel (1 Sam. 29:1; cf. 2 Sam. 4:4) before the battle at Gilboa, in which Saul and Jonathan were killed. The city is also likely to have been destroyed by the Syrians under Hazael, in the ninth century bc (cf. 2 Kgs 13:3, 7, 22) (Na’aman 1997: 122–128; Finkelstein 2013: 119–128). It may, therefore, have been associated with significant past defeats (though see Judg. 6:33). That will again be Israel’s fate. It is possible, too, that Jezreel was a significant military centre, and symbolized Israel’s dependence on its own strength and ability to control its own fortunes (Aster 2012). That false confidence will be ended.
The wordplay around the similar-sounding Jezreel (yizrĕʿeʾl) and Israel (yiśrāʾēl) has already been noted.9 The two terms are also linked by the chiastic structure of verses 4b–5: Jezreel–Israel–Israel–Jezreel. Jezreel means ‘God sows’. ‘Sowing’ is generally associated with fertility, and the reference here, which foreshadows judgment on Israel, may be ironic: the nation that has been so blessed by God has, nevertheless, failed to produce. However, since sowing also involves scattering seed, there may be an allusion, too, to the coming exile. Other references to ‘sowing’ in Hosea link Israel’s actions with their consequences, both negative (8:7) and positive (10:12) (Dearman 2010: 95–96), and something of that too may be implied by the name.
6. The name given to Gomer’s second child, Lōʾ Ruḥāmâ,10 also speaks of Yahweh’s judgment on his people. Ruḥāmâ is linked to the term raḥămîm (‘pity, compassion’), and to reḥem (‘womb’), suggesting tenderness and affection (cf. niv, love). The name means ‘not shown compassion’ and is thus a stark reference to the withdrawal of those feelings that would normally be associated with family relationships (cf. 11:8). The people have turned away from him, and now he will turn away from them. This judgment is real and will result in the Assyrian exile. However, it is intended not to destroy, but to refine and lead to repentance, as later verses show.
There is no specific reference to this child being Hosea’s. The term lô (‘to him’) is absent. It may be that it can be assumed, and the omission is not significant. However, the expressions ‘she conceived’ and ‘she gave birth to a son/daughter’ are otherwise identical to those in verse 3, and through this repetition with variation the narrator may be drawing attention to what is omitted, and so hinting at the child’s questionable parentage.
The term nāśāʾ means ‘to lift, bear, take away’, and may be translated ‘to forgive’ in the sense of bearing or taking away sins (cf. 14:2; see also, e.g., Gen. 18:26; Exod. 34:7; Isa. 2:9; 33:24). It is repeated here for emphasis (cf. niv, I will [not] . . . at all forgive them). The link here between compassion and forgiveness recalls Exodus 34:6–7: ‘The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate [raḥûm] and gracious God . . . forgiving [nāśāʾ] wickedness, rebellion and sin.’ This picks up a recurring theme: the people have rejected Yahweh and turned to other gods, and in so doing have rejected Yahweh’s blessings, including his readiness to forgive. Alongside his love, Yahweh ‘does not leave the guilty unpunished’ (Exod. 34:7), and Israel cannot presume on their relationship with him to escape the consequences of unfaithfulness.
7. The contrast here between Israel and Judah has been seen as part of the Judean redaction,11 possibly in the light of the fact that Jerusalem was delivered from the Assyrians, in 701 bc, and so did not share the fate of the northern kingdom. It is unlikely to relate to the deliverance of Jerusalem from the Syro-Ephraimite coalition, which was the result of an appeal to Assyria, contrary to prophetic advice, and is presented as the antithesis of relying on God (Isa. 7:9). The deliverance in 701 bc was accomplished by God, without human agency (2 Kgs 18 – 19; Isa. 37), and emphasizes the importance of trusting him alone (cf. Routledge 1992; 2016: 100–101). Judgment on Israel includes breaking its military power (1:5). Judah may fare better, but only by resisting the temptation to trust in the traditional sources of national strength and security (cf. Isa. 31:1). If so, this verse could have been inserted at an early stage, by a follower of Hosea, or maybe even by the prophet himself.
8–9. Again, it is unclear whether the absence of a specific reference to Hosea being the father of Gomer’s third child, Lōʾ ʿAmmî (‘not my people’), is significant; the implications of the name, however, are very significant. When Israel came out of Egypt, a key part of Yahweh’s covenant commitment to them at Sinai was that he would take them as his people and he would be their God (cf. Exod. 6:7).12 Now that relationship has been annulled. This might express divine judgment: because of their unfaithfulness, Yahweh has rejected them as his people. However, the text seems, rather, to be stating a grim reality: the people have turned to worship other gods and that has negated their covenant bond with Yahweh. The expression I am not your God reads, literally, ‘I (am) not I am [ʾeyeh] to you’ (cf. niv mg.). The same term, ʾeyeh, appears in Exodus 3:14 in the context of the revelation of the divine name, Yahweh, to Moses – ‘I am [ʾeyeh] has sent me to you’ (Achtemeier 1996: 18). Israel’s worship of other gods has undermined the special relationship implicit in the divine name. And this is the result, not of God’s vindictiveness, but of Israel’s choice: the people have brought it on themselves. The statement of the breakdown of the relationship is made all the more poignant in that it is addressed directly to Israel. In the earlier part of the chapter, statements are made about Israel. Here, the message is directly to Israel: ‘you are not my people, and I am not your God’.
A key factor in Hosea’s ministry is his obedience to Yahweh’s voice. On four occasions in these verses we see divine commands: first, to marry, and then in the naming of the three children. Whether or not Hosea knew about Gomer’s promiscuous tendency before their marriage, his obedience came at a price, both socially and emotionally.
In contrast to Hosea’s obedience, we see Israel’s unfaithfulness. Like Gomer, Israel has committed adultery, by turning to other gods. And the symbolic namings of Jezreel, Lo-Ruhamah and Lo-Ammi point to the consequences of their actions: judgment on the nation and the annulment of the covenant bond between Yahweh and his people. Israel prided themselves on their relationship with Yahweh and appear to have taken the blessings associated with it for granted, irrespective of their behaviour towards him. That relationship, though, must be two-sided, and the book begins by announcing that things cannot continue as they are. Israel’s attitude towards Yahweh is not consistent with the nation’s unique calling as God’s people, so that privileged position has been withdrawn. That is not Yahweh’s last word. But if there is to be restoration, the people must first be brought to their senses.
For the moment, Judah is spared the same fate as Israel. Following the repentance of the more godly king, Hezekiah, the immediate Assyrian threat to Judah (in 701 bc) was removed, and this may have suggested a model for future hope. A key factor in that hope, though, is dependence on God alone, rather than on anything else the nation might be tempted to rely on,13 including military power. The reference to the Valley of Jezreel points to the loss of Israel’s military strength. Removing that source of false confidence opens the way for restoration through renewed dependence on God.
