Yahweh’s word that came to Hosea the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel. When Yahweh spoke at first by Hosea, Yahweh said to Hosea, “Go, take for yourself a wife of prostitution and children of unfaithfulness; for the land commits great adultery, forsaking Yahweh.”
So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; and she conceived, and bore him a son.
Yahweh 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 will cause the kingdom of the house of Israel to cease. It will happen in that day that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.”
She conceived again, and bore a daughter. Then he said to him, “Call her name Lo-Ruhamah; for I will no longer have mercy on the house of Israel, that I should in any way pardon them.
But I will have mercy on the house of Judah, and will save them by Yahweh their God, and will not save them by bow, sword, battle, horses, or horsemen.”
Now when she had weaned Lo-Ruhamah, she conceived, and bore a son.
He said, “Call his name Lo-Ammi; for you are not my people, and I will not be yours. Yet the number of the children of Israel will be as the sand of the sea, which can’t be measured or counted; and it will come to pass that, in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’ The children of Judah and the children of Israel will be gathered together, and they will appoint themselves one head, and will go up from the land; for great will be the day of Jezreel.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv1–11 May the Lord grant, that we may engage in…
May the Lord grant, that we may engage in contemplating the mysteries of his heavenly wisdom with really increasing devotion, to his glory and to our edification. Amen.
I have undertaken to expound The Twelve Minor Prophets. They have been long ago joined together, and their writings have been reduced to one volume; and for this reason, lest by being extant singly in our hands, they should, as it often happens, disappear in course of time on account of their brevity.
Read full note →
Then the Twelve Minor Prophets form but one volume. The first of them is Hosea, who was specifically destined for the kingdom of Israel: Micah and Isaiah prophesied at the same time among the Jews. But it ought to be noticed, that this Prophet was a teacher in the kingdom of Israel, as Isaiah and Micah were in the kingdom of Judah. The Lord doubtless intended to employ him in that part; for had he prophesied among the Jews, he would not have complimented them; since the state of things was then very corrupt, not only in Judea, but also at Jerusalem, though the palace and sanctuary of God were there. We see how sharply and severely Isaiah and Micah reproved the people; and the style of our Prophet would have been the same had the Lord employed his service among the Jews: but he followed his own call. He knew what the Lord had intrusted to him; he faithfully discharged his own office. The same was the case with the Prophet Amos: for the Prophet Amos sharply inveighs against the Israelites, and seems to spare the Jews; and he taught at the same time with Hosea.
We see, then, in what respect these four differ: Isaiah and Micah address their reproofs to the kingdom of Judah; and Hosea and Amos only assail the kingdom of Israel, and seem to spare the Jews. Each of them undertook what God had committed to his charge; and so each confined himself within the limits of his own call and office. For if we, who are called to instruct the Church, close our eyes to the sins which prevail in it, and neglect those whom the Lord has appointed to be taught by us, we confound all order; since they who are appointed to other places must attend to those to whom they have been sent by the Lord’s call.
We now, then, see to whom this whole book of Hosea belongs, — that is, to the kingdom of Israel.
But with regard to the Prophets, this is true of them all, as we have sometimes said, that they are interpreters of the law. And this is the sum of the law, that God designs to rule by his own authority the people whom he has adopted. But the law has two parts, — a promise of salvation and eternal life, and a rule for a godly and holy living. To these is added a third part, — that men, not responding to their call, are to be restored to the fear of God by threatening and reproofs. The Prophets do further teach what the law has commanded respecting the true and pure worship of God, respecting love; in short, they instruct the people in a holy and godly life, and then offer to them the favor of the Lord. And as there is no hope of reconciliation with God except through a Mediator, they ever set forth the Messiah, whom the Lord had long before promised.
As to the third part, which includes threats and reproofs, it was peculiar to the Prophets; for they point out times, and denounce this or that judgement of God: “The Lord will punish you in this way, and will punish you at such a time.” The Prophets, then, do not simply call men to God’s tribunal, but specify also certain kinds of punishment, and also in the same way they declare prophecies respecting the Lord’s grace and his redemption. But on this I only briefly touch; for it will be better to notice each point as we proceed.
