ONE OF THE MOST important factors that influences personal relationships between individuals is that warm, caring sense of acceptance and commitment that is sometimes called love. In ethics textbooks it is one of the central principles that motivates ethical behavior, in erotic romance novels and television talk shows it is a spicy sensual thrill that is trivialized, and in the counselor’s office it is the fundamental foundation for good family life. Some might jokingly suggest that “love is what makes the world go round,” but others see a serious lack of love exhibited between the sexes, between parents and children, between the races, and between the nations of the world.
One does not need to read many letters written to Ann Landers to realize that some people suffer because they love someone deeply, while others are selfishly motivated and show little love for others. Many of these letters tell of the bitterness and tragic consequences of someone failing to love and truly respect a friend or family member. Why is it so hard for people to deal with others in loving ways? Why do people fail to honor their marriage and family commitments? Why do individuals allow small differences of opinion or minor arguments to sour their relationships with someone they once loved?
Since the topic of love is so misunderstood, there is likely to be much confusion in the minds of unbelievers, and even some believers, when they read a biblical passage talking about love. What does the Bible mean when it says that a man is to love his wife as Christ loved the church (Eph. 5:25)? Equally confusing are all the different Greek terms that ministers keep referring to in sermons, plus the odd ways other cultures claim to legitimately express love. What does the love of God mean, and how can it be so powerful that nothing can separate us from it (Rom. 8:39)? Some even question the very idea of God’s love because they have seen the horrors of war, the thousands who die in natural disasters, and the senseless violence of the strong against the weak. How can God allow such things to continue if he is a God of love?
First, one needs to define what one means by love and what the Bible means by love. One dictionary defines love as “1. strong affection or liking for someone or something; 2. a passionate affection for one of the opposite sex.”1 In contrast, W. Eichrodt defines one kind of biblical love (ḥesed) as “the brotherly comradeship and loyalty which one party to a covenant must render to the other.”2 As applied to God’s love relationship to the Israelites, “there was a strong, living conviction in Israel that Yahweh’s kindness and readiness to succour was something which could be expected of him in view of his having established the covenant relationship.”3
The other main Hebrew term for love (ʾahab) “retains the passionate overtones of complete engagement of the will accompanied by strong emotion.”4 This kind of divine love is not based on covenant commitments but is a more “irrational power” that is unexplainable and paradoxical, since it is undeserved. It is a free giving of love to another person to care for, forgive, and protect that person—without strings or conditions attached. Human language can never adequately define or surround the concept of divine love; it can only point to acts or evidence of it with amazement and respond with either disbelief or warm acceptance, joy, and praise.
Since it is difficult to comprehend God’s love and hard for people to know exactly what it means to love God, illustrations of divine love are powerful ways of demonstrating some of the characteristics of love. God’s redemption of the nation Israel from Egyptian bondage is one of the greatest Old Testament examples of God’s love, and Christ’s death on the cross is the prime New Testament illustration. Yet for many people, the most vital and only real definition of love is impersonated in the attitudes and actions of some person they know today, not some event that took place thousands of years ago. These living experiences communicate the concept of love with a reality that goes beyond textbook definitions, rational formulas, secondhand experience, or lists of things to do or not to do. Love is something that must be experienced because it includes feelings that cannot be expressed in a cold dictionary definition.
The life of the prophet Hosea is special because people can identify with him and sense the joy and frustration of this living illustration of God’s love. His tender and devastating experiences with his wife, Gomer, explicate the ins and outs of love in a more real way than a thousand definitions. He, like God, irrationally loved someone who was not very lovely (lit., “a woman of prostitution,” Hos. 1:2), stayed committed to that love relationship in spite of great unfaithfulness by his covenant partner, and out of deep love forgave and took back a lover who betrayed him (3:1–3).
Hosea felt something of God’s sense of agony when people reject God’s love. He experienced how a lack of an intimate relationship, unfaithfulness, and deceit can undermine a love relationship. He also came to understand something of God’s great grace and forgiveness when he forgave his wife for her prostitution and brought her back to his home. He was able to preach the sermons God gave him with much greater passion because he identified with God’s situation. Both had loved and gotten burned by their lover. He knew the difference between play-acting and real love. He knew that love is not just a warm, fuzzy feeling but involves a deep commitment and a willingness to forgive.
