THE WORD OF the LORD came to Hosea son of Berri during the reign of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and during the reign of Jeroboam son of Jehoash king of Israel.
2When the LORD began to speak through Hosea, the LORD said to him, “Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the LORD.” 3So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.
4Then the LORD said to Hosea, “Call him Jezreel, because I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel. 5In that day I will break Israel’s bow in the Valley of Jezreel.”
6Gomer conceived again and gave birth to a daughter. Then the Lord said to Hosea, “Call her Lo-Ruhamah, for I will no longer show love to the house of Israel, that I should at all forgive them. 7Yet I will show love to the house of Judah; and I will save them—not by bow, sword or battle, or by horses and horsemen, but by the LORD their God.”
8After she had weaned Lo-Ruhamah, Gomer had another son. 9Then the LORD said, “Call him Lo-Ammi, for you are not my people, and I am not your God.
10“Yet the Israelites will be like the sand of the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ 11The people of Judah and the people of Israel will be reunited, and they will appoint one leader and will come up out of the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel.
2:1“Say to your brothers, ‘My people,’ and to your sisters, ‘My loved one.’ ”
Original Meaning
HOSEA 1:1–3:5 CONTAINS a direct analogy between the marriage of Hosea and Gomer and the covenant relationship between God and Israel. The story progresses through three stages: (1) the sinful adultery of Gomer and Israel destroys their covenant relationships (ch. 1); (2) confrontations and redemptive chastenings are begun (ch. 2); and (3) the restoration of the covenant relationship is accomplished through love (ch. 3). This representation of God’s future dealing with Israel carries a dramatic and shocking message of callous betrayal by one party, an unwillingness to continue with the status quo by the other party, and the surprising undeserved mercy of God’s love.
By setting Israel’s sinful behavior in the framework of the vile behavior of a prostitute, Hosea reminds his audience both of the seriousness of sin (it destroys a mutual trusting relationship) and the amazing greatness of God’s love. Unfaithfulness to God in Israel and the church cannot be ignored. Either people are believers and are faithful to their covenant commitments to God, or they are not a part of the family of God. Those who are unfaithful to God are really more like prostitutes. They are not and cannot be members of God’s family unless two things happen. God must love them in spite of their sins (which he does), and they must respond to God’s love with a new commitment of love for him. Hosea reveals that God has and will continue to give undeserved love to those who do not have a covenant relationship with God. The question is: How will people respond to his gracious gift of love?
Regarding 1:1–2:1, after the superscription (1:1), the structure of this narrative segment is ordered around Hosea’s marriage and the subsequent birth of three children (1:2–9). Each sub-paragraph contains an initial imperative exhortation from God to Hosea (1:2b, 4a, 6b, 9a), followed by a divine explanation of how each name or action symbolically represents what is happening among the people in Israel (introduced by “because” [ki] in 1:2c, 4b–5, 6c, 9b). In something of a surprise ending, the negative implications of the children’s names are dramatically reversed in the final paragraph (1:10–2:1; in the Heb. text these verses are 2:1–3) because a future time of covenant renewal and blessing is pictured.
The material in this story is not purely biographical, for the focus of attention is primarily on how God used the prophet’s family as a symbolic representation of his dealings with the nation. The biographical details are in fact meager and give no indication of how this dysfunctional family coped with its symbolic role or the tragedy of an unfaithful spouse and mother. No words or emotional reactions (other than Hosea’s obedience) from any member of the family are included.
The reference to the future fall of the dynasty of Jeroboam II (1:4–5) suggests that this material was spoken before the death of Jeroboam II.1 The purposes for publishing these verses are: (1) to explain the peculiar symbolic names of Hosea’s children; (2) to warn Hosea’s audience about God’s intentions to bring judgment on the nation of Israel; and (3) to encourage the righteous about God’s intention to fulfill the Abrahamic covenant.2 The prophet hopes he can persuade some unfaithful people in his audience to transform their thinking and behavior to avoid God’s judgment on Israel.
