Devotional Commentary on Hosea 2
Already in the middle of the eighth
century, Hosea is speaking of the book written by Moses ca. 1470 CE, namely
Genesis, as: "It is written". Genesis was a written document that
Hosea consulted, knew of or expounding from here. In Hosea 2:1 Hosea said:
"it is written" (Hosea 2:1) and this is a reference to Genesis 22:17.
Hosea said: "it is in the place which He said to them: You are not my
people". The Jewish Targum elaborated with extras to say that they did not
keep God's law that is why they are not His people. God promised to Abraham at
his calling in Genesis 12:2, and 7 that He will give him many descendants. He
repeated this promise in Genesis 15:5. In Genesis 16:10 He promised Abraham
that He will give him so many descendants that nobody will be able to count
them. In Genesis 17:6 He promised to Abraham that he will have so many
descendants that they will become nations. It is in Genesis 22:17 that we find
the metaphors that is similar in Hosea 2:1. It reads that He promised: I will
increase your descendants like the stars in heavens and like the sand which is
on the shores of the sea. Here is a fluctuation of God's speaking to Abraham on
mount Moriah in Genesis 22 and His speaking to Israel in the days of Hosea. In
all probability the giving of a name to a child took place in the Temple and it
was in this temple mount (same as mount Moriah?) that God instructed Hosea to
call his child "Not My people". That is why Hosea is saying that it
is in the place meaning in the same place as He spoke to Abraham about his
descendants. Fluctuating back to Genesis 22 it was in that time of Abraham the
intention of God to call them "Sons of the living God". Hosea is
saying that at the same place God said that they will be as the sand of the
sea, the same place that He said to them that they are the sons of the living
God, in that same place God is now in the days of Hosea saying: "You are
not my people". In verse 2 Hosea focused on the future
times. This verse and probably the last part of the previous verse, namely, He
said to them: Sons of the living God, should be read as one sequence and event.
This is a little window into the future when God will judge in the Valley of
Jehoshapat (Joel 4:2). The same motifs as are dealt with by Joel are briefly
rehearsed here in this pericope. The book of Joel is dealing with an
eschatological day in future (Joel 1:1). This is a contrary interpretation as
that of Van Dolson who attempted to see "Joel feels that the awful plague
will live in the people's memory for many years to come - they will even be
telling their great-grandchildren about it" (B. J. Van Dolson, Prophets
are People believe it or not [1974], page 24).It does not say that that they
will tell in the future about it. The prophet Joel is asking them to tell about
it. Whether they will tell about it is another issue. To understand that they
will tell in future is to claim that the event already took place. In the light
of verse 2 it is clear that this event in Joel 1:1 did not take place yet, at
least the one that Joel is seeing in his mind. Plagues were common in Palestine
but Joel is not a newspaper reporter. Similar to C. van Leeuwen is the
acceptance that "locusts and draught in Joel i are only the prelude of the
Future Day" (C. van Leeuwen, The Prophecy of the Yom Yhwh in Amos v 18-20.
Oudtestamentische Studien part XIX [1974], page 128. Viewing the description of Joel as a
window to the day of executive judgment in the valley of decision or judgment,
one can now proceed to see that Joel is speaking of an approaching God who is
coming closer and closer to Zion as he proceeds in the book mentioning Zion
seven times. Later God is on mount Zion and people are gathered as well as His
people. He makes war with the enemies of His people. He will eventually be
their ruler and they will live forever close to Him. This is the content of the
book of Joel, not some kind of a description of a locust plague in the past or
a terrible drought in Palestine (contrary to I. H. Eybers, Twelve Theocratic
Testimonies [1977], page 8, and 80 footnote 5). Also contrary to Weiser,
Fohrer, Rudolph, and Young. These are all preteristic interpretations that
attempt to circumvent the imperfect forms of the verbs in the original of these
verses. It is not that Joel experienced some terrible locust plague and now
wants to pull some elements of this experience through to a description of the
day of the Lord; it is rather the opposite, he saw the day of the Lord in
vision and now are trying to find comparisons in the agricultural life of
Palestine to compare it with. That is a different ball-game namely it is as if
the scholars are trying to put the cart before the horses. Hosea's personal frustration is
indicated in verse 4 with his wife's bad fornicating habits and he complained
to his children. Here we are dealing with the life of Hosea. In this chapter
Hosea started with a text from Genesis 22 with the covenant of God to Israel
(descendants of Abraham) and he then proceeds with God's rejection of Israel.
Immediately after that Hosea still opened another window into the
eschatological future (so well formulated in Joel and Psalm 46) speaking of a
unification of Judah and Israel under one ruler in the valley of decision or
Jezreel. He then took stock of his own personal life. From promise to judgment
to hope to frustration in his own personal life, Hosea fluctuates his message
dealing with different time zones.
