2“Rebuke your mother, rebuke her,
for she is not my wife,
and I am not her husband.
Let her remove the adulterous look from her face
and the unfaithfulness from between her breasts.
3Otherwise I will strip her naked
and make her as bare as the day she was born;
I will make her like a desert,
turn her into a parched land,
and slay her with thirst.
4I will not show my love to her children,
because they are the children of adultery.
5Their mother has been unfaithful
and has conceived them in disgrace.
She said, ‘I will go after my lovers,
who give me my food and my water,
my wool and my linen, my oil and my drink.’
6Therefore I will block her path with thornbushes;
I will wall her in so that she cannot find her way.
7She will chase her lovers but will not catch them;
she will look for them but will not find them.
Then she will say,
‘I will go back to my husband as at the first,
for then I was better off than now.’
8She will acknowledge that I was the one
who gave her the grain, the new wine and oil,
who lavished on her the silver and gold—
which they used for Baal.
9Therefore I will take away my grain when it ripens,
and my new wine when it is ready.
I will take back my wool and my linen,
intended to cover her nakedness.
10So now I will expose her lewdness
before the eyes of her lovers;
no one will take her out of my hands.
11I will stop all her celebrations:
her yearly festivals, her New Moons,
her Sabbath days—all her appointed feasts.
12I will ruin her vines and her fig trees,
which she said were pay from her lovers;
I will make them a thicket,
and wild animals will devour them.
13I will punish her for the days
she burned incense to the Baals;
she decked herself with rings and jewelry,
and went after her lovers,
but me she forgot,”
declares the LORD.
14“Therefore I am now going to allure her;
I will lead her into the desert
and speak tenderly to her.
15There I will give her back her vineyards,
and will make the Valley of Achor a door of hope.
There she will sing as in the days of her youth,
as in the days she came up out of Egypt.
16“In that day,” declares the LORD,
“you will call me ‘my husband’;
you will no longer call me ‘my master.’
17I will remove the names of the Baals from your lips;
no longer will their names be invoked.
18In that day I will make a covenant for them
with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air
and the creatures that move along the ground.
Bow and sword and battle
I will abolish from the land,
so that all may lie down in safety.
19I will betroth you to me forever;
I will betroth you in righteousness and justice,
in love and compassion.
20I will betroth you in faithfulness,
and you will acknowledge the LORD.
21“In that day I will respond,”
declares the LORD—
“I will respond to the skies,
and they will respond to the earth;
22and the earth will respond to the grain,
the new wine and oil,
and they will respond to Jezreel.
23I will plant her for myself in the land;
I will show my love to the one I called ‘Not my loved one.’
I will say to those called ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’;
and they will say, ‘You are my God.’ ”
Original Meaning
THIS LONG POETIC MESSAGE is structured into an initial series of accusations against an unfaithful wife and responses by God (2:2–15), and a series of promises concerning the restoration of the relationship between God and his people (2:16–23). The first section does not describe a linear progression of events but contains several accusations plus three “therefore” clauses (2:6, 9, 14). These latter clauses explain how God has attempted to change and heal his broken covenant relationship with his wife, Israel.
Chapter 2 centers on reflections concerning the problems described in chapter 1, though they focus more on the relationship between God and Israel rather than on Hosea and Gomer. The references to the prosperous production of grain, wine, oil, and wool indicate that this message comes during the last few years of Jeroboam II.1 Unfortunately, many in the nation interpreted these good times not as the result of God’s grace but as the blessing of Baal, the Canaanite god of fertility.
Several commentaries argue that Hosea and God are taking their wives to divorce court because accusations are brought against them (2:2), but this text lacks many of the usual indicators of a legal courtroom case (cf. 4:1–3, which is clearer).2 The threat of formally ending this relationship is real, as the language of litigation suggests, so perhaps this should be seen as a last-ditch attempt to save the covenant relationship before it is legally terminated. If there are no changes in the wife’s behavior, the marriage will be over, but God has not yet given up on his unfaithful wife. In the end he will win her back and reestablish his blessed covenantal relationship with his people (2:16–23).