God’s and Hosea’s Symbolic Marriage (1:1–3)
THE BRIEF HISTORICAL superscription places these events in the prosperous days of King Jeroboam II of Israel (1:1).3 The first words the Lord God spoke “through Hosea” (1:2a) came at this time. Additional evidence of the prophetic role of Hosea is provided by the repeated emphasis on what “the LORD said” (1:2b, 4, 6, 9) to Hosea to help him and his readers understand the symbolic meaning of his marriage and children. These words revealed God’s plan for Hosea’s life. This idea of marrying an impure woman was probably not the family life that Hosea’s proud parents planned for their son, but it was what God called him to do. Hosea did not just dream up this stuff about marrying a prostitute out of the rebelliousness of his youth; it was God’s idea.
God instructed Hosea to marry an “adulterous wife” (1:2), an act that has caused great consternation among interpreters, but surprisingly no negative reaction from Hosea himself. The moral problem involved with this exhortation makes some think this whole story was just a vision or parable, while others conclude that Gomer was actually spiritually unfaithful rather than involved with sexual promiscuity.4 Kaufmann thinks that Gomer merely put on the clothes of a harlot to symbolize the apostasy of Israel, much like the theatrical sign-acts of Isaiah (going naked in Isa. 20:1–4) and Ezekiel (cutting his hair and lying on his side in Ezek. 4–5).5
The plain meaning of these words cannot be easily escaped, however, for Gomer was to symbolize the fact that the land of Israel was full of people who had departed from the Lord and committed adultery by their involvement in the fertility religion of Baalism. Some scholars attempt to lessen the scandal by proposing that Gomer only had tendencies toward immoral behavior. Others suggest that God did not specifically ask Hosea to marry a harlot; instead, this verse is a retrospective realization by Hosea that God providentially led him to marry a woman who turned out to be unfaithful to her marriage vows.6
Although it sounds unusual and self-defeating for a prophet of God to marry a prostitute, the Bible only limits the wives a priest can choose. According to Leviticus 21:14 the priest must marry a virgin, not a harlot or a widow. No similar limitations are imposed on prophets or the average Hebrew citizen. Therefore, we conclude that Gomer7 was sexually involved with other men before and after her marriage to Hosea and must have received some payment for her sexual favors (Hos. 2:5). Hosea’s reception of these instructions from God helped him interpret his life and ministry as the divine plan of God. It changed how he looked at the sinful people in Israel and how he empathized with God’s reaction to his sinful wife, Israel.
In accepting God’s plan for his life, Hosea submitted his wishes to God’s will. He set himself up to feel and know a little bit about the bitterness of God’s pain, as well as the depth of his love for undeserving people. He understood how Gomer’s adultery represented the behavior of the people in the nation of Israel, God’s covenant partner. They were guilty of “the vilest adultery” (1:2). By their unfaithful worship of Baal and participation in the sexual activities in that fertility cult, they defiled themselves and rejected their own God. In God’s eyes the nation’s syncretism of the worship of Baal and Yahweh was not a minor problem of little significance; it was an affront to the exclusive covenant commitment God desires of those whom he loves.
God’s and Hosea’s Symbolic Children (1:4–9)
IF GOMER REPRESENTS the nation and its evil culture, the “children of unfaithfulness” (lit., “children of prostitution”) represent the individual Israelites who later witness against their mother (2:2, 4). As the mother, Gomer symbolizes Israel’s syncretistic religion that its leaders promote, while the children are those pressured to follow this cultural ideology. One should not conclude that the phrase about the children describes child prostitution; rather, it refers to the fact that at least some of Gomer’s children (and the Israelites) were outside the covenant relationship. T. McComiskey thinks Hosea adopted the illegitimate children Gomer had before her marriage to Hosea,8 but most interpreters prefer to explain “children of prostitution” by pointing to the fact that the text never connects Hosea to the conception of the second and third child (1:6, 8). Thus, perhaps the last two children were born because of Gomer’s unfaithfulness to her marriage vows.
The first child was Hosea’s (1:3, “she . . . bore him a son”), and God named him Jezreel. This child was to remind Hosea’s audience of what had happened in the Valley of Jezreel, where king Jehu poured out the blood of innocent lives in order to solidify his political power (2 Kings 9–10, esp. 9:25–26; 10:11). The NIV and other translations connect this child’s name with the idea that God “will soon punish” the house or dynasty of Jehu for this massacre and consequently bring an end to the kingdom of Israel (Hos. 1:4).
