TEXT [Commentary]

  7.   God’s compassion for disobedient Israel (11:1-11)

1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him,

and I called my son out of Egypt.

2 But the more I called to him,

the farther he moved from me,[*]

offering sacrifices to the images of Baal

and burning incense to idols.

3 I myself taught Israel[*] how to walk,

leading him along by the hand.

But he doesn’t know or even care

that it was I who took care of him.

4 I led Israel along

with my ropes of kindness and love.

I lifted the yoke from his neck,

and I myself stooped to feed him.

5 “But since my people refuse to return to me,

they will return to Egypt

and will be forced to serve Assyria.

6 War will swirl through their cities;

their enemies will crash through their gates.

They will destroy them,

trapping them in their own evil plans.

7 For my people are determined to desert me.

They call me the Most High,

but they don’t truly honor me.

8 “Oh, how can I give you up, Israel?

How can I let you go?

How can I destroy you like Admah

or demolish you like Zeboiim?

My heart is torn within me,

and my compassion overflows.

9 No, I will not unleash my fierce anger.

I will not completely destroy Israel,

for I am God and not a mere mortal.

I am the Holy One living among you,

and I will not come to destroy.

10 For someday the people will follow me.

I, the LORD, will roar like a lion.

And when I roar,

my people will return trembling from the west.

11 Like a flock of birds, they will come from Egypt.

Trembling like doves, they will return from Assyria.

And I will bring them home again,”

says the LORD.

NOTES

11:1 When Israel was a child. The metaphor of God being a father to Israel is a familiar one in the OT (e.g., Deut 14:1-2; Isa 1:2; Jer 3:19; 4:22). Two different nouns are used to describe Israel in this verse. The first, translated “child” (na‘ar [TH5288, ZH5853]), can be used of any age group from infancy (1 Sam 4:21) to early adulthood (Gen 41:12). At times, it also carries the meaning “servant” (Gen 18:7; 2 Kgs 4:12; 5:20). Its wide range of applicability makes it an appropriate term for the nation’s formative years in Egypt.

I called my son out of Egypt. The second noun, “son,” points to God’s paternal care of his people. The Exodus motif is widely drawn upon by the authors of both the OT and NT.

11:2 the more I called to him. The NLT follows the lead of the LXX in reading a first-person verb here, as do many contemporary versions (e.g., NIV, NJB, NRSV, REB, GW). The MT, however, reads, “they called to them.” The NLT’s rendering of “them” as “him” stems from its continuation of the image that views Israel as a child.

Those who favor the tradition represented by the LXX hold that the issue deals with Israel’s stubborn refusal to respond to Yahweh’s call (e.g., Stuart 1987:178; Craigie 1985:78). Those who support the MT identify those who were calling as various groups. Some suggest the OT prophets (e.g., Keil 1954:137; McComiskey 1992:184-185). Others propose the Israelites calling to the Egyptians during the time of the Exodus (e.g., Garrett 1997:222), or the people (especially women) of Moab calling to them and leading them astray (e.g., Hubbard 1989:187; Andersen and Freedman 1980:577-578). Laetsch (1956:87, 89) proposes taking the verb as a passive (= indefinite plural): “As often as they (i.e., pious Israelites) were called.”

the farther he moved from me. The LXX similarly translates the clause, “Even so they went from my face/presence (= me),” but as it stands, the MT reads “he moved from them.” Whether to read “them” or “me” follows from the choice made in reading the first clause of the verse (but note the Peshitta’s “from me”; so also Laetsch 1956:87). Andersen and Freedman (1980:578; cf. Hubbard 1989:87) support the latter translation by noting the widely followed redivision of the Hebrew consonants mpnyhm into mpny hm. Thus, after repointing the Hebrew, mippenehem (from them) becomes mippanay hem (from me, even they). They also point out that the second construction appears “typical of Hosea.” On the whole, this approach appears to be the most workable. Although God had called Israel out of Egypt (11:1), when the purveyors of idolatry beckoned to them, they departed from the Lord to go to them (11:2).

11:3 I myself taught Israel how to walk, leading him along by the hand. The NLT translates the sense of the passage, using the singular consistently, where the Hebrew uses both singular and plural forms. The metaphor is that of a father teaching his child to walk. Two unusual forms occur here: (1) tirgalti [TH7270, ZH8078], “I taught to walk,” is generally taken as a tiphil (= hiphil) denominative verb from regel [TH7272, ZH8079] (foot). (2) Also, the Hebrew word qakham (leading them) may be viewed as a dialectical form of leqakham [TH3947, ZH4374] (he took them, he led them) or as a unique infinitive. The plural object may stress God’s concern for individual Israelites as well as the whole nation (Laetsch 1956:90).

it was I who took care of him. Lit., “I healed them.” The reference may be to the healing of the bitter water at Marah (Exod 15:22-26), where Yahweh declared, “I am the LORD who heals you.”

