1 The word of the Lord that came to Hosea the son of Beeri in the days of
Uzziah and Jotham and Ahaz and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of
Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.
2 The beginning of the
word of the Lord in Hosea: And the
Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a promiscuous woman and children of promiscuity,
for the land will commit flagrant whoredom from following the Lord.”
3 And so he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived
and bore to him a son.
4 And the Lord said to him, “Call his name
Jezreel, for yet a little while and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel on the
house of Jehu and turn away the kingdom of the house of Israel.”
5 And it shall be in that day, I will break the bow of Israel in the valley
of Jezreel.
6 And she conceived again and bore a daughter.
And she said to him, “Call her name ‘No Mercy,’ for I will by no means continue
to have mercy on the house of Israel, but I will surely oppose them.
7 But I will have mercy on the sons of
Judah and deliver them by the Lord their God, and I will not deliver them by
bow or sword, nor by war or chariots, nor by horses or horsemen.
8 And she weaned No Mercy and conceived
again and bore a son.
9 And he said, “Call his name ‘Not My
People,’ for you are not my people, and I am not your ‘I AM.’”
10 And the number of the sons of Israel was
as the sand of the sea, which shall not be measured or numbered. And yet it
will be in the place where it was said to them “You are not my people,” they
shall also be called—“sons of the living God!”
11 And the sons of Judah and the sons of
Israel will be gathered together at the same place, and they shall appoint for
themselves one ruler, and will go up from the land, for great will be the day
of Jezreel.
Introduction
The book
of Hosea introduces the Book of the Twelve. Hosea “seems particularly well
suited to its introductory role,” says Sweeney, for it “begins by raising the
question of the disrupted relationship between YHWH and Israel by comparing it
to the disrupted marriage of the prophet to his wife Gomer.” The other bookend of the
Twelve, Malachi, forms an inclusio with Hosea and calls Israel to return
to the Lord and observe the covenant.These
two themes—a ruptured covenant relationship between the Lord and his people and
the restoration of that relationship—summarize well the Twelve as well as Hosea
as a whole.
More specifically, “the
analogy between Hosea’s marriage and Yahweh’s relationship with Israel is the
subject of Hosea 1-3, and then Hosea 4-14 addresses the behavior that has been
figuratively depicted as adultery in the first three chapters.” Hosea
was called to the prophetic office during the reign of Jeroboam II, that is,
some time prior to 745 BC, when Assyria was the regional superpower. This
period for Israel and Judah was marked by economic boon and political
stability—and Baalism that threatened the exclusive worship of YHWH (Hos 2:8, 13,
16-17; 4:13-15, 18; 9:1; 13:1-2, NETS). His
ministry likely lasted until just before the fall of Samaria in 721 BC; the
heart of Hosea’s oracles denounces Israel’s idolatry in the provocative terms
of spiritual whoredom.
But the message was not limited to what Hosea proclaimed
verbally. Hosea’s life and marriage were a dramatization of YHWH’s marriage to
his adulterous covenant people. Hosea was called not only to proclaim a
message, but also shockingly and jarringly to be the message. This painful divine word, vividly portrayed, spoke
the Lord’s judgment on Israel’s spiritual harlotry—exile under the foreign
powers with whom Israel had played the whore (Hos 1:11; 2:14-15; 3:4-5; 7:11;
8:8-10; 12:1; 14:3, NETS). Yet
already in the first eleven verses of the book, judgment and exile are not the
final word. Despite Israel’s disgusting infidelity, a beautiful restoration hope
is held forth (1:10-11).
Exegetical Outline
I. Superscription (1:1)
II. The Beginning of the Word of the Lord in Hosea (1:2-9)
A. Hosea ordered to
take to himself a whore and children of whoredom
(1:2-3)
B. First child:
Call his name “Jezreel” (1:4-5)
C. Second child:
Call her name “No Mercy” (1:6-7)
D. Third child:
Call his name “Not My People” (1:8-9)
III. “Not My People”: “Sons of the Living God” who appoint
one ruler (1:10-
11)
Verse by Verse
Commentary
1:1 λόγος κυρίου ὃς ἐγενήθη πρὸς Ωσηε τὸν τοῦ Βεηρι ἐν ἡμέραις Οζιου καὶ Ιωαθαμ καὶ Αχαζ καὶ
Εζεκιου βασιλέων Ιουδα καὶ ἐν ἡμέραις Ιεροβοαμ υἱοῦ Ιωας βασιλέως Ισραηλ
The word of the Lord that came to
Hosea the son of Beeri in the days of Uzziah and Jotham and Ahaz and Hezekiah,
kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.
According
to verse 1,Hosea’s ministry comes during the reign of Jeroboam II in
the north and spans the reigns of Uzziah to Hezekiah in the south. Hosea probably
began his ministry late in Uzziah’s reign (ca. 793-753 BC) and completed it
early in Hezekiah’s (ca. 727-687 BC). Although it is often said that Hosea ministered to the
north, the numerous references to Judah show that the south was included as
well (e.g., 1:7; 2:2; 3:5; 4:15; 5:10; 6:4).
Apart from Hosea, the superscription of
Amos (1:1) alone among the Twelve includes rulers in both the north and the
south. There it is said that Amos “saw” the words that came to him. Not so with
Hosea—in Hosea’s very life is the word of the Lord “seen” (v. 2).
1:2 ἀρχὴ λόγου κυρίου ἐν Ωσηε καὶ εἶπε κύριος πρὸς
Ωσηε βάδιζε λαβὲ σεαυτῷ γυναῖκα πορνείας καὶ τέκνα
πορνείας διότι ἐκπορνεύουσα ἐκπορνεύσει ἡ γῆ ἀπὸ ὄπισθεν τοῦ κυρίου
The beginning of the word of the Lord in
Hosea: And the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a promiscuous
woman and children of promiscuity, for the land
will commit flagrant whoredom from
following the Lord.”
The word
of the Lord begins “in” (ἐν) Hosea (Hos 1-3; esp. 1:2b-9), where ἐν is used spatially. Chapters
4-14 (but also 1:10-3:5) are more of that word “through” Hosea to Israel and
Judah. But first
it is embodied (not excluding the verbal element, though). Hosea’s life and
wife, the man and
the marriage, the sons and the daughter, are
the message! A number of codices are split between the readings ἐν Ωσηε and πρὸς Ωσηε. Theodotion and Vaticanus retain
ἐν Ωσηε, preferred in the Gottingen edition. This reading fits
the content of Hosea 1-3 better, since here Hosea’s marriage clearly bears the
prophetic word as an analogy. Moreover, the MT also has “the word of YHWH in Hosea” (בְּהוֹשֵׁ֑עַ), using the preposition בְּ.
