Amos is viewed as the leader of those who would free religion from its unnatural relationship with tyranny, selfishness, ceremonialism, and superstition. In contrast, Hosea is to be viewed as the earliest prophet who interpreted the nature of Jehovah in terms of love. As George Adam Smith has observed, “There is no truth uttered by later prophets about the divine grace, which we do not find in germ in him … He is the first prophet of grace, Israel's first evangelist.”1
The burden of the prophecy is a dynamic and earnest witness against the Northern Kingdom because of its apostasy from the covenant. The nation's corruption, at the levels of both public and private interests, was well known.
Thus the purpose of Hosea was to convince his countrymen of the need of repentance, the reestablishment of the covenant relation, and dependence upon a patient, compassionate, and forgiving God. “Both threat and promise are presented from the standpoint of Yahweh's (Jehovah's) love to Israel as his own dear children and as his covenant wife.”2
Though his doctrine of divine love was not absolutely new, yet it was expressed with clarity and finality. While his prophecy is not listed among the major prophets because of the brevity of his utterance, yet it must be listed as among the most important in insight. Hosea was more a poet than a theologian—the St. John of the Old Testament.3
A. AUTHORSHIP AND DATE
The name “Hosea,” like “Joshua” and “Jesus,” springs from the Hebrew root meaning “salvation.” It is identical to the name of the last king of Israel, though for purposes of distinction the English Bible usually eliminates the second h from the prophet's name.
Commonly acknowledged to have been a native of the Northern Kingdom, Hosea knew the entire life of Ephraim intimately. He writes as an eyewitness. Little detail is given of his life outside of his marriage to Gomer and the name of his father. It is conjectured that he was a priest, though there is nothing to indicate absolutely that this was true. He had a high conception of the duty of the priesthood and makes numerous references to the priests (4:6-9; 5:1; 6:9), to the Torah or law of God (4:6; 8:12), to unclean things (9:3), to abominations, and to persecution of the “house of God.”4 He was acquainted with the written law and had firsthand knowledge of Israel. Of his actual ministry we know little save that he was perhaps persecuted for his prophetic work (9:7-8).
Hosea gives us the date of his prophecy in the superscription of his book: “The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel” (1:1).
There is considerable difference of judgment as to the duration of Hosea's ministry. The fragmentary character of the prophecies suggests that not all of them were delivered at the same period in his life. Archer concludes that a part of the writing must be dated before the death of Jeroboam II (753 B.C.), “since chapter I interprets the symbolic meaning of Jezreel to signify that the dynasty of Jehu is to be violently ended.”5 When Shallum murdered Zechariah, the son of Jeroboam, the prophecy was fulfilled. On the other hand, chapter 5 seems to be directed toward King Menahem (752-742). Since chapter 7 deals with the “double-diplomacy” of pitting Assyria against Egypt (not known before the reign of Hoshea, 732-723 B.C.), it must have followed chapter 5 by ten to twenty years. Evidently the book represents selections from sermons delivered over a period of time. Archer concludes that Hosea's ministry spanned a period of at least twenty-five years—the final compilation finished and published by 725 B.C., some thirty years after the prophet's ministry had begun.6
On the other hand, Carl Keil, the German scholar, believes Hosea to have held his prophetic office between sixty and sixty-five years. (The discrepancy is between the duration of the “office” as over against the actual time of the prophetic utterances.) That reckoning is twenty-seven to thirty years under Uzziah, thirty-one years under Jotham and Ahaz, and one to three years under Hezekiah.7 We are justified in assuming that while Hosea's ministry spanned the time that is indicated in 1:1, the internal evidences of the book point up the widely divergent times of the actual utterances—a time span which may have been considerably shorter than the superscription would seem to indicate.
While the actual length of Hosea's ministry may remain in doubt, we know that Amos was contemporary to Hosea in the earlier part of his ministry and Isaiah, Micah, and Obadiah during the later part.