The theme of these verses is the reversal of the judgment associated with the children’s names in 1:2–9. The suddenness of the change, together with the reference to the reunion of the northern and southern kingdoms, has led to the suggestion that this is the work of a redactor.14 The idea of God ultimately showing mercy to his people, though, is consistent with Hosea’s overall message, and with the judgment–salvation pattern running through the book. The reference to Israel and Judah coming together is also consistent with other parts of the prophecy (Emmerson 1984: 95–101; Moon 2018: 45). Consequently, there seems little reason not to regard this as original.
The final verse (2:1) begins with a second person imperative plural (Say) and is sometimes attached to the next section, which begins with the same imperative form (Rebuke). The positive reference to the children’s names, though, suggests that it might fit better with the previous salvation section, rather than with the judgment oracle in 2:2–13. It should possibly be viewed as a transitional text, linking the two sections closely together.
10. Like the sand on the seashore indicates a measureless amount (e.g. Gen. 41:49; Josh. 11:4; Judg. 7:12; 1 Sam. 13:5; 1 Kgs 4:29). In particular, when linked with the number of Israelites, it recalls God’s promises to the patriarchs about the future size of the nation (Gen. 22:17; 32:12; cf. Isa. 10:22; Jer. 33:22). The expression here is most similar to the promise to Jacob: ‘I . . . will make your descendants like the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted’ (Gen. 32:12). This suggests a further link with the Jacob narrative,15 and points to the future revival of the nation’s fortunes. Despite their present unfaithfulness, and in the face of its current historical improbability,16 they will become what God intended them to be.
Future restoration includes reversing the breakdown of the covenant relationship. Those who have been called not my people will be brought back into the family and accepted as children of the living God. This new designation as children of the living God (bĕnê ʾēl ḥāy) contrasts with the description yaldê zĕnûnîm (‘children of whoredom’, nrsv) in 1:2 (Dearman 2010: 104)17 and reflects the complete rehabilitation of an unfaithful nation. The expression in the place may refer to a particular location,18 though may simply mean ‘instead’ (Wolff 1974: 27; Garrett 1997: 72), emphasizing Israel’s transformed status.
The expression living God frequently occurs in contexts which emphasize the reality of Israel’s God:19 acting on behalf of his people (Josh. 3:10), challenging those who underestimate his power (1 Sam. 17:36; 2 Kgs 19:4, 16) or contrasting him with other gods (Jer. 10:10; cf. Dan. 6:20, 26). The term may also point to God as the one who brings life to his people (Mays 1969: 32; Garrett 1997: 72).
11. Hosea regards the division between Israel and Judah as sinful (cf. Emmerson 1984: 77) and, in the future, these two kingdoms will be reunited under a single ‘head’ (nrsv; rōʾš). This anticipates the restoration of the Davidic monarchy (cf. 3:5) and has possible messianic overtones, though the reference on this occasion is not specific.
The reference to coming up out of the land could refer to return from exile, in which case the land would be Assyria or Babylon, though it seems more likely that it refers to Israel. It may be linked with the meaning of Jezreel (‘God sows’) and refer to the future flourishing of the nation, growing up out of the earth (Garrett 1997: 73; Dearman 2010: 105–106). Another possibility, particularly if it is set around the time of the Assyrian incursions of 732/1 bc, is that ‘go up’ has military connotations and refers to Israel and Judah taking possession of the land (cf. nrsv) (Mays 1969: 33; Wolff 1974: 28; Moon 2018: 46–47). As noted already, Jezreel is associated with Israel’s military might. Judgment results in the loss of that strength and the call to trust in God alone. However, in the future, a kingdom united under a single leader will rise up and recover the land.20 Great will be the day of Jezreel indicates that the future glory of the nation will reverse the earlier judgment (1:5).
2:1. This continues the theme of reversal. It picks up on the names of Gomer’s children, though brothers and sisters are plural, indicating a wider significance for the nation as a whole. Say is also plural, suggesting that here the nation is invited to address itself. However, though there may be logical inconsistencies, the content is clear: God will act decisively to restore the broken relationship with his people symbolized by the names Lo-Ammi and Lo-Ruhamah.
There is nothing in the text to prepare the reader for this oracle of salvation, which follows immediately after the threat of judgment. We might expect a reference to the conditions for receiving salvation – for example, repentance and turning back to God. Those things are present elsewhere in the book (e.g. 6:1–3; 14:1–3). Here, though, we see only the promise.21 Israel’s sin has serious consequences, but God will not give up on those who belong to him, and judgment is not the last word. It is this divine grace that allows judgment and the hope of salvation to stand side by side.
That salvation results in the reversal of the threatened judgment, including Israel’s acceptance and the bestowal of a new name and status. Beyond that, it results in the renewal of the covenant promises made to Abraham and Jacob, and the restoration of the people to what they were meant to be. In spite of Israel’s unfaithfulness, God’s purpose for his people will be fulfilled. That purpose includes the unity of Israel and Judah and its future prosperity under a single leader. That leader is later identified with David (3:5), suggesting messianic significance, and Christians further identify the one through whom the people of God will be restored, united and blessed, despite their sin, with Jesus Christ.
In the New Testament, Paul relates the transformation in status here to the Gentiles, who may now be described as God’s people and be included in the promise of salvation (Rom. 9:24–26). Peter also notes the changed names, which he applies to the body of believers, who, through Christ, have become God’s people (1 Pet. 2:10) (Hubbard 1989: 71; G. V. Smith 2001: 55).22 These express the same principle of divine grace: that those who have no right to it may, nevertheless, be incorporated into the people and purposes of God.
This section is primarily directed towards Israel. Continuing the marriage metaphor, it describes the punitive action that Yahweh will take against his unfaithful covenant partner. It remains, though, closely related to the narrative of Hosea’s marriage, and should not be viewed in isolation from it. Thus, the initial accusation (v. 2) is delivered by the children, who without the details in the previous chapter would be unknown. The idea of the children, who represent Israel, indicting their mother, who also represents Israel, makes most sense if it is derived from an actual family context, since otherwise we have Israel indicting Israel (for a summary of views, see Ben Zvi 2005: 62–63; Kelle 2005: 82–94). There is, though, a transition, early in the passage, from Hosea’s domestic situation to the relationship between Yahweh and Israel.
There is debate about the structure of this section. Clines (1998: 294–299) includes 2:14–15, because of the threefold repetition of Therefore (vv. 6, 9, 14) (see also Mays 1969: 34–35; Wolff 1974: 41). In the first two cases, however, Therefore introduces a message of judgment. In the third it introduces a message of hope, and that fits better in the next section, which elaborates on the hopeful theme (Hubbard 1989: 49; Macintosh 1997: xiii; Dearman 2010: 107–108).