The LXX has λόγου where the MT has the Piel perfect דִּבֶּר. No doubt the LXX translator simply read
the unpointed Hebrew דבר as a noun. The MT תְּחִלַּ֥ת
דִּבֶּר־יְהוָ֖ה בְּהוֹשֵׁ֑עַ pointing
takes דבר as a Piel verb. The noun תְּחִלַּ֥ת in any form in the HB is never followed by a verb as in MT Hos
1:2. This holds true for the only other instance of this noun in the Twelve (Amos
7:1). So the LXX may be the correct reading, although the Hebrew is the more
difficult. Ortlund notes that the construction of a finite verb in a construct
chain is attested, citing Exod 6:28; Lev 25:48; Isa 29:1, among others.
The phrase γυναῖκα πορνείας is the object of the verb λαβὲ. The phase is probably a
descriptive genitive, “a woman marked by whoredom” or “a promiscuous woman.”
The following τέκνα πορνείας is also the object of the verb λαβὲ. This phrase is probably also a descriptive genitive. The only other
place in the LXX where the phrase τέκνα πορνείας occurs is Hos 2:4. There the
children come from the mother’s whoring: “For
(ὅτι) their mother played the whore” (2:5). This also seems to be the most
natural way to take the second genitive given the flow of the passage. So they
are marked or characterized by whoredom, not because they themselves become
whores, but because they are the product of such, even as Israel’s offspring is
the product of whoredom. After commanding Hosea to take a woman who is
characteristically a whore, it is most natural to take the children borne to
her as coming from her infidelity on the analogy that Israel (the “mother” in
2:2-5) has borne children in her spiritual adultery (see 2:8). Regarding this
word πορνείας, it is a general word used dozens of times in the LXX
for sexual immorality of various sorts. Any narrower sense of the word (such
as, for example, cult prostitution) is only provided by a given context.
Although many commentators try to
skirt the shocking command to Hosea with a variety of suggestions, the plain
sense is that Hosea was told to marry a promiscuous woman. The syntax really
does demand this. Hill and Walton note that nowhere does God forbid
prophets to marry a harlot, only priests (Lev 21:7, 14). If this offends our sense of
propriety, very well then—it has had its intended, shocking impact. Covenant
infidelity offends the divine covenant Husband as prostitution would any
earthly husband.
Many note that it is
not clear whether Gomer was a whore before or only after she married Hosea (or
both), but it is reasonably clear that she was after they married. The
expression “woman of whoredom” (γυναῖκα πορνείας; using a genitive of description) seems to indicate, however, that Gomer characteristically
played the whore. So probably both were true. She probably continues her
scandalous lifestyle after marriage as previously. But the woman the Lord tells
Hosea to marry to convey a message is a woman marked by whoredom—and this is
the important point (see the next supporting clause), not Gomer’s whole history
with all its details. Why? Because Israel had played the whore, was playing the
whore, and would continue to play the whore.
The conjunction διότι gives the
reason for this shocking command: ἐκπορνεύουσα ἐκπορνεύσει ἡ γῆ ἀπὸ ὄπισθεν
τοῦ κυρίου. The
“land” here is a metaphor for Israel. The construction ἐκπορνεύουσα ἐκπορνεύσει is a standard use of the intensive participle to translate the Hebrew infinitive
absolute used with a finite verb, here translating זָנֹ֤ה
תִזְנֶה֙
(cf. Hos 4:18). The LXX renders the construction with a future (ἐκπορνεύσει, “will commit whoredom”), while the MT imperfect (תִזְנֶה֙) probably conveys a present
sense (“commits whoredom”). This was a typical way, however, that the LXX
translator rendered the imperfect, as can be seen elsewhere. This committing of
whoredom is clearly a metaphor for spiritual adultery, for apostasy (cf. 3:1).
Israel was not faithful to her covenant Husband, the Lord. Not excluded but
probably included in this spiritual adultery, however, was literal adultery and
fornication as part of the cultus of Baal (e.g., 4:14). The prepositional
phrase ἀπὸ ὄπισθεν τοῦ κυρίου means “from following the Lord.” Isaiah
59:13 uses a nearly identical prepositional phrase—ἀπὸ ὄπισθεν τοῦ
θεοῦ—with the same
meaning (cf. 1 Sam 12:20; 15:11). Israel’s spiritual harlotry means that she no
longer follows the Lord.
1:3 καὶ ἐπορεύθη καὶ ἔλαβεν τὴν Γομερ θυγατέρα Δεβηλαιμ καὶ συνέλαβε καὶ ἔτεκεν αὐτῷ υἱόν
And so he went and took Gomer the daughter
of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore to him a son.
Verse 3 is Hosea’s obedient response to the Lord’s
command: “And so (καὶ) he went and took Gomer. . . .” The
name “Gomer” (Γομερ) is only used one other place in the LXX, namely, Ezek 38:6. There Γομερ is used as
a place name, aligned with pagan rule that opposes a reconstituted Israel. In Gen 10:2-3
(X2) and 1 Chr 1:5-6 (X2) Γαμερ translates גמר, the same Hebrew name translated Γομερ in Hos 1:3 and Ezek 38:6. What ought one to make
of this? Perhaps not much. But perhaps the name of the whore Hosea was told to
marry carries symbolic weight. Does the LXX translator deliberately choose the
place name used in Ezek 38:6, rather than the name used in Gen 10:2-3 and 1 Chr
1:5-6? In Genesis and Chronicles, although the name is not in the line of
promise (Shem), the name does not have such strong negative associations as it
does in Ezekiel 38. Perhaps this is intentional, but it is difficult to be
sure. Perhaps there is supposed to be an association with the pagan nations
that opposed the true reconstituted people of God in Ezekiel 38 (cf. Hos
1:10-11, LXX). So just as Israel whored about with the nations (e.g., Assyria;
see Hos 8:9-10), so also Hosea’s wife (Israel in the analogy) will play the
whore like a pagan and bear children who are aligned with pagans. Perhaps. At
least the name is suggestive. That Gomer was the “daughter of Diblaim”
indicates that she was a real historical person (contra Calvin; cf. 1:1 with Hosea as the
“son of Beeri”).
