1. Please note that in general, when the authors discuss words in the original biblical languages, the series uses a general rather than a scholarly method of transliteration.
1. D. B. Guralink, ed., Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (New York: Warner, 1987), 357.
2. W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. J A. Beker, 2 vols. (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961, 1967), 1:232.
3. Ibid., 1:233.
4. Ibid., 1:250.
5. J. Bright, A History of Israel, 3d ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981), 269–74.
6. W. Kaiser, A History of Israel from the Bronze Age Through the Jewish Wars (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1998), 357–64.
7. J. Day (“Baal,” ABD, 1:548) supports the view that sacred prostitution was part of the Baal cult, though nothing is said of this in the Ugaritic epic myths about Baal. K. van der Toorn (“Prostitution,” ABD, 5:510–13) presents some of the arguments that dispute the biblical connection between Baalism and prostitution.
8. G. A. F. Knight, Hosea (London: SCM, 1960), 13, thought he was a baker, based on Hos. 7:4–7; H. W. Wolff, Hosea (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 79–80, thought he was a Levite. Neither option is convincing. The fact is, we just do not know.
9. Hosea usually does not tell where he was when he was delivering his sermons, or who he was speaking to, so it is not wise to put a lot of weight on this point. The theme of his messages can be identified without knowing exactly where he was in the nation of Israel.
10. J. L. Mays, Hosea (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 3, 26, also suggests she could have been a common harlot.
11. E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (London: Tyndale, 1960), 253, maintains that if this was a real marriage, it would have destroyed Hosea’s credibility.
12. See D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (WBC; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), 10–12.
13. L. Wood, The Prophets of Israel (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 279.
14. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 11.
15. H. H. Rowley, “The Marriage of Hosea,” Men of God (New York: Nelson, 1963), 66–97, surveys a variety of approaches commentaries take.
16. F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea (AB; Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1980), 71–73, 315–16, downplay the use of known literary structures identified by form critics because Hosea’s use of these is so unusual. W. Brueggemann, however, Tradition for Crisis (Richmond: John Knox, 1968), 55–90, illustrates the use of the covenant lawsuit in Hosea’s messages.
17. See G. V. Smith, An Introduction to the Hebrew Prophets: The Prophets as Preachers (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 5–25, for a study of the role of prophetic persuasion in the process of theological and social transformation.
18. See the extensive discussion of traditions used by Hosea in Brueggemann, Tradition for Crisis, 26–54.
19. See G. V. Smith, Introduction to the Hebrew Prophets, 32–45, for a discussion of how the prophets legitimated their messages through the use of past authoritative tradition.
20. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, xxxi–xlii, gives a long list of categories of curses, many of which are related to judgments in Hosea’s sermons.
21. A. A. Macintosh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997), lxiv, gives many examples of these.
22. See some of the emendations of 4:4 in E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), 359.
23. W. R. Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1905), clix–clxiii, discusses the various different types of later additions to Hosea. G. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea (Atlanta: Scholars, 1987), 1–25, describes various theories concerning the composition of Hosea and hypothesizes two later redactors who added positive information to Hosea’s words.
24. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 59, recognize the impossibility of proving there were later redactors.
25. L. Gilkey, “The Concept of Providence in Contemporary Theology,” JR 43 (1963): 171.
26. J. D. Hunter, American Evangelicalism: Conservative Religion and the Quandary of Modernity (New Brunswick: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1983); R. Quebedeux, The Worldly Evangelicals (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1978).
27. H. Cox, The Secular City (New York: Macmillan, 1965).
28. L. I. Sweet, “The 1960s: The Crisis of Liberal Christianity and the Public Emergence of Evangelicalism,” Evangelicalism and Modern America, ed. G. Marsden (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), 33.
29. Ibid., 34.
1. Wolff, Hosea, 12, and Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 25, argue for an early date for this material.
2. The positive words of hope in 1:10–2:1 are sometimes identified as the words of a later redactor, but it is customary for Hosea to abruptly place paradoxical words of hope next to prophecies of judgment. The thematic connections between the original names of the children and the new names in the future require a close connection for the audience to see the great reversal that God will accomplish. See Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea, 68–72, who assigns these verses to a second deuteronomistic redactor after the exile. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 36, gives seven connections between Hos. 1:2–9 and 1:10–2:1 that indicate these two sections go together. G. I. Emmerson, Hosea: An Israelite Prophet in Judean Perspective (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 15–16, maintains these verses are a part of Hosea’s preaching.
3. See the Introduction for the political, social, and religious background of this period.
4. See the earlier discussion and critique of these options in the Introduction.
5. Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, trans. M. Greenberg (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960), 370–71.
6. Harper, Amos and Hosea, 207, takes the first approach, while G. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1974), 323, calls the second the proleptic view.
7. We do not know if Gomer’s father was Diblaim or if Diblaim was the village where she was raised.
8. T. McComiskey, The Minor Prophets, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992, 1995, 1998), 1:12, but Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 162, 167, argue convincingly against this proposal.
9. D. A. Garrett, Hosea, Joel (NAC; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997), 56.
10. M. Butterworth, “
,” NIDOTTE, 3:1093–95.
11. RSV, NEB, and NASB have a similar translation as NIV.
12. Stuart, Hosea, Jonah, 31, follows W. Kuhnigk, who suggested that nśʾ (to lift up, forgive) was confused with nšʾ (to reject). T. McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 1:25, and R. C. Ortlund, Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 53, argue for “to take away.”
13. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 5, 194, inappropriately continue the negatives of 1:6 into 1:7 and thus reverse the promises to Judah into curses by translating “nor for the state of Judah will I show pity or save them.”
14. Wolff, Hosea, 25, relocates these verses beside 2:23–25, where these names reappear, while Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea, 55, 68–76, sees these verses as a redactional addition by a second exilic editor. These verses are repeatedly tied to the names of Hosea’s children in 1:2–9; thus there is an inner unifying cohesion within its structure (see Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 36, for some of these connections).
15. Mays, Hosea, 32. A second point of this title may be a purposeful contrast between “the living God” and Baal, the Canaanite fertility god who was so popular among those in Hosea’s audience.
16. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 208–9, and Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 39, follow this approach, but neither concept is usually expressed this way because “the land” usually refers to Israel, not the land of captivity or the place of the dead.
17. McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 1:30. This view seems to have fewer problems. Macintosh, Hosea, 31–32, surveys seven approaches to this problem and prefers to relate this line to the growing of vegetation.
18. See M. Butterworth, “,” NIDOTTE, 3:1093–95; “Mercy, Compassion,” NIDNTT, 2:593–601.
19. See M. Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983), 1:292–96; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:250–58.
20. See the discussion of Paul’s use of Hosea in T. Schreiner, Romans, (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 527–30.
1. Wolff, Hosea, 33, suggests “during the last years of Jeroboam II, i.e., around 750.”
2. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 218–19; Macintosh, Hosea, 45; and Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 75, argue against a legal court procedure, while Mays, Hosea, 35; Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 45; and Wolff, Hosea, 33, argue for it. Although we see legal talk reminding us of what happens in court, it seems that this is not a formal divorce proceeding in a court. These are the preliminary arguments that present the evidence for a case, but the purpose is primarily redemptive—to save the marriage rather than end it.
3. Mays, Hosea, 38, and D. A. Hubbard, Hosea, (TOTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989), 73, argue for this interpretation, although there is little to confirm what prostitutes or the Baal cult functionaries looked like. Wolff, Hosea, 34, thinks these might refer to tattoos or cuts on the body from a cultic ceremony.
4. C. H. Gordon, “Hos 2:4–5 in the Light of New Semitic Inscriptions,” ZAW 54 (1936): 277–80, found this practice of shaming a wife in a Nuzi tablet, so it may have existed in Israel (though there is no proof that this early Mesopotamian custom was ever used in Israel). The reference to this practice in Jer. 13:22–27 and Ezek. 16:37–39 at least suggests that the practice was well known, if it was not commonly practiced.
5. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 49.
6. Wolff, Hosea, 36; Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 237–38.
7. This contrast becomes clearer when one realizes that the name Baal means “lord, owner, master.” God will show that he is their Master and the Lord of nature and history.
8. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 88–91, has an excellent discussion of the various positive and negative ways the desert theme is used in the Old Testament.
9. See Rev. 15:3–4 for a similar joyous singing of the Song of Moses.
10. I do not agree with Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea, 54–55, 86–90, who attributes most of this salvation oracle to a later redactor. G. I. Emmerson, Hosea: An Israelite Prophet in Judean Perspective (Sheffield: JSOT,1984), 27–35, makes a detailed study of this section and concludes that there is nothing here that proves that this material did not come from Hosea.
11. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 278, maintain that “the eschaton is the wedding day,” but it is hard to see this as the original wedding; it is more like a recommitment to the original covenant partner.
12. C. J. H. Wright, An Eye for an Eye: The Place of Old Testament Ethics Today (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1983), 19, connects these three aspects in Israelite theology.
13. See Isa. 11:6–8 and Ezek. 34:25–30, where similar secure conditions are described.
14. Wolff, Hosea, 52, shows from comparisons with human weddings in Israel that this verse is not pointing to the engagement, but to the consummation events; thus he translates Hos. 2:19, “I will make you my own” (46).
15. yadaʿ (to know) can refer to cohabitation of a married couple (see, e.g., Gen. 4:1).
16. This is consistent with the use of Jezreel in Hos. 1:11 and presents a sharp contrast to the negative meaning of Jezreel in 1:4.
17. G. Yee, “Hosea,” The Women’s Bible Commentary, ed. C. A. Newsom and S. H. Ringe (London: SPCK, 1992), 195; T. D. Setel, “Prophets and Pornography: Female Sexual Imagery in Hosea,” Feminist Interpretations of the Bible, ed. L. M. Russell (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985), 86, sees Hosea as the “first to use objectivized female sexuality as evil.”
18. Yee, “Hosea,” 199–200.
19. Setel, “Prophets and Pornography: Female Sexual Imagery in Hosea,” 92–93.
20. F. van Dijk-Hemmes, “The Imagination of Power and the Power of Imagination: An Intertextual Analysis of Two Biblical Love Songs: The Song of Songs and Hosea 2,” JSOT 44 (1989): 75–88.
21. See R. C. Ortlund, Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology, 177–85, for an extended critique of van Dijk-Hemmes’s article.
22. Y. Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea’s Marriage in Literary-Theological Perspective (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 33–40.
23. See Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 124–33, for an extended critique of this approach to Hosea.
24. P. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise on the Sociology of Knowledge (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1966), discuss the process of developing a worldview through social contact with others.
25. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 58, sees that God imposes this new covenantal relationship.
26. Ortlund, Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology, 49, points to this idea as the basic theological problem Israel faced.
27. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 76, 79, also sees the mother of the story (Gomer) as symbolic of the Canaanite culture of Hosea’s day.
28. J. D. Hunter, Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America (New York: Basic Books, 1991).
29. D. F. Wells, No Place for Truth: Or Whatever Happened to Evangelical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).
30. H. R. Niebuhr, Christ and Culture (New York: Harper and Row, 1951).
1. I disagree with Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 64, who does not think the woman in 3:1–3 is Gomer. Such a proposal destroys the analogy between God and his people. God is not saying he will leave Israel and take a new wife. The fact that this woman is an adulterous woman (3:1) identifies her with Gomer.
2. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea, 57–63, doubts that Hosea is the author of 3:1–5 (others only question 3:5), but Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 292–93, reject this view.
3. The “raisin cakes” were some kind of sweet food made from dried grapes. They were something of a delicacy and apparently were eaten at religious ceremonies at the pagan temples (Jer. 7:18; 44:19).
4. Some suggest she sold herself into slavery or that she sold herself to a local temple as a prostitute. See Wolff, Hosea, 61.
5. “You shall dwell with me” is better than the NIV’s “You are to live with me,” although Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 301, make a good case for “you must wait for me” because of the prepositional phrase “for me.”
6. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 66; Mays, Hosea, 58, calls this love that imprisons a “strange tactic.”
7. The last line has no verb, so some insert “not live” from the preceding phrase, thus implying that others will not live with her and Hosea will not live with her either (see Wolff, Hosea, 56). This contradicts the first statement that “she will dwell with me”; therefore, it seems best to see the last line as a contrast to his statement that “she will not be a prostitute or belong to other men.” The literal “and I will be to you” probably means “I will be yours.” See Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 102.
8. Some object to the reference to David because it is part of Judah’s eschatology, not Israel’s; they claim it was added by a later Judean editor (Wolff, Hosea, 63). But Amos had no trouble talking to Israelites about the restoration of the Davidic kingdom (Amos 9:11–15). We do not believe the Davidic tradition is solely the property of Judah, for David made a covenant with the northern tribes (2 Sam. 5:1–3). In fact, the men of Israel felt that David belonged more to them than Judah in 2 Sam. 19:43. Ahijah even promised Jeroboam I the covenant God promised to David if he would serve God (1 Kings 11:30–38). At times the “house of David” may be a specific reference to the government in Jerusalem, but not all general references to David are from people in Judah.
9. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 1:250.
10. P. T. O’Brien, Colossians, Philemon (WBC; Waco: Word, 1982), 204, emphasizes how important love is to the corporate life of the church if it is to function as a fellowship of believers.
11. D. E. Garland, Colossians, Philemon (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998), 262–66, spends a great deal of space discussing submission but only a short final paragraph on love.
1. Macintosh, Hosea, 194; Wolff, Hosea, 111; Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 100; and Mays, Hosea, 86, all relate these events to this devastating war when Assyria took control of Syria, Israel, and Judah.
2. C. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, trans. H. C. White (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 199–201, finds similar legal procedures in Isa. 1 and 3. See also H. B. Houffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” JBL 78 (1959): 285–95.
3. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 335–36, shy away from a legal understanding of the text because it does not fit an ideal form of a lawsuit, while Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 107–8, dismisses this comparison with the lawsuit.
4. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 73–74, outlines the parts of each segment in detail.
5. H. Wildberger, “
ʾmn, firm, secure,” Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. E. Jenni and C. Westermann, 2 vols. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997): 1:134–57; R. W. Moberley, “,” NIDOTTE, 1:427–33.
6. D. A. Bear and R. P. Gordon,“
,” NIDOTTE, 2:211–18.
7. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 110, emphasizes both aspects.
8. It is difficult to understand what the NIV translation “for your people are like those who bring charges against a priest” means. The people were blindly following their evil priests, they were not bringing charges against them. By changing one vowel to make “your people” into “with you” and understanding the comparative “like” in the NIV as a dittography of the pronominal suffix “you” on the preceding word one gets the understandable “but with you is my contention, O priest.”
9. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 345, think the objector in Hos. 4:4a is a priest.
10. The Hebrew of 4:7b actually says, “I will change their glory into disgrace,” which Macintosh, Hosea 141; Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 119; and McComiskey, The Minor Prophets, 1:62–63 (and RSV) keep, but most others (including NIV and NASB) follow the “emendation of the scribes” and other versions in order to read, “they exchanged their Glory for something disgraceful.”
11. The NIV reads part of Hos. 4:11 with 4:10, hiding the change to a new topic in vv. 11–14. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 71, and others follow this same approach, but Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 121, wisely rejects this reconfiguration and properly translates the end of 4:10 as “for they have abandoned keeping faith with Yahweh.” Although 4:10 only has “keeping,” in Deuteronomy this verb is always associated with the positive act of maintaining one’s relationship with God.
12. J. Day, “Baal,” ABD, 1:548, supports the view that sacred prostitution was part of the Baal cult, though nothing is said of this in the Ugaritic epic myths about Baal. In a later article on “Prostitution” (ABD, 5:510–13), K. van der Toorn presents arguments that dispute the biblical connection between Baalism and prostitution.
13. See W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1956), 75–76, for a fuller description of the pagan ritual of Baalism. Wolff, Hosea, 86–87, refers to Herodotus’s account of a similar cult of prostitution in Babylon some years later.
14. See Amos 5:5 for a similar warning to the Israelites.
15. The NIV translates the last line in Hos. 4:18 as “their rulers dearly love shameful ways,” but the word for rulers is actually the word “shields.” Mays, Hosea, 76, translate it “shameless,” and Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 72, prefers “insolence.” Most ancient readers would probably not take the reference to shields as a symbol of their rulers. Since God is called a shield (Gen. 15:1; Ps. 3:3; 7:10; 18:30), Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 139, proposes that this is a symbol of or appellation of one of their gods.