2. It has been suggested that the statement she is not my wife, and I am not her husband reflects an Ancient Near Eastern divorce formula (Wolff 1974: 33; Instone-Brewer 1996: 4; Phillips 2002: 89–90), and that Yahweh (and Hosea) brings the marriage to an end. This may also include the formal shaming of the guilty party, and possibly reflects a custom whereby members of the family are called as witnesses to the wife’s unfaithfulness and become part of the shaming process, though the Old Testament provides no evidence of this. When applied to Israel, the detailed analogy breaks down. However, references to mother and children both fit with the more general metaphor of family (Dearman 2010: 111). Ben Zvi (2005: 70) and Macintosh (1997: 41) suggest the context of a ‘family quarrel’.
Rebuke translates the imperative of the Hebrew verb rîb, which, like the corresponding noun, may suggest a judicial setting.23 However, though the statement is similar to some found in the Ancient Near East in connection with formal divorce proceedings, there is little evidence that this was used in Israel (Mays 1969: 37–38; Macintosh 1997: 41; Kelle 2005: 54–55; Dearman 2010: 109–11024). Also, because the intention of the accusation here appears to be to open the way for reconciliation, an actual divorce seems unlikely. However, echoing the name of Gomer’s third child, Lo-Ammi, this does signal a significant breakdown in the marriage and in the covenant relationship between Yahweh and his people.
The verb translated remove (sûr) might relate to something physical, and references to face and breasts have led some to suggest that this might refer to objects worn by participants in the Baal fertility cult (Mays 1969: 38; Wolff 1974: 33–34; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 224),25 or by prostitutes more generally (Kruger 1983: 109–111; Hubbard 1989: 73). It may be better, though, to take this metaphorically (Kelle 2005: 95–97; Dearman 2010: 110): the children urge their mother to turn aside from everything associated with her former adulterous behaviour, so that reconciliation may be possible.
3. Otherwise leaves open the possibility of reconciliation, but indicates, too, the disastrous consequences of Gomer/Israel not leaving behind her adulterous ways. Exposing nakedness (see also 2:10) was associated with shame (e.g. Isa. 20:4; 47:3; Nah. 3:5–6), and Ancient Near Eastern texts suggest that this was a punishment for an unfaithful wife (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 225; Kruger 1983: 111–113; Macintosh 1997: 43; Phillips 2002: 89–90; Dearman 2010: 111).26 Hanley (2017) questions the Ancient Near Eastern background and takes this instead as a reference to removing covenant blessings. The imagery is also associated with the humiliation of the nation through defeat and exile (e.g. Lam. 1:8; Ezek. 16:36–39; 23:10). There may, too, be an economic aspect associated with divorce proceedings, whereby an adulterous wife was disowned, and expelled from her husband’s house with none of the things he had provided for her, including clothes (Mays 1969: 38; Wolff 1974: 34; Kelle 2005: 60–62; Moon 2018: 53–54). While this might not refer to a formal divorce, there is a clear breakdown of the relationship, including withdrawal of the husband’s provision. For Israel, a key part of divine provision was rain and corresponding fruitfulness (e.g. Deut. 11:10–17). Without it, the land will become a parched, lifeless desert.
The day she was born (v. 3) could refer to Gomer, though the further reference to ‘wilderness’ (nrsv; cf. v. 14) also suggests the exodus, which marked the birth of the nation. Israel will be taken back to the kind of experience that marked their desert wanderings (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 225–227). This appears to mark the transition to an oracle focused primarily on Israel (Hubbard 1989: 74).
4–5. This reiterates the judgment in chapter 1. I will not show my love recalls the name of Gomer’s second child, Lo-Ruhamah (1:6), and children of adultery (bĕnê zĕnûnîm) corresponds to yaldê zĕnûnîm (1:2). If this reflects Hosea’s relationship with Gomer, it may support the view that some of the children were not his. More likely, it indicates that the children are implicated in the disgrace of the mother. From this point Hosea’s marriage fades from view, and the focus shifts to the relationship between Yahweh and Israel. Some suggest that the mother here represents Israel’s capital, Samaria (Kelle 2005: 86–90; Lim and Castelo 2015: 64). The primary application, though, is to the nation as a whole (Dearman 2010: 112).
Though lovers may refer to foreign nations with which Israel has established treaties,27 the reference to physical provision suggests that the primary reference here is to false gods. It was common to associate local gods with the fertility and prosperity of the land, and Israel had turned from Yahweh, the true source of blessing (e.g. 2:8), to these ‘Baals’. The commodities listed, ‘bread’ (nrsv), water, wool, linen, oil and drink, may be intended to represent the standard necessities of life (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 233), though some suggest that the final two are luxuries (Mays 1969: 39; Wolff 1974: 35), thus widening the scope of the provision. Lim notes, further, that in the Ancient Near East these were expected to be supplied by the wife’s husband, and seeking them from lovers emphasizes her willing marital unfaithfulness (Lim and Castelo 2015: 69–90). The rhythmical nature of the expression has led to the suggestion that Hosea may be quoting ironically part of a hymn connected with the Baal fertility cult (Garrett 1997: 80; cf. Andersen and Freedman 1980: 232; Hubbard 1989: 75).
6–7. These verses continue the theme of judgment on an unfaithful nation. Part of that judgment is that the people who have wrongly attributed material blessings to false gods will be frustrated in their search for those things. But the remedial aspect of judgment is also evident. Yahweh will limit the ability of Israel to turn to her lovers as part of his ultimate goal of bringing her back to himself.
Some see Israel’s decision to go back [šûb] to [her] husband as prompted by mere self-interest. There is no reference to remorse, and Israel’s return to Yahweh appears to be primarily because of the fruitlessness of turning to other gods (Macintosh 1997: 53; Clines 1998: 298–299; Dearman 2010: 123–115; Dharamraj 2018: 64; Moon 2018: 55). However, šûb in this context indicates the possibility of a restored relationship, and so suggests some level of repentance (Mays 1969: 40; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 239; Hubbard 1989: 76; see also Lalleman 2013: 37–39).28 The expression ʾāmrâ ʾēlkâ (she will say, ‘I will go’, v. 7b) is the same as in verse 5b, where it relates to going after my lovers. This suggests a deliberate contrast between Israel’s desire to return to her first husband and her current idolatry, and indicates, for whatever reason, a change in attitude. There are clear similarities here with Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son, who also recognized that his previous life was better than the situation he found himself in, and chose to return home.