The personal pronoun αὐτῷ perhaps implies no more than that this child was born “to” Hosea, not
necessarily “from” Hosea. Although good commentators think that the pronoun
implies that this child was biologically Hosea’s, following upon the command
of the last verse this seems less likely. The word of the Lord is that Hosea is
to take to himself a woman of whoredom and
children of whoredom, not have his own with her. Some also then think that the
other two children that follow (vv. 6 and 8) were not Hosea’s, but born of
whoredom, since αὐτῷ is not used for them (but see
the commentary at v. 6).
1:4 καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς αὐτόν κάλεσον τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ
Ιεζραελ διότι ἔτι μικρὸν καὶ ἐκδικήσω τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Ιεζραελ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον Ιηου καὶ ἀποστρέψω βασιλείαν οἴκου Ισραηλ
And the Lord said to
him, “Call his name Jezreel, for yet a little while and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel
on the house of Jehu and turn away the kingdom of the house of Israel.”
Now the Lord issues to Hosea the first of three imperatives in this
passage. Each one concerns the naming of the children to whom Gomer gives
birth. The first is named “Jezreel” (Ιεζραελ). In Greek, as in Hebrew, there seems to be a play on
words: “Jezreel” (Ιεζραελ; יִזְרְעֶ֑אל)
sounds like “Israel” (Ισραηλ; יִשְׂרָאֵֽל).
Moreover, Jezreel means “God scatters.” God
will scatter Israel. So already this name hints at exile.
The reason (διότι) for this name is then given: “for yet a little while
and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel on the
house of Jehu and turn away the kingdom of the house of Israel.” Jezreel was a
well-known town in the northern kingdom, a place that had seen Jehu’s
blood-bath (2 Kgs 9 and 10 ET recount the story and massacre). But since the
Lord approves what Jehu did (2 Kgs 10:30, ET), retribution for that bloodshed
cannot be in view. Rather, it is vengeance for the idolatry of Jehu (2
Kgs 10:29) and those who followed his ways that is in view. This aligns with
Israel’s idolatry in Hosea. McComiskey says this: “nowhere else in the book are
the murders at Jezreel cited as the cause of Israel’s demise. It is Israel’s
idolatry and unwise international policies that brought about her downfall.” And
so just as God visited judgment upon Ahab for Baal worship, so also will he
visit judgment upon Jehu and Israel for Baal worship. This will include turning
away the kingdom of the house of Israel, probably another hint of exile.
1:5 καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ
ἐκείνῃ συντρίψω τὸ τόξον τοῦ Ισραηλ ἐν τῇ κοιλάδι τοῦ
Ιεζραελ
And it shall be in that day, I will
break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.
The clause “it shall be in that day” speaks to a future
event, namely, when the “bow of Israel” would be broken. The previous verse
warns that this was not far off: “yet a little while” (ἔτι μικρὸν). A “bow” in Scripture is often used
as a metaphor for military might (e.g., Gen 48:22; 49:24; Josh 24:12; 1 Sam
2:4; Ps 45:9 LXX). The expression “to break the bow” is found only here in the
Greek OT. In Akkadian, the expression often means to destroy the military power
of an enemy.
So the direct object τὸ τόξον τοῦ Ισραηλ is a metonymy of Israel’s military might (cf.
2:18, where “bow” stands for military might). Israel will be broken militarily,
“without king or ruler” (Hos 3:4, NETS; cf.
Amos 7:17; 9:1, 4, 10). This will occur “in the valley of Jezreel” (ἐν τῇ κοιλάδι τοῦ Ιεζραελ).
This calls to mind the massacre that took place in Jezreel on account of
idolatry. That same fate is Israel’s for her whoring with her lovers.
1:6 καὶ συνέλαβεν ἔτι καὶ ἔτεκεν θυγατέρα καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ κάλεσον
τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς Οὐκ ἠλεημένη διότι οὐ μὴ προσθήσω ἔτι ἐλεῆσαι τὸν οἶκον τοῦ
Ισραηλ ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἀντιτασσόμενος ἀντιτάξομαι αὐτοῖς
And she conceived again and bore a
daughter. And he said to him, “Call her name ‘Not Having Been Pitied,’ for I
will by no means again have mercy on the house of Israel, but I will surely
oppose them.”
The
conjunction καὶ beginning the verse speaks of progression,
probably not only in time but also in the intensity of the prophetic word. The
dramatic, embodied word escalates (see also v. 8). Where there was judgment
(not uncommon in Israel’s history), now there is no mercy heaped on that
judgment (not common in Israel’s history).
So
another child is born to Gomer, this time a daughter. The Greek text
(reflecting the Hebrew) does not say “and bore to him a daughter,” that is, to Hosea, as in v. 3 (καὶ ἔτεκεν αὐτῷ
υἱόν, “and bore to him a son”).
Rather, it only says, “and bore a daughter” (καὶ ἔτεκεν θυγατέρα), eliminating
this time the dative pronoun αὐτῷ. Some commentators see this
as indicating that this child and the next were not Hosea’s as the first. Perhaps. But others, and
I am inclined to follow them, see this merely as stylistic variation. Stuart says this of the
Hebrew: “It is not possible to press the grammar to the point of concluding
that Jezreel was legitimate . . . while No Compassion and Not My People were
not. Hebrew has no such fixed syntactical patterns for discriminating between
legitimate and illegitimate children.” Since the LXX simply
corresponds with the Hebrew at this point, the same point seems to hold for the
Greek. The Greek likewise is not seeking to make a point about the legitimacy
or illegitimacy of the children based on the presence or absence of αὐτῷ. The context determines this.
In
any case, the Lord commands Hosea to name
this daughter Οὐκ ἠλεημένη,
that is, “No Mercy” (or, literally, “She Has Not
Been Pitied”). The reason (διότι)
given for this name, No Mercy, is stated: οὐ μὴ προσθήσω ἔτι ἐλεῆσαι τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Ισραηλ ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἀντιτασσόμενος ἀντιτάξομαι
αὐτοῖς. The ground clause οὐ μὴ προσθήσω ἔτι ἐλεῆσαι includes a fairly
common idiom in the LXX. The verb form προσθήσω
plus the adverb ἔτι occurs two other times in the LXX (Gen
8:21; Josh 7:12), with the idea of continuing to do or be something (cf. Hos
9:15 and 13:2, where the verb προστίθημι
is used with the infinitive, as here). So the meaning is that the Lord will not
continue to show mercy to the house of Israel. He has had enough of their
infidelity.