A Diagram to illustrate Hosea's
fluctuation of his message in different time zones Abraham's time (2165 BCE) promise 2:1a; 2:1b Hosea's time 721 BCE judgment 2:1c Eschatological End Time hope
2:1d; 2:2a; 2:2b; 2:2c; 2:2d; 2:3 Hosea's time 721 BCE frustration in personal life 2:4a; 2:4b As a punishment for her wrong deeds,
Hosea suggested death (verse 5). It is true that Hosea experienced some form of
trauma with the relation of his wife. This problem is an age old problem ever
since the fall of man from the garden of Eden. Even in the garden of Eden, Eve
had mixed feelings that confused her relation not only with God but also with
her husband. When a person marries a wife that person is taking her "as
is". No matter what the background, or history of the person, there is
always a new start or a new beginning. On the basis of the past it is not
always possible to predict the future when it comes to human beings. It is
possible for an alcoholic to be fully recovered from his illness. It is
possible for someone to change his/her life and adopt new styles and
directions. It appears that in the case of Hosea the past experiences of his
wife haunted her and sent her back to her own habits. We are not sure whether
it is one incident or many, but Hosea was placed under severe stress. In this
particular verse the punishment that is described here is one that is similar
to ancient Mesopotamian laws regarding dishonesty of the wife in the family
life. In the code of Hammurabi (1792-1750
BCE) the following grounds for divorce were given: 1. if she persisted in going
out 2. if she acted as a fool 3. if she has wasted her house 4. if she has
belittled her husband. The punishment in the case she is involved in a
extra-marital affair is that both she and the man involved must be strangled
and thrown into the river (paragraph 129). Most of these harsh laws were just
on tablets and were not carried out in this extreme. Circumstantial evidence
probably also played a role and the states control in the private life of citizens
prevented them from carrying out these punishments to such an extreme. However,
even in modern times there is a scale of punishment possibilities. The
punishment for causing the death of another person is also death but can be
scaled down to a mere monetary situation depending on the circumstances and
other factors. Thus, what Hosea is doing is to recall the severest form of
punishment. Just as the Hammurabi law ascribed to such a situation death in the
severest form of punishment, so in his day in 721 BCE Hosea also present the
legal situation of his day as death as the severest form of punishment. The sons that will be born after these
fornicating relationships, Hosea will not take care of (verse 6).It is possible
that the law requires Hosea to take care of the children of such a mother, but
in this case Hosea is trying to indicate that they were not his children but
the children of the men who fornicated his wife. The children are not
accountable for their status. They had no choice in life at that early stage
except the competative struggle to be the first sperm to reach the ovum. Hosea
is not displaying the model way of dealing with children born in such a state. He is here representing the legal
harsh position in the society of his day against children of such a birth in
this particular case. It is a bit of family law and the law of inheritance that
is recounted here. This was what was his legitimate right to do but that does
not mean that Hosea ever went so far to do it or that he will do it. It also
does not mean that God wants him to do it. In similar vein does this not mean
that it is the spiritual right way to deal with the situation. We have an
emotionally unstable Hosea here that has a vendetta against his wife and are
now blasting out against adopted children of his that belonged to her. Hosea indicated to the sons that their
mother is confused and that she wants to follow her lovers who gave her all
kinds of gifts (verse 7). The Targum translated it not as the personal wife of
Hosea but as spiritual Israel: "Because polluted is their assembly after
the prophets of the lie, confused is their teachers". Here are three
categories of domestic life portrayed: basic requirements of daily support of
energy of the body; textile industry for clothing, fashion and protection of
the body; cosmetics and medicine. It is almost as if Hosea's wife is plagued
with the Lot's-wife-syndrome. We do not know the financial position of Hosea
and maybe he was economically handicapped for some time that caused his wife to
long for the better times she had in the past. The excuse to look for bread and
water is a very legitimate one. If she is longing for bread and water, did she
not get it from Hosea? It is as if this was a domestic dispute between him and
his wife where she said to him that she wants to go since he does not supply
the house with the basic commodities. We are not giving the wife a license or
any wife a license to leave the husband who is in such a situation. We are only
analyzing the situation to see also Hosea's economical status. If it is true
about Hosea's economic situation it does not justify her actions but it does
tip the scale of justice in this situation a bit. It is such circumstantial
evidence that could lead a court to down-scale the severity of the punishment
in a similar case. Hosea wants to obstruct her potential
for returning on these bad ways (verse 8). Fencing people in is only a metaphor
and definitely not a model way God wants Hosea to treat his wife good or bad.
Nobody should be robbed of their freedom of choice even if it is a choice to
the bad. The choice is free even if it is captivated by Satan or his forces.
Mechanical control to subdue an adult is used by society to deal with dangerous
criminals and psychological dangerous people. The choice of a woman to follow
her old time lovers is not in this category. The symbol of thornbushes is
familiar in the ancient world in the nomadic system of controlling the domestic
animals and protect them from wild animals outside such a structure. Somehow the
language in this verse seems to indicate that it is not the desire of Hosea but
rather the words of the mind of God that is given to us here. This is the modus operandi of God when
He desires to rescue a soul from the claws of Satan. The reason that we know
this is God's words not Hosea's, is because the next verse contains a word for
conversion. One can see her conversion action in the next verse as a result of
a futile search for her past lovers. Hosea's previous language was couched in
somewhat extreme legal language of punishment for his wife to the point of
death. However, in this verse, we find a softer approach of someone (only
divine) who is able to control the situation more effectively than Hosea wanted
it to be. And this is the main lesson of this verse, namely, that in similar
situations, humanity is to call upon God to block the way for such an
individual to find what that individual is looking for. God can do that as He
did with the wife of Hosea. The legal punishment of Hosea's time is not
necessary in this case. The powerful interception of God leads to a conversion
as we shall see in the next verse. If one weighs the value and effect of a
legal approach with that of a spiritual divine interception in the life of a
problem individual then the spiritual interception is above that of the administering
of laws. We must not fool ourselves with the idea that Hosea was so desperate
that he wanted to lock her in her room and throw-away the key. If we want to make this the
words of Hosea then we are creating an image of Hosea who is extreme to death on
the one side and anxious to confine on the other. It will mean that Hosea
succeeded in his attempt and what did he really do? Placed her in her room,
locked her up? No, definitely not. This is a spiritual warfare in which Hosea
couldn't do anything and only God could do something as He did. In verse 9 he said that his wife ran
after her lovers, could not find them, and decided like the prodigal son in
Luke 16 to return to her husband. The return decision is described by
the Targum as: "go and return to the worship of my Lord before her because
good is it to me when the worship was before me. From now on not will I serve
idols". As Eichrodt so correctly observed, the word for conversion is used
in this verse and it also features well in the preaching of Jeremiah (Eichrodt,
II, page 67). And that is exactly what happened here. The wife of Hosea ran
into a major wall of circumstances not achieving anything and came to her
senses. She realized that Hosea was very good to her and still is. She realized
that even though they do not have it so bright economically, yet her husband
was good to her. She decided to return and this word return is the word for conversion.
The prodigal son in the gospels and in the story of Jesus also came to his
senses in a similar way and said that he wanted to return to his father. Hosea then explained that all the
grain and wine [grape juice/jams] and oil came from him: And she did not
acknowledge that it is I, I who gave to her the grain and the wine (grape
juice) and oil and that I placed to her silver and gold that they made unto a
Baal" (verse 10). A Qumran manuscript survived from cave four. It is
called 4Q166 or 4QpHosa. "I who gave her the grain" survived and is
reading the same as the Masoretic text. "That I placed on her and gold
which they made" also survived. There follows then a commentary that is
preteristic in interpretation looking at the history of Israel and applied it
to the verse. In line 2 until line 6 the interpretation of verse 10 reads: "The
interpretation of it is] that [they] ate [and] were satisfied, and they forgot
God who [had fed them, and all] his commandments they cast behind them, which
he had sent to them [by] his servants the prophets. But to those who led them
astray they listened and honored them [
]and as if they were gods, they fear them in their blindness". This
interpretation probably did not satisfy the composer since he left a line open
after this interpretation and the beginning of the citation of verse 11. Was he
planning to come back later and add something else before verse 11? Why did he
left a line open? The interesting situation is here that the interpretation is
made that the female in this verse is not the wife of Hosea but Israel. Israel
is not mentioned in this verse but only the feminine third person singular
suffix "she". In our interpretation we do not follow this line of
thinking. We keep this verse very literal and apply it to the life of Hosea. So
far we have been following the life of Hosea and there was not a hint in the
previous verses that the shift should be made to Israel. Verses 7-10 is a
depiction of the life of Hosea and seems rather applicable directly to his
personal relation than to corporate Israel. However, the application to
"Israel" was made very strongly in the Targum and the personal life
of Hosea is shifted in that translation totally in the background or nowhere at
all. This phenomenon that can be found only in Jewish works of the Middle Ages is
relevant for the question of the origin of some of the Qumran scrolls. It would
at least opt for a Jewish background for this pesher and not a Christian one. About sixteen pesharim on the Old
Testament survived from the Qumran caves: six on Isaiah, three of the Psalms,
one each of Hosea, Micah and Zephaniah, four of Nahum and Habbakkuk (Bo
Isaksson, "Biblioteket" in The Qumran Seminar [Department of Asian and
African Languages, Uppsala University: http://www.afro.uu.se/qumran/dss04.html,
1998]. Here Hosea is speaking taking stock of
his good deeds. All the things she was using in her wrong doings came from him.