The message of Hosea should open the eyes of readers today not only to the awesome nature of God’s love for us, but also to the terrible harm human sinfulness causes to anyone’s personal relationship with God. Hosea helps us understand that unfaithfulness to a commitment to love God is like prostitution, not just a minor, insignificant slip that has no consequences. Some people think it is their personal right to express their faith in their own ways; thus, they neither keep their commitments to maintain a relationship with God nor follow his standards of justice and holiness. These are free choices, but they must be labeled acts of rebellion against the love and will of God. God looks at such acts as hypocritical deceit and theological lies—the kind of behavior that characterizes the life of an unfaithful spouse or prostitute. Coldness or an impersonal relationship with God is a sign that there is no love relationship with him.
Hosea challenges readers to examine the nature of their love relationship to God. Is it a passionate personal relationship with a living being? Is love characterized by faithfulness and by devotion to God alone? Is it authentic and not just a performance or charade of following some acceptable religious behavior? If one falls short of loving God with all one’s heart and soul, how does this affect a person’s relationship to God? Do people today believe their unfaithfulness in their love affair with God is as serious as a charge of prostitution? If Hosea were to come and evaluate the contemporary church, would he find things much different from Israel in his day?
The challenge of Hosea to his listeners is parallel to the challenge a preacher or teacher can deliver to God’s people today. Do people in the church have a problem with developing an intimate knowledge of God? Do they have trouble maintaining faithfulness to their covenant commitment to love God and following his will for their lives? Are people truthful about their love for God, or is there a level of deceit in worship? Do people show greater love for the material things of this world or for God? Hosea challenges us to examine the nature of our love.
The Setting of Hosea’s Ministry
The Political Situation
HOSEA’S MINISTRY IN ISRAEL came shortly after the preaching of Amos in Israel (765–760 B.C.) and partially overlapped with Micah’s and Isaiah’s ministries in Judah. Although the superscription of the book of Hosea lists only one Israelite king, Jeroboam II, the parallel list of Judean kings (Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah) demonstrates that Hosea preached during the reign of several kings after Jeroboam II died. This information allows us to posit a ministry extending from about 755 during the final years of Jeroboam II until around 722 B.C., just before the fall of Samaria and the exile of the people of Israel (2 Kings 17:1–6).
For most of Hosea’s ministry, life in Israel was politically insecure because of several weak kings who lived under the thumb of strong Assyrian rulers. Hosea’s ministry falls into three periods: (1) the last few years of the prosperous reign of Jeroboam II, when Assyria was weak; (2) times of anarchy in Israel because of Assyrian strength under Tiglath-Pileser III, including Israel’s defeat in the Syro-Ephraimite war in the reign of Pekah; (3) the final years during the reign of Hoshea, when Samaria was captured and the Israelites exiled. A chart of these periods reveals the following relationships:
Judah | Israel | Assyria | |
Early period | Uzziah strong | Jeroboam II strong | Ashur-dan weak |
Middle period | Jotham /Ahaz weak | Pekah weak | Tiglath-Pileser III strong |
Late period | Ahaz weak | Hoshea weak | Tiglath-Pileser III / Shalmaneser strong |
Early prosperous times. Hosea 1:4 looks at a future time when Jeroboam II and his sons, the heirs of Jehu, would die. This suggests that Hosea married Gomer and some of their children were born when times were good and the nation was enjoying its prosperity of wool, silver and gold, and abundant harvests (2:8–12). Jeroboam II had expanded the borders of the nation (2 Kings 14:25; Amos 6:12–14), Israel had a strong army, and a wealthy class of rich landlords were controlling the economy of Israel (Amos 3:15–4:1; 6:1–8).5 Everything was going great for the upper class, but God’s revelation through Amos and Hosea warned that the end of the nation of Israel was at hand (2:13–16; 3:11–12; 5:27; 8:1–3). These conditions are reflected in Hosea 1–3.
Middle period of war and anarchy. After the death of Jeroboam II, a time of government chaos and military anarchy followed. Kings Zechariah and Shallum were assassinated after brief reigns (2 Kings 15:8–14). The Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III imposed heavy tribute on Israel (15:19–29) during the reign of Menahem and Pekah,6 and Israel was defeated by the Assyrians in the Syro-Ephraimite war (734–732 B.C.; see 2 Kings 16; Isa. 7:1–16). At that time Rezin, king of Syria, joined Pekah, king of Israel, in attacking Ahaz, king of Judah. They wanted to replace Ahaz (Isa. 7:6) or to force him to join their coalition against Tiglath-Pileser III and his Assyrian army.