B. BACKGROUND
If we are to understand the writings of Hosea in relation to the concept of divine love, the central teaching of the book, it is necessary that we view briefly the circumstances under which he exercised his ministry. As with others, we cannot understand the man or his message apart from his own peculiar environment. A prophet is both influenced by and influences the culture in which he lives.
The reign of Jeroboam II in Israel was an era of peace, prosperity, and luxury. However, anarchy, feud, and broken covenant followed his death. Knudson. in summarizing the situation, writes:
Jeroboam … was succeeded by his son Zechariah who after a brief reign of six months was assassinated by Shallum. Shallum ascended the throne and after ruling for a month was himself put to death by Menahem. Menahem ruled for two or three years, and was then followed by his son, Pekahiah, who after a reign of two years was assassinated by Pekah. Pekah ruled for a year or two, and then was slain by Hoshea, who ascended the throne as the Assyrian vassal and was the last of the kings of Israel. There was thus within eight or nine years, from B.C. 740 to about 732, no less than seven different kings of Israel, and of these, four were assassinated by their successors.
The period then following the death of Jeroboam II was one of anarchy. The kingdom was on the road to ruin. This state of affairs is clearly reflected in the last eleven chapters of the book of Hosea.8
Following Jeroboam's death, Israel was weak politically. It was undermined by plots, deceit, and intrigue. The nation was ripe for conquest. Yates adds to the picture by observing that “silly princes who led the people to trust in Egypt hastened the end. Egypt promised much but was never able to carry out any of her promises. She was utterly without an ally.”9 The outcome was inevitable and came in its first wave in 733 B.C. when Tiglath-pileser captured Damascus, ravaged Israel's territory, and carried large numbers of her leaders into exile. Sargon finally captured the capital city of Samaria in 722-721 B.C. Of this grave disaster Hosea had no illusions. The punishment of Israel's sins was imminent, but was still in the future.
The political disintegration in Israel at the time of Hosea was perhaps an indication of a more serious social malady. It was a time of crime, corruption, and immorality. The degradation of the priesthood, the impotence of rulers, the folly of sin and injustice all contributed to the decline and fall of the Northern Kingdom. There was laxness in personal behavior. Property was worthless. The dignity of the individual was sacrificed to personal anarchy, and uncertainty gripped the nation.
The widespread presence of the fertility cults had its effect in breaking down family life. The home was no longer sacred and marriage vows meant little. The orgies connected with the fertility cults turned many Israelites into drunkards, and there was suspicion that many of the women had become sacred prostitutes.
On every hand there was class hatred. The rich became richer and the poor only poorer. There was oppression of the poor by the rich and even enslavement.10 The condition was ripe for Hosea to fulfill the traditional role of the prophet as the champion of the poor and the pleader for social reform.
It is apparent that the prophet quickly traced the political and social degradation to its root: religious and moral failures—sin. Idolatry was the source of Israel's disease. Hosea labels it “whoredom.” Eiselen writes of the situation: “Israel, the spouse of Jehovah, had proved faithless to the husband. The evidences of her unfaithfulness were seen in the sphere of religion, of ethics and of politics, and the sins provoking the anger of Jehovah and of his prophet center around these three heads.”11 There was only a nominal regard for Jehovah (8:2). The people abandoned themselves to superstition and licentiousness.
The priesthood failed in its duty to God and people. It rejoiced in the sins of the people because they augmented its revenues. The priests became bandits (6:9). The nation herself became “prostitute.” The state of Israel was one of religious apostasy resulting in moral, social, and political degradation.
C. THE THEOLOGY OF HOSEA
Hosea centers his attention on the relation of God to Israel. While Amos is concerned with divine sovereignty and Jehovah's concern for other nations, Hosea's approach is an exclusive concern with Israel's covenant relation to God. “The nation has forsaken its husband Yahweh, and has played the harlot by setting its trust upon the Baals … Sin is not defined in any legalistic way … for him the essence of sin for Israel is to rely upon anyone or anything other than God for the guiding and sustaining of life.”12 For this reason, the prophet severely censures every form of idolatry.