It has been noted that, according to Deuteronomy 24:1–4, a wife who has been divorced and has then remarried may not return to her first husband. This would not apply here if no formal divorce had taken place. However, Jeremiah 3:1–5, which may have been influenced by Hosea, applies the law in a similar way, and goes on to mention divorce specifically (3:8). The purpose is to highlight how unlikely reconciliation is in the light of the people’s sin. Ultimately, though, however impossible it might seem, the people may be forgiven and restored (cf. Jer. 3:12–14). And when Israel comes to its senses, even though prompted, at least initially, by selfish motives, there is the hope of a renewed relationship with Yahweh.
8–13. This elaborates on the judgment in 2:6–7. There is the hope of return and restoration, but first the nation needs to understand the nature of its sin. The section begins and ends on a similar note: the people’s failure to recognize Yahweh as the source of the blessings they have received.
The people have not acknowledged (yādaʿ) Yahweh as the one who has provided for them (v. 8).29 Grain, the new wine and oil may echo divine provision in Deuteronomy.30 The same expression occurs as part of God’s restored blessings in 2:22 (cf. Joel 2:19). Silver and gold were precious commodities, and not only has their true source not been recognized, but they have been used in the worship of Baal, possibly including the manufacture of idols (e.g. 8:4; 13:2; cf. Ps. 115:4; Isa. 31:7; 40:19).
Because Israel has not acknowledged Yahweh’s provision, he will take it back (v. 9), in order to make the nation’s dependence on him clear. I will take back reads, literally, ‘I will return [šûb] and take’. This again plays on the word šûb. Yahweh’s ‘return’ in judgment is intended to bring about Israel’s ‘return’ in repentance. The repeated my emphasizes the divine source, and the reference to my wool and my linen contrasts with 2:5, where the same expressions are linked with gifts from Israel’s lovers. These were intended to cover Israel’s nakedness; withdrawing them will expose the nation to public shame (v. 10; cf. 2:3).
Cultic practices will also be ended (v. 11). Among the celebrations are annual feasts, monthly festivals31 and the weekly Sabbath. These may have included events dedicated to Baal (v. 13). The terms are also used to refer to Israel’s traditional festivals,32 though they, too, have become corrupted, with Yahweh worshipped as just one more ‘baal’ (2:16).33 Within the Baal cult, worship and festivals were associated with the fertility of the land. Vines and fig trees are examples of Yahweh’s provision (Deut. 8:8; cf. Joel 2:22) and also are linked with future security (e.g. 1 Kgs 4:25; Mic. 4:4). Israel sees them as gifts from Baal, though Hosea’s more disparaging assessment is they are payment for prostitution (ʾetnâ).34 However, provision and security come from Yahweh alone, and to make the people aware of their dependence on him, and of the futility of serving the Baals, their vines and fig trees will be ruined.35 They will become thickets, providing shelter and food only for wild animals.
Verse 13 points again to Israel’s false worship. The description of a woman adorning herself with jewellery to make herself more attractive to her lovers might suggest the reappearance of Gomer, though the charge of burning incense to the Baals, and the final statement ‘but me she forgot [šākaḥ)],’ declares the Lord, make it clear that Israel is still in view. This picks up the reference to going after her lovers in 2:5. Her lovers are referred to several times (2:5, 7, 10, 12). Here they are paralleled explicitly with the Baals. Punish . . . for is the same expression as in 1:4. Yahweh will deal with his people in accordance with their actions in worshipping the Baals. The days she burned incense to the Baals reads, more literally, ‘the days of the Baals, when she made smoke go up to them’. This could refer to offering sacrifices, though more probably refers to burning incense. In all of this, Israel acknowledges other gods, while forgetting the true source of her well-being.
This passage begins within a family context, with the children rebuking their mother. However, the emphasis soon switches. Yahweh is the wronged husband, and Israel the unfaithful wife, who has committed spiritual adultery by worshipping the Baals, here described as her lovers.
A key indictment is that the people have failed to recognize that what they have comes from Yahweh. He is their provider, but they have not acknowledged him (v. 8); they have forgotten him (v. 13) and, instead, give credit to Baal. As a result, Yahweh will take it all back! But his action is educative, not vindictive. This is a judgment oracle and there is no reference to Yahweh’s love for his wayward bride – that will come later. However, removing his provision is intended to emphasize the people’s dependence on him and bring them to a place where, like the prodigal son in Jesus’ parable, they come to their senses and realize that they were better off at home – in this case, with their first ‘husband’ (v. 7).
Yahweh’s willingness to wait for his bride to return highlights his patience. Sin has serious consequences, including the breakdown of relationship with God. But that breakdown is not final, and the possibility of return and reconciliation remains open. Yahweh’s commitment to restoring the relationship is evident in what follows.
The theme of divine judgment ends abruptly with 2:13. Following the condemnation of the previous verses, Therefore (lākēn) at the beginning of verse 14 might be expected, as in verses 6 and 9, to introduce a further announcement of judgment. Instead, it introduces a series of divine promises, each introduced by I will. The repetition of lākēn links this to the previous section, though the emphasis now is on Israel’s salvation and restoration.
At its heart is a new exodus experience:36 Yahweh will take his people back to the wilderness, to where the relationship began, and there he will renew his commitment to them. He promises, too, the restoration of the blessings that have been removed and, again, the reversal of the judgment associated with the names of Gomer’s children. This calls attention back to the relationship between Hosea and his wife, which, while never far from the surface, has given way to a more specific focus on Yahweh’s relationship with Israel. And that leads to the further reference to Hosea’s relationship with his wife in chapter 3.
Verses 16–23 may be divided into three sections, each including the expression In that day (vv. 16, 18, 21). This is generally understood as an eschatological term, maybe referring to the ‘Day of the Lord’ (Mays 1969: 47; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 277–278; Lim and Castelo 2015: 74), which is a frequent theme in the Book of the Twelve.37 It points to a new era of restoration and peace as a result of Yahweh’s intervention.
14. The use of lākēn in this context may be a quirk of Hosea’s language. However, given that the term has been used twice already in its usual sense of ‘therefore’, it seems unlikely that it is meant to be taken differently here. One way of understanding this is that, because Israel has forgotten Yahweh, the only hope for true reconciliation lies with God taking the initiative and winning her back. There is the idea of return in 2:7, and while that may indicate partial repentance, it is for selfish reasons and more needs to happen. But Israel’s condition is such that the people are incapable of responding as they need to, and only Yahweh’s direct action can open the way for that to happen. This may be further indicated by the interjection hinnēh. Here it is translated now but is more commonly translated ‘behold’. It usually emphasizes the next word, and, in narrative, frequently indicates a change in perspective.38 Here it does both. The first part of verse 14 could be translated, ‘Therefore, behold me alluring her’, changing the focus from Israel’s waywardness to Yahweh and his intervention. It is an indication of Yahweh’s love and patience that his response to Israel, who has turned to the Baals and forgotten him, is to seek to win her back, rather than to announce further judgment, however deserved that judgment might be.