I now return to Hosea. I have said that his ministry belonged especially to the kingdom of Israel; for then the whole worship of God was there polluted, nor had corruption lately begun; but they were so obstinate in their superstitions, that there was no hope of repentance. We indeed know, that as soon as Jeroboam withdrew the ten tribes from their allegiance to Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, fictitious worship was set up: and Jeroboam seemed to have wisely contrived that artifice, that the people might not return to the house of David; but at the same time he brought on himself and the whole people the vengeance of God. And those who came after him followed the same impiety. When such perverseness became intolerable, God resolved to put forth his power, and to give some signal proof of his displeasure, that the people might at length repent. Hence Jehu was by God’s command anointed King of Israel, that he might destroy all the posterity of Ahab: but he also soon relapsed into the same idolatry. He executed God’s judgement, he pretended great zeal; but his hypocrisy soon came to light, for he embraced false and perverted worship; and his followers were nothing better even down to Jeroboam, under whom Hosea prophesied; but of this we shall speak in considering the inscription of the book.
This first verse shows the time in which Hosea prophesied. He names four kings of Judah, — Uzziah, Jotham, Ahab, Hezekiah. Uzziah, called also Azariah, reigned fifty-two years; but after having been smitten with leprosy, he did not associate with men, and abdicated his royal dignity. Jotham, his son, succeeded him. The years of Jotham were about sixteen, and about as many were those of king Ahab, the father of Hezekiah; and it was under king Hezekiah that Hosea died. If we now wish to ascertain how long he discharged his office of teaching, we must take notice of what sacred history says, — Uzziah began to reign in the twenty seventh year of Jeroboam, the son of Joash. By supposing that Hosea performed his duties as a teacher, excepting a few years during the reign of Jeroboam, that is, the sixteen years which passed from the beginning of Uzziah’s reign to the death of Jeroboam, he must have prophesied thirty-six years under the reign of Uzziah. There is, however, no doubt but that he began to execute his office some years before the end of Jeroboam’s reign.
Here, then, there appear to be at least forty years. Jotham succeeded his father, and reigned sixteen years; and though it be a probable conjecture, that the beginning of his reign is to be counted from the time he undertook the government, after his father, being smitten with leprosy, was ejected from the society of men, it is yet probable that the remaining time to the death of his father ought to come to our reckoning. When however, we take for granted a few years, it must be that Hosea had prophesied more than forty-five years before Ahab began to reign. Add now the sixteen years in which Ahab reigned and the number will amount to sixty-one. There remain the years in which he prophesied under the reign of Hezekiah. It cannot, then, be otherwise but that he had followed his office more than sixty years, and probably continued beyond the seventieth year.
It hence appears with how great and with how invincible courage and perseverance he was endued by the Holy Spirit. But when God employs our service for twenty or thirty years we think it very wearisome, especially when we have to contend with wicked men, and those who do not willingly undertake the yoke, but pertinaciously resist us; we then instantly desire to be set free, and wish to become like soldiers who have completed their time. When therefore, we see that this Prophet persevered for so long a time, let him be to us an example of patience so that we may not despond, though the Lord may not immediately free us from our burden.
Thus much of the four kings whom he names. He must indeed have prophesied (as I have just shown) for nearly forty years under the king Uzziah or Azariah, and then for some years under the king Ahab, (to omit now the reign of Jotham, which was concurrent with that of his father,) and he continued to the time of Hezekiah: but why has he particularly mentioned Jeroboam the son of Joash, since he could not have prophesied under him except for a short time? His son Zachariah succeeded him; there arose afterward the conspiracy of Shallum, who was soon destroyed; then the kingdom became involved in great confusion; and at length the Assyrian, by means of Shalmanazar, led away captive the ten tribes, which became dispersed among the Medes. As this was the case, why does the Prophet here mention only one king of Israel? This seems strange; for he continued his office of teaching to the end of his reign and to his death. But an answer may be easily given: He wished distinctly to express, that he began to teach while the state was entire; for, had he prophesied after the death of Jeroboam, he might have seemed to conjecture some great calamity from the then present view of things: thus it would not have been prophecy, or, at least, this credit would have been much less. “He now, forsooth! divines what is, evident to the eyes of all.” For Zachariah flourished but a short time; and the conspiracy alluded to before was a certain presage of an approaching destruction, and the kingdom became soon dissolved. Hence the Prophet testifies here in express words, that he had already threatened future vengeance to the people, even when the kingdom of Israel flourished in wealth and power, when Jeroboam was enjoying his triumphs, and when prosperity inebriated the whole land.