This interpretation does not make sense, however, for God approved what Jehu did in the Valley of Jezreel (2 Kings 10:30). Therefore, it seems better to follow D. Garrett and translate the text, “I will bring the bloodshed of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu.”9 This implies that a violent situation at the beginning of Jehu’s reign will parallel a violent situation that will end the dynasty of Jehu. Indeed, after the death of Jeroboam II, his son Zechariah was assassinated after a short six-month reign (2 Kings 15:8). He was the last descendant of Jehu to rule in Israel. It was only about thirty years later that the “bow” (Hos. 1:5) or army of Israel was defeated and the nation was taken into exile by the Assyrians.
The second child (1:6–7) was a girl named “Lo-Ruhamah,” a name that symbolically announces that God will have “no compassion, no love.”10 This child’s name reveals that God will end his tender feelings of deep affection (like a mother’s deep affection for the fruit of her womb) that are foundational to his covenant relationship with his people. The loving feeling between kinfolk will be missing; God will not pity or care what happens to them. This name represents a dramatic reversal of Israel’s self-understanding (they thought they were the children of God) and will be a severe blow to their confidence in God’s unfailing commitment to love his people. They will no longer be rescued when they are in trouble, for God’s compassionate mercy will no longer be extended to them.
Verse 6 ends with the clause “that I should at all forgive them,”11 which fits logically with an absence of divine mercy. But the verb nśʾ can also mean to lift up, take away, thus referring to God’s plan to “take” the nation into exile. This idea makes a better translation since it provides a better contrast with God’s commitment to save Judah in 1:7.12 God will not abandon his love for all his people forever; he will only abandon those unfaithful to their covenant relationship with God at this time. In contrast to Israel, Judah will continue to receive God’s deep affectionate love and protection from danger (1:7).13 This love will be demonstrated by a great deed of divine deliverance—a deliverance that will not be accomplished through any military power. This prophecy may point ahead to God’s miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah from the Assyrian king Sennacherib in 701 B.C., when 185,000 Assyrian troops were struck dead in a single night (Isa. 36–37).
These opposite ways (cursing and blessing) of dealing with different people naturally cause the listener in Israel to wish for the divine love that Judah will receive. If the prophet can create that desire, the listeners may then attempt to discover why God will deal with the two nations so differently and become jealous for God’s grace. If people do not change, Israel’s immediate future is hopeless, for “the vilest adultery” (1:2) pervades the land.
God gives the third child the name “Lo-Ammi . . . not my people” (1:8–9). Now it is official; the covenant connection is broken and God will no longer say, “I will . . . be your God, and you will be my people” (Lev. 26:12; cf. Ex. 6:7; Deut. 27:9). Israel’s unfaithful adultery will lead to the dissolution of the covenant relationship. They will no longer be the children of God; their identity will change because they have committed themselves to another lover.
God’s and Hosea’s New Children (1:10–2:1)
THIS SECTION ENDS with a great paradoxical surprise and a reversal of the meaning of the children’s names. The change is jarring and breathtakingly quick. At one moment God rejects his people, and in the next he accepts them back as his covenant partners. Some interpreters have great trouble accepting this abrupt change of attitude toward the nation when there is no intercession by the prophet (cf. Amos 7:1–3) and no repentance by the people.14
In the editing of these messages for publication, it appears that Hosea chose this literary structure (putting opposite ideas side by side without any transitional phrases) in order to highlight the contrasts. He probably wants the reader to ask: How can total despair lead to total acceptance and hope for the future? Everyone knows you cannot get directly from one to the other. Only the miraculous power and love of God can bring grace to a vile and rejected people. The human mind cannot fully comprehend God’s ways or justify his grace, for God’s thoughts and ways are often beyond mortal explanation (Isa. 55:8–9). The interpreter must bow in humble amazement at that love rather than deny that God can ever reverse his actions so dramatically.
This positive promise begins with the reminder that in the future God will fulfill his promise to Abraham and Jacob and multiply the people in Israel like the sand of the sea (quoting portions of Gen. 22:17; 32:12). This present destruction will not prevent God from fulfilling his original plans. The time of God’s wrath and destruction will one day end and God’s blessing will revive the people. Then “in the place,” that is, in the land of Israel, it will become apparent that these people are the “sons of the living God” (Hos. 1:10). The “Lo-Ammi” (“not my people” in 1:9) of Hosea’s day will be replaced by the true people of the living God.