In modern times the husband will say that she did not realize that the credit
cards were paid by him that she used for her exquisite and expensive
entertainments and holidays with her lovers. Hosea is tapping himself on the
shoulder for the good things he did to his wife. The situation seems to change
now. His wife was touched by God and she came to her senses and wanted to come
back. Yet Hosea is still playing his old violin in the same tune. Hosea is not saying that the silver
was placed on her. Many interpreters think that it refers to jewelry that was hanged
around her neck or the like. Not for one moment is there a sanction of the idea
that Hosea hanged jewelry on his wife. The preposition /l/ in this case is
"to" and not "on". Anybody trying to hunt for a prooftext
for jewelry in a love-relationship, certainly will not find that in this verse.
He placed the silver that he received on the markets for the selling of their
products which he worked very hard to produce "to her" since she was
the owner of the estate. Silver served as monetary instruments in the exchange
for goods and it is in that context that the silver was obtained. None of the
old versions support the idea that Hosea hanged silver jewelry "on"
his wife. Anybody acquainted with the history
and developments of jewelry through the ages will know that adornments are
hardly ever only innocent decorations. Even modern jewelry are very symbolic
with religious themes borrowed from ancient cultures: from Christianity comes
Jesus, or the cross, a fish or Mary and the child; from the Roman religions and
Greek religions comes various motifs, Eros, Apollo or Cupido; from the Egyptian
religions are some of their gods, the eye or the ankh. Snakes are sometimes
very popular and is of course fully entrenched in the witchcraft religions of
Africa. Astral motifs are also very popular as for instance the star of David. Now the point is this: if these
ornaments are innocent beautifiers for our female partners, why will a Jewish
female not wear a little Buddha in her ear, or an ornament of Jesus or the
cross around her neck? Why do Christians not wear jewelry of Buddha around their
neck or in their ears? The artist of jewelry is a carrier of a baggage of
content and he/she present to modern society that which they pulled out of
ancient societies. Sometimes lovers exchange gifts to
each other and in the absence of the other partner, they "kiss" and
"hug" the objects as if the objects are now identical to the lover.
It is this phenomenon that God dislikes: that objects replace the person. Love
is not around your neck, in your ears, on your fingers. It is in the mind and
that is where it should be. Love do not need objects to remind people that they
love. We do not need fetish objects to remind us of our love-relation with our
lover. Hosea intends to take back his gifts
(verse 11). It is the private parts of a women that is meant here (see the
Anchor Bible, page 246). 4Q166 from Qumran read also the phrase "Therefore
I will return and I will take my grain in its time and my grapejuice/new wine".
The reading is exactly the same as the Masoretic text with minor long vowels
added as was the custom with the use of matres lectiones as vowels. Also the
phrase "I will save my wool and my linen in order to cover" also
survived and read the same as the Masoretic text. An interpretation is given in
this fragment from Qumran lines 12-14 "The interpretation of it is that He
smote them with famine and with nakedness so that they became a disgra[ce] and
a reproach in the sight of the nations on whom they had leaned for support, but
they will not save them from their afflictions" (Translation that of M.
Horgan). See especially the next verse of the
Targum from 1654 by Walton which included a variant interpreting the same way.
The composer of the Qumran fragment interpreted this verse as if the actor in
the drama of this verse is not Hosea but God. The grain, wine and wool that
will be witheld is interpreted as a famine that God sent to Palestine. We do
not follow this interpretation since the emotionally sarcastic words "in
order to cover her private parts" is not only unnecessary as description,
but is language that one would not expect God would used in talking about His
relation with Israel. What about the men and their sex organs? This is an
emotionally upset Hosea who sarcastically exercise his legal rights in the
extreme. It will become clear in this chapter
that the actions of God are in contrast to these of Hosea. We thus do not follow
the interpretation of the composer of the Hosea pesher or commentary from cave
four at Qumran. Hosea is still angry despite her
conversion. He is swearing or using foul language in the presence of his children.
He is emotionally in an uncontrolled state. In Hosea 2:4 he said that the
children must judge between him and their mother in her field. The expression
"field" is interesting. It could mean that the field originally
belonged to his wife and that he was the usus fructus of her property. That is
why he can claim now in a future harvest a percentage back as renumeration for
the losses he made with her. He was the farmer on her property. His actions are
rather desperate. If the property was his, there is no reason for him to say he
is going to claim something from his own harvest. It is because of the special
contractial relation that Hosea find himself in with his wife that he has to
make these claims. The Samaria Ostraca (if dated to the same time as the events
described in this book) can give additional information. In those Ostraca the
senders or tenants are sometimes Israelites but the owner is a Phoenician.