After Rezin and Pekah’s forces killed 120,000 of Ahaz’s troops and took 200,000 people captive (2 Chron. 28:6–8), Ahaz asked Tiglath-Pileser III to rescue him from his adversaries. The Assyrian king defeated Syria and Israel and then required a heavy tax from Ahaz (28:20–21). Hosea warned the people about these battles (Hos. 5:8–11), condemned the assassinations of Israel’s kings (7:3, 7), and predicted the approaching defeat and exile of the nation (5:14).
These were difficult political times to be involved in any kind of prophetic ministry. The nation was literally falling apart before Hosea’s eyes, and the ruling class did not have the political leaders to provide a stable government. Most people who heard Hosea preach probably did not think his religious analysis of their political problems was a credible evaluation of the nation’s situation; thus, most did not turn from their evil ways. This time period corresponded to the reigns of Jotham and the early years of Ahaz in Judah—also the days when Isaiah and Micah were preaching in Judah. Hosea 4–11 probably come from this period.
Last days before destruction. The third period was not as difficult because Hoshea, the final ruler in Israel, was able to play a political game of Russian roulette by making secret political alliances with both Egypt and Assyria (Hos. 12:1). When the Assyrians discovered this conspiracy, kings Shalmaneser and Sargon II destroyed Samaria and exiled the people (722/721 B.C.; 2 Kings 17:1–6). Although Hosea probably lived through this disastrous military defeat of Israel, it appears that his prophetic ministry in the northern nation ended prior to this event.
There is no information about the final years of Hosea’s life after the fall of Israel, but many assume he took refuge in Judah when the Assyrians defeated Israel and exiled its people. Ahaz was ruling in Judah at this time. Hezekiah, the crowned prince, was probably functioning as coregent since he was still fairly young. Micah and Isaiah were continuing to preach in Judah.
The Social and Economic Context
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS WERE excellent during the reign of Jeroboam II, especially for the upper class (Hos. 2:5, 8, 12; Amos 3:15; 6:1–8). Although the poor were oppressed and cheated by the powerful through corrupt judges, high rents, and deceitful merchants (Amos 5:10–12; 8:4–6), the land produced good crops, and most had enough to eat. After the death of Jeroboam II this comfortable world fell apart. The political unrest and military defeats of the nation undermined any attempt to establish a strong economy, and heavy taxation by the Assyrians compounded the harshness of making a living (Hos. 8:7, 10). Enemy troops stole grain and ate people’s animals, fellow Israelites robbed and killed one another (6:8–9; 7:1), and crops failed because of God’s curse on the land (9:2; 13:15).
Life was difficult, and thousands of husbands and sons were killed both in the Syro-Ephraimite war and in the wars with Assyria (2 Chron. 28:6). Although one might think that such economic and social disorder would cause people to see the error of their ways and turn to God, most were so blinded by their sins that they were unable to turn and seek the Lord (Hos. 4:6; 5:4).
The Worship of God
ONE OF THE main reasons why Israel was in such bad shape was the perversity of their theological understanding of God and their wide acceptance of Canaanite culture with its religion of Baalism. The worship of Yahweh, Israel’s God, was so syncretized with Baalism over the years that some people thought Yahweh and Baal were just two different names for one divine being (Hos. 2:16). The two golden calves in the Israelite temples at Dan and Bethel (1 Kings 11–12; Hos. 8:5–6; 10:5) only added to the confusion, for Baal was also pictured as a bull. Consequently, many people thought Baal (or Yahweh) was a god who should be honored, so they participated in the sacrificial system and prostitution during festival events at pagan temples (Hos. 2:13; 4:11–14; 11:2; 13:2).7 They believed that through their worship of Baal (or Yahweh), he would provide fertility to their crops and animals.
These Canaanite gods existed in Palestine at least as far back as the time of the judges (Judg. 2:11–14). After the golden calves were built, the acceptance of Baalism increased. In the time of Ahab and Jezebel Baalism became the dominant state religion in Israel (1 Kings 16:29–33), and this confusion of the worship of Yahweh and Baal continued throughout Hosea’s ministry (2 Kings 17:7–18). No wonder God was angry that the people were prostituting themselves by worshiping another god and not remaining faithful to the covenant responsibility to love the God of Israel with all their heart and soul (Deut. 6:5; 10:12). Many Israelites accepted the Canaanite social and religious worldview rather than maintaining themselves as a separate people dedicated to God and his way of life as outlined in the Torah.