J. L. Mays sees implicit in the title “living God” the recognition that it is God’s miraculous life-giving power that makes new life possible for this new generation.15 This title gives the people an identity as “sons,” as well as an acknowledgment of their relationship to God. It implicitly signals the renewal of the covenant relationship between God and Israel.
The second promise relates to the unification of Judah and Israel (1:11). This rejuvenated people will be made up of two peoples who will join themselves together as one united nation, thus ending the suspicion and hatred that extended back to the original division of the nations by Jeroboam I (1 Kings 12) and even earlier (2 Sam. 2:3–11; 5:1–5). In one united effort they will appoint an unidentified leader (roʾš, leader, is used, not melek, king), an idea that Hosea will clarify later in Hos. 3:5. Old conflicts and rivalries will be a thing of the past, and nationalism for the northern or southern tribes will disappear.
The third aspect of restoration describes the people’s new relationship to their land (1:11). Andersen and Freedman see it as both a reference to a return from exile (a new historical exodus from exile) and a resurrection from the land of the dead (see 5:8–6:6).16 If the last two lines of 1:11 are seen as a pair, then it makes more sense to follow T. McComiskey, who believes that Hosea is talking about the vegetation (similar to 2:22–23) that God will “sow” (using Jezreel in the next line) in the land. It will grow and multiply abundantly in the land, for great will be this positive day of Jezreel (“sowing”) when God blesses his people and their land.17
As a result of God’s powerful intervention, he will say (2:1) “Ammi—my people” instead of “not my people,” and “Ruhamah—my loved one” instead of “not loved” (cf. 1:6, 9). This reflects God’s complete acceptance of his people, his recognition of their new relationship, and a total reversal of the earlier status of the nation. These names reveal a tender connection between the parties because of God’s compassion.
What effect would these words have on Hosea’s audience? These promises should cause them to remember that the covenant relationship promises two possible destinies for Israel (curses and blessings), to realize that their harlotry will result in their judgment, and to understand that God’s plans to bless his faithful people will happen after a period of judgment. His sermon may have encouraged some to recommit themselves in faith to God’s future plans.
Bridging Contexts
THE USE OF the marriage metaphor. The main purpose of this story about Hosea’s family is to represent symbolically in a real family both the positive and negative ways God relates to his people. Hosea 1:2–9 focuses on how God responds when his people forsake the commitments that are required of a covenant relationship, while 1:10–2:1 demonstrates God’s compassion for his covenant people. Although sonship is an excellent biblical way of describing one’s relationship to God (1:10), the marriage covenant relationship is one of the most powerful human analogies to compare with God’s covenant relationship with his people.
Hosea boldly compares sin to adultery in order to demonstrate how terribly destructive it is to a person’s relationship with God. Sin is not a minor incidental mistake that can be winked at, as if it really does not matter. Sin is a devastating affront to the exclusive love commitment one makes to God. Sin is a forsaking of loyalty to one person. Hosea does not give much detail in chapter 1 about the nature of Israel’s specific sins (this will become clearer later), so it is inappropriate to draw specific theological principles about these issues. Instead the focus should be on this general point: The Israelites are sinners who flagrantly commit vile acts of prostitution.
Although sin is sin, this repulsive act of iniquity shows the level to which people can sink into the grip of sin. Thus a wife’s sin of speeding on the highway will likely be seen by the husband as less threatening to their marriage than prostitution because the latter sin involves a direct rejection of an exclusive love relationship with her husband. Likewise, the sin of rejecting God and putting something in his place is a devastating act of unfaithfulness. This is especially true when one is pretending on the outside to be loyal (Gomer was still Hosea’s wife) but is actually involved with disloyal activities.
Sin and the fulfillment of God’s promises. The results of sin are pictured in the symbolic names of the children. The death and bloodshed symbolized by Jezreel (Hos. 1:4) indicate that sin results in death and devastation (see Rom. 6:23). God cannot bless those who forsake a loving relationship with him. The theological implications of God’s curse may even extend to the forsaking of his own beloved people (the meaning of Lo-Ammi, “not my people,” in Hos. 1:9). Sin can cause God to postpone his blessing for another day (1:10–2:1), when people will love him with all their heart and soul (Deut. 6:5).