Sometimes the senders or tenants were Aramaized Phoenicians. It serves to proof
that Hosea's wife could have been an Aramaean with Phoenician affinities who
possessed the land but Hosea was the tenant who worked on it. That is why she
is standing in "her land" Hosea 2:4 (Van Wyk, K., "The Samaria
Ostraca," in Archaeology in the Bible and Text in the Tel [Berrien Center,
Michigan: Louis Hester Publications, 1996], 238-248). Hosea is so emotionally upset that he
wants to exhibit her naked to her lovers (verse 12). It will be seen from the
translation of Horgan in his presentation of the text from Qumran that he left
out the "and" in the beginning of the verse. In our collation of the
copy of the photo from the internet, we have to conclude that the
waw-consecutive can be clearly seen at the beginning of the verse. This is not
the only case where there is an error with Horgan. See also our discussion
below at verse 14. As the Anchor Bible pointed out, the
word that we translated as "private parts" is a hapax legomenon in
the Bible. It means that this word appears only one time in the Bible. The
Akkadian form close to this is bastu/baltu which is sexual power or genitalia
(Anchor Bible, page 248). Hosea is really out of control. Called
by God for a message to his nation and people he now find himself in deep waters
and unable to swim. We do not know whether he experienced a personal low ebb in
his life. here. One thing is certain, his wife did convert but he is not
acknowledging that at all. He is planning a humiliating exhibitionism in front
of her previous lovers and apparently he was a strong man since he roam that
no-one will be able to save her from his hand. In 4Q166 from Qumran the phrase
"now I will open her private parts to the eyes of [her] lo[vers and] no
[-one] is there to save her" is also preserved. It reads again the same as
the Masoretic text in lines 10-11 of that manuscript. In the previous verse we
have quoted the interpretation or pesher that follow the citation of the text
in the fragment. It is applied to God who caused Israel to become a disgrace in
the sight of the nations of whom they leaned for support but of whom there is
none to save them. Again, there is not the word "Israel" in this
verse and the language is so distasteful that it is rather the swearing of an
emotionally disturbed human than that of the divine. We will not follow 4Q166
in its interpretation in lines 12-14 of that fragment. Similar to the interpretation in this
verse of the Qumran fragment is the Targum reference that he will reveal her ignorance
"to the eyes of the nations". None of the other old translations read
this interpretation and it is strikingly the same as the Qumran fragment. That we do have a case here of action
which is not in the will of God is clear from Hosea 3:1. At that verse God is explaining
to Hosea to go and love the woman which he loved before because He keep loving
Israel even though they have gone wrong against Him. This is the blueprint.
This is the way Hosea is supposed to deal with his wife who decided to change
her mind. Instead, Hosea wants to keep to the legal question and treatment of
his wife. In the Sefire inscription of the eighth century BCE there is an
interesting correlation saying: "And just as a prostitute is stripped
naked, so may the wives of Matti'el...be stripped naked" (ANET 660, part
IA lines 40-41). This was the common Mesopotamian punishment for a woman of
that category and Hosea knew he was acting within his legal rights. Society at
large would not condemn him for his actions at that time. This desire to exhibit
his wife's private parts in public is definitely not the same person who said
in 2:8 that he will fence her in and block her ways. Hosea is legally right and
spiritually wrong. In verse 13 the Sabbath is mentioned:
"And I cause to rest all her gatherings, her festivals, her new moon and
her sabbath and all her feasts." In a fragment from Qumran, 4Q166 lines
14-15, this verse also survived. It reads "and I cause to rest all [her]
gather[ings] her [new] moon and her sabbath, and all her seasonal
festivals". The reading is the same as the Masoretic text with no
deviation except minor matres lectiones that were used as vowels, a common
feature in some manuscripts from Qumran. The interpretation follows the
citation of the text: "The interpretation of it is that they make [the fe]asts
go according to the appointed times of the nation. And [all joy] has been
turned for them into mourning" (Translation by M. Horgan). The interesting
thing is that this is a checklist of things that Hosea cause to stop. The
composer of the fragment from cave four interpreted that the only thing that
stops is the "joy" or in our reading "her gatherings". He
interpreted that they still continue the feasts according to the appointed
times of the nation. It is the joy that turned into mourning according to him.
Festivals continue but joy became mourning. This interpretation of the pesher
is contrary to the original of the text. In the text it is clear that everything
in the list stops not only the first entry. We will not follow the reading of
the interpreter at Qumran. We may complain about the
interpretation of the commentator from this cave, but one thing is clear, his
Vorlage was exactly like our consonantal text of the Masoretic tradition. One can see here that the text of the
commentary from cave four at Qumran is no different than our consonantal text
of the Masoretic text (of which the fullest manuscript is the Leningrad
Manuscript dating to 1008/9 CE). Whatever date we are going to assign to Qumran
manuscript, whether it is hundreds of years before this date (Solomon Zeitlin)
or over a millennium (most scholars), the fact remains that at Qumran there was
a text type that compares 100% with our current Hebrew text from which the
English translations are usually made of. Even if scholars are trying to
implicate that there were other text types (Hebrew texts with a more
Septuagintal character; Hebrew texts with a more Vetus Latina character; Hebrew
texts with a more Lucian Greek textual character) none of these traditions can
be placed in such a strong relation as that between the Leningrad manuscript
and the Hebrew texts with a Masoretic identity. If two manuscripts show such strong
identity as the textual type in this fragment of Hosea and the Hosea text of
the Leningrad manuscript, you can assume that the original was also the same.
If another text type shows only some resemblances of other later text types,
not in every reading, not in every variant, but only in some, you can assume
very confidently that this was not the original. Let us give an example. If a
toy-artist designs a 1965 Mercedes Benz in 2001 and this toy compares exactly
with another toy that was made of a 1965 Mercedes Benz in 1971, and if there
was no contact between these two toy-artists, you can confidently declare that
the form and shape of the toy of 2001 as well as that of 1971 is exactly the way
the original designer designed the 1965 Mercedes Benz. If there is another toy
on the market in 2000 which claims to be a replica of the 1965 Mercedes Benz,
but it does not compare to the previous toy of 1971 in all aspects but do
compare with some aspects (and note, only some aspects) of a 1980 toy (which
happen to be also different than the one in 1971) then you can assume with
great confidence that the one in 1980 and the other variant in 2000 which both
claim to be a 1965 Mercedes Benz are not exactly the same as the original but
are modifications of the original for whatever reasons. This is one of the
scientific reasons why this commentary chose to see the consonantal text of the
Masoretic tradition as the original. Let us go into the detail concerning
the variant surrounding the Sabbath because that is really what it is. It appears
as if the phrase "and the Sabbaths of her" was not in the Septuagint
of Origen's day. In the later Middle Ages and modern editions the phrase can be
found though. Did Origen really used a proper "Septuagint" Greek
text? If it was the "Septuagint" text, was it properly copied before
it came into the hands of Origen? Fifty years before Origen, Justin the Martyr
complained about additions and omissions that were done in the manuscripts in a
mala fide way. In the same time as Justin the Martyr Theodotion made his
translation which corresponds exactly to our consonantal text of the Masoretic
tradition. It was a private copy though and not an ecclessiastical official
text. It seems as if the preservation spirit of the church was in jeopardy in
the first two centuries. The official text seems to have changed face as
centuries progressed. In the first option of Origen we have
about this text, the Sabbath is not in the picture of something to be turned
aside. We know that the observance of the First Day of the week started not in