The Rejection of Adulterous Ways (2:2–5)
THE LORD INSTRUCTS the children to “rebuke” (lit., accuse, contend with) their mother, but it is really God who is doing all the talking. The accusation “she is not my wife, and I am not her husband” (2:2) is a statement of fact based on the wife’s immoral behavior, but is probably not an official declaration of a divorce. This statement openly admits the obvious: Gomer is not behaving like Hosea’s wife, so Hosea cannot act like her husband.
The basis for God’s claim is the “adulterous look” and “unfaithfulness” between his wife’s breasts. Some contend these expressions refer to outward signs of a prostitute (makeup, tattoos, or jewelry from the Baal cult) used as provocative attractions for sexual encounters.3 But since the main thrust is to describe the people of Israel, not the prostitute Gomer, it is enough to see these as undeniable signs of their unfaithfulness. The reference to breasts suggests the sexual nature of the nation’s unfaithfulness. The words of God are not just a legal accusation, but a call to transform the people’s hearts and ways. God is trying to persuade Israel, his people, to remove the pagan culture of Canaan and its sexual fertility cult temples that dot the landscape.
This call for change is accompanied by a threat that God will bring shame on the nation and dry up the land so that there is no fertility (2:3). Like a dishonored husband who uncovers the nakedness of his wife,4 God will humiliate his people and turn their fertile farmlands into bare deserts, which produce nothing. This is another way of predicting the coming humiliation of Israel through the exile of the nation. God warns of a divine curse on the land and the removal of life-giving rain. Since Baal was the god of rain and fertility, this would be a clear sign of his powerlessness and the extreme consequences of unfaithful prostitution with other gods.
The sins of the nation are present in the “children of adultery” (Hos. 2:4) as well as in the “mother” (2:5). This is consistent with the imagery of 1:2, for Israel’s (and Gomer’s) prostitution has an effect on everyone. The connection between mother and children demonstrates that both share in the guilt, for most Israelites did not resist the introduction of Baalism into the culture by the spiritual and political leaders of Israel (Elijah and the 7,000 did resist, cf. 1 Kings 18–19). God will respond by withholding his love (Hos. 2:4 picks up the symbolization of Lo-Ruhamah in 1:6) because these are not his people/children, but the followers of Baal (2:5). In fact, this unfaithfulness was a purposely planned pursuit of other lovers. Like a bold strutting prostitute hunting down customers, the people of Israel quickly invited and pursued the Baal fertility religion that promised to bring more fertility for their crops of grain, grapes, and oil (2:5).
God’s Redemptive Plans for His Unfaithful People (2:6–15)
VERSE 6 BEGINS a series of three “therefore” clauses (see also vv. 9, 14) that describe what God plans to do to win back his unfaithful people. There is some indication that the nation will respond positively to God’s discipline (vv. 7b, 15b). It is important to realize that God is actually acting in grace rather than in anger. He will symbolically hedge his wife, like a farm animal, within a confined area with stone walls and fences made of thornbushes. This is for her own good and for the good of their relationship (cf. 3:3). It will protect her from straying off and returning to love other gods.
Hosea does not interpret this metaphor for us, but D. Stuart believes that God restrained Israel when it was politically subjugated to Assyria, that is, when Tiglath-Pileser III began to take control of the nation (2 Kings 15:19, 29; 16:7).5 The rise of Assyria did indeed limit Israel’s freedom, but how did this keep the people from worshiping Baal? H. W. Wolff, F. Andersen, and D. Freedman conclude that God intends to somehow block the pathways that lead to Baal’s temples around the land.6 But in light of the next verses, it seems better to suggest that God is actually trying to block the theological connection between worshiping Baal and the rewards of blessing from Baal.