11:4 with my ropes of kindness and love. Lit., “with the cords of a man, with the ropes of love.” Rather than the ropes used on animals or on servants, God’s tie to Israel was one of love. The rope could be a symbol of submission as it is in 1 Kgs 20:31-32.

the yoke from his neck. Lit., “a yoke upon their cheeks.” Some have suggested the figure of lifting an infant to the cheek (e.g., Wolff 1974:191; cf. NJB, NRSV, REB) by reading ‘ul [TH5764, ZH6403] (infant) rather than the MT’s ‘ol [TH5923, ZH6585] (yoke). But the near context here is freedom from servitude rather than fatherly affection. The image is that of a farmer easing or adjusting “some kind of bit or harness device that either went into an animal’s mouth or around its face” (Garrett 1997:225).

11:5 Egypt . . . Assyria. The NLT follows the lead of some recent translations in postulating a return of God’s people to Egypt where Assyria will rule over them (see note and commentary on 9:6). Such a procedure necessitates taking the negative particle lo’ [TH3808, ZH4202] either (1) as the asseverative lu’ [TH3863, ZH4273] and translating as a positive statement: “They shall return to the land of Egypt” (NRSV, REB) or (2) treating the sentence as a rhetorical question: “Will they not return to Egypt?” (NIV). The Hebrew particle can also be taken as a simple negative statement: “He [Israel] will not return to Egypt, but Assyria will be his king” (cf. NASB, NJB, KJV, NKJV).

11:6 gates. The enigmatic noun bad [TH905B, ZH964] (cf. HALOT 1.108-109) has been variously understood by commentators as “boasting” (Garrett 1997:226), “false prophets” (Stuart 1987:180), “strongman” (i.e., a member of an influential class, Andersen and Freedman 1980:586), “oracle priests” (Mays 1969:150), or “gate bolt” (Keil 1954:140; cf. NIV, NASB, ESV). On the whole, the last sense is to be preferred, the “crossbars” or “gate bolt” on the gates serving as a metonymy for the gates themselves (cf. Job 17:16).

11:8 Oh, how can I give you up, Israel? For the structural significance of this rhetorical question, see the “Outline” in the Introduction.

Admah . . . Zeboiim. These two cities of the plain were destroyed along with Sodom and Gomorrah (cf. Gen 10:19; 19:23-25). Their destruction, like that of the better-known pair, became symbolic of total devastation and God’s hand of judgment (e.g., Deut 29:23; Isa 13:19; Amos 4:11).

11:9 I will not completely destroy. Lit., “I will not destroy.” This seeming contradiction (present in the MT in light of the historical fact of the fall of the northern kingdom) is nicely avoided by the NLT. The force of the context argues for the Lord’s punishment but not a permanent obliteration of his nation. Such an understanding eliminates the unlikely proposal that the promise not to punish Israel is simply for the “future day of restoration” (Wood 1985:214).

I will not come to destroy. Lit., “I will not come into a[ny] city.” In no case will God enter an Israelite city to destroy it as he did to destroy the cities of the plain. The NLT (cf. NIV; NRSV) renders according to the sense of the context. This understanding is also favored by some commentators (e.g., Keil 1954:142) who relate the Hebrew noun ‘ir II [TH5892B, ZH6552] to a noun meaning “agitation,” hence “wrath/fury” (cf. HALOT 2.822).

11:10 I, the LORD, will roar like a lion. The figure of the roaring lion is a familiar one (e.g., Gen 49:9; Num 24:9; Ps 22:13). The prophets apply the figure to God’s judicial wrath against the ungodly (Jer 25:30; Amos 1:2; see note on Joel 3:16).

11:10b-11a my people will return . . . Like a flock of birds. This image depicts the homeward return of God’s people from exile among the nations of the world (see notes and commentary on Zeph 3:9-20).

COMMENTARY [Text]

By means of a rhetorical question, God reminded his people of his prior claim upon them. It was he who delivered them from Egyptian bondage. Nevertheless, they quickly were lured away by the worship of Baal. Although he guided them, provided for their needs, and healed their wounds, they went on in their own way. They seemingly neither noticed nor were concerned about the Lord’s constant beneficences to them (11:1-4).

Therefore, God warned them that he would judge them with another time of bondage—this time at the hands of the Assyrians. Moreover, their cities would experience the invader’s heel and the accompanying devastation. God had no other recourse, for his people were abandoning their covenant God. They gave him lip service, but there was no spiritual reality (11:5-7).