16. See Ortlund, Whoredom: God’s Unfaithful Wife in Biblical Theology, 137–52, for a discussion of the New Testament usage of the marriage symbolism between Christ and the church. If the church is the bride, then it is natural to think of unfaithfulness to the bridegroom as prostitution.
17. Even here, however, the process of indoctrination in a cult is often subtle; see Mary Alice Chrnalogar, Twisted Scriptures (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000).
18. Getting permission from (or at least informing) the church council might be a wise step before attempting this kind of sermon.
19. J. MacArthur, Church Leadership (Chicago: Moody, 1989), 11. This fact was verified by one of my students, who was called to serve a church only to find out that half of his church council had little or no interest in spiritual things.
20. G. Barna, Today’s Pastors (Ventura, Calif.: Regal, 1993), 58. He also quotes one pastor from a church in Alabama who said, “I don’t think any pastor truly committed to the gospel could look at America today and claim we’ve revolutionized this country.”
21. Ibid., 71.
22. J. Hunter, Evangelicalism (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1987), 19–50, deals with these theological changes. For example, only 66 percent of college students and 68 percent of seminary students agreed that “the only hope for heaven is through personal profession of faith in Jesus Christ” (35–36). The collection of essays edited by G. Marsden in Evangelicalism and Modern America (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) also outlines some of the changes taking place within that movement.
23. W. James, Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking (New York: Meridian, 1955).
24. M. Erickson, Christian Theology, 1:43–44, quotes James as saying, “On pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, it is ‘true.’ ” This is not a strong or biblical endorsement of the foundation of all faith.
25. J. Piper, God’s Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), 23, points to the criticisms by O. Guinness, Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals Don’t Think and What to Do About It (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994).
26. A. Fernando, The Supremacy of Christ (Wheaton: Crossway, 1998), 112–13.
27. J. MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel (Wheaton: Crossway, 1993), xii–xvii, sees many negative examples of pragmatism in the church.
28. J. Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), 17–26, deals with the goal of preaching.
1. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 149, rejects this hypothesis because it does not fit certain expectations. He objects to the idea in Hos. 5:10 that Judah is the aggressor, but it would not be odd for Judah to try to take back some of its territory after the Assyrians defeated her enemies. No one can date the appeal to avoid this conflict with Assyria in 5:13, but this may have happened anytime during these battles or at the end of the war, when Hoshea paid tribute to the Assyrians (2 Kings 17:3).
2. The Heb. text is not clear, so several educated guesses are possible. Several commentaries favor a reference to the town “Shittim,” but no reading is without problems.
3. Wolff, Hosea, 98–99. One problem is that we do not know which city of Mizpah (in Gilead or Benjamin) Hosea is referring to.
4. As McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 1:78, concludes, the “pride of Israel” in this context does not refer to God himself, but to things like the nation’s history, wealth, territory, and institutions.
5. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 92, prefers to translate the word “shackles” rather than “discipline,” which makes a nice contrast with snare and net in Hos. 5:1.
6. Wolff, Hosea, 110–12, builds on, but adjusts various points in Alt’s hypothesis of a counterattack. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 102–6, also sees this as Judah’s counterattack, though there is no reference to any such attack in Kings or Chronicles.
7. P. M. Arnold, “Hosea and the Sin of Gibeah,” CBQ 51 (1989): 447–60, includes a critique of Alt’s views and proposes his own approach, based on a different geographic location of the cities in 5:8. Arnold believes both Hos. 5:8 and Isa. 10:27–32 trace the progress of this attack into Judah.
8. Wolff, Hosea, 114.
9. Deut. 19:14; 27:17 as well as Prov. 22:28; 23:10 warn against taking other people’s land by moving boundary stones.
10. The word translated “idols” in NIV is unclear. ṣw could refer to something “worthless” (Wolff, Hosea, 104), “filth” (Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 410), “command, policy” (Garrett, Hosea., Joel, 152), “blah” (Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 99). If the word carries the idea of something that is empty or worthless, Hosea is probably referring to Israel’s policy to follow this path of war rather than to her sin of idolatry.
11. ʾš has been translated “moth, pus, maggot, decay, sickness.” The parallelism argues against moth and for one of the other alternatives. See the discussion in Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 412; Wolff, Hosea, 115.
12. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 105, thinks this verse may refer to Hoshea’s submission and payment of tribute to Assyria immediately after the assassination of Pekah, the king who got Israel into this war (2 Kings 15:29–30; 17:3–4). But if Hosea is referring to events at the end of this war, it is surprising that he does not also mention Judah’s mistake of calling on Assyria. McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 1:85, prefers a reference to Menahem in Hos. 5:13.
13. J. R. Clinton, Leaders, Leadership and the Bible (Atlanta: Barnabas Resources, 1993), gives many examples of these and other biblical leaders.
1. Mays, Hosea, 92, believes it stands apart from 5:10–14 as well as 6:1–3.
2. Wolff, Hosea, 116; and Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 415, see the connection because of the repetition of the same verb “I will go” in 5:14 and 15.
3. Mays, Hosea, 92, follows this approach.
4. G. Yee, Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea, 157–58, does not believe Hosea wrote this section but assigns it to Redactor 2. Wolff, Hosea, 116–17, believes this penitential song was sung by the priests, not Hosea; but Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 107, contends that its close literary connection to the preceding verses supports the idea that Hosea spoke these words.
5. “On the third day” is used in Luke 24:7 and 1 Cor. 15:4 in reference to the resurrection of Jesus, but it is hard to see any messianic reference in this verse. Some do suggest an analogy between the two situations (see H. K. McArthur, “On the Third Day,” NTS 18 [1971–1972]: 81–86).
6. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 420; Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 108; and Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 158, see a resurrection in Hos. 6:2, but Mays, Hosea, 92, and Wolff, Hosea, 117, prefer a revival from an injury. The New Testament and the early church fathers do not use this verse as a proof text for the resurrection of Jesus until Tertullian’s Against Marcion.
7. The Hebrew ʾor means “light” except in those few cases where there is a thunderstorm. It that context lightning is being described (Job 37:3, 11, 15). “Upon you” in the NIV has been added and is not in the Hebrew.
8. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 110, sees God’s justice as “inevitable and all-encompassing.” It is what brought destruction on the nation in the Syro-Ephraimite war. Mays, Hosea, 97, interprets the sun positively. The prophets preached the light of God’s way in all its clarity, but the people rejected the light of his Word.
9. R. M. Riss, A Survey of 20th Century Revival Movements in North America (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988), mentions revivals before the Reformation and during the Reformation (1515–1590), the Puritan revivals in England, the Great Awakening in America, and nineteenth-century revivals; the book also gives a detailed summary of twentieth-century revivals.
10. T. Phillips, The Welsh Revival: Its Origin and Development (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1989), 2.
11. J. Bright, The Coming Revival: America’s Call to Fast, Pray, and “Seek God’s Face” (Orlando: New Life, 1995), 79–80.
12. H. T. Blackaby and C. V. King, Experiencing God: Knowing and Doing the Will of God (Nashville: LifeWay, 1990), 33, illustrate this from the life of George Mueller.
13. I. H. Murray, Revival and Revivalism (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), 359.
14. Some calls to revival include fasting as well (e.g., 2 Chron. 20:3–4; Joel 2:15). Bright, The Coming Revival, 101ff., gives practical help on fasting, based on Bill Bright’s own forty-day fast.
15. Phillips, The Welsh Revival, 13.
1. Wolff, Hosea, 137; Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 130; and Mays, Hosea, 114, date Hos. 8:1 to just after 733 B.C. and connect it with the attack by the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III.
2. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 433, 435, think this event was during the transition from Jeroboam II to Menahem, when several kings were assassinated (2 Kings 15).
3. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 111, interprets ʾdm as “dirt, soil,” as does D. J. McCarthy, “Berit in Old Testament History and Theology,” Bib 53 (1972): 110–21. Macintosh, Hosea, 236, list other views: Harper thinks this refers to “mankind,” and Ridderbos prefers the person “Adam.” Note that Gilead in Hos. 6:8 and Shechem in 6:9 are places.
4. McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 1:98–100, is one example of this division.
5. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 112, interprets the harvest as a sign of God’s abundant blessings. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 166, sees the harvest as a punishment, but interprets Hos. 7:1–2 as a promise of restoration.
6. Commentators are forced to emend some words and make educated guesses concerning how these words fit together. The oven and baker images make an unusual and difficult comparison, but the burning heat of the oven seems to offer the central analogy for Hosea.
7. Wolff, Hosea, 111; Mays, Hosea, 104; and Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 117, think this section specifically describes the assassination of Pekah by Hoshea in 733 B.C. (see 2 Kings 15:30).
8. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 446, believe a group of priests (Hos. 6:9) assassinate the king and his princes, but the text does not say this. They do not take the baker as a metaphor but think the king’s baker is at the head of this plot (451).
9. McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 1:104, thinks Hosea refers to sexual unfaithfulness.
10. This may refer to bread that is burnt on one side and not cooked on the other, or to bread that is not kneaded before it is placed in the oven. If the baker neglects the bread, it will be rejected as inedible.
11. The NIV repoints “like a report” to read “when I heard.” Wolff, Hosea, 107, emends the last line to read “according to the report of their wickedness,” while Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 115–16, has “I will punish them sevenfold for their evil.”
12. McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 1:111–12.
13. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 123; Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 473, who are followed by Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 172.
14. The “gather together” in 7:14 is possible, but “cut themselves” (cf. NIV note), a possible reference to a Baal ritual (1 Kings 18:28), may be what Hosea is talking about (see Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 475).
15. M. McCloskey, Tell It Often—Tell It Well (San Bernardino, Calif.: Here’s Life, 1985), 92, believes on biblical grounds that we must challenge the present philosophies that control the way many people think.
16. Ibid.
17. Michael Novack, Belief and Unbelief (New York: MacMillan, 1965), 35.
18. J. Edwards, “Man’s Natural Blindness in the Things of Religion,” The Works of President Edwards (New York: Carter and Brothers, 1864), 4:26.
1. McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 1:119, thinks Hosea is describing the enemy, who will swoop down like an eagle and destroy the people.
2. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 181, prefers a reference to a temple because that is the meaning of “house of the LORD” in Hos. 9:4, but 9:8 and 15 demonstrate that Hosea can use this phrase in several different ways.
3. God chose earlier kings and sent prophets to anoint them (1 Sam. 10:1; 16:13; 1 Kings 11:29; 2 Kings 9:1).
4. Hosea 8:4b probably refers to the destruction of the idols made of silver and gold, not to the destruction of the Israelites. See Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 481, 493, who translate the phrase “so that it will be cut off.” This idea should not just be omitted as a gloss, as Mays, Hosea, 118, suggests.
5. Mays, Hosea, 120, believes this refers to Hoshea’s payment of a large tribute to Tiglath-Pileser III. See ANET, 284, for the Assyrian record of Hoshea’s tribute.
6. NIV has only “sacrifices.” This is a difficult text but the word “loved” (which NIV translates “given to me”) modifies the word “sacrifices.” Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 501, 510, suggest the translation “sacrifices of my loved ones they sacrificed,” while Wolff, Hosea, 133, translates the clause, “sacrifices they love.”
7. Wolff, Hosea, 156.
8. The NIV’s “Let Israel know this” (9:7b) is left as an unconnected independent sentence. It is perhaps better to see these words as an introduction to the rest of v. 7, which is a quotation of what other people think about Hosea.
9. Through several emendations Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 139, 146, turns Hos. 9:8a into Hosea’s question of his audience: “Is Ephraim a watchman? Is God’s people a prophet?” This radical approach is unnecessary and ill-advised. The text makes good sense as the prophet’s defense of himself.
10. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 534, and McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 1:145–46, think this refers to persecution of Hosea.
11. Mays, Hosea, 133, indicates that the word for “shame” (bšt) was used as a derogatory name for Baal. For example, note the change from Ish-baal to Ish-bosheth. The term translated “vile” is šiqquṣim, another way of describing an idol as an “abomination, detestable thing.”
12. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 542, and Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 200, think that the loss of glory refers to the loss of God because v. 11a is interpreted in light of v. 12b. I interpret v. 11a in light of v. 11b.
13. Hosea 9:13 is a difficult, cryptic text and widely emended in almost every translation.
14. Wolff, Hosea,166; Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 202, may pick this up from the reference to child sacrifice in Ps. 106:36–38.
15. Mays, Hosea, 134–35, and McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 152; but Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 544, appropriately argue against this view.
16. See the discussion of this curse in D. Krause, “A Blessing Cursed: The Prophet’s Prayer for Barren Womb and Dry Breasts in Hosea 9,” Reading Between the Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), 191–202, who connects this passage with Gen. 49:25.
17. F. Schaeffer, Christian Manifesto (Westchester, Ill.: Crossway, 1981), 91, 121.
18. J. Ellul, Perspectives on Our Age (New York: Seabury, 1981), 6, goes on to explain how the Moscow Trials of 1934–1937 totally turned him against communism because they showed that the government was a corrupt, totalitarian state.
19. See the brief treatment of it in C. Colson, Loving God (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 61–70; or J. Dean, Blind Ambition (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1976).
20. R. D. Culver, Toward a Biblical View of Civil Government (Chicago: Moody, 1963).
1. Wolff, Hosea, 173, believes Hoshea’s revolt against Pekah at the end of this war provides the setting for this chapter.
2. Wolff, ibid., 172, does not explain who is opposing him and his followers.
3. BDB, 132, lists a separate root meaning “luxuriant,” based on an Arabic word, but no other Hebrew usages of this root fit this meaning. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 549, think Hosea is describing what God did (“He made Israel, the vine luxuriant”), but this seems an impossible reconstruction.
4. See Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 204–7, for a somewhat similar approach to interpreting this difficult verse.
5. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 160.
6. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 553.
7. I believe this relates primarily to Israel’s relationship to God, but McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 1:164, thinks this refers to unfaithfulness to treaties with the Assyrians.
8. The main verb in the first line is “destroy,” not “float away” (as in the NIV), so the line can be translated, “Samaria and her king are destroyed.”
9. Wolff, Hosea, 178.
10. The written Hebrew text has “two eyes,” which McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 1:173, keeps, but most others follow the spoken text, which has “two iniquities.”
11. See Wolff, Hosea, 188, for these and other suggestions. Even if one of these identifications is correct, information about the battle is unknown.
12. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction of Reality, 89–92.
13. R. Perkins, Looking Both Ways: Exploring the Interface Between Christianity and Sociology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 156–66, believes reification leads to exclusivity, parochialism, confrontationalism, pride, absolutism, and self-contradiction by modern Christians in the church. For example, not long ago Christians claimed that the Bible supported racism and slavery.
1. Mays, Hosea, 152, thinks this message should be dated to Hoshea’s rebellious act of going to Egypt for help (2 Kings 17:4), but there is little evidence in this chapter to allow one to date it.
2. D. A. Smith, “Kinship and Covenant in Hosea 11:1–4,” HBT 16 (1994): 41–53, believes the kinship terminology of sonship was based on the idea of adoption into God’s family. In Ezekiel 16 Israel is pictured as a young girl; many different analogies were usable to describe different aspects of God’s relationship with his people.
3. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 175, and Wolff, Hosea, 190, plus NIV and RSV emend the Hebrew text “they called” to “I called,” based on the LXX; others correctly keep the Hebrew text as it is. This change also requires a second change in the Hebrew from “them” to “me” at the end of the second line. McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 1:184, keeps the plural verb in Hos. 11:2a but thinks this refers to the prophets who called the people back to God.
4. The Heb. text of 11:7b is problematic, with quite diverse renderings in different translations and commentaries. Is this calling on God or another god?
5. A. J. Heschel, The Prophets, 2 vols. (New York: Harper and Row, 1962), 1:48, sees Hosea as revealing the cardinal emotional pathos of God that is a fundamental part of his relationship with his people. See also J. L. McKenzie, “Divine Passion in Osee,” CBQ 17 (1955): 287–99.
6. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 574, 589, choose to interpret the negative “I will not” as an asseverative “certainly,” which asserts God’s determination to carry out his judgment; most other commentators reject this option.
7. D. M. Beegle, Scripture, Tradition, and Infallibility (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), 237.
8. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:250.
9. McCloskey, Tell It Often—Tell It Well, 144–45.
1. J. Limburg, Hosea-Micah (Interp.; Atlanta: John Knox, 1988), 43, thinks this chapter addresses people in Judah after the fall of Israel, but Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 188, takes the references to alliances with Egypt and Assyria (Hos. 12:1) to indicate this chapter should be dated to Hoshea’s reign, when he sent for help from Egypt (2 Kings 17:3–4).
2. The image is comparable to the psalmist who laments that he is surrounded by enemies wanting to kill him (Ps. 22:12, 16; 118:10–12).
3. The RSV emends the text to say “Judah is still known by God,” by using the LXX, Wolff, Hosea, 205, has “Judah still goes with God,” while Mays, Hosea, 159, translates “Judah still roams with God” (a positive sense).
4. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 593, 603, believe Hosea is referring to the worship of the gods, while Wolff, Hosea, 210, rejects that position.
5. D. J. McCarthy, “Hosea XII.2: Covenant by Oil,” VT 14 (1964): 215–21.
6. Wolff, Hosea, 206, removes the title Judah in Hos. 12:2 and replaces it with Israel.
7. P. R. Ackroyd, “Hosea and Jacob,” VT 10 (1960): 245–59.
8. Commentaries make an unusual amount of emendations in this verse and come up with quite different results because of these changes, which “correct” this problematic passage.
9. Wolff, Hosea, 206, thinks that the angel overcame Jacob in12:4a. Since Jacob is the subject of the verbs in 12:4b, he must be the subject of the verbs in the first half of the verse.
10. W. Kaiser, “Inner Biblical Exegesis As a Model for Bridging the ‘Then’ and ‘Now’ Gap: Hos 12:1–6,” JETS 28 (1985): 33–46, thinks the weeping is referring to Jacob and Esau weeping when they meet.
11. Mays, Hosea, 164, draws this lesson from the typology of Jacob.
12. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 237.
13. The Hebrew word for “merchant” is a wordplay on “Canaan”; thus Hosea is suggesting that they act like Canaanite merchants.
14. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 193, turns the second half of Hos. 12:8 into a divine condemnation of the rich instead of their boast, but his emendations (based on the LXX) should not be accepted.
15. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 621, see a strong contrast between these two events.
16. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 246.
17. Mays, Hosea, 172, thinks Hosea attributes the terrible state of Israel at his time to God’s death sentence.
18. Wolff, Hosea, 219, translates “those who sacrifice men kiss calves” and thinks this refers to human sacrifices. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 632, translate differently but also think this refers to human sacrifice. The syntax of this phrase does not support this interpretation.
19. B. Childs, Memory and Tradition in Israel (London: SCM, 1962), 17–30.
20. A recent Candid Camera experiment showed 5 out of 6 kids not telling the truth about touching a real unloaded gun that was purposely left in their playroom with the other toys.
21. M. S. Peck, People of the Lie: The Hope for Healing Human Evil (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), tells many stories that illustrate this problem. I am thankful to my student Tom Rakow for giving me a copy of this book.
22. Ibid., 87–108.
23. Ibid., 106.
1. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964), 54–56, demonstrates the common use of being attacked by a wild animal to express a curse (see also Deut. 32:24; Jer. 2:14–15; 48:40; Hos. 5:14).
2. The NIV passive “you are destroyed” in Hos. 13:9 catches the meaning but is not a literal translation (“it destroys/has destroyed you”), which Wolff, Hosea, 221, emends to “I will destroy you.”
3. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 260–61, properly translates the verbs as futures (not as NIV, “I gave”). Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 206, translates the verb similar to the NIV and thinks Hosea is thinking about God’s past giving of Saul as king, even though it was against his desires.
4. Wolff, Hosea, 228, sees a divine promise of life in this verse, but this interpretation is unlikely. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 263–64, ties this birth into the Baal fertility religion, but nothing is said of Baalism here.
5. There is much speculation about who the brothers are. Any other nation (Ammon, Moab, Edom, Judah) could be compared as a brother, particularly if there was a treaty relationship between Israel and that other nation. Wolff, Hosea, 222, changes the word “brothers” to “reeds” (the two spellings are close), while Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 625, change “brothers” to “wild ass.” The Hebrew text is fine as it is.
6. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 208, believes it refers to agricultural wealth being lost, based on several curses in Deut. 28 and 32, while Mays, Hosea, 183, prefers the military explanation.
7. Mays, Hosea, 182, and Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 207, interpret this as a hopeless statement.
8. McComiskey, The Minor Prophets, 1:223–24, and Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 639, take this as a promise of hope.
1. Wolff, Hosea, 234, thinks the disastrous fall of Samaria has already happened, but Mays, Hosea, 185, seems to be closer to the date when he suggests that it was spoken “in the final months of the northern kingdom’s defeat by Shalmaneser V.”
2. Wolff, Hosea, 231, follows R. Gordis, “The Text and Meaning of Hosea 14:3,” VT 5 (1955): 88–90, who thinks “good” means “word.”
3. Literally, their “turning” from God, a wordplay off the word “return” in Hos. 14:1.
4. The Hebrew text does not have “cedar” (as in NIV “cedar of Lebanon”), just “Lebanon,” but the reference to the deep roots suggests that Hosea is perhaps thinking of the famous “cedars of Lebanon.” Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 646, maintain Hosea is thinking of the crocus and olive trees of Lebanon. This is an acceptable, if not better alternative to the NIV.
5. The word “cedar” in NIV is also missing in 14:6. Here it makes more sense to think of the fragrance from Lebanon olive trees.
6. The NIV “again” apparently represents the word “return,” which appears again in this verse. It would be better to translate the first line, “The ones who dwell in his/its shade will return.”
7. Mays, Hosea, 184,189, emends the text to “my shade,” meaning God’s shade, since God does compare himself to a tree in 14:8.
8. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 275, suggests that this may refer to the Gentiles, who will come to Israel in the eschaton (cf. Gen. 12:1–3), but Hosea has made no reference to this idea in the context of this passage.
9. McComiskey, Minor Prophets, 1:236.
10. W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2:465, believes that seeking God, humility, softening the heart, acknowledgement of sin, and turning from sin must come before forgiveness is possible.
1. The Heb. word torah has frequently been translated “law” and consequently the idea is sometimes viewed in a legalistic way. Although it can have this connotation, the idea is drawn from the concept of the “teachings, instructions” that were given by God in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. These revelatory teachings formed the foundation for all of Israel’s theology, so Ps. 119:97 can talk about the psalmist’s love for God’s instructions and Paul (Rom. 7:14) refers to God’s “law” as spiritual.
2. P. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (New York: Doubleday, 1966), recognize that each group’s view of reality is socially constructed by the traditions, experiences, and culture of that group.
3. V. P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis 18–50 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 236–49, traces Jacob’s experiences at Bethel, the former city of Luz.
4. J. H. Hayes, Amos, The Eighth-Century Prophet: His Times and His Preaching (Nashville: Abingdon, 1960), 16–27, places Amos later, around 750 or later. H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 274–75, dates Amos 6:2 after Tiglath-Pileser III defeated Hamath in 738 B.C., but this text can be explained without supposing that Amos (or a redactor) preached (or edited) this message in Judah at this late date. J. D. W. Watts, “The Origin of Amos,” ExpT 66 (1954–55): 109, speculated that Amos 8–9 were written by Amos in Judah after the fall of Samaria in 722/721 B.C., but the background of Amos does not fit such a late date.
5. S. H. Paul, A Commentary on the Book of Amos (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), 1–2.
6. N. Avigad, “Samaria (City),” The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 4 vols. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society & Carta, 1993), 4:1300–10; J. D. Purvis, “Samaria,” ABD, 5:914–21; G. E. Wright, “Samaria,” The Biblical Archeologist Reader, vol. 2, ed. E. F. Campbell and D. N. Friedman (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1964), 248–57.