God is not obligated to bless any person who does not love him. When people reject their covenant commitment to God through sin, they destroy their special relationship with him and are in essence declaring that he is not their God and that they are not related to him (Hos. 1:9). As a natural consequence, God will not treat the sinner in the same tender and compassionate way he treats someone who has a committed love relationship with him. When there is no compassion or love from God (1:6), life can become miserable.
Nevertheless, we must remember that sin and separation from God will not eradicate God’s love completely or destroy his wonderful plans for this world. His promises of old will all come true in due time (1:10–2:1). The present failures will not keep God from calling out a great multitude of people for himself—as numerous as the sand on the seashore. This text does not adumbrate exactly how God will accomplish his plan, but there will be a revival and restoration of the people to him.
This group will be the “sons of the living God,” and it will include people from both Judah and Israel. These people will be united together and committed to one leader, probably an oblique reference to the Messiah from the line of David (Hos. 3:5). Then God will call them “my people” (2:1), and he will bless their land as he promised long ago (Lev. 26). There is no indication that these people will deserve any of these things; God’s compassionate love and grace will be the means of accomplishing his plan.
Compassion and love. Studying this passage might encourage one to develop a theology of the compassionate love of God. This word (rḥm, compassion), which is connected to the root for “womb, inner part,” draws its strength from the intense emotional involvement of one person with another (like a mother’s love for her child). This deep positive emotion of attachment and care has nothing to do with an obligation toward another person, but focuses on the graciousness of a strong connection that comes from the heart.
Indeed, God’s compassionate love is unlimited, unearned, and undeserved; thus, it is a paradoxical mystery and partially beyond human comprehension.18 God’s compassion may end and justice may prevail when people forsake him (Hos. 1:2–9), but this does not quench his will to be compassionate to those who do not deserve his grace (1:10–2:1). This love involves an eternal unselfish giving of his benefits to others (John 15:13), an affectionate demonstration of his loyalty and great kindness. This generosity demonstrates the “incomparable riches of his grace” (Eph. 2:7) toward others. Often this concept is in a context where the Lord sees the dire needs of someone and pities them by having compassion on them.19
The contrasting themes in Hosea 1 are paralleled in the blessings and the curses in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 27–28. Israel’s consistent sinfulness throughout its history is also marvelously contrasted in Nehemiah’s prayer (Neh. 9) with the great compassion of God. God became known in the golden calf incident, to Jonah the reluctant missionary to Nineveh, and to the evangelist Joel as one who is forgiving, long-suffering, gracious, compassionate, and abundant in lovingkindness (Ex. 34:6–7; Neh. 9:17; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2). This compassionate reestablishment of the covenant with God’s people sounds much like what Jeremiah calls the new covenant (Jer. 31:31–34).
In the New Testament the apostles Paul (Rom. 9:25–26) and Peter (1 Peter 2:10) unite the nearly identical terminology in Hosea 1:10 and 2:23 (using the LXX translation) to demonstrate to their readers how God graciously and mercifully loved them and transformed those who were not the people of God into his people. All these passages from the Old and New Testaments demonstrate that there is hope for sinful humanity because of the compassionate love of God.
Contemporary Significance
OBEDIENCE TO GOD. The application of the message of Hosea can be approached from the biographical perspective to gain principles from the way God worked with Hosea himself. Hosea’s experience demonstrates the importance of obeying God’s will even when it may seem unusual or contrary to conventional wisdom. God instructed Hosea to marry a woman who seemingly would not enhance his prophetic career or his respect in the community. This woman with a checkered moral past would undoubtedly undermine some of the moral principles the prophet stood for and preached against. She would likely bring endless distress, sorrow, and embarrassment to him when she became unfaithful to him and their children.
Although the text tells us nothing about Hosea’s possible negative reaction to this divine exhortation (there are no excuses similar to Moses in Ex. 3–5), it would seem natural for him to have had at least some questions or doubts about the sanity of this bizarre plan. After all, would any of us think it wise to advise a young person planning on going into ministry to marry a spouse involved in prostitution? Yet God’s mysterious plans are not submitted to human opinion polls, based on what a mother and father idealize for their children, or brought to the deacon board for a vote. Human fears focus too much on what might not work, while God’s bold plans accomplish much because they require people to risk much in faith.