How? God will frustrate Israel’s pursuit of Baal by discrediting the idol’s power (Hos. 2:7). It will appear as if Baal is not listening or has no power. This in turn will cause the Hebrew people to give up on him and decide to return to their first love—the God of Israel. God does this so that the people will realize that the God of Israel, not Baal, produces the fertility of the grain, wine, and oil (2:8).
The second “therefore” (Hos. 2:9) reemphasizes how God will transform the people’s thinking by reversing what he usually does. He will demonstrate his true sovereignty and ownership of nature (see Deut. 28:16, 38–40) and not allow the land to be fertile. When God takes away the gifts of his blessing (grain, wine, and wool), Baal will be shown to be impotent, a worthless god who cannot be trusted. This will bring shame on Israel and “expose her lewdness.” Her foolish prostitution of herself to Baal will be seen for what it really is.
God will strip her naked by stripping the land of any agricultural produce. This could be accomplished by sending a drought or by having a military power take the agricultural produce from the land. In either case, God, not Baal, will sovereignly be in control of Israel’s destiny.7 His commitment to the restoration of his covenant relationship with his people is evident in the statement that “no one will take her out of my hands” (Hos. 2:10).
Removing the fertility of Baal will eliminate any reason or theological basis for praising Baal at Israel’s sexually perverse festivals or weekly religious celebrations at his temples (2:11). Instead of having fertile gardens and vineyards, God will show that it does not pay to worship Baal (2:12), for these fruitful lands will become thickets inhabited by wild animals. This will be God’s way of punishing the nation for its worship of Baal. He will turn his back on Israel, just as Israel has jilted God by forgetting him (2:13).
The third “therefore” (2:14) describes a dramatic new step in God’s tactics to win back his wife, Israel. Using sexual terminology, God will “allure” (romantically entice) Israel back to himself, a jarring and unexpected divine method of persuasion. He will speak the tender love language that the people understand, for he deeply cares for this wife who rejected him. The picture Hosea presents involves an encounter between the couple out in the desert, where they will be alone; it will be a place where they can start over.
This picture brings back memories of the wonderful commitment the Israelites made when they came up out of Egypt and depended on God during their journey through the desert (Deut. 8; Jer. 2:2).8 It is unnecessary to know where this new desert will be. The concept is a metaphor for restoration after defeat. This new experience of complete dependence on God is what is important.
The resulting reversal of God’s attitude toward his wife, Israel, and Israel’s rejoicing (Hos. 2:15) indicate that this meeting in the desert will bring about a renewal of the covenantal relationship of love between God and Israel (2:7 already hinted at this). God will pour out his covenant blessings of food and transform the negative memory of Achan’s sin in the Valley of Achor (meaning “valley of trouble”; see Josh. 7) into a “door of hope.” The Israelites will not be judged as they were after Achan’s sin, but will be filled with hope, joy, and songs of praise to God. It will be like a new exodus experience; the power and might of God will be celebrated in a song similar to the one Moses sang in Exodus 15.9 What a day of rejoicing that will be!
The New Covenantal Relationship (2:16–23)
THE SECOND HALF of this oracle is structured around three “in that day” promises, which refer to events at some unknown time in the future (2:16, 18, 21).10 One is immediately struck with the total transformation of the relationship between God and his covenant people. They will relate to one another and the world around them in a new way. Harmony, love, and the renewal of God’s covenant relationship will characterize this era.
This period will begin with the reaffirmation of Israel’s covenant commitment to God (like repeating wedding vows11), in which she will cease to confuse God with Baal. God will be “my husband,” not “my master” (baʾal, also possible to translate, “my Baal/my lord”); thus, they will no longer confuse the significant difference between God and Baal (2:16). In fact, Baal’s name will not even be mentioned anymore (2:17). When the people worship and praise God, their devotion will be directed only to Israel’s true covenant God. This change is not ascribed to the will of the Israelites; rather, God is the One who will remove the name of Baal from their lips. His love and miraculous transformational power will bring about this change in the hearts and minds of his covenant people.