the first century CE but in the second century CE. As a prooftext this text
could have caused some uneasiness which could have been the background for
omitting it in that century but definitely not in any century preceding the
second century CE. In the second option of Origen,
Sabbath is in the picture but it sounds as if it is any Sabbath (even
holidays). Again this kind of omission could have found a place in the
Sabbath-Sunday conflict of the second century CE. In the third option of Origen the
Sabbath and some festivals are not in the picture as items to be "turned
aside". Again this could have had its origin in a Jewish-Christian debate
of the second century CE. All three our interpretations above
are only valid if the text of Origen indeed contained the metobolus✔ at
one of those points. We do not know for certain. Catena 97 of the Middle Ages read it
as if it is the Sabbaths that will be "turned aside". It appears as
if this catena was copied by a Christian with the intention to demonstrate that
the Sabbath will be turned aside and Sunday took its place. Catena 87 copied it
the same way in the first reading but a corrector then came and saw the error
and corrected the text. The correction of the text stands as a witness that
catena 97 was a mistake similar to catena 87. It is highly unlikely that the
original Septuagint text would have read it similar to catena 97. Catena means "chain" and it
is a putting together of biblical verses like a chain and this genre is not a
formal biblical text but a functional biblical text. No conclusions may be
drawn from them regarding the form of the original text. Contenders for Sunday as a day of
worship is using this verse as a prooftext for the rejection from the Lord of
the Sabbath day. The sabbath that is in view here is not that of Israel but
that of the wife of Hosea who was a Baal worshipper (Hosea 2:10; 15). We do not
know which days they worshipped but the text definitely reads "her
sabbath". The seventh day is the Lord's day not that of Hosea's wife. There
is not even a hint that God is going to do away with the seventh day as a day
of rest. The wife of Hosea was apparently rich since the field belonged to her
and also the vineyard and the fig trees. She was a very social person and
apparently she had many friends. She was the hostess for these meetings and
some of the most noble and rich were connected to the religion of Baal. She
probably followed her lovers to the Baal temple and brought some of the fruits
of the land which her husband Hosea was tending and which she now was offering
to Baal. It appears that she would excuse herself from her family and then go
on a business. She took fruits and other precious metals with her and met
secretly with her lovers at a temple of Baal. She had secretly sex with them
and then out of gratitude she let the fruits and metals be taken to Baal. That
was the one place where Hosea would not follow her and thus a convenient excuse
for her to escape from her husband. Hosea was a hard worker and demanding as
farming is, he was always busy. What really triggered off Hosea's anger with
his wife is not clear and also not the time it happened. We have here two
individuals who are married who have different interests in their lives. The
one liked to stay home and tender the farm; the other liked to socialize and partake
in the club-activities of the society. The one is attached to the religion of
God and the other is attached to the religion of Baal. Hosea probably initially
thought that this involvement of his wife in social affairs was simply because
they are different in backgrounds. However, when he opened his eyes he found
his wife estranged from him. Hosea is the one who is causing to stop all her
festivities (social parties) her sabbath (day she took off to go to the Baal
temple), her new moon celebrations in
the Baal religion, and all the other rituals and ceremonies that she
participated in during the year. There is evidence for these offerings
and celebrations and sabbath days in the phoenician inscription of Azitawadda
who worshipped Baal and boasted about all his achievements during his reign: [And brought] offering yearly an ox. [And brought] also in the [time of
pl]owing a sheep. [And brought] also in the time of
reaping a sheep. And Baal KR[N]TRYŠ blessed the day of
Azitawadda. In the above inscription it is clear
that Azitawadda was complying to the expectations of Baal religion in his day.
Yearly he would bring an ox, at the festivals for plowing a sheep and at the
festival for reaping a sheep to all the images = lkl hmskt = TKSmh lKl (col. II
line 19 and col. III line 1). Then it is added that Baal blessed the day of
Azitawadda. This is taken to be a sabbath day that Azitawadda appointed for
himself to provide gifts to his religion. It is "his day" not that of
the god. To take this as a meaning that he blessed the "days of the reign"
of Azitawadda would be strange in the light of a few lines further where it
reads: "and all the gods of the city unto Azitawadda length of days."
This last expression is a general character of his reign but the previous usage
of "day" is a festival sabbath of Azitawadda. Festivals were at the
appointed times as it reads in his inscription: in the times. Just like this
text is speaking of the day of Azitawadda, so we interpreted this verse that
this sabbath is her sabbath. Never
in either the Old Testament or New Testament is there any evidence that God
caused His holy Sabbath to be stopped and changed into another day. God's
Sabbath is called "My holy day". It belongs to God and not to the
wife of Hosea or any human being or any particular culture (Jewish nation).
Somehow God is particular about the Seventh day, or Saturday since He promised
that if one chooses not to do your business on His holy day then He will cause
you to prosper (see Isaiah 58:13-14). Isaiah 58:13 "If you keep back from the
Sabbath your feet, to do your desire on the day of My Holines and you call to
the Sabbath: 'special' to the Holy One: 'the Lord Who honors'" Isaiah 58:14 "then you will be special upon
the Lord 'and I will cause you to ride upon the heights of the earth and I will
cause you to eat of the inheritance of Jacob your father,' for the mouth of the
Lord spoke." Nowhere in the New Testament is there
any evidence that this situation was changed by Jesus or any of the apostles. Even the words of Jesus "Man was
not made for the Sabbath but the Sabbath for men" is not an cessation of
the Sabbath or change of the Sabbath. It still speaks of "the"
Sabbath, namely a particular one, not any one. Both the Sabbath and man is a
creation by God and He has ownership over both human and time. However, Jesus
is pointing out that if a human being and time is placed on a scale of
importance for God, God will choose a human being. Jesus demonstrated that to
do good on the Sabbath is not wrong. To work for the upliftment of people in
need, without gratifying your own capitalistic desires is not wrong. Cessation
from your daily routines is still a principle that shines out of these
examples. Certain points stand out very clearly
in this issue: 1. Hosea and Isaiah were
contemporaries and it is inconceivable that the one will speak of the Sabbath
as a time worthy of remembering the Lord and the other one presumably speaking
of a cessation of that same time. 2. The God of Hosea and the God of
Isaiah is the same One and He will not encourage them to keep the Sabbath in
one prophet and speaks of cessation of the concept of Sabbath by another
prophet. In Africa we say: "His morning talking and evening talking are
not the same." This is an idiom for the inconsistent person. This cannot
be said of God. 3. The Sabbath of Hosea is called
"her Sabbath" and the Sabbath of Isaiah is called "the day of my
holiness". They cannot refer to the same day. 4. God was very direct and specific
with His instruction pertaining to the Seventh Day Sabbath. If He wanted to change
that situation to another day e.g. the First Day or Sunday, Jesus would have
been very direct in His instructions too. To attempt to build a case for
Sunday-worship as a substitution of Saturday-Sabbath by looking for apparent
"hints" in that direction, is a fatal methodology. God does not
"hint" an important message. He is direct and clear. The absence of
clarity about a change of day simply means there never was a change as far as
God is concerned. 5. If your concept of the "word
of God" does not include the traditions of churchmen in later centuries,
then it does not help to search for answers among the churchfathers as if they
will clear up a dark picture. In the absence of any clear instruction to a
change, are you now going to side with the churchfathers and change the day by
yourself, if God does not do it? No human can change the Sabbath that was
instituted by the Lord. 6. Some say that it does not matter.