This, then, was the reason why the Prophet mentioned only this one king; for under him the kingdom of Israel became strong, and was fortified by many strongholds and a large army, and abounded also in great riches. Indeed, sacred history tells us, that God had by Jeroboam delivered the kingdom of Israel, though he himself was unworthy, and that he had recovered many cities and a very wide extent of country. As, then, he had increased the kingdom, as he had become formidable to all his neighbours, as he had collected great riches, and as the people lived in ease and luxury, what the Prophet declared seemed incredible. “Ye are not,” he said, “the people of the Lord; ye are adulterous children, ye are born of fornication.” Such a reproof certainly seemed not seasonable. Then he said, “The kingdom shall be taken from you, destruction is nigh to you.” “What, to us? and yet our king has now obtained so many victories, and has struck terror into other kings.” The kingdom of Judah, which was a rival, being then nearly broken down, there was no one who could have ventured to suspect such an event.
We now, then, perceive why the Prophet here says expressly that he had prophesied under Jeroboam. He indeed prophesied after his death, and followed his office even after the destruction of the kingdom of Israel, but he began to teach at a time when he was a sport to the ungodly, who exalted themselves against God, and boldly despised his threatening as long as he spared and bore with them; which is ever the case, as proved by the constant experience of all ages. We hence see more clearly with what power of the Spirit God had endued the Prophet, who dared to rise up against so powerful a king, and to reprove his wickedness, and also to summon his subjects to the same judgement. When, therefore, the Prophet conducted himself so boldly, at a time when the Israelites were not only sottish on account of their great success, but also wholly insane, it was certainly nothing short of a miracle; and this ought to avail much to establish his authority. We now then, see the design of the inscription contained in the first verse. It follows —
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 So that it may be gathered by the reign…
So that it may be gathered by the reign of these four kings, that he preached above threescore years.
Called also Azariah, who being a leper was disposed from his kingdom.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–11 Hos 1:1 The word of the LORD that came…
Hos 1:1 The word of the LORD that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, [and] Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel.
Ver. 1. The word of the Lord] Not "cunningly devised fables," 2Pe 1:16, or human testimonies, that can make but a human faith; but the "word of the ever living God," 1Th 2:13, the "Scripture that cannot be broken," Joh 10:35, the very heart and soul of God ( cor et anima Dei), as Gregory calls it.
Read full note →
That came unto Hosea] The Lord is said to come to Laban, Abimelech, Balaam, &c. But he never concredited his word to any such profane wretches, as he did to the holy prophets which have "been since the world began"; of whom it is said, as here, "The word of the Lord came to Hosea." His name signifieth a Saviour, Mat 1:21 : a fit name for a minister, whose work is to "save himself and them that hear him," 1Ti 4:16. To save them if he can, Oba 1:21; to deliver their souls from going into the pit, Job 33:24; to pull them, if possible, out of the fire, Jdg 1:23; to "give them the knowledge of salvation by the remission of sin," Luk 1:77 : to give it, I say, not by infusion (for that he cannot do), but by instruction; and that he must endeavour to do, as this prophet did: than whom few ministers ever ran so long a race without cessation, or cespitation, so constantly, so courageously, so unweariably. For he continued prophesying sixty-five years at least, saith Pareus; seventy, saith Oecolampadius; it is very probable fourscore years, saith Mr Burroughes. The Hebrews say ninety years, quibus multa dixit quae non scripsit, wherein he uttered much more than he wrote. This we may easily believe: for we have but the short notes or heads of his sermons and larger discourses, which he seems also to have set down for the use of the Church in his extreme old age, whereof they carry a smatch in the shortness of his speech, applied, as much as might be, to the measure of his breath. Hence Jerome fitly called him, Commaticum et quasi per sententias loquentem, concise and sententious. Amputatas loquitur sententias et verba ante expectatum cadentia, as one saith of Sallust; Multo est verbis quam sensu restrictior atque concisior, as another saith of Livy: he speaketh much in few; and seems to have more sentences than sayings. The more often you read him the more you may get by him: et nunquam tamen dimittat te sine siti; and yet the more you get the more you covet (Lips. de Thucyd.). Obscure he is (as delivering things briefly), and such as will not be easily acquainted with you but upon further suit: hence that Epiphonema {a} in the perclose of his prophecy, "Who is wise, and he shall understand these things? prudent, and he shall know them?" But this must waken and not weaken our more diligent search, not being content with the first ore that offereth itself to our view, but digging deeper and deeper, till we become owner of the whole treasure, which will sufficiently pay for the pains. Wherefore "search the Scripture," "follow on to know the Lord"; get all the dimensions of knowledge, which (now in the great abundance of the means we have) doth even bow down to us, as trees do that are laden with fruit, so that a child may gather from them.