The second thing God will do “in that day” will be to reestablish a covenant relationship with his people and with nature (Hos. 2:18–20).12 In contrast to the past, when God’s judgment allowed animals to destroy things (2:12), this will be a time of peaceful relationships with the animals. Also in contrast to the past, when the sword and bow brought death to many on the earth, God’s new covenant will remove the fear of death and war (cf. Isa. 2:4; Mic. 4:3) because peace and security will exist among all peoples.
This change implies a transformation of the behavior, character, and wishes of all creatures and a return to the conditions before the curse came on the earth in Genesis 3.13 Such a dramatic change is nothing but the miraculous work of a sovereign, loving God. It will involve God’s reestablishment of his wedded relationship with his people (Hos. 2:19–20 contrasts with 2:2). He will create an unconditional, everlasting, and unending connection between himself and his covenant people. This relationship will last because it will be based on, and will be an expression of, the qualities of righteousness, justice, love, compassion, and faithfulness.
These qualities are related to the final act of “paying the bride price” (ʾrś in 2:19) in an earthly wedding (not just the initial “betrothal,” as NIV) at the end of the betrothal period and the beginning of the marriage. H. W. Wolff freely paraphrases the idea as, “I will eliminate your father’s last objections to our marriage by paying the amount he demands.”14 Thus, God himself gives his gifts of righteousness, justice, love, compassion, and faithfulness to cement this relationship into an unbreakable union that will last forever.
In other words, the new relationship will not be achieved through any acts of human goodness, nor will it be conditioned by qualities people must achieve. This covenant relationship is initiated and made possible by God; it is a gift of his mysterious grace and a union based on godly qualities. The divine gift of “righteousness” makes the people righteous in God’s eyes, the gift of “justice” ensures that their relationship will be characterized by equitable fairness, the gift of steadfast “love” will be revealed in the unfailing devotion of the parties for one another, the gift of “compassion” will surround the relationship with a deep caring affection, and the gift of “faithfulness” will ensure the consistency and reliability of this relationship.
The natural results will be that Israel will know (NIV “acknowledge”) God (playing off the marital use of “know” in this context15) in a totally new and intimate way. She will freely acknowledge God as her covenant partner and respond appropriately (2:20). This will be a stark contrast from the nation’s present ignoring of God and running after Baal (2:5).
The final “in that day” promises (2:21–23) describe the effects of this new relationship on life in this world. Once God’s people know and love him (2:15, 20), he can respond to their love by restoring the natural bounty and beauty of the created universe. Thus, God in his magnificent power, not Baal, will reinvigorate the heavens above so that the sky will function as it was originally designed and give rain to the ground (2:21). God will also empower the earth to be fertile (Baal will not do this) by responding to the rain in the way it was designed. As a result, grain, grapes, and olive oil will be produced in abundance.
God will even be the One who will plant the seeds (Jezreel meaning “God sows”16), so there will be no doubt about the abundant results in the future (2:22). But the sowing of God will not be limited to just planting crops; he will also “plant” his people in their promised land (2:23). Like a good farmer, the Lord will lovingly care for his land and those who were once “unloved.” These will now be proudly identified as “my people” rather than “not my people.” Through his miraculous love his people will gladly say, “You are my God.” These confessions of commitment almost sound like the “I take you as my wife/husband” of the marriage covenant ceremony. They demonstrate that God’s beautiful plan for this world will be accomplished through his grace in spite of the present rebelliousness and unfaithfulness of his people.