The first part of Yahweh winning back his bride is to allure (pātâ) her. The term here refers to enticing or persuading. It may suggest deception (e.g. 1 Kgs 22:20; Jer. 20:7; cf. Hos. 7:11) or seduction (Exod. 22:16; Deut. 11:16; Job 31:9). In this case, while no less intense, it is more positive. It emphasizes Yahweh’s commitment to doing whatever is needed to restore his relationship with Israel.
The reference to the wilderness recalls 2:3, which points to the privations associated with Yahweh withholding his blessings, and which will play a significant part in bringing Israel back to himself. In this context, though, it relates primarily to the exodus, which is significant for Hosea’s understanding of the relationship between God and Israel. It was in the desert that the relationship began, and now Yahweh will take Israel back to the desert, to the place of new beginnings, to renew the relationship.
Speak tenderly to her translates literally as ‘speak to her heart [lēb]’.39 This points to the warmth and intimacy of Yahweh’s feelings for Israel. Emphasis on the heart also indicates that Yahweh is looking for an inward response from Israel (cf. 1 Sam. 16:7), rather than the more superficial reason for returning in 2:7. The heart in ancient Israel was the seat of the will, and as Yahweh seeks to renew his relationship with his bride, he calls Israel to make a willing commitment to that renewal.40 And, as we see elsewhere, Yahweh will himself enable that heart response. He promises, through Jeremiah, a new covenant in which his law will be written on human hearts (Jer. 31:31–33), and, through Ezekiel, a heart of flesh that will also facilitate a new obedience (Ezek. 36:26–28).41
15. Having brought Israel back into the desert, to where the relationship began, Yahweh will give back the vineyards that were among the blessings associated with the occupation of Canaan (cf. Deut. 6:11), but which had previously been laid waste (2:12; cf. Deut. 28:30, 39). The people have associated these signs of prosperity with the Baals, but Yahweh will sever that relationship (2:6–7; cf. v. 17), so that Israel will recognize the true source of blessings.
The Valley of Achor recalls events following Israel’s entry into the Promised Land. After the victory at Jericho, the people were instructed not to keep any of the spoil: it was all to be devoted to God (Josh. 6:17–19). However, Achan disobeyed and kept some for himself (Josh. 7:1). This brought judgment on the whole nation, which suffered an unexpected defeat at the next city, Ai (Josh. 7:2–5, 11–12). After Achan was discovered and executed, Yahweh’s anger turned away, and the place of his burial was named ‘the Valley of Achor’ (Josh. 7:16–26). ‘Achor’ (ʿākôr) means ‘trouble’ and there is wordplay between it and the name ‘Achan’ (ʿākān).42 Israel’s entrance into the Promised Land should have been associated with opportunity. Instead, sin made it a place of trouble. This also reflects Israel’s present experience: because of sin they have forfeited the blessings of the land. But Yahweh offers a new beginning, in which the Valley of Achor can become what it always should have been: a door of hope [tiqwâ]; a gateway into all that he has prepared for his people. The same term (tiqwâ) appears in Jeremiah’s vision of the future (29:11; 31:17). There may also be a further allusion to Jericho. Rahab the prostitute sheltered Israelite spies and was promised protection if she tied a crimson ‘cord’ (tiqwâ) in her window (Josh. 2:18, 21). Here, Hosea offers hope to another ‘prostitute’, Israel (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 276; Garrett 1997: 91; Dearman 2010: 123).
The link with the exodus period is seen, too, in the reference to Israel’s youth, which is paralleled with coming up out of Egypt. Yahweh seeks to elicit from Israel the response that marked the early days of the relationship, which were later idealized as a kind of ‘honeymoon period’.43 Similar language is used by Jeremiah, who refers to ‘the devotion of [Israel’s] youth’ in the wilderness (Jer. 2:2).
16–17. In previous verses Israel has been referred to in the third person singular (she, her). In the first part of verse 16 the address is in the second person, you will call me, before going back to the third person: her lips (v. 17). This variation may be for rhetoric effect.
The first In that day points to the removal of all aspects of Baal worship. At one level, there is little difference between the Hebrew words translated, respectively, husband (ʾîš) and master (‘Baal’, nrsv; baʿal). Both can mean ‘husband’ or ‘lord’. However, when set in the context of Israel’s unfaithfulness, the difference is significant. There appears to have been confusion over what constituted true worship of Yahweh.44 In the coming era of salvation, though, all mention of Baal will be removed, and with it the possibility of worshipping anyone other than Yahweh. In the new, restored relationship, Yahweh will have no rival.
18. In that day, too, Yahweh promises to establish a covenant, one which focuses on Israel’s security, and also notes the prospect of a new marital relationship (vv. 19–20). A covenant constitutes a binding agreement between two or more parties. In a secular context it might include treaties and alliances. We have noted already the significance of the idea for Hosea.45 Here the personal pronoun changes again to refer to the people in the third person: I will make a covenant for them . . . so that [they] may lie down in safety.
Reference to the beasts of the field, the birds in the sky and the creatures that move along the ground recalls the creation account (Gen. 1:30) and the list of creatures that came out of the ark with Noah (Gen. 9:2) and which were party to the covenant made then with ‘every living creature’ (Gen. 9:9–10). The main emphasis here seems to be on the reversal of the threat posed by wild beasts (cf. v. 12).46 However, the possible allusion to creation and to the Noahic covenant suggests a wider restoration, which includes bringing peace and harmony to the whole created order (cf. Isa. 11:6–9).
In that future consummation, all threat of war will also be removed. ‘Abolishing’ (or ‘breaking’) the bow repeats the terms used in 1:5. There it points to Israel’s impending defeat and loss of military strength at the hands of the Assyrians. Here it envisages a time when military threats to Israel will be brought to an end. This is further emphasized by references to sword and battle. As a result, the people, here referred to in the third person (‘they’), will know true security, even when lying down and so at their most vulnerable (cf. Ps. 4:8). Ezekiel expresses a similar idea when referring to a ‘covenant of peace’ that offers safety and security from wild animals and military threats (Ezek. 34:25, 28).
19–20. In these verses, which resume the marriage metaphor, Israel is addressed by Yahweh directly, in the second person (you). This, and the threefold repetition of the expression I will betroth you to me,47 emphasizes the personal nature and the intensity of Yahweh’s commitment to restoring Israel. Betrothal indicates a legally binding commitment to marriage, and between the betrothal and consummation of the relationship the bride would belong to her intended husband (Deut. 22:23–24). This does not require that Yahweh had previously divorced Israel. Rather, it continues the idea of taking things back to where the relationship began and offering a new start.