7. B. Lang, “Social Organization of Peasant Poverty in Biblical Israel,” JSOT 24 (1982): 48–58, believes that rent capitalism was the primary system that led to the problem Amos condemned. The urban property owners apportioned land to peasants at such high rents that the poor farmer was kept in continual poverty.
8. P. Craigie, “Amos the nōqēd in Light of Ugaritic,” Studies in Religion 2 (1982): 29–32.
9. Paul, Amos, 212.
10. Y. Yadin, Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavation, 1956 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960), 24–26, 36–37.
11. G. V. Smith, Amos (Fearn, Scotland: Christian Focus, 1998), 18–27, contains additional information on the nature of the Hebrew text and Greek translation of Amos, its style, and various structural methods of arranging the oracles in the book.
12. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction, 89–91. This process of absolutizing conditional promises is a reification. Reification happens when people do not see parts of social reality as human creations based on social relationships, but give them an independent status separate from human relationships. Thus the blessings of the covenant are seen as an absolute fact, not based on one’s relationship to God.
13. H. W. Wolff, Joel and Amos, 106–13, traces the redactional history of the book through six editorial stages that stretch from 750 to 450 B.C. Paul, Amos, 16–24, and G. V. Smith, Amos, 25–27, 65–68, 110–14, 357–58, present evidence to support the unity and authenticity of Amos’s oracles. G. F. Hasel, Understanding the Book of Amos (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 91–99, surveys the different views on this issue.
14. See B. K. Smith, “Amos,” Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (NAC; Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1995), 128–30, for a discussion of Amos’s intercession.
15. G. V. Smith, An Introduction to the Hebrew Prophets: The Prophets as Preachers (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 1994), 5–24, discusses the rhetorical aspects of communication theory illustrated in prophetic preaching.
16. K. Koyama, Water Buffalo Theology (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 19), 91.
17. J. Naisbitt, Megatrends: Ten New Directions Transforming Our Lives (New York: Warner, 1982).
18. G. Barna, The Barna Report: What Americans Believe (Ventura, Calif.: Regal, 1991), 83–85.
19. Ibid., 292.
20. W. J. Bennett, “Commuter Massacre, Our Warning,” Wall Street Journal (Dec. 10, 1993).
21. R. Eckersley, “The West’s Deepening Cultural Crisis,” The Futurist (Nov./Dec. 1993), 10.
22. M. J. Harris, “Elder Fraud,” Money (Nov. 1995), 145–50.
23. R. Winslow, “Hypocritical Oath: Study Finds Doctors Lied on Resumes,” Wall Street Journal (July 3, 1995), B8.
24. D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, trans. R. H. Fuller (New York: Macmillan, 1963), 57.
25. C. Colson, A Dance with Deception: Revealing the Truth Behind the Headlines (Dallas: Word, 1993), 27.
26. Ibid., 67.
1. Paul, Amos, 36, believes this earthquake “was interpreted as a fulfillment of some of his prophetic oracles, and authenticated his being accepted as a true prophet.”
2. D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (WBC; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), 298, believes that Amos “perceived a revelation” that had no hint of visual content.
3. In the Old Testament, it is only used one other time—to describe Mesha, king of the Moabites, who had to pay a large tribute of sheep to the Israelites (2 Kings 3:4).
4. Y. Yadin, Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956 (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960), 24–26, 36–37, dates this earthquake to 760 B.C.
5. A. Bentzen, “The Ritual Background of Amos I.2-II.16,” OtSt 8 (1950): 85–99.
6. This statement relies on traditions about David’s bringing the ark to Jerusalem (2 Sam. 6–7), Solomon’s dedication of the temple (1 Kings 8), and various psalms (Ps. 46; 47; 48; 99).
7. R. A. Simkins, Creator and Creation (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), traces both the biblical and ancient Near Eastern people’s view of how the gods/God controls nature.
8. M. R. Miles, “Augustine,” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, ed. E. Furguson (New York: Garland, 1990), 121–26.
1. S. H. Paul, “Amos 1:3–2:3: A Concatenous Literary Pattern,” JBL 90 (1971): 401–3.
2. G. V. Smith, Amos, 64–65, outlines this stylistic pattern of short accusations, lengthy punishment clauses, and a final messenger formula in oracles 1 and 2, 5 and 6. Oracles 3 and 4, plus 7 have a long accusation, short punishment, and no final messenger clause. Oracle 8 is unique.
3. Wolff, Joel and Amos, 140–43, does not see this as a unified rhetorical piece but finds later redactional additions. Paul, Amos, 16–26, presents strong arguments against this position.
4. D. Christensen, Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars, 1975), 1–15.
5. F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Amos (AB; New York: Doubleday, 1989), 6–8, believe the first four visions (Amos 7:1–9:10) plus chs. 4–6 were spoken before this war oracle. I see chs. 4–6 as the prophet’s attempt to legitimate his claims in chs. 1–2, and I do not connect the visions with his original calling.
6. D. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 310, believes the numbered sequence simply refers to many sins while M. Weiss, “The Pattern of Numerical Sequence in Amos 1–2: A Reconsideration,” JBL 86 (1967): 416–23, believes Amos is referring to seven sins, a typological number of completeness.
7. The word “wrath” is not in the Hebrew (it merely reads “I will not turn it back”), but the parallel terminology in Isa. 9:8–10:4 and Jer. 23:20 explains that “it” refers to God’s anger. In a similar phrase God says that he “will spare them [Israel] no longer” (Amos 7:8; 8:2).
8. Archaeologists have found correspondence from Shamshi-ilu, the ruler of Bit-Adini from 780–752 B.C. (see Paul, Amos, 53). The Valley of Aven, probably the Lebanon Valley, represents the southern part of Syria while Beth Eden represents the north, so Amos is saying the whole country will fall, from south to north.
9. I. Mendelsohn, Slavery in the Ancient Near East (New York: Oxford, 1949).
10. The cooperation among these nations in selling slaves is also mentioned 150 years later in Joel 3:4–8.
11. M. Fishbane, “The Treaty Background of Amos 1:11 and Related Matters,” JBL 89 (1970): 313–18, believes this does refer to a political treaty, but this seems unlikely.
12. Earlier the Ammonites agreed to let the Israelites live in Jabesh-Gilead, but the Ammonites demanded that the Israelites had to let them gouge out their right eyes first (1 Sam. 11:1–2). In one text the Assyrian king Tiglath-Pileser III brags that “he slit the wombs of the pregnant women, he gouged out the eye of the infants, he cut the throats of their strong men” (see M. Cogan, “ ‘Ripping Open Pregnant Women’ in Light of an Assyrian Analogue,” JAOS 103 [1983]: 755–57).
13. The Greek translation could not make sense of this passage and thought Amos was condemning the Moabites for offering sacrifices to a demon, but this translation cannot be trusted here.
14. The Mesha Stone, lines 12–13, refers to this temple.
15. G. E. Wright, “The Nations in Hebrew Prophecy,” Enc 26 (1965): 225–37; also J. Mauchline, “Implicit Signs of a Persistent Belief in the Davidic Empire,” VT 20 (1970): 288–90.
16. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 290, 308.
17. J. Barton, Amos’s Oracles Against the Nations (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980), 42–61; see also G. H. Jones, “An Examination of Some Leading Motifs in the Prophetic Oracles Against the Nations,” an unpublished Ph.D. dissertation at the University College of North Wales, Bangor, 1970.
18. ANET, 34–36, 159–210, 217–21, 412–26.
19. R. F. Drinan, Cry of the Oppressed: The History and Hope of the Human Rights Revolution (New York: Harper and Row, 1987), 23.
20. Ibid.
21. C. Lacy, The Conscience of India (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965), 231.
22. J. J. Davis, Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today, 2d ed. (Phillipsburg, N.J.: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1993), 207–28.
23. R. L. Holmes, On War and Morality (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1989), 183–213, has a whole chapter on the topic of “The Killing of Innocent Persons in Wartime.”
24. S. P. Huntington, “The Military Mind: Conservative Realism of the Professional Military Ethic,” War, Morality, and the Military Profession, ed. M. M. Wakin (London: Westview, 1986), 35–56.