Bridging Contexts
FEMINIST AND DECONSTRUCTIONIST approaches to Hosea 2. Few would suggest that Hosea 2 is easy to interpret, and many find it difficult to propose principles that can naturally be applied to the Christian in the twenty-first century. The problematic nature of this story has led those who follow feminist and deconstructionist hermeneutical approaches to suggest unusual interpretations of Hosea 2. Rather than generalize on how either of these methods interprets Hosea’s poem in chapter 2, it is best to illustrate some of their strengths and weaknesses from several concrete examples.
G. Yee and other feminists are disturbed by the fact that this story metaphorically represents the sinful people in Israel as a woman because sometimes “the metaphorical character of the biblical image is forgotten and a husband’s physical abuse of his wife becomes as justified as is God’s retribution against Israel.”17 Although Yee finds the religious metaphors beautiful and profound, she has problems with these images because they support a common male strategy of wife control, justify physical abuse by a father and husband, and portray a seduction of the wife after the abuse.18 T. Setel objects to the slanted portrayal of women as passive and dependent on males, without any portrayal of their positive roles of providing food and clothing for the family or their positive reproductive and nurturing contributions to the family.19
These studies have tried to be relevant by raising legitimate issues based on serious problems in modern marriages, but their concerns seem to be more related to fears about what some might read into the text of Hosea 2 rather than to what the text actually says. Hosea 2 is about God and Israel (which includes both male and female people); it is not primarily about Hosea and Gomer’s marriage. This whole feminist approach is weakened by the fact that God does not abuse his wife, Israel, but shows his people that unfaithfulness to the covenant relationship has serious consequences. His goal is to remove the rewards of unfaithfulness and to restore the relationship he had with them at the beginning. Although I have never heard of anyone trying to justify wife abuse on the basis of Hosea’s or God’s behavior in this story, everyone would agree with Yee against any such misuse of this text.
A more serious threat to understanding the main point of God’s revelation through Hosea is the deconstructionist twisting of what this text says. F. van Dijk-Hemmes distorts this text by turning it into Gomer’s love song (parallel to the Song of Solomon), which Hosea has perverted to silence her, to stop her worship of the mother goddess, and to maintain his patriarchal control of her.20 Not only does this hypothesis of a love song seem impossible, its deconstruction as Hosea’s perversion of her sweet love song seems mostly imaginary and read into the text.21
Y. Sherwood’s book-length study openly attacks the marginalization of women from a deconstructionist’s and feminist’s point of view. Her analysis notes that: (1) Gomer is not allowed to name her children; (2) God is irrational because he switches from punishing to tenderly loving his wife; (3) the author of the poem has a distorted sexual perversity because he enjoys the lascivious act of stripping the woman in 2:2–3; and (4) the woman’s freedom is denied because her freedom threatens the patriarchal authority of the male.22
These lessons are drawn from the subversive voice of protest that undermines what the text says. That voice allows Sherwood to read into the text what she sees behind these factors, thus freeing her from what the text actually says. In this strange approach, Gomer’s prostitution is actually turned into a good thing because it gives Gomer economic freedom from her husband. This, in turn, is good because her freedom undermines the patriarchal dominance of the husband. Sherwood believes the purpose of the whole story is to deconstruct the evils of the patriarchal system and to show that women actually were loving and independent people. In the process of her analysis she talks much more about sex than the text does, hyperbolizes any hints of abuse, and tends not to focus on the real point of this passage, namely, God’s desire for a loving relationship with Israel.
Without getting into the weakness of the hermeneutics of deconstruction, it is evident that Sherwood frequently twists and turns the text’s message into a subversive voice that comes from her own imagination and her own personal convictions about male and female relationships.23 These modern readings of Hosea should not be taken lightly as unimportant, for they present to their adherents legitimate bridging principles that are then used to critique modern relationships between men and women. In addition, these ideological readings have a major influence on how these people view God and his relationship with his people. In contrast to these conclusions we will propose a different way of looking at Hosea 2.