Betrothal generally involved the payment of a bride-price by the husband (Gen. 34:12; Exod. 22:16; 1 Sam. 18:25; 2 Sam. 3:14).48 This would usually be given to the bride’s father, but might then be passed to the bride (Kelle 2005: 64–68, 277–279). The gifts mentioned here –righteousness (ṣedeq), justice (mišpāṭ), love (ḥesed), compassion (raḥămîm) and faithfulness (ʾĕmûnâ) – may be taken as a reference to this bride-price, though in this case they are given directly to Israel (Vogels 1988; Kelle 2005: 277–279; Dearman 2010: 127–128). These are divine attributes, and the primary significance here is that by giving them to Israel for the duration of the marriage, and not just as one-off gifts (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 283), Yahweh provides what was previously lacking and ensures that the future relationship can be sustained.
Righteousness is associated with right action within a relationship. Here, it points to what is expected of both Israel and Yahweh as part of their mutual covenant commitment. It includes legal and ethical integrity and upholding the cause of the weak in society. In accordance with this, Yahweh acts in righteousness to vindicate Israel when they are oppressed by more powerful enemies, and so the term is also associated with salvation (e.g. Isa. 45:8; 51:5). Justice is closely linked with righteousness. Yahweh loves righteousness (ṣĕdāqâ) and justice (Ps. 33:5);49 they form the foundation of his throne (Pss 89:14; 97:2) and fill Zion (Isa. 33:5). Justice involves punishing the guilty, and where the term appears in Hosea it is frequently in the context of judgment (5:1, 11; 6:5). It also includes ensuring fairness and impartiality (e.g. Deut. 16:18–20) and, like righteousness, is associated with defending those who are too weak to defend themselves (e.g. Exod. 23:6; Deut. 10:18; Ps. 72:2; Isa. 1:17). The significance of ḥesed for Hosea has already been discussed.50 It is associated with righteousness (e.g. Ps. 85:10; Hos. 10:12) and justice (e.g. Ps. 119:149; Jer. 9:24; Hos. 12:6; Mic. 6:8).51 Compassion is also closely linked with ḥesed (e.g. Exod. 34:6; Pss 51:1; 103:4; Lam. 3:22) (Clark 1993: 142–149). It is from the same root as the name of Gomer’s second child, Lo-Ruhamah (‘not shown compassion’; see on 1:6), and indicates deep feelings of tenderness and affection. The final attribute, faithfulness (ʾĕmûnâ), is also frequently linked with ḥesed (e.g. Pss 88:11; 89:1–2, 24; 92:2; 100:5), and it is, perhaps, no accident that ḥesed comes at the centre of this group. Faithfulness has at its heart truthfulness and reliability (e.g. Deut. 32:4; 2 Kgs 12:15; Isa. 59:4). God and his promises are dependable, and he looks for the same faithfulness from his people (cf. 4:1).52 Faithfulness is also associated with righteousness (e.g. 1 Sam. 26:23; Pss 96:13; 143:1; Isa. 11:5) and justice (e.g. Isa. 1:21; Jer. 5:1).53
Before and after the list of bridal gifts are statements of divine intent: I will betroth you to me for ever [lĕʿôlām] . . . and you will acknowledge [yādaʿ] the Lord. Yahweh is committed to his people and offers these gifts to ensure that the renewed relationship will not fail as it did before. It will, too, be marked by a renewed knowledge of God. The term yādaʿ (‘to know’) is significant for the prophecy.54 Here, it contrasts with Israel’s failure to acknowledge Yahweh as the source of blessings (2:8; cf. 11:3) and with the indictment that Israel has forgotten Yahweh (2:13). Elsewhere, yādaʿ refers to sexual intimacy (e.g. Gen. 4:1), and while that is not appropriate here, it indicates the depth of the relationship. This is not increased knowledge about Yahweh, necessary as that is, but knowledge of him.
21–23. This section continues the theme of eschatological restoration In that day. It begins with an emphasis on God’s control over nature (Macintosh 1997: 87; Dearman 2019: 130; see also Boshoff 1992; 2004: 270–273). Israel associated Baal with fertility55 and with giving the people what they needed to sustain them. Here, Yahweh is given his rightful place as Israel’s provider. After being led into the desert, Israel will respond (ʿānâ) to Yahweh (2:15), and Yahweh’s corresponding response will be to supply the needs of his people.56 Reference to the skies and the earth sets out a sequence whereby Yahweh instructs the heavens to pour rain on the earth, and the earth, in turn, produces grain, the new wine and the olive oil (v. 22). These are the very things that the people attributed to Baal (2:8), but here they come at Yahweh’s behest (cf. Joel 2:19), indicating that he is the true lord of nature.
The fruit of the earth then responds to Jezreel. Here, Jezreel represents Israel,57 who is the beneficiary of Yahweh’s renewed blessing. Jezreel means ‘God sows’ (cf. 1:4–5), and there is a play on the name at the start of verse 23: I will plant [sow] her for myself in the land. This reverses the judgment in 1:4–5 (cf. 1:11) and points to future fertility and prosperity.
The last part of verse 23 continues the theme of the reversal of the judgment associated with the names of Gomer’s children. God will show compassion to Not my loved one, and Not my people will again be called the people of God (cf. 1:10; 2:1). Yahweh’s affirmation You are my people, together with the reply You are my God, reflects the covenant formula ‘you will be my people and I will be your God’.58 This again alludes to the exodus period and points to the full future restoration of the relationship between Yahweh and Israel which began then.
These verses emphasize Yahweh’s commitment to winning back and restoring his wayward bride. In the previous sections, Therefore focuses on judgment. However, this passage begins with a different emphasis. Those who are alienated from God because of sin are not able, by themselves, to bring about the changes needed to put things right. However, God is committed to restoring the relationship, and so we see another consequence of sin: God’s direct intervention to do what is necessary to make that restoration possible. We see the ultimate demonstration of that in the coming of Christ and in the cross.
Israel has lost sight of God and his provision and so has forfeited the blessings of being in relationship with him. That state, though, is not permanent. God’s desire is to give back what has been lost. That includes physical well-being, renewed understanding of God and a reaffirmation of their status as his people, in a renewed covenant bond that will last for ever. To do that, Yahweh will bring them back to where the relationship began and will offer a new start, with all its initial promise. As part of that renewed relationship, he will provide everything necessary to ensure its permanence. That includes bestowing qualities that are crucial to the relationship but which have hitherto been lacking. This amounts to the spiritual renewal of the people (cf. Ezek. 36:26–28).
This new relationship is noted in the New Testament. On the eve of the crucifixion, Jesus announced a ‘new covenant in my blood’ (Luke 22:20). And, as noted on 1:10 – 2:1, the scope has been widened beyond Israel (cf. Rom. 9:25–26; 1 Pet. 2:10). As a result of divine grace, the hope of future restoration and of a new relationship with God is available to all people.