Hosea did know this marriage would symbolically mirror God’s relationship with Israel, so he realized God had a higher purpose for it. God’s calling involved his whole family, his marriage, and even the naming of his children. Hosea knew that people would look at his family and learn something about the ways of God. To some extent, people today still learn something about God’s transforming power through observing what God does in people’s lives. Hosea’s obedience to the unusual circumstances God planned for him presents a challenge for all who foresee great difficulty ahead if they are faithful to God’s calling.
One who wishes to serve God cannot limit the unsearchable mysteries of God’s wise plans to what makes sense to the common person. People must not let human fear overpower their trust in God’s love for them. God can speak to others through the simple way we carry out our family relationships. In fact, family life is one of the key ways people can identify with others, so it is a natural way for others to see the compassionate love of God demonstrated in concrete ways.
By obediently following God’s plan, Hosea came to understand and empathize in a much fuller way with God’s deep hatred for sin and his unending love for those who deserve no compassion. Hosea felt the pain of God by having an unfaithful wife, and he came to experience a broken covenant relationship in more than an intellectual way. He knew how adultery destroys a relationship; he experienced the sorrow of raising a child that was not his. He also must have marveled at God’s ability to love those who reject him. Although one would not suggest that this is the only way to appreciate the destructive power of sin in the lives of God’s people, it is fundamentally important for people (and especially pastors) to identify with God’s view of sin in our world (he hates it).
Of course, it is no less important to internalize the depth of God’s love for people who presently are not children of God. We do not decide which persons God should show compassion to, and we do not pick the people who will become the “sons of the living God.” God loved the whole world and each individual (John 3:16) while we were still sinners (Rom. 5:8). Thus, everyone should expect that God wants us to love the sinful people whom he loves—even when they act in unloving ways.
Maintaining loyal covenant commitment. Applications can also be drawn from the basic theological relationship between God and his people. Just as he was with the rebellious people of Israel and Gomer, God is not pleased with believers today who do not maintain a loyal covenant commitment to him. He still looks at sin as prostitution—a serious and disgusting breach of a love relationship. Although society has loosened the stigma of many sins and relativized morality to the level of individual personal preferences, God still sees sinful acts as serious as adultery.
The deceit and betrayal of trust caused by sin destroys our personal relationship with God (Isa. 59:1–2). Because of the seriousness of sin in his eyes, it ends his relationship with people (as it led to the end of Israel, cf. Hos. 1:4). While people may pretend or wish their sins will not cause God to remove his compassionate loving relationship with them, Hosea teaches that God’s personal covenantal relationship with his lover (his people) does not allow sinful prostitution to go unnoticed.
The implications of sin are serious, not trivial. Some may feel that their good deeds, church membership, or baptism assures them of a positive relationship to God. They presume that their sins and lack of exclusive devotion to God will not interrupt his love for them. Hosea’s theology raises questions with anyone who has a cavalier regard for sin. Sin is a destructive power and a deadly force that interrupts a person’s relationship with God. In the eyes of God, sin is like prostitution.
The theology of Hosea 1 is not limited to the negative implications of sin in a person’s life, however. Because of God’s grace, people can be assured that his eternal plans and promises will be accomplished. In spite of the present destructive power of sin in this world, God’s love and compassion will bring people who are not his people into a loving relationship with himself. The political, social, and religious problems that divide God’s people into different cultural, denominational, or ethnic groups will be done away with; a messianic leader will lead the people, and the promises to God’s people will all be fulfilled in a time of great blessing.
The salvation of Gentiles. Paul (Rom. 9:25–26) and Peter (1 Peter 2:10) both saw the application of the positive promises in Hosea 1:10 and 2:1 in the salvation of the Gentiles. By analogy they were a people who were not God’s people, who then became God’s people. This application sees a significance that goes beyond the limited meaning that Hosea spoke to his Hebrew audience. Although the New Testament points to a different referent, there is a parallelism between what Hosea says and the conversion of the Gentiles.20
Nevertheless, the complete fulfillment of these promises must include a future restoration of Hebrew people, an idea Paul mentions in Romans 11:11–32. The essence of the promise Hosea gives in Hosea 1:10–2:1 contains a general truth that can be applied to the salvation of the Gentiles because the same thing happens in both cases—people experience God’s loving compassion, respond to it, and become his people. This task of bringing people into God’s family is at the heart of his plan for the world, and it is the privilege of every believer to play a part in telling the world about his deep affection for them. People everywhere can become “my loved one” and “my people.”