The son of Beeri] That is, of a well that hath pure and clear water in it, and that never faileth; living water, as the Scripture calleth it, and not mixed with mud. Ministers should be children of Beeri, of a well digged by the direction of the lawgiver, Num 21:17, whence people should draw waters with joy, the pure waters of life, the unadulterated milk of God’s word; not troubled, brackish, and sourish doctrines, such as the Popish clergy (called therefore "the sea," Rev 12:12) do set abroach which rather bring barrenness to their hearers and gnaw their entrails, than quench their thirst or cause fruit. These and all false teachers make God’s flock drink that which they have fouled with their feet, Eze 34:19, yea, impoisoned with their hands: as the malicious Jews once cast bags of poison into many wells here, to do mischief, and were therefore banished the country. False doctrine is like a filthy pond, wherein fish die soon and frogs live long: it is like the Dead Sea, or the great falling star, called Wormwood, Rev 8:10-11, which made "the third part of the waters become wormwood," so that "many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter" by that son of perdition, who was himself the "gall of bitterness, and bond of perdition." Who this Beeri was it appears not in Scripture. It seems he was a man famous in those days among the Israelites (and is here named honoris gratia, for honour’s sake to the prophet), as Alexander and Rufus, the sons of Simon the Cyrenian, were men famously known in the Church of the New Testament; and are therefore but named only by Mark. {Mar 15:21} The Jews have a tradition, that whensoever a prophet’s father is named, that father was likewise a prophet as well as the son. And Beeri might be binominis, and have some other name of more note: like as Pethuel, the father of the prophet Joel, is thought by some to have been Samuel, and to have been called Pethuel, that is, a persuader of God, because what he asked of God he obtained.
In the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, &c.] A young prophet he must needs be (especially if he prophesied fourscore years. See the note above). Haply he began as early as did Samuel, Jeremiah, Timothy, Origen, or Cornelius Mus; of whom Sixtus Senensis testifieth, that he was an admirable preacher at twelve years old.
Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah] The throne of Judah had some interchanges of good princes: Israel none at all. The same justice therefore that made Israel a scourge to Judah, made Assyria a scorpion to Israel; as is here set forth under the type of Hosea’s two last children, Loruhamah and Loammi; whereof in their place, Meanwhile this prophet went through variety of conditions under so many different kings’ reigns (as did likewise Athanasius and Latimer), Jeroboam’s (especially), the second of that name, and here only named, when six other kings of Israel (in whose time Hosea prophesied) are not once mentioned, but lie wrapt up in the sheet of shame, because wicked idolaters, such as God took no delight in, and hath therefore written them in the earth.
And in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash] Not the son of Nebat, that ringleader of the ten tribes’ revolt from the house of David; but another, little better, and yet very prosperous aud victorious, 2Ki 14:25; 2Ki 14:28. He reigned also forty-one years, and did great exploits: yet is Hosea sent to contest with him, to declaim against his sin and wickedness, and to proclaim heavy judgments against him and his people. This the prophet did for a long while together with all fidelity and fortitude; when the king was triumphing over his enemies, and the people were not only drunk, but even mad again, by reason of their extraordinary prosperity ( non tantum temulenti erant sed etiam prorsus insani), as Calvin expresseth it. Now that so young a prophet should so sharply contend with so fierce a people, in the ruff of their pride and jollity; that he should so rouse and ripple up these drunkards of Ephraim with their crown of pride, Isa 28:1; this shows him to have been of a heroic spirit. Jonah, his contemporary, flinched when sent against Nineveh. "Micah the Morasthite" (another of Hosea’s contemporaries) "prophesied in the days of Hezekiah, king of Judah, and spake to all the people of Judah, saying, Thus saith the Lord of hosts, Zion shall be ploughed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps, and the mountain of the house as the high places of a forest. Yet did not Hezekiah, king of Judah, and all Judah, put him at all to death," &c., Jer 26:18-19. He and Hosea, though they prevailed little with the people they preached to, yet they were better dealt with than the prophet Isaiah (their contemporary too), of whom Jerome tells us, out of the Rabbis, that he was sawn asunder, because he said he had seen the Lord: and, secondly, because he called the great ones of Judah, princes of Sodom, and rulers of Gomorrah, Isa 1:10.