The Ministry of the Prophet Hosea
His Background
THE BOOK OF Hosea says nothing about the prophet’s early life, where he was born, what his occupation was before he was called to be a prophet,8 or his age when he became a prophet. Most assume he was a young adult, based on his not being married and the length of his prophetic career after his call (about thirty years). His repeated mentioning of cities in Israel (Samaria in Hos. 7:1; 8:5–6; 10:5, 7; 13:16) and the strange peculiarities of his Hebrew dialect suggest that he was a native of Israel, who gave all his sermons in and around the capital city of Samaria, or possibly at the main temple at Bethel.9
Detailed information is given about his wife, Gomer, but commentators interpret the phrase “woman of adultery/prostitution” (1:2, lit. trans.) in different ways. It seems odd, if not immoral, that God would require someone to marry an ungodly spouse. Consequently, many attempt to minimize this moral problem by not interpreting the story literally. At least six theories have arisen to explain this problem.
(1) J. L. Mays makes Gomer out to be “one of the sacred prostitutes of the fertility cult”10 of Baal.
(2) Others, like E. J. Young, thought that there never was a marriage between Hosea and Gomer. Instead, the whole story was a symbolic vision revealed to the prophet to help him teach a lesson (like a parable).11
(3) A few think the sin of Gomer was “spiritual prostitution” rather than physical immorality; that is, she was one who worshiped other gods.12
(4) L. Wood takes a proleptic view of the phrase “woman of prostitution,” concluding that Gomer was pure at the time of her marriage. This phrase about Gomer reflects Hosea’s later retrospective view of God’s command in light of her behavior after the marriage.13
(5) D. Stuart concludes that the promiscuous woman in Hosea 3 was not Gomer, but another woman he married.14
(6) We believe it is best to accept a literal historical interpretation and conclude that Gomer was sexually involved with other men before and after her marriage with Hosea. There is little to support the idea that she was a temple prostitute, that this was all just a dream, or that Hosea married two different women.15
It is impossible to trace the prophet’s life history in any kind of clarity. The story simply looks forward to and then records the marriage and the birth of three children. There is no statement indicating that Hosea was the father of all the children, so some assume that the second and third children were not fathered by Hosea. After an unknown length of time, Hosea bought his degraded wife from the slave market and returned her to his home (3:1–3). The purpose of Hosea 1–3 is to draw out the comparisons between the sinful actions of Gomer and the people of Israel. These events highlight the love of Hosea and God for undeserving partners. The chapters do not provide a detailed biography of the prophet’s troubled family life but draw out comparative theological lessons from his experience with Gomer and God’s with Israel.
Although this failed marriage may seem like a major stumbling block for the prophet’s ministry, Hosea’s family problems did not disqualify him from prophetic service for God. In fact, they gave him a new understanding (from God’s point of view) into the grossness of Israel’s sins (it was comparable to Gomer’s prostitution) and the depths of God’s love (it was comparable to Hosea’s love for the undeserving Gomer). This strengthened the conviction of his preaching, for he knew firsthand what he was talking about. He knew how God hurt when he was rejected, and from his own experience he knew how deeply God loved his people. Usually people learn a great deal about God through the trials of life.
THE GENERAL TIME period for Hosea’s ministry in Israel was from about 755 to 722 B.C. Since each sermon is not dated individually, it is difficult to connect each message with specific historical events. The references to the approaching threat of wars in 5:8 and 8:1 may give some help, but it is impossible to know how long before or after these wars each sermon was preached. One can assume that Hosea repeated some of his messages at different places throughout Israel or hypothesize that these were only given once. Since this data is missing, it is necessary to relate passages to general periods of Israelite history rather than exact dates.
The sermons of Hosea are constructed around a three-part structure of accusations, judgment, and hope (see esp. chs. 1–3; 12–14). These three emphases fit into the general structure of a covenant lawsuit against Israel (4:1–3; 12:2), but Hosea’s way of presenting the covenant lawsuit is unique when compared to similar sermons in other prophets (cf. Mic. 6).16 Hosea also includes judgment speeches (Hos. 13:1–3), the summons to repent (14:1–3), and the salvation oracle (14:4–7) to communicate his message. These were well-known types of speech at that time and widely accepted ways of communicating in culturally sensitive ways.