The conjunction ἀλλ᾽ ἢ then introduces a contrast: ἀντιτασσόμενος ἀντιτάξομαι
αὐτοῖς. The Lord will no longer show
mercy; but he will surely oppose them. This is an intensive use of the participle. NETS translates the participle as a middle reflexive: “setting myself
in opposition I will oppose them.” This does
not change the sense much. Yet it seems to miss the common way that the LXX
translates the Hebrew construction of infinitive absolute followed by a finite
verb. Compare, for example, 1 Kgs 11:34, where the same construction (ἀντιτασσόμενος ἀντιτάξομαι) is used. Brenton translates it
this way: “I will
certainly resist.” NETS again translates there with an
English participle: “resisting I will resist him.” So the LXX
at Hos 1:6, it appears, is simply attempting to bring across the
intensification of the Hebrew: “The Lord will surely oppose.” It is fixed, certain, sure. He will no longer have
mercy on the house of Israel, but set his face against her. This Husband, whose
name is Jealous, is enraged.
There is a textual difficulty here. The Hebrew reads “I will surely take
them away” (נָשֹׂ֥א
אֶשָּׂ֖א). As noted,
the Greek reads “I will surely oppose them” (ἀντιτασσόμενος ἀντιτάξομαι αὐτοῖς). The most plausible explanation for this seems to be
that the translator did some updating for his times. Israel had already been
sent into exile, so presumably that prediction no longer seems as relevant. But
that God should oppose the scattered northern kingdom for continued covenant
infidelity would indeed seem relevant, especially to a remnant.
Now a word about an allusion here. First Peter 2 appears to
pick up language from Hos 1:6 (and 1:9; cf. 2:23). The criteria for an allusion
(echo) set forth by Hays are fulfilled here. Peter says to his
recipients, “you had not been pitied (οὐκ ἠλεημένοι; a perfect passive participle), but now you have been pitied (ἐλεηθέντες; an aorist
passive participle).” The only places in the LXX where this unique
language is used are Hos 1:6 and 2:23. In 1:6 and 2:23 one reads Οὐκ ἠλεημένη, a perfect passive participle,
preceded by the negative adverb, in the feminine singular, referring to the
daughter born to Gomer and to Israel. In 1 Pet 2:10 the perfect passive
participle preceded by the negative adverb is also used. The only difference in
1 Pet 2:10 is that the participle is nominative masculine plural, since it
refers to the “you” (ὑμεῖς) in context—the new people of God, “an elect race, a royal
priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s possession” (v. 9). And Peter is
speaking to Gentiles!
Now in 1 Peter, the people
primarily addressed are Gentiles living in a hostile pagan world, formerly not
God’s people (though this would not exclude Jews in the community), but
redeemed by Christ the blood of Christ (1:18-19). They are called to be holy.
In a section (1:3-:2:10) that addresses the Christian identity of the
recipients, 2:9-10 is climactic. It follows upon a section (2:4-8) that speaks
of their coming to Christ as they believe in him as choice and precious, over
against those who disbelieve and stumble over the stumbling stone, to which
they were appointed. In 2:6-8, three OT texts are cited: Isa 28:16; 8:14; Ps
118:22. These texts are appealed to in the NT to address the Jews’ rejection of
their Messiah. This rejection is juxtaposed with a contrast in 1 Pet 2:9, which
begins with δὲ. Those who
disbelieve in Christ are not God’s people, but those who do believe have
numerous OT designations that were formerly given to Israel lavished upon them.
In Hosea 1, Israel is rejected by God and becomes “Not My People” (1:9) and “No
Mercy” (1:6). But they will receive mercy and again become the people of God (1:10;
2:23). This will happen when God restores his people through a second exodus in
His Son, the ultimate Davidic king, the true Israel (Hos 3:5; 11:1 (esp. MT),
5, 11; cf. Matt 2:15). So
Peter heeds the OT context, but also sees the prophecy coalesce and come to
fruition in Christ’s death and resurrection.
What strengthens this
connection is something that has been pointed out by Jobes. She
points out that the distinctive phrase εἰς περιποίησιν in 1 Pet 2:9 alludes to Mal 3:17 LXX. There the same
phrase is deployed and refers to the faithful remnant. Jobes adds that this
allusion to Malachi, the other bookend of the Twelve, recalls the promise of
restoration. Hosea, at the head of the Twelve, threatens exile on account of
spiritual whoredom. Peter’s use then of the Not-My-People-becoming-My-People
language recalls a key theme in Hosea and the Twelve as a whole: threatened
exile and promised restoration, that is, no mercy followed by new mercy. Once
again this supports that Peter interpreted Hosea contextually, specifically, in
both the narrower context of Hosea’s prophecy and in the broader context of the Twelve.
Now although the historical contexts
and ethnic identities of the recipients do differ in significant respects, 1
Peter does not sound too dissimilar to Hosea 1 when the spiritual condition and
context of the respective recipients are considered. In each case there is a people
who formerly were not God’s people, but who would become God’s people through
mercy. In Hosea how this happens is foreshadowed (e.g., 1:11; 3:5; 11:1 (esp.
MT), 5, 11); in 1 Peter and elsewhere in the NT it is explicit (e.g., Matt
2:15; and almost all of 1 Pet 1:3-2:8).
Peter’s fundamental
hermeneutic understands Christ as the locus of fulfillment of all of the OT
promises concerning Israel, since he is true Israel, the corporate head of a
second race. Moreover, what happens to the Gentiles in Christ fits the exodus
pattern (e.g., Exod 19:4-6; for the exodus motif in Hosea, see 2:14-3:5; 8:13;
9:3, 17; 10:6; 11:1 (esp. MT), 5, 11). And in
Hosea one may discern this same pattern in chapter one, but more developed
later in the book where there are messianic links (e.g., Hos 3:5; 11:1-11, esp.