Theological themes in Hosea 2. Although the graphic sexual images of the pagan Baal religion can initially intimidate the reader and complicate attempts to find abiding principles in this text, the shocking vulgarity of the text is purposely designed to open the interpreter’s eyes to the surprising way God views the unfaithfulness of his people. Sin is not pretty or something one can just overlook; it is a devastating betrayal of trust that goes to the heart of any relationship.
If an accountant sins by stealing money, can the boss trust him to handle the company’s money? If a babysitter is caught on video tape physically abusing the children, can a mother trust this person with her children? If a boss catches an employee lying about sales contacts, can that employee be trusted with an important new account? No, sin undermines the basis of any relationship between two people. Sin destroys a person’s relationship with God, and it will bring about national decline because of his judgment.
A second theological theme in Hosea 2 is the loving and just discipline of God. Because God cares about his relationship with people and wants that covenant relationship to continue, he confronts action that threatens to ruin that relationship. He must first make people aware that those who follow the commonly accepted beliefs and behaviors of this world are sinners in his eyes. This transforming perspective on unfaithfulness to God may come about through the convicting power of the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), through the exhortation of another believer (a modern Hosea), or through removing what people depend on (see Hos. 2:9). Sometimes people get caught, and their shameful sin is exposed (as Gomer was shamed and exposed, 2:3, 10).
In the midst of this discipline God may try to hedge in a person’s way to keep him or her from further sin (see 2:6). Certainly he will not accept the frail attempts to worship him by sinful people (see 2:11, 13). All of these efforts will attempt to show that the unfaithful person’s present theological worldview and behavior are wrong.24 By disrupting the people’s present connection between their deceptive faith and their blessings, God will show that there is an error in their thinking. By demonstrating that their present behavior brings judgment rather than God’s blessing, he instructs the attentive listener about his ways.
But God does not end his work with people with the theme of discipline, for hope in his eternal plans are not destroyed by the temporary failures of his people. Hosea contrasts the negative hopelessness of unfaithfulness and punishment with the allurement of a wonderful relationship with God, others, and all creation (2:14–23). God can tenderly speak to the deep desires and needs of people (see 2:14).
But the future is not dependent on the unknown possibility that people might or might not respond. No, God will so marvelously transform the thinking of people25 that they will no longer confuse him with any other source of dependence or trust (see comments on 2:16). God can and will change people so much that they no longer think of those past deceptive ways (2:17). He can and will bring hope and rejoicing where failure and trouble formerly existed (2:15).
This transformation of people today and in the future will create a new vital and personal covenant relationship with God and a new peaceful relationship with the world (see 2:18, 20–21). This can happen because God’s righteousness, justice, love, compassion, and faithfulness make it possible—not human abilities or characteristics (2:19–20). The only human activities that Hosea sees as significant are our identification with God alone (2:16), our praise of God for his mercy (2:15), and our acknowledgment of God as our covenant partner (2:20b, 23b). How will such a dramatic change take place? It all boils down to one thing: The unfaithful and unworthy prostitutes (i.e., you and me) will one day be “sons of the living God” (cf. 1:10) because of God’s deep, compassionate love (2:23).
Contemporary Significance
THE DANGERS OF SYNCRETISM. The interpretation and application of Hosea 2 is complicated by the constant reference to the Baal fertility cult that was so popular in Canaan during Hosea’s ministry. Since few if any perverse sexual religious cults honor pagan gods in most communities, Hosea’s message creates a foreign analogy that is not helpful for communicating with people in the twenty-first century. In order to overcome this problem, one can consider two alternative approaches that may help people understand the central theological issues Hosea addresses.
(1) One can focus on Israel’s basic misunderstanding of God’s power and sufficiency to provide everything people need. The tendency is for people of all ages to misunderstand where life, prosperity, meaning, and hope for the future come from.26 Can people really believe that God alone is sufficient to provide for all their needs? If people cannot trust God to meet their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs, then they will naturally look to other things—just as the Israelites looked to Baalism.