In the midst of these persuasive messages Hosea legitimated the accusations and punishment statements by repeatedly referring to Israel’s earlier theological traditions.17 He reminded the people about God’s dealing with Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim in 11:8 (using Gen. 18–19; Deut. 29:23), the deceptive ways of Jacob in 12:3–4 (using Gen. 25–35), and the exodus from Egypt in 8:13; 9:3; 11:1, 5; 12:9; 13:4 (using Ex. 14–15). He mentions several of the Ten Commandments in 4:2 (using Ex. 20:1–17), alludes to the story of Achan’s sin at Jericho in 2:15 (using Josh. 7), and possibly the preaching of Amos in 8:14 and 11:10 (using Amos 1:2, 4).18
Many in Hosea’s audience knew about these authoritative traditions; therefore, he could appeal to what God had done in the past to legitimate his predictions of God’s action in the future.19 Hosea was demonstrating that his words from God were consistent with God’s past revelation, so they should be accepted as a valid basis for rethinking the theological beliefs of his audience. Hosea reminded the people they had agreed to a covenant of loyalty to God and their breaking of this covenant agreement had serious consequences. The nature of the covenant relationship was not totally unknown, for the consequences of blessing (salvation) and cursing (judgment) had been explained long ago in the Torah (see Lev. 26; Deut. 27–28).20
Three of the most distinctive aspects of Hosea’s preaching are: (1) his creative use of bold imagery to describe the covenant relationship that Israel was destroying by its unfaithfulness; (2) his use of emotions to portray God and describe Israel’s problems; and (3) his distinctive vocabulary and grammatical constructions.
(1) How do people react to someone who dares to characterize sin as prostitution? Who would think to compare God to pus in a wound (Hos. 5:12), a lion or leopard (13:7), or a pine tree (14:8)? Who would imagine Israel to be like an oven (7:4–7), a stubborn heifer (4:16), dew (6:4), a vessel (8:8), wild grapes (9:10), a stick (10:7), silly birds (11:11), and chaff or smoke (13:3)? Hosea used every imaginable comparison to make his point. It almost seems as if he relishes the idea of shocking his audience into thinking outside the box of their normal theology. He wants to jar them loose from their careless way of thinking about themselves and God. He also uses assonance, puns, and wordplays that make sense to the Hebrew listener.21
(2) The very nature of Hosea’s devastating experience with Gomer was emotional. The agony and misery of both Hosea and Gomer can probably be best understood by those who have had an experience with an unfaithful partner, or by those who have gone through a divorce. No doubt there was fear, anger, disappointment, shame, and frustration. Signs of these powerful emotional feelings are also found when Hosea describes Israel’s failure to remain faithful to its covenant relationship with God.
Particularly powerful are those passages that picture God’s yearning not to give up on his beloved people. In 6:4 he wonders what he should do with his disloyal people. One might normally expect God to conclude his covenant lawsuit by destroying these sinful people. But to our astonishment, he does not give up on those he loves (11:8). Instead, he seeks to be compassionate again and again so that they will eventually return to him and follow him (11:10–11). Yes, he is angry at Israel’s unfaithfulness and deceitfulness, but in his great love he wants to forgive the people, heal them, and bless them again (14:1–7). This powerful pathos is evident in almost every section of the book. If one misses this distinctive spirit in the words of Hosea, one will eviscerate the heart from the body of each message.
(3) The third aspect of these messages is their unusual vocabulary and grammatical constructions. The Hebrew text is problematic, and the footnotes in this commentary will briefly highlight for the reader some of the more important problems. English readers become aware of these problems when they discover very different translations of verses in their modern translations of the Bible.
There are many Hebrew words found only in Hosea (hapax legomena are found, e.g., in 2:12, 15; 5:2, 13; 8:6, 13), and some verses are so difficult that they are frequently emended.22 We will avoid emendations as much as possible and stick to the difficult Hebrew dialect of Hosea. In many places there is little convincing support for the educated guesses people have proposed. At times one must just honestly admit that the meaning of a text is unclear. Usually this does not destroy the thrust of the message of a passage, but it may confuse the exact point being made in one-half of a verse.
Perhaps these problems stem from poor scribal copying, but the explanation that these issues arose because of the distinctive dialect of Hebrew that Hosea spoke seems more likely. These technicalities of language are not insignificant issues to be ignored as only of concern to scholars. Every communicator of the message of Hosea must legitimate his or her exposition of God’s Word on the basis of an understanding of what Hosea originally said and meant when he spoke or wrote his messages. Therefore, an accurate and understandable text is a practical necessity, not an optional academic luxury.
His Theology
HOSEA’S THEOLOGICAL UNDERPINNINGS are drawn from his understanding of God’s covenant relationship with his people (8:1). Although he spends much rhetorical effort communicating his message in a creative way so as to be understandable to an audience that has syncretized the worship of Baal and Yahweh, his message is centered around two basic themes. (1) The Israelites have sinned against their covenant partner and therefore will suffer God’s judgment. (2) God loves his covenant people dearly and will forgive their sins and bring in a new age of blessing.