Apparently it does for God. Our citation of Isaiah supra clearly shows that God
is particular about this one time zone in every week. The Sabbath reform of
Nehemiah in Nehemiah 13:15-22 is clear evidence that the Lord cares about this
time zone that starts on Friday at sunset until Saturday at sunset. No human
being can ad hoc decides to change or "swop" the day with that of
another. We have to say something about the
dangers in the methodology of Walther Eichrodt on this subject (see his book: Theology of the Old Testament [London:
SCM Press, 1967]). Eichrodt is operating with artificial hegelianism in his
analysis of the theology of the Old Testament. Secondly, he operates with the
formula that quantity of expression in the text represents volume of
understanding in a particular time zone or period. He would use words like
"gradually becoming" to describe phenomena in the text. This
"growth of thought"- concept regarding God and his revelation is
foreign to our methodology in this book. God's revelation does not grow in our
understanding. Humans are incapable of always grasping the fullness that comes
to them. Yet, even the representation of the fullness that the prophet
received, how incomplete it may seem to us, is still the full word of God and
the way He intended it to be. In our methodology we do not hunt for polaric
thinking in the Old Testament: a time when they thought black and another time
they thought white. The religious laws Eichrodt considers as records of
revelation (311). He would then try to show that earlier there was a directness
in the relationship with God but that later that directness became less
important and devotion to the laws was seen as synonymous with a relationship
with God. Psalm 119, the law chapter, and Isaiah 56:1-8 is seen as evidence to
him that the direct relationship with God was becoming of less importance and
that now the observance of cultic laws "in particular the commandment
relating to the sabbath" became more important (ibid). This polarization
of relation with God and observance of His laws is foreign to the Old Testament.
In the Old Testament, it is relationship plus laws not only laws or only
relationship. The Ancient Near Eastern mind could not think about relationships
apart from the law. Even in this very chapter you will
find Hosea thinking legally. This compartmentalized concept of Eichrodt about
relationship and law is a modern western fallacy that is governing and steering
his axioms that forms part of his methodology. This is Eichrodt's thinking, not
that of the Old Testament. Eichrodt is thinking that the Sabbath observance and
importance of that has now supplanted the direct relationship with God. We are asking
the question: after God created Adam and Eve and instituted the seventh day
Sabbath, did He not walk in the evening wind with Adam and Eve in a direct
relationship? Eichrodt missed the point that absence of information means
actually presence of information and that elaborations of themes in the text
means that there was a need to explain or an absence of proper understanding. As far as the interpretation of Calvin
is concerned, Calvin misunderstood the passage as directly referring to the
Israelites and thus he interpreted it. He did not see the reference to the wife
of Hosea and their domestic disputes. He said in his commentary: The Prophet now descends to
particulars; and, in the first place, he says, that the people would be
deprived of their sacrifices and feast-days, and of that whole external pomp,
which was with them the guise of religion. (Calvin's commentary on Hosea:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ ipb-e/epl-04/cvhos-05.txt). It is true that the Israelites were
deprived of their sacrifices and feast days by the exile but this is not an issue
concerning the Israelite worship in this verse, but about the worship style of
the wife of Hosea. John Wesley said in his notes on this
verse that "though they were apostate and fallen to idolatry yet they
retained many of the Mosaic rites and ceremonies." He said that "the
three annual feasts of tabernacles, weeks, and passover, all ceased when they
carried captive, by Salmaneser" (John Wesley's commentary on Hosea:
http://wesley.nnc.edu/wesley/notes/hosea.htm). In the interpretation of John
Wesley the feasts and other religious activities of the Israelites would cease
at the time of the exile. He also interpreted the "her" as Israelites
and the timing of these events as the exile. In an article by Robert Kraft of the
university of Pennsylvania "Some Notes on Sabbath Observance in Early
Christianity" (can be easily located in the search engines of the
internet) he investigated the research of W. B. Bishai on Sabbath keeping
practices in the early Coptic church. Bishai suggested that the early Coptic
Christianity kept only the Sabbath and at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE they
adopted both Saturday and Sunday as a day of worship. He quoted Bishai as
saying: It seems possible that Sabbath observance
among the Copts in Egypt and Ethiopia may have passed through three stages: 1) Only the seventh-day observed--from
apostolic times until the Council of Nicea; 2) Sunday and the seventh-day
Sabbath both observed--from the Council of Nicea until perhaps a century two
later; and 3) only Sunday designated as a day of public worship--a practice
still observed today (Bishai, 31). Kraft is criticizing Bishai's research
for his (Bishai) use of the sources, namely that the Coptic-Arabic-Ethiopic ecclessiastical
literature are opposed to the Greek-Latin-Syriac ecclessiastical literature
regarding the issue of the Sabbath. Bishai concluded that only the Southern Christianity
kept the Sabbath for a long time after the first century CE in which Kraft
attempted to oppose him by showing that the very source that Bishai is using to
support that statement from the Coptic is based on a Greek Vorlage or original.
The words read: Let the slaves (13) work five days,
But on the Sabbath and the Lord's Day let them devote themselves to the church
that they may be instructed in piety. The Sabbath, indeed, because God himself
rested on it when he complete all the creation, and the Lord's Day because it
is the day of the resurrection of the Lord.