25. J. G. Murphy, “The Killing of the Innocent,” War, Morality, and the Military Profession, ed. M. M. Wakin (London: Westview, 1986), 341–64.
26. G. V. Smith, The Prophets As Preachers, 19–22, discusses aspects of persuasion in the prophets.
27. S. Toulmin, The Use of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1958), 97–104.
28. Motivational theory is discussed in D. McClelland, Human Motivations (Glenview: Scott, Foresman, 1985).
1. Wolff, Amos, 140, and J. L. Mays, Amos: A Commentary (OTL; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 41, do not believe the Judah oracle was originally included in Amos’s speech, but think a later redactor has added it. Hayes, Amos, 101–3, and Paul, Amos, 20–24, reject this perspective.
2. T. J. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah (WEC; Chicago: Moody, 1990), 159, believes this is the only case where this word means idols, but Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 302, maintain that there is no case where kzb means “idol, god.” In most cases it refers to the teachings of the false prophets.
3. It is unlikely that the giving of a single sandal in Ruth 4 to confirm a transaction has anything to do with the pair of sandals mentioned in this verse.
4. Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 308–10, connect these sins to illegal court activity, but people were not “sold” in court. Selling is used in the context of collecting unpaid debts that were promised and did not usually require separate court action.
5. Most commentators conclude that the Hebrew š’p, which can mean to be eager, pant, is an alternate spelling of šwp, to trample, crush, which makes better sense.
6. In light of the next phrase D. Hubbard, Joel and Amos (TOTC; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1989), 142, thinks the rich are treating the poor like dirt in the court, but that may be too specific.
7. G. V. Smith, Amos, 120–21, and Paul, Amos, 81, both find inadequate information to suggest a judicial interpretation because a word like “judgment, justice” is not found here as it is in Amos 5:12 (cf. also Deut. 16:19; Prov. 17:23; Isa. 10:2).
8. Hubbard, Joel and Amos, 142, thinks these women are daughters-in-laws but naʾarah usually refers to a servant.
9. Paul, Amos, 83–85, provides ancient Near Eastern examples of the same abuse in cultures surrounding Israel, so apparently this was a common practice that the Israelites adopted. See J. Naveh, “A Hebrew Letter from the Seventh Century BC,” IEJ 10 (1960): 129–39.
10. The emphatic Hebrew personal pronoun ʾanoki (I myself) appears twice to focus on what God did. This contrasts with the third person plural verbs that emphasize what the Israelites are doing in 2:6–8.
11. Some like Samuel were Nazirites for life, but others were Nazirites only for a specified period of time. The Nazirites would not touch the fruit of the vine, a dead body, or cut their hair (Num. 6:1–8). See M. Weiss, “ ‘And I Raised Up Prophets from Amongst Your Sons’: A Note About the History and Character of Israelite Prophecy,” I. L. Seeligmann Volume: Essays in the Bible and Ancient World, ed. A. Rofé and Y. Zakovitch, 3 vols. (Jerusalem: E. Rubenstein, 1983), 1:257–74.
12. Paul, Amos, 94, has a full listing of options, but none are without problems. He rejects the earthquake interpretation, which we prefer.
13. G. V. Smith, Amos, 108, 129.
14. This correlation between unintended and intended sins is represented in the difference between the law for dealing with unintentional homicide and premeditated murder (Ex. 21:12–14). The offering laws also distinguish between what is required of the one who unintentionally sins and the one who rebels against God (Num. 15:27–31).
15. T. S. Eliot, “The Idea of a Christian Society,” Culture and Christianity (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1949), 10.
16. W. Stringfellow, “The Church’s Neglect of the Word of God,” Sojourners 15 (1986): 36–39.
17. G. Barna, The Barna Report: What Americans Believe (Ventura, Calif.: Regal, 1991), 289.
18. M. Bellah, Baby Boom Believers (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1988), 55.
19. B. Moeller, “The Sex Life of America’s Christians,” Leadership 16 (Summer, 1995): 30–31, based this information on the findings in the book Sex in America: A Definitive Study by R. Michel, J. Ganon, E. Laumann, and G. Kolata in 1994.
20. D. Rice, Shattered Vows: Exodus from the Priesthood (Belfast: Blackfast, 1990), 3.
21. A. W. R. Sipe, A Secret World: Sexuality and the Search for Celibacy (New York: Brunner/Mazel, 1990), 74.
1. See the outline of the book in the Introduction to Amos.
2. Wolff, Amos, 93, 183, makes the wisdom connection, while Finley, Amos, 177, follows the covenant-lawsuit approach of M. O’Rouke Boyle, “The Covenant Lawsuit of the Prophet Amos: III.1–IV.13,” VT 21 (1971): 338–62.
3. Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 387, provide a grammatical outline and comparison of each line of Amos 3:3–8 to show both the similarities and differences in this section.
4. Paul, Amos, 106–7.
5. B. K. Smith, “Amos,” 70–71, emphasizes that election involves choice and an intimate relationship.
6. G. V. Smith, Amos, 143–46, and Paul, Amos, 102, see this as an unexpected and surprising answer.
7. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 324, and Paul, Amos, 109, translate the verb “meet” rather than “agree.” It seems that people must surely meet before they walk together, but the togetherness idea suggests agreement. People who meet often do not agree and thus do not walk together. Both of these commentaries also reject the view that this is referring to an appointment.
8. Many commentaries (J. Niehaus, “Amos,” 1:378) translate me’onah as “den,” but it is the “dwelling place,” likely the hiding place in the forest, based on the analogy of God’s description of the lion in Job 38:39–40. Animals do not hunt from their dens but from a favorite hiding place.
9. Ezek. 33:3 illustrates the role of the watchman.
10. Hayes, Amos, 126, and Hubbard, Joel and Amos, 148, think the main purpose of this verse is to defend the prophet’s status and credibility before a protesting audience. Certainly this verse legitimates what Amos says, but I believe Amos is more concerned about persuading his audience that the message is God’s plan, rather than defending his own authority.
11. This issue of Israel’s eschatological hope is addressed in Amos 9:11–15.
12. G. L. Bahnsen, “The Concept of Self-Deception in Presuppositional Apologetics,” WTJ 57 (1995): 1–31.
13. Berger and Luckmann, Social Construction of Reality, 89–92.
14. R. Perkins, Looking Both Ways: Exploring the Interface Between Christianity and Sociology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 156–66, believes reification leads to exclusivity, parochialism, confrontationalism, pride, absolutism, and self-contradiction by modern Christians in the church. For example, not long ago Christians claimed that the Bible supported racism and slavery.
15. See books like O. Roberts, God’s Formula for Success (Tulsa: Healing Waters, 1955); Gordon Lindsay, God’s Master Key to Prosperity (Dallas: Christ for the Nations, 1960); or K. Hagin, How God Taught Me About Prosperity (Tulsa: Kenneth Hagin Ministries, 1985).
16. B. Barron, The Health and Wealth Gospel (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity, 1987), 66–67.
17. Gordon Fee, The Disease of the Health and Wealth Gospels (Costa Mesa: The Word for Today, 1979), 4.
18. Jerry Savelle, Living in Divine Prosperity (Tulsa: Harrison House, 1982), 27, 91–92, 178–79.
19. H. Schlossberg, Idols of Destruction (Nashville: Nelson, 1983), 88.
20. For a more balanced and healthy view of wealth, see J. Barnett, Wealth and Wisdom: A Biblical Perspective on Possessions (Colorado Springs: NavPress, 1987).
1. Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 402–3, see a progression from the destruction of the shrine at Bethel (3:14) and their homes (3:15), and then the exile of the people (Amos 4:2–3)—the similar structure of accusation and punishment uniting these oracles.
2. M. O’Rouke Boyle, “The Covenant Lawsuit of the Prophet Amos,” 338–62.
3. Hebrew law requires two witnesses in capital cases before a case can be prosecuted (Deut. 17:6; 19:15).
4. The LXX has “Assyria” instead of “Ashdod,” but Ashdod is a more difficult reading and likely the original reading.
5. G. V. Smith, Amos, 163; Paul, Amos, 115.
6. Finley, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, 188, notes that the second word can refer more specifically to “extortion, bribery,” but the context here seems to point to a more general semantic range of meaning like “oppression,” which may have involved several different methods of gaining financial advantage over others.