These conclusions seem to conflict with one another so much that some commentators suggest that a later editor, not Hosea, added the positive ideas of hope.23 Since it was common for the prophets to legitimate repentance, both by reviewing the disadvantages of suffering under the wrath of God’s judgment and by recounting the tremendous advantages of enjoying God’s blessing, our approach is close to the conclusions of F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, that “the book is essentially the work of a single person”24; thus both aspects were central to his theology.
Israel’s sinful prostitution. The comparison between the unfaithfulness of marriage partners and Israel’s failure to maintain its covenant relationship with God frames Hosea’s theology of sin. Using this analogy, Hosea maintains that sin is like the act of prostitution on the human level. Three main points are developed. (1) Sin, like prostitution, is an act of not truly knowing or acknowledging one’s covenant partner on a personal level. The Israelites rejected their covenant partner as their exclusive partner. How can there be an intimate relationship between God and his covenant people if they do not know him in an intimate way (4:1)?
When the priests rejected and ignored God’s revelation of himself in the Torah (4:6–7), the people were naturally led astray to become involved with worship that was filled with practices of Baalism (4:11–15). They knew Baal, but not the difference between Baal and the true God of Israel. To make matters worse, the people seemed to be ignorant of the fact that their syncretistic worship would lead to their ruin (4:14). This fundamental perversity led to the situation where it was almost impossible for the people to return to God in repentance (5:4). What was the solution to this problem? There must be a radical transformation of their theology. People should desire an intimate personal relationship with God alone (6:3) and reject Baalism. Hosea’s sermons try to persuade his listeners to change their thinking and behavior.
(2) Sin, like prostitution, is an act of unfaithfulness to the covenant commitments that the people of Israel made long ago. They did not maintain a steadfast covenant love for God. They were easily led astray to focus more on outward acts of giving sacrifices (6:6). They did not put their complete trust in God for their political future but were unfaithful, making alliances with other nations (7:8, 11). They broke the covenant (8:1), were unfaithful by worshiping the golden calf (8:5–6, 10), and trusted in armies and fortresses rather than God (8:14; 10:13–14). Those who are faithful to the covenant do not murder, ignore God’s choice when they appoint a new king, or reject God’s laws. Unfaithfulness involves pleasing another mistress rather than remaining faithful to the covenant partner.
(3) The third sin is deceit. A deceitful covenant partner says one thing but does another. Hosea saw that the Israelites were following the deceitful practices of their forefather Jacob (11:12–12:1). This lack of truthfulness was evident in the deceptive weights in the marketplace (12:7–8) and the worship of illusionary, man-made gods (13:1–3). The people did not commit themselves to God alone; their commitment lasted about as long as the dew in the morning.
These three characteristics of Israel’s sins were evident in their political dealings with other nations, their economic dealings with one another, and their spiritual relationships with God. There was no sincerity or consistency in what they said or did. They somehow thought that they could love God and participate in Baal worship at the same time. They did not see any inconsistency between the values of their secular Baalistic culture and the demands of their covenant relationship with God. Rather than separating themselves from the world to become the holy people of God, they accepted a veneer of God-talk that covered a heart of unfaithful prostitution. Since the nation did not realize God looked at their sins so seriously, Hosea communicated both the true nature of sin in God’s eyes and the horrible consequences of the prostitution of their loyalties. God would judge the people severely and destroy the nation.
The depth of God’s love. We do Hosea a vast injustice if we suppose his theology was stuck in a negative hopelessness that saw no cure for the nation’s prostitution. It is truly amazing to see the strength of God’s love for his people in Hosea’s sermons. God will not totally give up on his people but will allure them back to himself (2:14), restore his covenant relationship (2:19, 23), give them their messianic king (3:5), and cause the land to be fruitful again (2:21). Those who are not his people will become the sons of the living God (1:10–11).
Although the people do not deserve God’s grace, how can he give up on his chosen people (11:8)? If they will but turn to him, he will forgive their sins, heal them, and love them once again (14:1–7). Since God’s compassion outweighs the sins of the people, there is hope for them in the distant future. At that time they will intimately know him and will remain faithful to their covenant commitments.
IN MOST CHURCHES few messages are given on Hosea. Parts of the book can be hard to understand because of its odd and foreign symbolism, its difficult poetry, and its discussion of the embarrassing problem of prostitution in the family of a prophet—and in the family of God. Since Baalism is not a modern threat to the church and not many people in our neighborhoods fall down and worship idols, the setting and spiritual problems of Israel seem foreign to the struggles most believers face today.