In a poignant query, God poured out his heartfelt agony to them: How could he give them up to captivity and their land to destruction? The Lord was torn between two emotions. On the one hand, as a holy God, his justice compelled him to punish his people for their entrenched rebelliousness. On the other hand, because he is not like mortal men, he would not seek vengeance. Rather, his holiness constrained him to impart that holiness to others, and his compassion overflowed with a desire for his people to come to him. Therefore, he would not destroy Israel’s towns as he did the cities of the plain so long ago (11:8-9). His long-range plans for Israel included bringing his people home again from foreign captivity. A repentant people would come to him with adoration, for they would revere him as their defender and deliverer from their enemies (11:10-11).

A holy and just God is also a God of love. While his plans called for the temporary rigors of chastisement as a means to the final resolution of Israel’s ungodliness, he genuinely cared for them. Indeed, he was deeply moved by the severity of what he must necessarily do to bring them to himself.

If God’s heart is thus moved for the unrepentant, surely those who claim his name should be similarly concerned for the condition of sinful mankind. Herein is a great missionary and evangelistic challenge. The obvious need of a lost world to know the Lord, as well as God’s great love in providing for mankind’s redemption, should be motivation enough for believers to share the gospel of Christ (John 3:16-18; 2 Cor 5:14). The clear command of Christ makes it a categorical imperative (Matt 28:18-20; John 20:21).

Particularly significant in this passage is the opening verse concerning God calling his people out of Egypt. Matthew saw an analogy between this event and the Lord’s instructions to Joseph to take the boy Jesus to Egypt and remain there until he should tell him to return (Matt 2:13-15, 19-23). While many have attempted to distort Hosea’s words so as to suggest that Hosea actually foresaw the later coming out of Egypt, Matthew’s use of the Old Testament rather reflects his appreciation of the reproduction of Israel’s history in the events surrounding the birth and infancy of Jesus.

Matthew’s use of analogy to relate Old Testament events to the early years of Christ here is instructive. Building on Hosea’s prophecy, Matthew pointed out that like Israel of old, Jesus was called out of Egypt. Like Israel, Jesus came to the homeland of the Hebrews. Similarly, Matthew saw an analogy between Jeremiah’s depiction of Rachel weeping over those who were killed at the fall of Samaria or would be killed during the siege and captivity of Jerusalem (Jer 31:15) and the community’s mourning over Herod’s slaying the infants in a vain attempt to kill the Christ child (Matt 2:18). Again, Matthew perceived in Jesus’ parents’ return to Nazareth a connection with Isaiah’s prediction that the Messiah would be “a new Branch (netser [TH5342, ZH5916]) bearing fruit from the old root” (Isa 11:1).

Although Matthew called all of these fulfillments, they should not be misconstrued as events which the Old Testament prophets actually predicted, as when Jesus cited Isaiah 61:1-2a in the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:18-19). Rather, in such cases (cf. Matthew’s use of Isa 6:9-10 in Matt 13:14-15) the original passage takes on canonical significance but one that in no way alters the meaning of the original text. Thus in reading such Old Testament passages one has an appreciation of the wider use of the text. In this sense the New Testament makes the context of the Old Testament fuller (i.e., fulfills the passage).

The appearance of the exodus motif here is in harmony with its employment elsewhere. Citations and allusions to the Exodus appear throughout the Old Testament (e.g., Josh 3:5; 4:14, 18-24; 5:10-15; 1 Sam 12:6; Pss 105:26-45; 106:7-12; Jer 11:7; Hab 3:3-15). Often the Old Testament prophets recast the account and applied it to God’s future intervention on behalf of his people. At that time he will defeat Israel’s enemies, return them to their land, and pour out his blessings upon them (cf. Isa 11:11-16; 51:9-11; Jer 16:14-15; 23:7-8; Mic 7:14-15). The story of the Exodus continued to be drawn upon by the intertestamental writers (e.g., 3 Macc 2:6-8; 6:4; 1 Enoch 89:10-27; Jubilees 49) and those of the New Testament, especially the Apocalypse of John (Rev 15:3-4).

The retelling of the Exodus story provided a conscious reminder of God’s gracious redemption of his people. What had happened in the original Exodus was a precursor to liberation from Babylonian exile and the eventual gathering of God’s people from the nations of the world in eschatological times. All of this finds spiritual application in the ministry of Christ whose coming to ransom the lost out of the bondage of this world “is like a third exodus because he has come to lead sinners—Jews and Gentiles—into the full experience of salvation.”[17]