Hosea's whole interpretation of Israel's history centers around the ideas of divine love and the knowledge of God. Behind the two figures of fatherhood and marriage are two Hebrew words, both of which Hosea uses, ' ahdb and chesed. The first is normally taken to be the Hebrew equivalent of the English word love, being used of both human and divine love, both pure and impure. The second (chesed) is the word usually rendered “lovingkindness” in the KJV and always rendered “steadfast love” in the RSV. The NASB translates it “covenant love.” When used of God it is the Hebrew equivalent of “faithfulness” and when used of man develops into the sense of “piety.” The word 'ahab is usually taken to be the narrower of the two, while chesed is the more noble. However, there are times when 'ahab has its elements of great nobility. 'Ahab is used to denote the “election love” of God and forms the basis of the covenant. It indicates His redemptive action in history and choice of Israel as His people.
There were, however, two questions the law could not answer about itself. The first concerned the reason for its own establishment. The only answer was found in God's love ('ahab) God's “election love” for Israel was the very basis and the only cause of the existence of the covenant between God and Israel. Indeed if it were not for God's “election love” there would never have been any covenant and therefore no Israel. Also, according to the covenant, it was Israel's continued obedience to God which made its existence possible.
But what if Israel was disobedient? The law could give no answer! Only God's faithful love could offer a solution. This provides us with the second synthesis between law and love in Hosea. It is most graphically illustrated by Hosea's relationship to his adulterous wife. God's love finds its peak of expression in 11:8 when Jehovah cries, “How can I give you up, O Ephraim! How can I hand you over, O Israel!” (RSV) Hosea consistently uses the word chesed (love) to denote Jehovah's attitude toward the covenant. 'Ahab is the cause of the covenant and chesed is the means of its continuance. Thus chesed should be the attitude expressed toward the covenant on the part of both God and Israel13
In the progress of the idea of love in Hosea there are three important points to be noted. First, love is the basis of the covenant. Second, love is the answer to the broken covenant and the continued existence of Israel. Third, “steadfastness” or “faithfulness” is the central element in love. The basis of the covenant, then, is love, not law. But God's holiness still demands that the law, the content of His love and covenant, be kept and that the transgressor be excluded from His fellowship.
Even as there is a love (chesed) of God to Israel, there must be a chesed to God from Israel. It is a reciprocal relation. God initiates that love and Israel gratefully responds. This is the Sense in which love ('ahab) is used of an inferior toward a superior, the sense of humble, dutiful love. Man's love for God in the Old Testament is based oh God's love for man.
While the relation is not worked out in a systematized form, it is nevertheless there. If Israel needed to be grateful to God for her election, much more did she need to be grateful for God's steadfast love and faithfulness after she had broken the covenant.
Thus we see that the background of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel is gracious, not legal. One might say that the law, as an expression of God's holiness, furnished the content of His love (chesed) and therefore of His covenant with His people.
The problem of God's chesed and the broken covenant resolves itself into a tension between His holiness and love. What then is the balance between mercy and justice? The Book of Hosea is an excellent example of this tension between the message of God's doom and His mercy. Jehovah was steadfastly faithful to His part of the covenant, and it is this element of God's love which is ultimately to bring about the resolution of the tension between His love and His holiness. God would himself bring about that repentance which He required (12:6) and furnish the atonement which His holiness and justice demanded. (Isaiah 53). It is thus the idea of love (chesed) in the covenant relationship, however broken, which develops into the idea of grace in the New Testament. It is also this element that furnishes the background for the new covenant prophecy in Jeremiah and the foundation of the Messianic hope.