Consequently, most preachers feel the difficulty of developing applications for the church from this series of prophetic sermons. After all, who would encourage the associate pastor in the church to marry a prostitute? How could the drunken worship at the Baal temples (4:11–14) be compared to anything that happens during a worship service today? Other than an occasional reference to God’s love in Hosea 3 or 11, most of his messages are ignored because they appear to be irrelevant to the central issues people face in our modern technological culture.
Nevertheless, if one does not focus so much on the specifics of the ancient fertility beliefs or the sexual methods of worship in Baalism, one can begin to suggest areas where the theological message of Hosea relates to theological issues the church has struggled with in every era of its existence. If one views Baalism as a cultural expression of a Canaanite religious worldview, the true comparison for modern application is not limited to situations where pagans are worshiping idols in India or involved in some perverted sexual cult in some faraway country. The Canaanite culture needs to be compared to the British culture, the Hutu culture, the American culture, or the Brazilian culture.
Each of these countries has a popular “religious” philosophy of life that explains how the world works. Each culture includes ethical standards for appropriate conduct, economic ways of gaining prosperity (fertility in ancient Near Eastern terminology), and an explanation of how people are related to the divine powers. The questions that the church in every culture must ask are similar to the questions Hosea raises. Are the people who claim to be believers actually the people of God, or have they so accepted the popular religious culture of their day that they, like Israel, are “not my people”? Has the syncretism of the church with modern religious culture so infiltrated the fiber of the fellowship that people can no longer see a distinction between the two? Has the church lost its identity by compromising its beliefs and accepting the moral standards of the society that the church was supposed to transform?
Although believers are “in the world” and function in a culture that is shared with others, in another sense they are not “one” with all parts of that reality. The danger for Israel, and for the church today, is a double threat. One option is for people to withdraw totally into a conventlike existence or try to be separate (like the Amish) to maintain their purity. But this solution may so isolate believers from society that they will never reach the world with God’s love or have a positive influence on the development of that culture. One cannot reach the world by retreating into a monastery so as to lose all contact with the world. Although purity may be maintained, is not the church to have a purifying effect as it goes into all the world to present the good news?
By contrast, those who fully participate in the culture face the danger of compromising some of their beliefs to the secular standards of the day. If education, business, entertainment, and ethics are framed by the cultural standards of ungodly people, most likely they will not be consistent with Christian standards. It is difficult for anyone to resist the temptation to compromise one’s beliefs under such strong social pressure day after day.
Anyone over forty years of age knows that many people in churches have changed their ideas about what is right and wrong during that time period. When I was growing up, my parents did not even want me to go to a bowling hall that sold beer, but few make that a big issue when they raise teenagers today. The issue to be emphasized here is not who was right on this issue, but that believers are influenced for better or for worse by the cultural definition of “appropriate behavior” where they live.
In light of these factors it is important to recognize that Hosea does not just object to the theological system that honors Baal, nor does he just deal with the debased sexual ritual practiced at the Baal or Yahwistic temples (4:11–14). Behind these external signs of unfaithfulness to God lies the deeper problem of people’s acceptance of a nonbiblical theological system from their culture. Hosea does not condemn or reject every aspect of that culture but does recognize that if people accept certain aspects, these can pervert their understanding of God and his relationship to humankind. This perversion led Israel to be unfaithful to its covenant relationship and caused it to be untruthful and deceptive to God. These are issues that can be investigated in each era of church history and in each denomination. Although the specific issues may be different, each generation faces the tension of knowing how to remain faithful to God in a world that loves to twist the truth—both in minor ways as well as direct affronts to the character and will of God.
Some people may deny that the culture of our day influences the religious ideas of people in the church, but there are too many subtle examples to ignore. It is not unusual to hear people say that the church needs to be run more like a business. Sometimes this is innocently expressed by those who say the church needs to have a mission statement and goals, as we do at work. Some constitutions overtly speak of the pastor as the CEO and have a business manager.
Yet these issues are minor in comparison to the attitudinal changes of some church attendees. Surely the consumer mentality of many Christians did not arise from reading about the operation of the early church in Acts. Opposition to guitars and drums or the raising of hands in worship was not an insight derived from reading about worship in Israel from the Psalms. The move to multimedia presentations in seeker-sensitive churches is not something derived from the worship Paul describes in his letters.