7. Finley, ibid., 189, does not believe these possessions came from warfare, while Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 407, think that part of it may have come from military victories.
8. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 330.
9. Ibid, 331. Stuart connects these punishments to covenant curses in Deut. 28:31, 43, 52 and Lev. 26:19.
10. Archaeological excavations of Samaria have discovered both large and small homes, many pieces of ivory from these wealthy homes, and a five-foot-wide inner wall and thirty-foot-wide outer casemate wall. See J. Crowfoot, K. Kenyon, and E. Sukenik, Samaria-Sabaste I: The Buildings of Samaria (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1942), 9–20.
11. Hayes, Amos, 134–35, prefers Damascus, but the Hebrew word has an š rather than a ś, which is normal for the name Damascus; moreover, Damascus usually has a double m sound, which is not the case here. And since there is no evidence that “damask” silk was made at this time, the best solution is to accept the third alternative.
12. Paul, Amos, 120, and G. V. Smith, Amos, 166–69, prefer this approach.
13. J. Crowfoot and G. Crowfoot, Samaria-Sebaste II: Early Ivories from Samaria (London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1938), contains photographs and a description of these ivories. Some are displayed in the New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. E. Stein, 4 vols. (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993), 4:1305.
14. S. Paul, “Amos III:15—Winter and Summer Mansions,” VT 28 (1978): 358–60, refers to the summer and winter homes of Barrakkab. Ahab also had two homes (at Jezreel in 1 Kings 21:1 and at Samaria in 21:18; 22:39).
15. The Targum and Calvin thought the cows refer to leaders, while J. Williams, “A Further Suggestion About Amos IV:1–3,” VT 29 (1979): 206–11, and J. D. W. Watts, “A Critical Analysis of Amos 4:1ff.,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1972, 2 vols. (n.p., 1972), 489–500, relate this term to pagan cultic practices.
16. S. M. Paul, “Fishing Imagery in Amos 4:2,” JBL 97 (1978): 183–86.
17. For a full discussion of the various proposals that have been made, see Paul, Amos, 130–34.
18. J. B. Pritchard, ed., The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1954), 152, fig. 440.
19. D. Gowan, “The Book of Amos,” 378, believes that every society will be held accountable for oppression and how it deals with the poor and needy.
20. For a survey of biblical statements about possessions see, G. A. Getz, A Biblical Theology of Material Possessions (Chicago: Moody, 1990).
21. L. T. Johnson, Sharing Possessions: Mandate and Symbol of Faith (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 40.
22. Ibid., 15.
23. D. Bonhoeffer, Letters and Prayers from Prison (London: Collins, 1959), 300.
24. M. Luther, A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, trans. T. Graebner (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, n.d.), 32.
25. Ibid., 43.
1. Paul, Amos, 138, thinks Amos is adapting a “priestly Torah.”
2. Gilgal was near Jericho, at the north end of the Dead Sea. It was the place where Joshua set up the twelve stones taken by the children of Israel from the Jordan River when they crossed into the Promised Land (Josh. 4:19–20; 5:1–10).
3. J. Niehaus, “Amos,” 396–97, indicates the bread was to be eaten by the priests, though unleavened bread was burned in the thank offering (Lev. 2:11; 6:17).
4. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, xxxii–xl, and Wolff, Joel and Amos, 213, describe these covenant curses.
5. Paul, Amos, 149.
6. J. L. Crenshaw, Hymnic Affirmations of Divine Justice (Missoula: Scholars, 1975), attributes this hymn to a later editor, but Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 286, and G. V. Smith, Amos, 190–92, argue that Amos is quoting a hymn from his own time.
7. H. J. Kraus, Theology of the Psalms (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1986), 94–97.
8. D. Peterson, Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 19.
9. E. Underhill, Worship (New York: Harper, 1936), 77.
10. Peterson, Engaging with God, 16.
11. R. E. Webber, Worship Is a Verb (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1985), 19–20.
12. H. P. Simonson, ed., Selected Writings of Jonathan Edwards (New York: F. Unger, 1970), 97.
1. C. Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms, trans. K. R. Crim and R. H. Soulen (Atlanta: John Knox, 1981), 261, describes the different kinds of laments.
2. G. Stahlin, “κοπετός,” TDNT, 3:836–41.
3. G. V. Smith, Amos, 206–9.
4. J. de Waard, “The Chiastic Structure of Amos 5:1–17,” VT 27 (1977): 170–77 and N. J. Tromp, “Amos 5:1–17: Toward a Stylistic and Rhetorical Analysis,” OtSt 23 (1984): 72–73, identify the parts of the chiasm but neither were able to integrate 5:13 into this structure.
5. A. V. Hunter, Seek the Lord: A Study of the Meaning and Function of the Exhortations in Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah (Baltimore: St. Mary’s Seminary, 1982), 61–65, surveys these alternative approaches.
6. Hayes, Amos, 155, believes Samaria is the addressed because the virgin terminology is elsewhere used of cities (Jer. 18:13; 31:4, 21) not countries, but most think that Amos is addressing the whole nation of Israel.
7. 7. See J. J. Schmitt, “The Virgin of Israel: Referent and Use in Amos and Jeremiah,” CBQ 53 (1991): 365–87.
8. Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 345, connects this consequence to the curse in Deut. 28:62: “You who were as numerous as the stars in the sky will be left but few in number.”
9. Hubbard, Joel and Amos, 165, also finds no message of hope in this passage.
10. Paul, Amos, 161–62, finds this approach justified by Jeremiah’s explanation that God will have compassion and change his plans if people repent of their evil (Jer. 18).
11. For a defense of this translation, see G. V. Smith, “Amos 5:13: The Deadly Silence of the Prosperous,” JBL 107 (1988): 289–91.
12. Mays, Amos, 83, 95; Wolff, Joel and Amos, 215–17; and Crenshaw, Hymnic Affirmations of Divine Justice, 5–24, suggest that these verses have been added by a later editor because of their advanced theology; but T. McComiskey, “The Hymnic Elements of the Prophecy of Amos: A Study of Form Critical Methodologies,” in A Tribute to G. Archer, ed. W. C. Kaiser and R. Youngblood (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 105–28, defends the position that this hymn has been put here by Amos.
13. Hubbard, Joel and Amos, 170, sees this as a secondary purpose of this passage, but it is just as likely that Amos is contrasting a true biblical view of God with a humanly created and socially constructed image of God.
14. Andersen and Freedman, Amos, 453–54, suggest that all the hymns in Amos 4:13; 5:8–9; 9:5–6 may have come from a single, well-known hymn.
15. Paul, Amos, 168.
16. J. Niehaus, “Amos,” 419, illustrates the common tendency to trust in strong walls from the Annals of the Kings of Assyria, 35–36 (by Tiglath-Pileser III) and 293 (by Ashurbanipal II).
17. See A. R. Diamond, The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context: Scenes of Prophetic Drama (Sheffield: JSOT, 1986); M. S. Smith, The Laments of Jeremiah and Their Contexts: A Literary and Redactional Study of Jeremiah 11–20 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1990).
18. J. I. Durham, Exodus (WBC; Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), 432–33, makes the point that Moses goes through the emotional responses of pleading for mercy, anger, reasoning, taking control of the situation, and seeking forgiveness for the people.
19. A. Resner, “Lament: Faith’s Response to Loss,” Restoration Quarterly 32 (1990): 129.
20. Ibid., 132.
21. R. Davidson, The Courage to Doubt (London: SCM, 1983), 16.
22. Ibid., 17.
23. W. M. Soll, “The Israelite Lament: Faith Seeking Understanding,” Quarterly Review 8 (1988): 79–85.
24. W. Brueggemann, “The Costly Loss of Lament,” JSOT 36 (1986): 60–63.
25. S. P. McCutchan, “Illuminating the Dark: Using Psalms of Lament,” The Christian Ministry 24 (1993): 14.
26. E. Kubler-Ross, On Death and Dying (New York: Macmillan, 1969), 38–88. W. Brueggemann, “The Formfulness of Grief,” Int 31 (1977): 267–74, makes positive and negative comparison between laments and Ross’s approach.