Greek Apostolic Constitutions
VIII. 33.2: (11) but in Sahidic "Statutes" (12). For the reference of Bishai to the
chief Egyptian delegate at Niceae, namely, Athanasius, whose canons are dated
around 366 CE, and his insistence that there is a necessity to keep both days,
Kraft tries to argue that Egypt was primarily Hellenistic not Coptic. Kraft
tries to push the Sabbath keeping importance in the Christian church later than
325 CE by referring to Timotheus Bishop of Alexandria who speaks in 381-385 CE
about the importance to keep from sexual relations on the Sabbath and the
Lord's Day because on these days the spiritual sacrifice (Lord's Supper) is
served to the Lord. On the island of Cyprus at Salamis Epiphanius witness about
the special place the Saturday Sabbath has alongside of Sunday as a day of Christian
gathering (see his "Exposition of the Faith" 24 at the end of his
Panarion which was completed in 380 CE. In the Greek form of the Didascalia
tradition that dates according to Kraft probably to the fourth century CE there
is evidence that Northern Christianity reminded their followers that they
should not neglect the daily assemblies especially the Sabbath and Sunday days
of rejoicing. The main thing is that both men, Bishai in his research of the
Southern Christianity and Kraft in his defense for the Northern Christianity
cites evidence that until at least late in the fourth century CE (the time of
Jerome and Augustine) some practices of Sabbath keeping could still be found in
Christianity. Kraft concluded from his study of the
sources: Both Hellenistic Egypt and the rest of the Hellenistic Christian East
knew of the dual observance of Sabbath and Sunday in the 4th century, and had recorded
its interpretation of what was meant by "Sabbath observance," in
terms of "rest" and idleness. .... Is it possible to move behind the
4th century to determine how ancient this dual observance of Sabbath/Sunday may
have been? Unfortunately, sources for Coptic Christianity prior to that date
are not readily available. But if we can
trust those scholars who trace the "Egyptian Church Order" tradition
back to Hippolytus and his Apostolic Tradition, the dual observance in
Hellenistic Christianity may be at least as old as the early 3d-century and
probably much older(23). Although it is not possible to
determine with precision from what portion of early 3d-century Christianity
Hippolytus had derived his traditions, it is probable that he spent his early
life somewhere in the Hellenistic East (Alexandria or Antioch?) before he came
to Rome (24). Thus the dual observance
may have been an established Eastern (Hellenistic) practice at the end of the
2d century. Unfortunately, Robert Kraft fell
victim to the very method he is denouncing. He claims that it is very difficult
to reconstruct with precision what early Christianity exactly was in the second
and third centuries because of the lateness of the sources that are preserved
(and in this he is correct) but then ends his paragraph with the words of a
possible dual observance established at the end of the 2nd century CE. It is
our experience with patrology and sources involved in the study of church
history, that comparisons between the manuscripts that survived of Ignatius,
the Sheperd of Hermas and nearly every single church father has omissions,
additions, reworkings, recastings, reinterpretations, "backreadings",
assumed corrections so that Kraft's optimism is very dim to say the least. What
we are saying is, is that proper understanding of church history of the second
and third centuries stops in the fourth century CE which is the time of the
oldest manuscripts that survived. Yes, copies of the second and third centuries
CE literature are definitely a fourth century CE understanding of second and
third centuries CE literature, but not the actual second and third centuries'
literature. To use the argument of Kraft against himself, we do not know
whether all Christians in the Northern and Southern groups accepted a dual
observance in these centuries. Since Jesus was not a Sunday keeper and neither
is there evidence that his apostles were, it is possible that Sabbath keeping
Christians could be found in all parts of the Mediterannean and that only some
factions adopted a dual practice and that very late. We do not know whether the
anti-Sabbath attitudes of later centuries rested heavily on the hands of the
editors to make their copies of earlier literature reflect this anti-Sabbath
attitude attempting to read back their own change of Saturday to Sunday as
worship day? This is where our consideration of the
translations of Hosea 2:11/13 comes in. Did Theodotion change the singular to a
plural Sabbaths in this verse because he wanted the text to refer to the
festival Sabbaths and not the Sabbath of the Lord? Was this verse absent in the
Septuagint of Origen 240 CE because some copier could not accept that the
Sabbath of the Lord could be turned over? Do the conflicting cases of additions
of the signs by Origen in the sources give evidence that later scribes had
problems with these concepts? Similarly, was the addition of the variant those
by the Coptic an attempt to cancel a reference to the Seventh day Sabbath? As
we have indicated the translation her Sabbath should not give any problems since
it refers to her (wife of Hosea's) own days of worship in Baalism and not the
Sabbath of the Lord in true worship. Hosea then destroyed her fruit-trees
(verse 14). Seemingly all the versions understood the involvement of Creation
theology in this verse since in their own way each one attached one element
from either Genesis 1:28 or 29. It is not wrong to connect the Creation
Theology and the judgment theology per se. But what is wrong is to connect it
in this verse. Elsewhere in the book of Hosea such connections were made and
there is constant reference to either Adam or the fall of man and the Great
Controversy theme. In this verse there is no application in any way. It is
directed to the wife of Hosea and to her alone. It should only be interpreted
in the personal life of Hosea. Verse 14 at Qumran is for 4QpHosa
according to the translation in English that was done by M. Horgan Qumran Text lines 17 to 19 (Horgan's
presentation) 17. [joy] has been turned for them
into mourning. (14) AND I SHALL MAKE DESOLATE [HER VINE] 18. [AND HER FIG TREE,] OF WHICH SHE
SAID, "THEY ARE THE HIRE [THAT MY LOVERS HAVE GIVEN] ME." 19. AND I SHALL MAKE THEM A FOREST,
AND THE W[ILD BEAST OF THE FIELD] WILL DEVOUR THEM. His translation missed one word so I
should give the correction as: Qumran English Translation lines 17 to
19 And I will destroy [her grapevines and
her fig-trees] which she had said: a gift they are to me [which was given to me
by my love]rs, and I will place them unto a wilderness and [the animals of the
field] will eat them. There are scholars who work around the
clock trying to proof that the original text was either shorter or longer than the
current Masoretic text or Hebrew text. They found evidence for that in the Septuagint
and because similar readings are also found in Hebrew texts from Qumran,
therefore the conclusion is made that the Hebrew text should be emended. Other
scholars argue the opposite way. The Hebrew text is the original and the
Septaugint and Hebrew texts from Qumran are emended texts from it. I follow the
second group on this basis that if one is to follow the idea that this is a grey
area and that it is up to the individual scholar what he wants to do with the
reading, then one becomes a-normative. In such a case the norm center shifts
from the outside to the inside of the scholar. Instead of an objective norm
that controls the human it becomes a subjective norm designed and controlled by
a human. God's word cannot be created by a committee or voted in by a majority.
It is the Word of God because it is. It exists despite our analyses, our vote,
our decision, our construction. It is true that the Hebrew texts from Qumran
are older than the current Masoretic text and it is also true that some of the
Greek manuscripts are earlier than the Masoretic text. However, the spectrum of
variety amongst Greek manuscripts cannot be demonstrated in a similar way
amongst the Hebrew manuscripts supporting the Masoretic text. Evidence for this
can be found in the research of Benno de Rossi who collected many Hebrew
manuscripts of the Middle Ages and compared its readings with that of the
Vulgate, Syriac, and Greek texts. There are minor variants like the omission of
a waw-copulative and so forth but none can compare to the quantity and variety
of phenomena that one finds in the Greek manuscripts. The consonantal text of
the Masoretic text is by far the most stable text and worth to be considered
the original text. You can find the exact copy of 1008 CE at Qumran and this situation
you cannot claim for any other version, translation or tradition. In verse 15 a punishment for the
worship of Baal is outlined. "And I will visit upon her the days of the Baals
- which she caused to burn incense to them". We end the verse here and the next
section where God is speaking starts with the phrase: And to me said the Lord.