There is debate about the relationship of this passage to chapter 1. One view is that this is a parallel account of Hosea’s marriage to Gomer, maybe following the fall of Samaria, when Hosea recognizes that restoration is possible only after judgment and a period of penance (Green 2003: 87–89; see also Gordis 1954: 30–35; Blenkinsopp 1996: 86; Keefe 2001: 16). However, inclusion of again (ʿôd) suggests that this is a subsequent event. There are also differences. Chapter 3 points to discipline and sexual abstinence, whereas in chapter 1 children are born early in the relationship. Also, while in chapter 1 the children take a prominent role, in chapter 3 they are not mentioned (Routledge 2018: 37–40). Consequently, it seems better to take chapter 3 to refer to a later event in Hosea’s life, in response to a further divine command. In this case, the narrative is told in the first person, by Hosea himself.
The identity of the woman in 3:1–3 has been discussed above.59 The text gives little detail about Hosea and Gomer’s relationship after the birth of the children, and there needs to be caution in offering a reconstruction based on limited information. However, arguments that this refers to a different adulterous woman are also built on assumptions.60 In the light of what we do know, the view taken here is that this refers to Gomer, who by now has left Hosea and needs to be bought back (cf. Routledge 2018: 37–40).
There appears to be a close link between chapter 3 and the message of judgment and restoration in chapter 2 (Wolff 1974: 59; Hubbard 1989: 90). The marriage metaphor is established in chapter 1, with Gomer’s actual adultery paralleling the spiritual adultery of Israel. Chapter 2 then applies the metaphor more specifically to Yahweh’s dealings with Israel, including the promise to renew and restore the relationship. In chapter 3, in a further sign-act, Hosea is called to demonstrate that same willingness to restore the relationship with his unfaithful wife (Achtemeier 1996: 31).
The reference to David, together with the phrase in the last days, is seen by some to reflect Judean eschatology and so to be part of a later redaction (Wolff 1974: 63; Achtemeier 1996: 33; Macintosh 1997: 110–111; Ben Zvi 2005: 3161). That conclusion, though, is not necessary.62 Hosea appears to regard Israel’s rejection of the Davidic monarchy negatively, and might well look to a day when the two kingdoms will again be united under a Davidic ruler. This idea of restoration under a future Davidic king underlay Israel’s messianic expectation (Routledge 2008a: 280–289; see also Satterthwaite, Hess and Wenham 1995; Dearman 2010: 142–144), which began as the hope for an ideal king under whose reign Israel would regain the prominence it had under David. The eschatological aspect of this hope became more prominent in the post-exilic period (e.g. Jer. 23:5–6; 30:8–9; 33:17, 21; Ezek. 34:23–24; 37:24–25) and developed further during the period between the Testaments. However, significant elements were probably already present in the eighth century bc (e.g. Isa. 9:2–7; 11:1–9).
1. Here, as in 1:2, Hosea hears and responds to a word from Yahweh: ‘Go, love a woman’ (nrsv).63 The indefinite ‘a woman’ is unusual if the reference is to Gomer. Andersen and Freedman suggest that the language here may be intended to parallel the earlier expression (Go, marry a . . . woman), with ‘love’ replacing ‘marry’ because they are already married (1980: 295–296). The start of the verse could be read as either ‘The Lord said to me again’ (nrsv; emphasis added) (Mays 1969: 54; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 293; Stuart 1987: 62–63; Hubbard 1989: 90; Dearman 2010: 132) or ‘go again, love’ (cf. niv) (Wolff 1974: 59; Achtemeier 1996: 33; Macintosh 1997: 93; Moon 2018: 58). Both indicate a further act in the relationship between Hosea and Gomer.
The woman is loved by another man [rēaʿ] and is an adulteress.64 This may refer to a single lover, or it may relate more generally to adultery with several partners.65 Nevertheless, Hosea is called to resume a loving relationship with her. As in 1:2, this mirrors the relationship between Yahweh and Israel: the Israelites have committed adultery by turning to other gods (cf. Deut. 31:18, 20), but Yahweh’s love for them, and his willingness to restore their broken relationship, continues.
Raisin cakes (ʾăšîšê ʿănābîm) were probably luxury food items.66 Here, they are linked with the worship of other gods. This may indicate cultic significance,67 or they may represent the provision that the people saw as gifts from Baal (cf. 2:12). Based on the occurrence of ʾăšîšâ in Song of Songs 2:5, Andersen and Freedman (1980: 299) suggest that raisin cakes might also have been an aphrodisiac.
The word love occurs here four times.68 It refers to Yahweh’s love for his people, which is mirrored in Hosea’s love for his wife. This includes commitment, and the willingness to forgive and restore despite infidelity. It is also costly, willing to pay the price of restoration. Hubbard captures the contrast between this and the people’s foolish love of sensual pleasure and trivialities: ‘while Yahweh is loving the Israelites, what are they loving? Raisin cakes!’ (Hubbard 1989: 91; cf. Ben Zvi 2005: 82).
2. In obedience to Yahweh’s command, Hosea bought her for fifteen shekels of silver and about a homer and a lethek of barley. The word translated bought is usually taken to be from the verb kārâ (‘to buy, acquire’; cf. Deut. 2:6) (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 298; Hubbard 1989: 92; Garrett 1997: 100–101).69 This may also include the idea of bargaining (Job 6:27; 41:6). The mt includes the term ‘for myself’, indicating the personal nature of the transaction: Hosea is bringing the woman out from the control of another and accepting her as his own. It is difficult to assign modern equivalents to biblical measures. One view is that a homer may be around 100 litres. The term lethek, which appears only here in the Old Testament, may be equivalent to half a homer (Powell 1992: 904). The lxx refers instead to a measurement of wine, though the mt seems more likely.
Those who see this as a second marriage take this to be the bride-price (Stuart 1987: 66; Moon 2018: 70). If the woman is Gomer, why and to whom was the payment made? Some estimate that the silver and barley are worth about thirty shekels, which is the price of a slave in Exodus 21:32 (cf. Lev. 27:4). This has led to the suggestion that Gomer needed to be set free from slavery or prostitution (Mays 1969: 57–58; Wolff 1974: 61). Evidence for this valuation, though, is uncertain (Abma 1999: 207; Ben Zvi 2005: 84–85). Alternatively, the payment may have been to cancel a debt (G. V. Smith 2001: 74; Dearman 2010: 135). The text gives no details. The main point, though, is clear: Hosea paid what was necessary to open the way for Gomer to return.