MT). Carson points out that Peter may understand the No-Mercy and Not-My-People
Israelites as Gentiles. And if the Lord will again show mercy to them and make
them his people, then in principle he could do the same for Gentiles who never
received mercy, nor ever were God’s people. This is
plausible and likely. But it seems that undergirding this is Peter’s
presupposing of Christ as Israel and effecting a new exodus (and thereby
redeeming a people). It does not seem plausible that Peter could view Gentiles
in categories only applied to Israelites in the Old Covenant unless he sees
Jesus as the true and ultimate Israel (in whom all of God’s promises are Yes; 2
Cor 1:20) and effecting a new exodus. If Peter is behind Mark’s Gospel, so rich
in second exodus motifs, doubtless these things were presupposed by Peter. Additionally,
Peter’s apparent use of the LXX probably is simply due to the language he is
using, since the Hebrew here does not seem less congenial to his purposes than
the Greek.
1:7 τοὺς δὲ υἱοὺς Ιουδα ἐλεήσω καὶ σώσω αὐτοὺς ἐν κυρίῳ θεῷ αὐτῶν καὶ οὐ σώσω αὐτοὺς ἐν τόξῳ οὐδὲ
ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ οὐδὲ ἐν πολέμῳ οὐδὲ ἐν ἅρμασιν οὐδὲ ἐν
ἵπποις οὐδὲ ἐν ἱππεῦσιν
But I
will pity the sons of Judah and deliver them by the Lord their God, and I will not deliver them
by bow or sword, nor by war or chariots, nor by horses or horsemen.”
Now the adversative δὲ provides a contrast—although the Lord will not extend
mercy to the house of Israel, he will have mercy upon “the sons of Judah.” That
a contrast is in view with δὲ
may been readily perceived through the positive statement concerning Judah in
contradistinction to Israel. Judah will be spared, at least for a season, from
the cruel Assyrian domination to which Israel will be subject. But only for a
season, since they, likewise, will go into exile in due course under Babylonian
rule.
Next the prophet tells us the
means by which deliverance will be accomplished: the sons of Judah will be delivered
“by the Lord their God” (ἐν κυρίῳ θεῷ αὐτῶν). What does this mean? We are not told here. But we
are told that deliverance will not come by military might—not “by bow or sword,
nor by war or chariots, nor by
horses or horsemen” (ἐν τόξῳ οὐδὲ ἐν ῥομφαίᾳ οὐδὲ ἐν πολέμῳ
οὐδὲ ἐν ἅρμασιν οὐδὲ ἐν ἵπποις οὐδὲ ἐν ἱππεῦσιν). The
lack of explicit development here of what it means that deliverance will come
by the Lord their God may be explained by looking elsewhere within the Twelve.
Language
similar to κυρίῳ θεῷ αὐτῶν
is used in Hos 3:5, 7:10, and 2 Esdras 9:4 (κύριον τὸν θεὸν αὐτῶν), the only
three places in the LXX where this exact designation is used. All three occur
in contexts that speak of returning and seeking (or not) the Lord their God. In
2 Esdras 9:4, the context is a prayer of confession after the return from exile
and after the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.
These kinds of associations cannot be pursued at
further length here. And the small sampling here is not marshaled for some
specific allusion to Hos 1:7 in other places in the Book of the Twelve. Rather,
it simply shows that there seems to be common word collocations and conceptual associations
in the Twelve that participate in a similar thought-world with Hos 1:7. And
that linguistic and conceptual world full of associations occurs often where
the Lord or a messianic figure delivers the faithful remnant through judgment
of the oppressors of the world and where restoration occurs with all that
entails (peace, rest, reconciliation, and so forth). Such is the sort of thing
that seems to be in view in the deliverance “by the Lord their God.”
1:8 καὶ ἀπεγαλάκτισε τὴν
Οὐκ ἠλεημένην καὶ συνέλαβεν ἔτι καὶ ἔτεκεν υἱόν
And she weaned No
Mercy and conceived again and bore a son.
After several years or so,
Hosea bears yet another son, whose name will likewise carry great significance
for Israel. As previously, scarcely more than the barest details are given
surrounding these children. Even the aspect of these verbs (constative aorists,
perfective aspect) conveys this: the actions are viewed as simple,
undifferentiated wholes. The prophet was concerned with the word of the Lord
communicated by these children of whoredom far more than the psychosocial
matters that concern the modern.
As in v. 6, the first conjunction (καὶ) shows escalation
following the previous two children and their significance. First the Lord
spoke of coming judgment (“Jezreel”), then he heaped no mercy on that judgment
(“No Mercy”), and now the full extent of judgment without mercy is made
painfully plain: Israel is no longer God’s people (οὐ λαός μου).
1:9 καὶ εἶπε κάλεσον τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Οὐ λαός μου διότι ὑμεῖς οὐ
λαός μου καὶ ἐγὼ οὔκ Εἰμι ὑμῶν
And he
said, “Call his name ‘Not My People,’ for you are not my people, and I am not your ‘I AM.’”
So again the Lord commands Hosea to name another child,
this time— Οὐ λαός μου, “Not My People.” And as
with the first two children, he then gives the reason (διότι) for this name— ὑμεῖς
οὐ λαός μου καὶ ἐγὼ οὔκ εἰμι ὑμῶν (“you are not my people, and I am
not your ‘I AM’”). The name of this third child speaks to the extremity of this
fractured relationship. Not only will there be no mercy, there will be no
covenant relationship. Ephraim has associated with idols (4:17, NETS), and so Israel will be left to
them. Stuart comments that “the vocabulary is that of the Mosaic covenant,
formulated in terms of ‘my people . . . your God’ (Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12; Deut
27:9), and reflected often in the prophets (cf. Jer 7:23; 11:4).” Doubtless
this language goes back even further to the Abrahamic covenant, where God said
he would be God to Abraham and to his seed (Gen 17:7).
Two allusions need to be addressed in this verse. First Pet
2:10 alludes to Hos 1:9 and Hos 2:23. The
discussion above in v. 6 bears on the understanding of this allusion as well,
but will not be repeated here. Only the language that is picked up will be
noted: οἱ ποτὲ οὐ λαός, νῦν δὲ λαὸς θεοῦ (1 Pet 2:10). There are
several verbal correspondences here: οὐ λαός (1 Pet 2:10) with Οὐ λαός μου (Hos 1:9) and Οὐ λαῷ μου (Hos 2:23); and λαὸς θεοῦ (1 Pet 2:10) with ἐγὼ οὔκ εἰμι ὑμῶν (Hos 1:9) and κύριος ὁ θεός μου εἶ σύ (Hos 2:23). The genitive λαὸς θεοῦ in 1Pet 2:10 is clearly a genitive of
possession. The recipients of Peter’s letter had become God’s people, God’s
possession (cf. 1 Pet 2:9). This speaks of a covenant relationship (or lack
thereof), which is what is highlighted in Hos 1:9 and 2:23.