This is not the way the Masoretes has divided the chapter and verse. None of
the Greek and Latin translations follows our suggestion. However, analyzing the
text we come to the conclusion that in this verse Hosea is still speaking about
his wife just as he was doing in Hosea 2:10. From verse 16 God is speaking
again and His words will be somewhat different than that of Hosea. Hosea is
desperate, emphatic, extreme. God is patient, enduring and loving. This is the
picture that we have of Hosea in this chapter. It is the contrast between God
and Hosea in this chapter that causes us to allocate some verses to God and some
to Hosea. It seems that commentators through the centuries has wrongfully allotted
all the verses to God and pulled the metaphor through that God is speaking
about Israel and that it is not the wife of Hosea any longer. Not so. Careful
analysis shows that the treatment of Hosea of his wife is totally different
than the way God is treating Israel. There is thus no place for a one-on-one
similarity here and a one-for-the-other treatment of the two. God is not Hosea
and his wife is not Israel. God is not the same to Israel as Hosea is to his
wife. That is not to show the similarity but to show the difference. They may
have experienced the same trauma but the modus operandi of solving the problem
is different. In Hosea's domain there is no place for mercy, only the law. In
God's domain there is place for both justice and mercy in equal manner. In verse 16, Hosea let the Lord speak.
This is not Hosea speaking here and neither is the previous verse God who is speaking.
This verse is God who is the same voice who spoke in Hosea 2:8. God is not a
psychopath who fluctuates from one personality to another. He does not speak
anger and love in one breath. Whereas Hosea is angry and wants to solve the
problem with his wife legally protecting his rights over his usus fructus of
her property, God is romantic about Israel and is going to be the lover
searching for sweet talk. Some interpreters would like to think that God is using
the words of Hosea for his wife to speak about Israel and that here are many
metaphors operative. That is not the case. God's dealing with love-related
problems is far more exalted than what Hosea can ever profess to be. If Hosea
ever had any intention in this description to find sympathy in the fact that he
and God is suffering the same stress, then he surely fall short of the grace of
God. This is the way God wants to solve the problem. It is so contrasting to
that of Hosea who wants to strip his wife naked, who wants to expose her, who
wants to let her die. Here is the covenant God speaking in a manner that we
find also in Jeremiah where the law will be upon the hearts of the people. In the lower register of the BHS
[Hebrew text] there is no reference at all to any of these variants or their reconstructions,
not even the versional renderings or support. The lower register of the BHS is
best if it is ignored completely. The incompleteness, the inconsistency, the assertiveness
to cut and paste the text ad hoc is evidence that it was done with haste and
carelessness. We find this place in Joshua 7:24-26.
It is a description of the place where Israel executed Achan for stealing some
remains after the war with Jericho. Achan's family was burnt and a heap of
stones was put over his body in this valley. The place of execution is called
the valley of Achor. The meaning of achor is something that
is taboo or not permitted. It could be that people did not travel through that
valley due to its name. However, God said He would change that
valley into an open door meaning that people can go in or out of it. This valley
was in all probability in the area of Jericho since that is where Joshua was
when he received the news about Achan and it is from there that they took them
to the valley of Achor. There are enough valleys in the area of Jericho that
could qualify for this specific valley. Hosea said: "And it will be on
that day said the Lord that she will call me my man and not will she call to me
any more my Baal". This section along with the other verses that follow is
eschatological. It refers to the time of the end when the earth with the remnant
saved is the symbolic bride that calls the Lord who is the bridegroom (well
known in the stories of the gospels) "my man". It implies that until
that time of the end there are situations that people call the Lord "my
Baal". The Baal cult as such and the way we understand it in the history
of religions, does not exist any longer. However, this verse indicates that
Baal religion apparently operates with a metamorphosis so that it changed forms
and continue to exist through the centuries. The question is now: what is there
in modern society that humans are calling upon for their reliance or needs that
is a substitution of the Lord? This is not the time to run around with
etiquettes nicknaming everything or anything "Baal". The simple
principle is probably an individual case by case question that each one has to
ask him or herself: what is there in my life that prevents the Lord from having
an open honest relation with me? God will remove the names of Baals
from their mouths (verse 19). This verse gives us the indication that there are
many kinds of Baals and that the gods or personalities involved in the Baal
cult had various Baal names. It is of course Israel that is spoken here of in
the context of the previous two verses referring to their experience upon the
entrance into Canaan after the exit out of Egypt. This verse is also eschatological
and there is a cleaning up operation of anything connected to a Baal-like
structure. In verse 20 Hosea is eschatological. In
this verse the last part of the verse was misread by nearly all versions except
the Targum. Starting from Aquila 130 CE, Symmachus 170 CE, Theodotion 190 CE,
Origen's Hexapla (doubtful), the Greek of the fifth century CE, and Jerome 403
CE, as well as the Syriac, all read the Hebrew here incorrectly in one way or
another. The variants are not always the same and the kind of misreadings are different. Did the scribe of Codex Ambrosianus
falsify the readings of Aquila and Symmachus or was he only trying to
retranslate them into Syriac in his own accord causing an allignment with the
ecclessiastical Greek text of the fifth century CE especially in this verse. We
are not sure if this happened in other verses too, but this issue should from
now on be kept in mind. The covenant here is an all inclusive
one. It includes all living things. God will take away the weapons of
destruction and not only the weapons of mass destruction as current governments
are trying to do. This situation where there will not be any weapon found under
the sun is surely in the domain of eschatology or at the end time. Never in the
history of Israel or Palestine for that matter or anywhere else on this earth
was there a breathing moment that weapons stopped to exist. God will remove war
from the earth. This is a very unusual event that cannot be found in the annals
of this world's history. It is definitely lined up for the world to come. There
is no place in this scenario for any human government or agency to carry out
the task that belongs solely to God. This is a cleaning up operation in extreme
perfection with no human flaws. A futuristic interpretation of any current
worldly powers carrying out this task, is futile and absurd. An environmental
theology will not help God in any way here. Humans cannot create the Kingdom of
God for Him. He is going to do it His way. Any nuclear agency claiming this
text as their legitimacy for clearing out nuclear weapons is misreading the
text. He is also going to remove the inhabitants so that there will be hope. As
long as sin reigns there is no hope and the end of sin is the beginning and
stabilization of hope. God said in verse 21: "And I will
make you a wife to me unto eternity. And I will make you a wife to me in righteousness
and in justice and in kindness and in sympathies".