3–5. Gomer’s return, though, includes a period of discipline, during which she must abandon her promiscuous lifestyle and refrain from sexual intimacy with any man (literally, ‘not be to a man’). This is widely taken to include her husband, and the next part of the verse, which the niv translates as and I will behave the same way toward you (literally, ‘and I also to you’), continues that idea: Hosea will also refrain from sexual relations with his wife (nrsv; cf. Mays 1969: 54, 58; Wolff 1974: 56, 62; Stuart 1987: 63; Macintosh 1997: 103; Dearman 2010: 136). Another possibility is that the restrictions relate only to other men, and the emphasis is primarily on faithfulness within the marriage (Moon 2018: 69). The ambiguous ‘and I also to you’ may then simply mean that Hosea will behave towards Gomer as he expects her to behave towards him. This view, though, seems less likely. First, while we expect some reference to Gomer leaving behind her promiscuous lifestyle, the addition of ‘not be to a man’ is superfluous. And so is Hosea’s reciprocal commitment to faithfulness, which has never been in question. Second, the connective For and the use of the same expression live [remain] . . . many days indicate a correlation between verses 3 and 4. Verse 4 points to a period of discipline and privation, and it is reasonable to assume that verse 3 does the same.
Many days suggests, though, that while this may be an extended period, it is temporary. That is clear in the case of Yahweh’s relationship with Israel in verse 5, which points to a positive future. We might expect to see a similar positive expression in verse 3, and in the light of this another possibility, while recognizing the temporary suspension of sexual relations between Hosea and Gomer, translates ‘and also I to you’ along the lines of ‘then I will be yours’ (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 291, 304–305; see also Hubbard 1989: 93; Garrett 1997: 102). This would then suggest that normal marital relations will eventually be resumed. This interpretation provides a better correlation between the prophet’s words to Gomer in verse 3 and their application to the nation in verses 4–5.
Israel’s period of discipline and deprivation will include the removal of king, prince (śār), sacrifice, sacred stones, ephod and household gods. These represent Israel’s political and religious institutions, both of which, in Hosea’s view, had become corrupt.70 Princes include royal officials and maybe military leaders. Sacred stones, or pillars, might have been set up to honour God (e.g. Gen. 28:18; 31:13; 35:14; Exod. 24:4; Isa. 19:19), though they were frequently associated with false worship (e.g. Exod. 34:13; Lev. 26:1; Deut. 7:5; 16:22; 1 Kgs 14:23; 2 Kgs 18:4; 23:14; Mic. 5:13), and that is probably their significance here (cf. Hos. 10:1–2). An ephod is a priestly garment (see Meyers 1992; Jenson 1996). The breastpiece, which contained the Urim and Thummim, was attached to the high priest’s ephod (Exod. 28:22–30), linking it with divine revelation (cf. 1 Sam. 23:9–12; 30:7–8). Ornate ephods appear also to have become part of the sanctuary furniture (1 Sam. 21:9) and might also have become objects of improper worship (cf. Judg. 8:27). In Hosea 3:4 the ephod is linked with household gods (tĕrāpîm; cf. Judg. 17:5; 18:14, 17–20), small figurines associated with families (Gen. 31:19, 34–35).71 They are associated with idols and idolatry (1 Sam. 19:16; cf. Judg. 18:14, 17–20; 1 Sam. 15:23; 2 Kgs 23:24), and, like the ephod, are also used in divination (Ezek. 21:21; Zech. 10:2). Apart from tĕrāpîm, all the things in 3:4 may have a legitimate place, but by Hosea’s day they had become associated with false religion. And these, as well as the failed political leadership, must be brought to an end in order for Israel to have hope for the future. Historically, this was brought about by the Assyrian invasion, the fall of Samaria and the exile of the northern kingdom.
This period of discipline will, though, come to an end, and, after it has served its purpose, the people will return (šûb; v. 5).72 This may indicate the end of exile (cf. 11:11). Despite the coming judgment, there is hope for the future. The link with seek (bāqaš) suggests, though, that the primary focus here is the renewal of the relationship with Yahweh (5:15; cf. Deut. 4:29–30).
Seeking Yahweh will be accompanied by seeking David their king. The possibility of a single leader has already been mentioned (1:11), though here it is specifically linked with David. As noted above, it is not necessary to assume that this is a later addition. The reference to in the last days (bĕʾaḥărîm hayyāmîm) has been taken to support a messianic interpretation of the verse (Garrett 1997: 104; Moon 2018: 72). The expression might point to a future age of salvation (e.g. Isa. 2:2; Mic. 4:1), though it does not necessarily have an eschatological significance, and may be taken in the sense of ‘in days to come’ (e.g. Gen. 49:1; Num. 24:14; Deut. 31:29) (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 308–309; Hubbard 1989: 95; cf. Dearman 2010: 139 n. 22), thus paralleling Afterwards, at the start of the verse, and corresponding to many days in verses 3–4.
Trembling suggests an element of reverent awe as the people return to God.73 The term may indicate fear of divine judgment (e.g. Isa. 19:16–17; 44:11; Mic. 7:17), though it is more positive in Isaiah 60:5 where it is linked with a joyful return to Yahweh, and that may be the sense here. A sense of awe is, though, entirely appropriate for people who are returning to Yahweh after a period of discipline because of unfaithfulness. The positive nature of the return is further indicated by the reference to Yahweh’s blessings (tûb). This refers to the abundance of Yahweh’s provision (e.g. Jer. 2:7). In Jeremiah 31:12 the term is linked with ‘the grain, the new wine and the olive oil’, the very things forfeited by Israel because of the people’s failure to recognize their true source (Hos. 2:8). In the coming days, those blessings will be restored. The term may also refer to God’s own character (cf. Exod. 33:19; Pss 25:7; 145:7), and so may point beyond the restoration of material blessings to the renewal of all aspects of the covenant relationship between Yahweh and his people.
These verses indicate Yahweh’s willingness to restore an unfaithful people. This is motivated by love, and it is significant that Yahweh’s love for Israel prompts Hosea to show his love to Gomer. While it is likely that Hosea’s unhappy marital situation gave an insight into Yahweh’s feelings about unfaithful Israel, the renewal of the relationship is wholly the result of God’s initiative. Hosea seems to have been prepared to allow his relationship with Gomer to end. Yahweh, though, will not allow the same with regard to Israel. His is a love that will not let his people go.
Restoration, though, involves a period of discipline. This appears to parallel the privations of chapter 2. Significantly, however, in chapter 3, discipline is directly related to divine love. If their relationship with Yahweh is to be renewed, the people need to turn away from the things that hinder that relationship and turn back to him. Yahweh’s restorative love opens the way for that to take place.
Future hope here is linked with a coming Davidic king. This might have appeared subversive for a northern prophet, though prophets were no strangers to political controversy. The people probably expected this hope to be fulfilled within the normal royal succession. In time, though, that gave way to the eschatological hope of a coming Messiah, who was associated with the kingdom of God. Christians see the fulfilment of this expectation in the person of Jesus Christ, through whom hope is extended beyond Israel and Judah to encompass the whole world.