I am not suggesting that the church should condemn or resist all cultural innovations or that certain modern cultural methods are wrong in themselves; the church should adopt and adapt those things that make the presentation of the gospel more relevant to our culture. The difficulty is in determining which things to accept and which to reject. In this process one must continually ask whether a certain cultural phenomenon is consistent with scriptural principles, or whether there has been an attempt to lie and distort the truth in order to justify certain actions or attitudes.
Unfortunately, it is usually difficult to separate what is cultural from what is not, for many people do not even recognize the impact their culture has on their theological understanding. Yet all one has to do is to visit a Hispanic, a black, and a white church to observe the cultural differences. A messianic congregation in Israel will do things differently from a group of Korean believers in Minnesota. Although all these believers read the same Bible, they worship differently, think in unique theological ways, and develop separate methods of church polity. Such differences do not indicate that all truth is relative, nor do they prove that God’s truth can be manipulated to say whatever we want it to say. It does mean that one can express the truth in different cultural ways so that it can make sense to people from different parts of the world.
Thus, God could reveal his truth to people like Abraham and David, who lived in a Semitic culture, as well as to Paul and Barnabas, who grew up in a Greco-Roman world. The problem of unfaithfulness to God arises not because of differences between cultures, but because of the misperceptions of God and his will for people within each culture.
In modern culture the forces of rationalism and science have eliminated the need to see God as the sovereign power in control of the weather, the sovereign force in charge of human health and the removal of disease, or the almighty king in control of world politics. L. Gilkey has complained that the idea of divine providence is a “rootless, disembodied ghost, flitting from footnote to footnote, but rarely finding secure lodgment in sustained theological discourse.”25 Although believers in the church may confess their belief in the sovereignty of God over their souls after death, all too often they act as if God actually has no role in determining what will happen today or tomorrow. They have accepted the culture’s view that the weather is controlled by wind, humidity, high and low pressure systems, and temperature, rather than by God.
Yet one wonders, who controls the wind that directs the weather systems? Who causes the jet stream to bend and dip? Who directs the currents in the Pacific to produce the devastating global “El Niño” effect around the world? Just how sovereign is God? Is he a wimp or the only one who actually has any control over what happens on this earth? Have believers bought into the humanistic explanations of the earth and restricted God’s activity to heaven?
Hosea’s message addresses issues where people have allowed their culture to twist their theology into a deceptive illusion of the truth. The church likewise needs to be vigilant to observe where the silent threat of cultural accommodation may creep into the thought patterns of theological discourse and destroy its central connection to the truth. Is the message of Scripture being adjusted to make it more popular? Does the formulation of the truth change when it is packaged in new forms that the audience enjoys hearing?
Recent studies of evangelicalism suggest that some evangelical Christians have changed some of their theological and ethical beliefs.26 H. Cox even advocated “wasting little time thinking about ‘ultimate’ or ‘religious questions.’ ”27 As L. Sweet maintains, in the 1960s “being secular was not a way of acknowledging defeat but a way of being authentically Christian in a new age. Churches willingly relinquished their creeds, rituals, pieties, and beliefs to accommodate new social attitudes.”28 When the church caves in to the authority of culture, people begin to believe the ideological notion that what is culturally normative must be theologically acceptable. They adopt the illusion that the theological teaching of Scripture is outmoded and irrelevant in this modern culture of relativism and pluralism; thus, devastating compromises seem inevitable and the preferred approach to addressing problem issues.29
This issue of accommodation to cultural standards rather than to God’s Word can also exhibit itself in settings where people allow “godly leaders” to create an almost cultic following they claim is biblical. These situations can then develop into a deceptive, mind-controlling culture enforced by a selfish and powerful charismatic leader who twists the truth as badly as some secular philosophers. The danger of being deceived into following some unfaithful system of thinking that is alien to God is present every time a person watches television, reads the newspaper, or hears a sermon.
Hosea’s message requires us to ask: Is the message I am getting from this news story, sports information, comedy, or religious song one that I can accept, or is it contrary to what the Bible says about God? Would accepting it lead to unfaithfulness to God’s will and my covenant relationship with him? Does this concept encourage a deceptive lifestyle, or does it clearly demonstrate the necessity of truthfulness with God and others? If we were to look at our relationship to God as a marriage (as Hosea does), how would God evaluate our love, our commitment to him, and our truthfulness? What should the proclaimers of God’s words today be saying about what he expects of his future bride, the church? Is prostitution now acceptable, or does God still hate those who syncretize their faith with the pagan culture of the day?