Devotional Commentary on Hosea 1 Hosea wrote his commentary over a long
period and he became very old before he died, it seems. There are scholars who
are concerned that the book of Hosea is complex and that the phraseology is
sometimes very unclear. The answer is that the age of Hosea was a factor for
the complex stance of phrases. In Longman's Grammar for Spoken and Written
English (Essex: Pearson Education Limited, 1999) by editors Douglas Biber, Stig
Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, Edward Finegan and Randolph Quirk,
they indicated that there is a difference between spoken language and written
language. The transcript of spoken language compares very well with the
phraseology in the book of Hosea as opposed to the well composed design in news
material. Some features are well to mention:
conversations are spoken rather than written and they are produced online with
the words and grammatical organization being composed on the spot as the
conversation itself unfolds (9). There is little time to plan ahead or to edit
afterwards. Both features are true of the book of Hosea since afterwards the
writer cannot edit what the prophet has spoken since he does not have authority
to change divine inspiration. Longman's Grammar stated that many of the referents
in a conversation are not explicitly identified so that hearers must rely on
the context for understanding (12). A list of characteristics on page 11
illustrates what one also finds in Hosea: 1. there are frequent references to “you” 2. there are frequent direct questions 3. there are frequent references to
himself, describing his own personal thoughts, feelings, past and present
activities. 4. in conversations present tense and
verb phrases with modals are predominant reflecting the emphasis on the participants'
immediate interaction and activities or the expression of their current
attitudes and feelings. Longman's Grammar concluded that
linguistic features are not uniformly distributed across registers (11). This
conclusion is important since you cannot analyze a well edited text, deduct the
grammatical features and expect to find these features also in a text that was
the result of a writing of spoken language. It is like mixing apples and
oranges and expect to find similar in both and in the case of not finding the
same, to attempt to repair the difference. The sentences of Hosea included off
the track “footnotes” of other information telescoped in one verse. The
information is sometimes telegrammic compounded that makes normal reading
difficult but not impossible. The Holy Spirit wanted His Word to come to us in
all shapes and forms for people are not all the same and some prefer it this
way. Hosea. He understood eschatology
fully, the Great Controversy between God and Satan. Death is personalized by
him as having human attributes. He understood the resurrection. In his book, a
God Who pleads to us to convert to Him with a willingness to take upon Himself
the iniquities and make atonement by dying the second death that we are
supposed to receive comes to the surface. There are ways that are upright that
belongs to the Lord and the righteous should walk in them. Hosea was called in a period when
religious ecumenism and equality of religions was the jurisprudence of the
surrounding nations and through intermarriage, Israel also tapped into it. The
wife of Hosea was an Aramaen with strong Phoenician ties as it will become
clear. A failure occurred about consecration in Hosea’s day with worship and
because God is invisible some wanted their senses to remind them of worship and
thus sought for visible “fetish objects” that can focus their religious
perception. The failure to find God through the senses inspired others to seek
Him through methods of concentration and repetition, for the person to go “out
of his/her own body”. Hosea was prophet in the days of “Uzziah,
Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah and in the days of Jeroboam son of
Joash, king of Israel.” (verse 1). A certain faction wanted to crown
Hezekiah probably since they were dismayed in the actions of Ahaz but he was
too young. He only became actual king later but some kept counting his reign
from 727 BCE. Hezekiah was king of Judah between 716-687 BCE. Hezekiah was 25
years old when he became king in 716 BCE but he was crownprince since the age
of 12 in 729 BCE which is the third year in the counting of Hoshea, not of his
reign since he became only sole ruler in his 7th year. Hezekiah's father was
still reigning though when Hezekiah became crownprince. Hosea also lived
through the captivity of Samaria in 723 BCE and the deportation of Israelites.
He lived through the times of Sargon II and he probably died when Sennacherib
was coregent with his father in Babylon the last two years before the death of
Sargon II in 705 BCE (K. van Wyk, "The Dilemma in the Sources surrounding
Sennacherib's First Campaign" in Archaeology in the Bible and Text in the
Tel [Berrien Center, Michigan: Louis Hester Publications, 1996], 264-280,
especially 274b). The total period from 779 BCE until 687 BCE is 92 years. It
is not impossible that this prophet indeed became very old, almost 90 years
old. Repetition is a common feature of old
age and erratic, cryptic notes with quick fluctuations of events, genders,
direct and indirect speech is also a common phenomenon in the senior years of
people’s lives. To expect all the time a smooth text with coherent thoughts and
foci is to misunderstand that Hosea was a person who lived long enough to tell
his own story, retell it and recollate his previous descriptions in all kinds
of forms. He lived long enough to be familiar with the substratum or content of
the messages of Amos, Jonah, Micah, and Isaiah. The Lord asked him to take a
fornicating wife (verse 2). What we have here is an aetiological explanation of
the life of Hosea, namely the first time the Lord spoke to him. Like a senior
citizen telling his own life story he reverts to the first person direct speech
and then suddenly at the end of the verse on the issue of
"fornication" wandered off in another direction (fluctuated) in the
third person indirect speech. The Targum rendered this verse quite different.