The second element in Hosea is the knowledge of God. It arises out of the “communion” that results from “covenant love.” Such communion in Hebrew thought becomes, the method of knowing God. Vriezen comments: “This knowledge of God is essentially a communion with God, and it is also religious faith. It is something altogether different from intellectual knowledge: it is a knowledge of the heart and demands man's love (Deut. vi); its vital demand is walking humbly in the ways of the Lord (Micah 6:6); it is the recognition of God as God, total surrender to God as the Lord.”14
With this in mind one can understand why Hosea's cry that there was no “knowledge” of God in Israel was so serious. It indicates that there was no faithfulness to God, no love to God, and no communion with Him. It is not an intellectual knowledge but a spiritual relationship that Hosea is referring to. Vriezen indicates this when he writes that in the Old Testament “the knowledge of God does not imply a theory about the nature of God, it is not ontological, but existential: it is a life in the true relationship to God.”15
The above discussion indicates two things about “knowledge” in the Old Testament. First, it is spiritual and relational rather than intellectual. Second, it has ethical implications. Snaith illustrates this second point when in writing on Hos. 4:2, he says that “Israel's true chesed (love) to Jehovah involves … primarily knowledge of God, and issuing from that, loyalty in true and proper worship, together with the proper behavior in respect to the humanitarian virtues.”16 The fact that knowledge is essentially communion and that this is based upon the covenant relationship with Jehovah necessarily involves ethical implications. For if love is the basic element in the covenant, it cannot be separated from law which furnishes its content. The knowledge of God then provides the transition between religion and ethics; thus, the justification of the prophetic cry for social righteousness and the insistence that true religion is much more than ritual observance.
It is evident, then, that the “ethics” of Israel was deeply personal and based upon the covenant conception of chesed (love) which is so deeply reflected in the writings of Hosea. Since its main thrust is in relations between persons and its aim is union or knowledge in the fullest sense of the Hebrew word, chesed is the means of overcoming alienation and estrangement. This is because the Hebrew mind viewed man, in himself, as incomplete, as something less than man when he stands outside the covenant relationship. He becomes truly himself only in discovering his relationship to God and man.
The reconciliation is through the love of Jehovah for man and through man's humble response in love. It is through love, then, that man realizes the true essence of his being. Rosenberg writes:
Love is the rational demand for wholeness, human integrity, and correlation; it is the quest for a union of our own half- worlds with what fulfills us as persons. … To love, then, is to be reunited with what we feel separated from; it is rational enterprise, emerging from our will to see justice done to ourselves through our relationship to others. The “commandment to love” is thus not an impossible imperative demanding an unnatural emotional response but rather an expression of the fundamental, irreplaceable human need for personal integrity. “Know thy neighbor as thyself” is what the Old Testament means when it commands that we love him. Know him as one related and connected to you—as an expression of yourself which helps restore your own fullness as a complete person.17
Thus, Hosea with his theology of love prepares the background for the New Testament idea that life is realized only in relationship to God, and the fullest life is realized in koinonia (love fellowship). The summit is reached in the writings of John and especially in I John 4:16-17: “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. In this is love perfected with us” (RSV).
In Hosea's day, Israel seemed unable to repent and God's holiness could not abide with sin. Yet God's steadfast love would somehow find a way to bring His people back to Him. Although God pronounced certain doom on the sinful, He promised He would never let Israel go. Israel must meet judgment, but God in His love (chesed) could not destroy her. This creative tension reaches its fullest expression in Hos. 11:8-9, where after predicting the Assyrian exile Jehovah cries:
How can I give you up, O Ephraim!
How can I hand you over, O Israel!
How can I make you like Admah!
How can I treat you like Zeboiim!
My heart recoils within me,
my compassion grows warm and tender.
I will not execute my fierce anger,
I will not again destroy Ephraim;
for I am God and not man,
the Holy One in your midst,
and I will not come to destroy (RSV)
Outline
(NOTE: The author is indebted to his student, Mr. Otho Adkins, for his research in Hosea and Joel while a student at Pasadena College, 1963-64.)
I. Experience and Insight, 1:1—3:5
A. Hosea's Personal Life, 1:1—2:1
B. Personal Tragedy and Redemptive Love, 2:2-23
C. Hosea's Dealing with Gomer, 3:1-5
II. The Sin of Israel, 4:1—13:16
A. Israel's Infidelity and Its Cause, 4:1—6:3
B. Israel's Infidelity and Its Punishment, 6:4—10:15
C. The Love of Jehovah, 11:1—13:16
III. Repentance and Renewal, 14:1-9
A. Final Appeal to Repentance, 14:1-3