The LXX rendering of וְאָנֹכִ֖י לֹֽא־אֶהְיֶ֥ה לָכֶֽם with καὶ ἐγὼ οὔκ Εἰμι ὑμῶν appears to allude to Exod 3:14. That
there is an allusion is probably true of the Hebrew as well as it is of the
Greek.Yet the likely allusion in Hebrew will not
be discussed here. The Greek once again fulfills the criteria given by Hays for
an allusion. This allusion to Exod 3:14 underscores
as strongly as possible the rupture in the covenant relationship. For ἐγὼ εἰμι translates the
covenant name used in the Hebrew of Exod 3:14. And a form related to that Hebrew
verb came to be used as God’s covenant name (יהוה),
which the LXX consistently translates κύριος. The capitalizing of Εἰμι shows that our edition of the LXX takes this as a reference to Exod 3:14.
1:10 καὶ ἦν
ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης ἣ οὐκ ἐκμετρηθήσεται οὐδὲ ἐξαριθμηθήσεται
καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς κληθήσονται καὶ ἀυτοὶ υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος
And the number of the sons of Israel was as the sand of the sea, which shall
not be measured or numbered. And yet it will be in the place where it was said to them, “You are
not my people,” they shall also be called—“sons of the living God!”
Abraham’s
offspring were to become as the sand of the sea (Gen 22:17, LXX): and, speaking
hyperbolically, they did (καὶ ἦν
ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ισραηλ ὡς ἡ ἄμμος τῆς θαλάσσης; cf. 2 Sam 17:11; 1 Kgs 4:20). But
the MT Hos 2:1 has a future reference: “And the number of the sons of Israel will be as the sand of the sea” (וְֽהָיָה מִסְפַּ֤ר בְּנֵֽי־יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ כְּח֣וֹל הַיָּ֔ם). The Hebrew
verb וְֽהָיָה is a qal
imperfect plus waw consecutive. But the LXX translator uses the imperfect
active indicative of εἰμι,
probably a customary usage. The imperfect is usually past referring. And here
no doubt it is. That this was a deliberate move by the translator may be seen
by how he consistently translates והיה
elsewhere in Hosea with a future Greek verb (1:5; 2:16, 21; 4:9), and more
importantly, in the next independent clause (!): καὶ ἔσται for וְֽ֠הָיָה (1:10c). There
are apparently no variants here, either in the MT or in the LXX tradition, so
this appears to be inescapably intentional. But what is the translator doing?
Surely he thinks it seems more fitting, given his historical location after the
exile, to use a verb that would clearly refer to the past. But perhaps the
translator also wanted to communicate vividness with the imperfect. The “sons
of Israel,” after God’s judgment without mercy fell for jilting their covenant
Husband, were scarcely numerous anymore, a devastating statement given the
Abrahamic covenant.
The next
clause then (ἣ οὐκ ἐκμετρηθήσεται οὐδὲ ἐξαριθμηθήσεται) has a more negative force in the
LXX than does the MT, where it is more positive given the future reference. The
sons of Israel, no longer as numerous as the sand of the sea, “shall not be
measured or numbered” because they have become disregarded as a whole. It is
probable that a substantial remnant theology had developed during the time of
the LXX translator, in line with other Scripture, and so the counting of the
sons of Israel was not necessary. In the MT the sons of Israel shall not be
measured or numbered because they will become so numerous.
The use of the past instead of the future of the MT does not, however,
radically change the overall sense of the flow of the passage (see v. 11, which
constrains how v. 10 can be understood either in the LXX or MT). But it does
seems to reflect something of the theology of the translator (and perhaps his
contemporaries), namely, that the place of Israel as a whole in God’s purposes
was diminished. The remnant (the faithful who observe the law) would be the
locus of God’s saving purposes.
The second καὶ is a contrastive conjunction, “And
yet”—a dramatic shift! Despite what has been said thus far about judgment and
no mercy and loss of covenant relationship—and more nearly in the previous two
clauses about the paucity of the people of Israel—“yet it will be in the place
where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they shall also be
called—‘sons of the living God!’ Where God had said, ‘You are not my people,’
namely, in a foreign land of exile among pagans (ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς), there “they (ἀυτοὶ) shall also (καὶ) be called, ‘sons of the living God!’”
Now who are “they”? And why the “also”? Neither καὶ nor ἀυτοὶ correspond to any elements of the MT.
In Rom
9:25 Paul also alludes to Hos 2:23 (and 1:10; see the commentary of v. 9 for the
correspondences). He then quotes Hos 1:10 in the next verse: καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ τόπῳ οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς·
οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος. Paul cites a form of Hos 1:10 found in Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Venetus,
and many miniscules, with some versional and patristic support, and reflected
in Rahlf’s text.
This is not the manuscript evidence with which Gottingen sides, however, which
includes Codex Vaticanus, Codex Marchalianus, and the Catena recension. Paul
apparently cites a text that has ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος where the Gottingen text has κληθήσονται καὶ ἀυτοὶ υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος. The difference is between ἐκεῖ in one and καὶ ἀυτοὶ in the other. Given the scope of
this paper, only the meaning of each and Paul’s appropriation of Hos 1:10 will
be discussed, not the text critical issues.
But first
a look at two other elements of the clause in which the variant is embedded
before bringing out any differing shades of meaning for each variant. The
future passive κληθήσονται is the same verb used in the command
given to Hosea to name Gomer’s three children in vv. 4, 6, and 9 (where each
time the aorist imperative κάλεσον is used). So
doubtless the use here has to do with naming that has significance, as in the
previous three namings. And the name given here is profound—“sons of the living
God!”—that is, offspring of God, not
of whoredom (cf. 1:2, “children of whoredom”). Sons of the living God is the translation given to preserve any
link there may be (and the concomitant associations) with antecedent revelation
(e.g., Exod 4:22). The name
“sons of the living God” anticipates the restored covenantal relationship to
come. Whereas formerly the sons of Israel were called “Not My People”on account
of their apostasy, they shall be called a name that speaks of the nearest,
dearest, and most privileged of family relationships in the ancient world. The
name υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος is found nowhere else in the LXX, even as בְּנֵ֥י אֵֽל־חָֽי is found nowhere else in the HB. Something
profound was afoot.