It rather attempts to pass by the personal life of Hosea unto what is perceived
as the understanding why he had to do what he did. Instead of "go take for
yourself a woman who fornicated around many times" it
translated/interpreted "go prophecy prophecies against the inhabitants of
the idolatrous cities". Historically we are dealing here with the Jehu
dynasty which was to end in the days of Hosea as we will learn a few verses
away. The expression: "fornicator you have fornicated the earth and
inheritance of the Lord" means that the king of the dynasty of the house
of Jehu in verse 4 is considered the "fornicator" which we find in
verse 2. Spiritually, Hosea had to physically suffering the relational problems
with such a lifestyle so that he could better understand what the main problem
is namely the spiritual fornicating around of believers by devoting their lives
in other directions than God and His worship. Every human is a
pneuma-psycho-somatic person. The Spirit in the spiritual life works through
the mind and body in a wholesome way and compartimentalization is not possible.
Hosea married Gomer and she delivered
him sons (verse 3). The Targum was too embarrassed about the Word of God and
tried to softened it or sidestep it: The Targum Jonathan to the prophets
dealing with Hosea, interpreted this verse as follows: "And he went and
prophesied over them that if they will convert he will forgive them". The
verse of course continuous that bad things will come over them if they do not.
There is no relation to the content of this verse and that of the Targum. It is
as if the Targum is on a side track ignoring the issue at hand and dealing with
something else. It is side stepping the moral issue. There is a possibility that this Gomer
was of the Samaria Ostraca who was one of the wealthy recipients of taxes from
many areas and if Albright is right that these Ostraca dates to the time of
Jeroboam II, then they can probably be dated between 800-781 BCE. These years
are in the reign of Uzziah and Hosea began his ministry in this kings reign.
There are strong indications in this chapter and the next one that Hosea's wife
was wealthy and that she received many gifts from others. It would mean that
Hosea married maybe at the age of 18 around 792 BCE and that he lived probably
until 714 BCE up to the age of 96. The Samaria Ostraca were collected from
years 9, 10, 15 and 17 of a certain king. If these years are counted with an
ascension year counting then the biblical non-ascension years of Jehoash would
mean 16th year in the MT is the 17th year in the Ostraca ca. 792 BCE. The 14th
year in the MT is the 15th year in the Ostraca ca. 794 BCE and the 9th year in
the MT is the 10th year in the Ostraca ca. 799 BCE and the 8th year in the MT
is the 9th year in the Ostraca ca. 800 BCE. The Lord ordered Hosea to “Call his
name Jezreel because again shortly and I will visit the blood of Jezreel upon
the house of Jehu” (verse 4). Again the later Jewish Targum soften the
situation: “Call his name ‘Scattering’ because till now speak moderately”. Historically, it is known that Jehu
was a very cunning fox in his dealings with his enemies. 2 Kings 9 and 10 is
relating the story of king Jehu. He basically killed the predecessors in
fulfillment of a prophetic uttering that was made concerning these kings and
their sins. Many lives were lost. He killed anybody that was connected to the
house of Ahab. One can see his brutal treatment of Jezebel. He proud himself
that his military actions were all acts of God. Most of these killings took
place in the city of Jezreel. To see an expression like the one in this verse,
namely that he will visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu calls for
some comment. Who's blood is it that is making the Lord uneasy here? Does this
mean that as long as you are remaining faithful to God your acts of killing of
the evil ones are no problem but that when you turn your back against the Lord
then those killings are accounted against you? There is no easy answer for this
situation here with Jehu. One must remember that there was a prophetic message
to Jehu that his fourth generation descendants will be kings over Israel (2
Kings 10:30). It is strange that the Lord said that he is satisfied with those
killings four generations ago but now he is going to punish them for those sins
four generations later? For those who
operate with an historical-critical scenario the matter is simple: there are
two sources and the one source is in favor of the actions of Jehu and the other
source is not. This solution is just an easy way out and does not fully attempt
to understand the complete revelation. They do not recognize the presence of
God in this history and thus history is just a human design. The prophets are
just human preachers speaking their own fears and hopes. Some are right some
are wrong. The burning issue is: how can the executioner of God be held
accountable for his actions that he previously carried out with the approval of
God? It seems that as long as they remain faithful the sins are forgiven but if
they stray then those deeds are accountable even if they were previously
carried out with God's approval. This brings us to a theological issue.