In an individualistic materialistic culture such as Western society today, we are constantly being tempted to depend on human abilities rather than on God. Moreover, it is easy to get sucked into the business worldview that places no reliance on God and substitutes for it an undue dependence on a job, the stock market, personal savings, or Social Security. Like Hosea, we must challenge our audiences to evaluate what their trust is based on. Do people actually see God as the final source of all economic blessing (Deut. 8:17–18)? Or is prosperity just the result of fortunately being at the right place at the right time, of smart farming procedures with the latest chemicals and fertilizers, of great investment advice, or of having the right genes to produce a high IQ? A central theme of Hosea 2 is that God is the only source who can meet people’s needs. Any attempt to replace his proper role is seen as a prostitution of loyalties.
In Hosea, God’s method of teaching people to recognize his all-sufficiency is to discipline them and remove their blessings; thus, today one might discuss different ways in which God “hints” that he is unhappy with the status quo of the sinner. Exhortations and commands in the Bible reveal in an unmistakable way what he approves of and hates. Equally important are the examples of biblical characters in the past who are a positive or negative example to all who live after them (1 Cor. 10:11). Failed marriages because of unfaithfulness, jail sentences for doing drugs, teenagers who have illegitimate children due to immorality, and the dead body of a college student who binge-drank himself to death are all indications that choices have consequences for anyone who might be tempted to experiment on the dangerous side of life.
Hosea teaches that God’s discipline will persistently frustrate a person’s evil desires and will remove the positive rewards people seek. Discipline is instructive and has the redemptive purpose of changing the way people think and act. God’s discipline also involves the invitation (or “allurement”) to try God’s way. His way involves the discipline of total devotion to God and complete dependence on his gifts; it is not gained by any human effort or worth. Hosea makes it obvious that it is the sufficiency of God’s righteousness, justice, love, compassion, and faithfulness (Hos. 2:19–20) that transforms a sinful person into one of his covenantal children.
In the analogy, Gomer does not clean up her act so perfectly that she deserves to come back to her husband, and neither do we. It is only by God’s grace that we are saved; it is a gift from him that no one deserves or earns (Eph. 2:8–9). In the end, complete dependence on the sufficiency of God is what trust and faith are all about. Any focus on self or dependence on anything else detracts from the marvelous sufficiency of Almighty God.
(2) Another way of approaching the tension that existed between Baalism and the worship of Israel’s God in Hosea 2 is to deal with the problem of the syncretism of cultural ideas (modern Baalism) into the biblical worldview. Hosea’s audience knew some things about God and worshiped at the Israelite temple at Bethel, so they had a form and the look of godliness about them. Their problem was that they gradually allowed theological ideas and practices from the Canaanite religion of their day to mix with their vague memories of biblical teachings.27 This mixing soon resulted in many people seeing no difference between Baal and Yahweh (see 2:16). Israel’s faith was adapted into Canaanite culture rather than transforming Canaanite culture.
Two opposite theologies and two contrasting moral ways of life were combined by ignoring both the holy requirements to be separated to God and the requirement to be separate from sin (see Lev. 18:24–30; 20:1–8, 22–27; Deut. 7:1–6). This syncretism of their culture led the Israelites to a religious way of thinking inconsistent with the ways of God.
A parallel struggle still exists today between the moral values of modern cultures and biblical teachings. Since almost everyone is raised and taught how to be worldly-wise, and since we are constantly impacted by immoral values of the mass media, it is hard to resist all of this enculturation. Not so subtle values such as the freedom to do your own thing, tolerance and pluralism, violence, materialism, lack of absolutes, and individual rights are affirmed over and over again by highly respected people. It is not surprising that some people who go to Christian churches have syncretized these ideas with the biblical message by reinterpreting the Bible to fit or support a worldview that is inconsistent with the Bible. Certainly Jesus did not try to fit in with the thinking of the people of his day. He chose to be different from the hypocritical, alms-giving Pharisees (Matt. 6:1–4); he even gave a more stringent command than the Old Testament law against committing adultery (5:27–28).