So now, who are “they” (ἀυτοὶ)? And why the “also” (καὶ) in the Gottingen text? “They,” in context, are “Not My People.” For,
where it was said, “You are not my people,” they shall also be called “sons of
the living God.” The “also” then means something like “in addition to” the
other names they were given (“Jezreel,” “No Mercy,” “Not My People”). This
reversal of relationship for the remnant of Israel (see v. 9) speaks of a
totally restored relationship after a period of exile and estrangement (Hos
3:4-5). How this happens is not spelled out here; it has only been suggested
earlier—it will be “by the Lord their God” and not by bow or sword, not by any
military means (1:7). The Lord will “remove the names of the Baalim from her
mouth, and their names will be remembered no more” (2:17, NETS). That is, God will see to it that his divorced wife be
cleansed of her idolatrous, whoring ways. Then she will call the Lord, “My
husband” (2:16).
In Rom
9:26 Paul unpacks the significance of Hos 1:10. It is “in the place where it
was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there
they shall be called sons of the living God” (καὶ ἔσται ἐν τῷ
τόπῳ οὗ ἐρρέθη αὐτοῖς· οὐ λαός μου ὑμεῖς, ἐκεῖ κληθήσονται υἱοὶ θεοῦ ζῶντος). The argument in Romans 9 runs like this:
Despite the unbelief and rejection of so many Israelites, Paul defends the word
of God. It has not failed; for not all Israel are from Israel (9:6). And as
Paul then develops, the sovereign God exercises absolute freedom to call a
people in his mercy, according to his good pleasure, which accords with
previous revelation (citing Jacob and Esau, for example). God has always done
this, and has done so justly. The potter has the right to do with the clay as
he pleases. And this sovereign calling occurs, Paul says, “not from among Jews
only, but also from among Gentiles” (9:24, NASB). Then after alluding to Hos
1:9 and 2:23, Paul cites Hos 1:10.
Briefly,
then, Paul’s citation of Hos 1:10 continues to support God’s freedom to call a
people to himself. As the judgment Israel’s spiritual adultery brought on her a
status on par with the nations—not God’s people—so calling and restoring Israel
back from her whoredom and alienation from God is little different really than
calling Gentiles—“sons of the living God!”—as in Hos 1:10. Paul’s use
of Hosea 1 in Romans 9, then, aligns with (but of course develops) that
original context. And doubtless Paul “recalls [the prophesied] restoration from
the wilderness and exile” in Hosea
2-3 (and elsewhere). This he sees, undoubtedly, as occurring in the death
(exodus) and resurrection (restoration) of the Son of God, the promised seed of
Abraham and David, the true Israelite, who would bring about the obedience of
the nations (Rom 1:4-5), which Israel had failed to do. “There” (ἐκεῖ), from the
place of exile—the place of estrangement, where Israel was called Not Pitied
and Not My People, as it were, as Gentiles—there (ἐκεῖ) “they
shall be called ‘sons of the living God!’” That place of estrangement from God
is the Gentile’s predicament as it is Israel’s. And as God had always planned
to bless the nations in the seed of Abraham (Gen 12:3), he accomplishes this in
the crucified (exiled) and risen (restored) Christ in line with Hosea 1-3 and
all of antecedent revelation. Paul’s second exodus and restoration assumptions
(in line with huge swaths of revelation!) undergirding the exegesis, then, seem
to be the same as Peter’s (see v. 6 commentary). Paul’s use of the Septuagint
does not appear to be any more congenial to his purposes than was Peter’s, that
is, than congenial to his Greek-speaking recipients. Moreover, his use of the
LXX seems to lean on manuscripts that align with the Hebrew.
1:11 καὶ συναχθήσονται οἱ υἱοὶ Ιουδα καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἐπὶ
τὸ αὐτὸ καὶ θήσονται ἑαυτοῖς ἀρχὴν μίαν καὶ ἀναβήσονται ἐκ τῆς γῆς ὅτι μεγάλη ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ Ιεζραελ
And the sons of Judah and the sons of
Israel shall be gathered together at the same place, and they themselves
shall appoint for themselves one ruler, and they shall go up from the land, for
great shall be the day of Jezreel.
Called “sons
of the living God” (born again, one might say), “the sons of Judah and the sons
of Israel shall be gathered together at the same place.” This gathering
together speaks of a renewed unity among the tribes that had been fractured so
long. Again, how this happens is not spelled out here. When it does, however,
the reconstituted people of God “themselves shall appoint for themselves one
head” (θήσονται ἑαυτοῖς ἀρχὴν μίαν).
Now note
first the indirect future middle θήσονται. This
use of the middle emphasizes the participation of the reconstituted people in
the action of appointing and their acting in their interest. The dative
reflexive pronoun ἑαυτοῖς
strengthens this idea. They appoint ἀρχὴν μίαν.
The
Hebrew רֹ֥אשׁ (“head”), to which ἀρχὴν corresponds, seems secure, without variants. It has a
variety of usages in the HB including “head of a person,” “individual,” “top,”
“beginning,” “leader,” and more (see, e.g., Koehler and Baumgartner for something
of the range). It is even used in the collocation כֹּהֵן הָרֹאשׁ, “chief
priest.” Some form of ראש occurs
thirty-one times in the Book of the Twelve. Only in four of these occurrences
is it translated with ἀρχή. In the
LXX, ἀρχή has the senses of “beginning” (e.g.,
Gen 1:1), “rule or govern” (e.g., Gen 1:16), “royal rule” (e.g., Deut 17:18),
“office” (e.g., Gen 40:13), “heads of families” (e.g., Exod 6:25), and more
(see, e.g., Lust-Eynikel-Hauspie for
something of the range; cf. Muraoka). Of course,
as always, the context colors and controls the meaning intended. In the three
other occurrences in the Twelve (besides Hos 1:11) where αρχη
translates ראש, it means
“head” in Amos 6:7 and Nah 3:10 (in the sense of “front” or “lead” or “top”);
and “ruler” in Mic 3:1. The only other place where αρχη is used
in Hosea is 1:2, where it means “beginning.” Among the thirteen uses in the
Twelve of αρχη, four of
these (Mic 4:8; Oba 1:20; Nah 1:6; 3:8) clearly mean “dominion,” “domain,”
“kingdom,” or the like. Finally, because of the range of usages, context must
determine the usage in Hos 1:11. And there it must mean something like “ruler”
or “head” or “leader,” almost certainly with royal overtones. NETS translates with “realm.” It is not
clear what this would mean in the context, however, of going up from the land.