It tells us something about the God of the universe. He executes judgments of
death upon the blood of people but those killings are not atoned for unless
there is a continual faith in God. God is not a God of killing and even the
killing of evil has to be accounted for. Maybe the solution lies in the word
"visit". God will make an investigative judgment of the divine
execution and if the executioner is not find faithful, God will deal with those
acts. The punishment in the case of the house of Jehu is that he brought to
rest this kingship of this house. The point of contention here is why it does
not say in Hosea 1:4 "the blood of Ibleam and Jezreel"? See, Ahazia
was also wounded by Jehu near Ibleam. It is impossible to have two prophet
schools opposing each other here on the detail. It seems as if the theology
says that killing is unlawful even of the wicked and that someone has to die
for those blood. The atonement theology is probably the best answer to this
dilemma. If the faithful cannot be punished for his deeds, God has to take the
punishment Himself. And He did. God said to Hosea that “I shall
destroy the military of Israel in the valley of Jezreel” verse 5. The Targum
could not face the biblical text. They changed the meaning: “I will break the
strong doers of approach of Israel in the valley of Jezreel”. We have three actions here that are
going to happen: a. I will visit the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu b.
I will bring to rest the kingdom of the house of Israel and c. I will destroy
the military of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. We have here a pyramid of
actions of punishment of the evil deeds. Jehu and his descendants and then finally
the military of Israel. . Jehu ........ his descendants
.................................military of Israel It is interesting that the punishment
of the military is not in the town of Jezreel but in the valley of Jezreel.
"That day" that is in reference here is probably the year 721 BC at
the fall of Samaria. We have to be very careful not to think that the
expression "and it shall come to pass on that day" is only a
preteristic connection to 721 BC. Neither can one pull the destruction of the
military of Israel and the valley of Israel to an apocalyptic or eschatological
day of a Battle- in-the-Valley-of-Jezreel-Motif. This last battle so well
expressed in the book of Joel and other passages in the Psalms 46, does not
speak of a destruction of Israel but its victory. There is thus no connection
here. The cancelation of this future application is now not a license or
permission to read all the passages in a preteristic way dealing only with the
time surrounding 721 BC. In verse 6 the daughter’s name is to
be “not is their sympathy”. Looking at the language in this section the concept
of "binding" is covenantal. It is what one would find in a covenant
relationship. God will not keep to the covenant anymore a covenant that He made
with Himself saying that He will sympathize with the house of Israel and that
He will surely forgive them. The very names of these children were
to be some form of message that is given to Israel. God will not sympathize any
longer with them. It seems as if He bound Himself to a covenant of care and
forgiveness. If we look at the time He did this, at least in the context of the
previous verse where the case of Jezreel is mentioned, then one has to conclude
that His forgiveness for Israel and His sympathy for them remained connected
for many years, at least four generations in the house of Jehu. It is as if God
made an oath to Himself and He then keeps that oath despite the other party's
failure to come up to the standards or goals inherent in such a relationship.
What the ingredients are of a stable relationship with God will become clearer
in the rest of the book of Hosea. If the translation of the last part should be
"I will surely carry them" then the imagery here is that of an old
lady binding a cloth around herself and carry the baby on the back because of
sympathy and love. God then view Himself as the loving mother who binds her
child (the house of Israel) on her back out of sympathy and love. What a
beautiful metaphor to employ here. God will sympathize with Judah but not
saving them with military devices and military hardware (verse 7). Their
strength is not their military economy. Any form of activistic display for some
good cause in the liberation theology framework is immediately cancelled by
this verse. God does not ask any programmatic effort to "free" or
"liberate" our perceived "captives". Salvation in His view
comes solely in the Lord their God. Hosea preached God, not politics, God, not
social structures, God, not activistic lobbying for whatever good cause. Verse 8 simply reads: “And she weaned
Lo-ruhama and became pregnant and bore a son.” The later Jewish Targum ran
away: “And their generations that are exiled to among the nations shall
discover that they are not compassionate in their works but multiplying and
accomplishing bad works.” The new son’s name should be: “call
his name Lo-ami for you are not my people and I am not I am for you” (verse 9).
Scholars are suggesting that the last part of the verse should refer to God. It
does but the consonants do not justify that we should rectify the text to read
"God". Instead the form of the word is 'hyh’ which is translated as
"I am". This is the same as one can find in the form of God's name to
Moses when he was called cf. Exodus 3:14. At the inception of the Sinaitic
covenant God revealed Himself to Moses as the one who is the great I am. God
has kept faithful to that covenant and now through Hosea he is preaching that
He is not going to be the great I am for Israel any more. Both at the calling
out of exile and the going into exile we find the term "I am". It is
clear that Hosea had a convenantal understanding here of God's dealing with
Israel in salvation (out of Egypt) and judgment (going to Assyria). There is a connection here between the
covenantal God of Exodus 3:14 and the God of Hosea 1:9. At the inception of
both salvation and judgment we find this name or term reference to God. That
Moses was important in the understanding of Hosea is clear in Hosea 12:14. Just
from a cursory look at the book of Hosea it becomes clear that he had a good
understanding of the atonement theology, and the covenant theology. Dear God
Sometimes your anointed messengers and
workers in the vineyard are asked to face difficult task but just like Hosea,
we have this confidence that no one will be tested beyond their capacity and
God’s enabling help for their tasks. All for the glory of God. Even if it
appears strange. Amen.