When serving on a summer missions program in Xatapa, Mexico, some years ago, I was surprised one day to see a native “holy man” carrying a pagan idol into the local Catholic church for a religious festival. Although I could not understand the local dialect to interpret what was happening, it was clear that the Catholic priest in that village had compromised portions of the biblical faith to the religious culture of the Indians to win their support. A similar syncretistic amalgamation of Israelite and Canaanite religion happened in Israel at the time of Hosea, and it still is happening in churches today. Although the church needs to speak to the issue of each era, it must resist any slanting of the message just to make it more palatable to the hearers.
The lines between Christianity and the cultures of the world vary from country to country. Many Western countries have had the broad influence of Catholic or Protestant Christianity for hundreds of years. Both modern and postmodern thought patterns have made major inroads into this Judeo-Christian approach to the Christian way of life. Consequently, people have begun to address the “culture wars” in which conflicting values are struggling to define life in the United States and other Western countries.28
This is a fight for the identity of Christianity. Will we accept homosexual marriages as normative? Will parents and local authorities control education? Will the values of some ideological group dictate what is normative? Will the media report the news impartially, or should it be allowed to create the news and sway public opinion by the way it presents only half the truth? What are the ethics of political compromise? Can any politician be trusted?
Writers like David Wells have responded by strongly opposing the postmodern trends that have infiltrated our daily lives and undercut orthodox Christianity.29 Certainly much of what he says about the disastrous state of the church is true because too many people have syncretized their beliefs with modern cultural trends and thus lost the distinctive heart of their faith. But we are in the world, and we must reach it with the transforming message of the gospel. Thus, we cannot just run off and hide in a cave by ourselves.
Many years ago H. Richard Niebuhr suggested that we have various choices: to take a stand against culture, to put Christ above culture, to leave Christ and culture in some sort of paradoxical relationship, to make Christ the transformer of culture, or to mix Christ with culture.30 The choice between these options is not always clear, and there may not be only one model of operation for all believers in every culture. The central question that those who engage the culture must ask is: How can I maintain the purity of my faith in the midst of this foreign world?
All believers agree that denial of the existence of God in a materialistic culture must be resisted and opposed, but sometimes the more threatening problems are those that are less obvious. They innocently shade the truth by millimeters rather than miles and gradually wear down a person’s logical objections because they seem so minor. Sometimes, like the Israelites and the Pharisees, people continue to worship, pray, and tithe, but they do not please God. Therefore, people need to be alert because the devil desires to devour them; they must examine their own lives for unhealthy compromises, confess their failures and turn from them, correct and forgive their fellow believers in a spirit of love, and strive for the unity and purity of the faith (Eph. 4:1–6).
People may not always know the extent to which they themselves have syncretized and compromised their beliefs with the philosophies of this world because each of us has an immense ability to be self-deceived (Jer. 17:9). Thus, it is important for us to immerse ourselves in the Word of God so that our minds can be transformed by the work of the Holy Spirit. As Hosea indicates, a belief system that simply accepts this world’s thinking and combines it with a few Bible verses looks and acts like an unholy prostitution of true faith.
God’s saving grace. A final application of Hosea 2 relates to God’s great acts of grace when he restores his covenant relationship with his people and with nature (2:16–23). These great eschatological promises of a transformation of nature and people who do not know God give hope to the believer today. We have the great promise that God will one day restore this sinful world. In his sovereign power, he will act in righteousness, justice, love, compassion, and faithfulness to accomplish his plan.
There is nothing we can do to transform this world into a paradise; it is completely dependent on God. This will happen because we have the sure promise of God that he will take us as his bride. Such promises assure us that he will have victory over sin in the end. Although the world may be full of sinful people who cause great pain and suffering, God’s original plan for creation will bring this evil world to an end.