Moreover, in the context of Hosea and the Twelve, there is still expectation
that there will be a reconstituted people under a Davidic king (Hos 3:5; cf.
Mic 5:2), that is, under a “ruler.”
Now going “up from the land” probably refers to the land
of exile, conceived as an Egypt of sorts (cf. ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, 2:17;
although some commentators take this as a metaphor for springing up as a plant
or even resurrection). The supporting reason (ὅτι) for
this is given: “great shall be the day of Jezreel.” Again “Jezreel” (Ιεζραελ) sounds like “Israel” (Ισραηλ) in Hebrew. It probably conveys the meaning “God sows”
here, because of the positive context, over against “God scatters” in 1:4 (cf.
Hos 2:22, which brings out the usage in 1:11). This
speaks of new life (one might say “rebirth” and think of Ezek 37) and
fruitfulness. This day (ἡμέρα), as
Stuart puts it, commenting on the MT, includes “three dramatic reversals:” the
union of Israel and Judah under a single ruler, the return from exile, and
restoration. From the standpoint of the LXX translator, much had come to pass.
The exile had ended and some unity was regained. But who was this appointed
ruler? Had this been fulfilled?
The Davidic kingdom with which undoubtedly this prophecy
was associated had not been revived. It would appear then that the people of
God still awaited the full fulfillment of this prophetic word. And that
anticipation was only finally realized “in the last days” (Hos 3:5, NETS) when great David’s greater son
appeared and ushered in the promised kingdom of Israel in a way foreshadowed by
the prophetic word but not fully understood until the enthronement of the King
of the Jews, the Son of God (Jn 19:19; Rom 1:4), who died “for the nation, and
not for the nation only, but in order that he might also gather together into
one the children of God who are scattered abroad” (Jn 11:51-52, NASB).
So “Whoever is wise, let
him understand these things; Whoever is discerning, let him know them.
For the ways of the LORD are right, And the righteous
will walk in them, But transgressors will stumble in them” (Hos
14:10, NASB).
Theological
Reflection
God threatens that his people
would be judged militarily (“Jezreel”), would receive no mercy (“No Mercy”),
and would no longer be his people (“Not My People”). Yet there is hope for
restoration, when God would have mercy on Not Pitied and say to Not My People,
“My People,” and name them, “sons of the living God.” But judgment comes first.
Exile draws near. It is only through the just judgment of exile, of being sent
away (divorced) from the covenant God, Israel’s Husband, that mercy and
restoration would come. And so God, Israel’s Father, sends Israel, his son, as
it were, back into Egypt (Hos 2:14-15; Hos 11:1 (MT), 5), foreshadowing a
pattern, or model, of the way restoration (Hos 11:11) would happen.
And so there is expectation
based on God’s promise to restore, but there is also expectation based on God’s
pattern of restoring (recall the exodus, for example, and the second exodus of
the prophets). Will God do something out of character, out of pattern, when he
restores Israel? And how will he uphold all his promises to Israel? (which is
the problem Paul addresses in Roman 9-11). Well, after years of expectation and
peering into what the prophets could have meant by their predictions of the
sufferings of the Christ and the subsequent glories (1 Pet 1:10-12), we now see
in the pages of the NT the Son of God par excellence, standing in the
wilderness where Israel fell, worshipping God alone in total faithfulness,
turning from all temptations to idolatry (Matthew 4). We see this Israelite
indeed standing in Israel’s place as God’s beloved Son (Matthew 3), coming out
of Egypt according to the pattern set in Hosea and antecedent Scripture (Matt 2
with Hos 11 and the exodus motif throughout the OT). We see the promised Son of
David (Matt 1:1) in whom God delighted (Matt 3:17), living the life that Israel
should have lived (Matt 3:15), ultimately forsaken by God (Matt 27:46)—exiled, if you will.
Yet exile was never intended
to be the last word for Israel, but return through mercy. So the righteous Son
of God, the true Israel, whom death could not hold, rose from the grave to be
declared (or appointed) “Son of God” (Rom 1:4) in power. He, the true Israelite
and second Adam, returned from his exile in the grave of judgment to God, his
Father, whom he says is also the God and Father of his followers (Jn 20:17),
that is, those who are once again his people, who once again “receive mercy” (1
Pet 2:10). And now Gentiles, as well as Jews, are joined to the true Israel of
God (Gal 6:16) by faith in the Son of God. And in this Christ all of God’s
promises are “Yes!” (2 Cor 1:20)—not least those of restoration in Hosea. This
Christ, Jesus, the Son of God, came to save—not by bow or by sword—but by
divine means (Hos 1:7), namely, by Spirit-empowered obedience, by his substitutionary
life and death as the Lord come in the flesh (Isa 9:6-7; Isa 40:1ff; Isa
52:13-53:12).
Jeremias
has argued that Hosea and Amos are also related and probably never
circulated independently. In the LXX, Amos follows Hosea in all the extant
manuscripts. Both prophets ministered in the eighth century BC. Both spoke into
the northern kingdom a message of impending judgment. And yet their messages—to
the same target audience—were different, at least in emphasis. So how are they
related? They are related as root and fruit. Hosea strikes primarily at the
corrupt root in Israel, namely, idolatry. The people had played the whore
with foreign deities and nations. And Amos primarily strikes at the corrupt
fruit of social injustice and oppression. Hosea, like Amos, also addresses
social injustice, but he more explicitly roots this in a lack of faithfulness,
steadfast love, and the knowledge of God.
NETS woodenly
translates as “from behind the Lord.”George
E. Howard, “The Twelve Prophets” in A New
English Translation of the Septuagint: And the Other Greek Translations
Traditionally Included under that Title (eds. Albert Peitersma and Benjamin
G. Wright; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 782.
The designation υἱοὶ θεοῦ is found twice (Deut 32:43; Ps 28:1).