{a} An exclamatory sentence or striking reflection, which sums up or concludes a discourse or a passage in the discourse. ŒD
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1–11 The word, or the command, and the thing commanded;…
The word, or the command, and the thing commanded; or the prediction expressed in the very words God suggested by his Spirit to the prophet, and the things too which are now foretold; for holy men of God spake as they were moved, &c., 2Pe 1:21, and the things that were shortly to come to pass were revealed also, in the words of Rev 1:1. Hosea shows the things, and speaks them in words which God hath suggested to him.
The Lord; the Eternal, as the French, Jehovah, Heb., which expresseth the eternity and infinite being of our God, together with his sovereignty and absolute authority over all. This is expressly added, to give warning to the prophet, to command audience, attention, reverence, and submission in the hearers, and to intimate to them the certainty of execution if they repent not, and the certainty of performance of promise if they believe; for it is Jehovah who changeth not that speakest both.
Read full note →
Came to Hosea; or was with him; as it came to him, so it did abide with him, made a deep impression upon his mind. Prophets were too backward, rather than overforward, to publish sad tidings to sinning people. Moses was unwilling to go to Pharaoh; Jeremiah pent up the word till it grew like fire in his bowels, too hot, and he could have no ease till he gave it vent. It is not unlikely the prophet Hosea intimates by this expression some such effect the word of God had on him; he was full of the prophetic Spirit, its motions were ever with him, and stirring within him.
Hosea; a name that carrieth most comfortable news in the letter and signification of it, being the same with Joshua or Jesus; and his word or message from God to the good was comfortable, it was assurance both of preservation and salvation, as will appear in process of his prophecy.
The son of Beeri: though some would have this Beeri to be the same with Beerah, 1Ch 5:6, it hath no probability, the names being different; beside that Beerah was carried captive by Tilgath-pilneser, and it is probable his family was carried away with him; or if Hosea had escaped his father's mishap, he would have given us at least some ground to believe by his words that he resented the unhappiness of his family in that respect; but we know the name of the prophet's father, we know not his tribe or country, or of what quality he was, where he lived, or when be died.
In the days, i.e. during the reign, in the times; it is a Scripture expression of times.
Of Uzziah, called Azariah, 2Ki 14:21, and
Ozias, Mat 1:8; the beginning of whose reign is very variously guessed at, and after all is left uncertain; but this is clear, that Jeroboam was contemporary with Uzziah, who began to reign in the twenty-seventh year of Jeroboam: reckoning thence to the forty-first year of his reign, which was the last of Jeroboam, there will be fourteen years of Uzziah's reign in which Hosea prophesied; but if there was (as for aught I find there might be) some years of viceroyship in which Amaziah reigned with his father Joash, and the like between Jeroboam and his father, then a longer synchronism ariseth between Uzziah and Jeroboam, and a larger space of time for Hosea to prophesy in their days, which I search not into. Jotham; who succeeded Uzziah as governor, and judged the people while Uzziah, being a leper, was, according to the law, retired from conversing with men, and dwelt in a separate house, but retained the royal title and authority; but it is uncertain how many years this was. Some say fifteen years, others say four years (for we read, 2Ki 15:33, that he reigned sixteen years; and in 2Ki 15:30 we have his twentieth year. Now the four here mentioned seem to be those years of his viceroyship, or government for Uzziah); yet others say his governor's power was of shorter date, and that Uzziah was struck with the plague of leprosy in the last year of his age and reign. This seems scarce consistent with the report of Jotham's being over the house of the king, judging the people; and the leper king dwelling in a separate house till the day of his death, 2Ki 15:5; 2Ch 26:21. They mistake, I think, who place this stroke of leprosy so late; and they do as much mistake who place it at the twenty-fifth of Uzziah, and make him a leper and seclude him twenty-seven years. Jotham hath the character of a good king, 1Ch 27:2,6; but he could not make his subjects good, 2Ch 27:2. Ahaz; the worst son of a good father, yet the father of one of the best of kings. He sinned more in his distress, 2Ch 28:22, and hastened God's judgments on him and his. Hezekiah; who reformed Judah, and walked so with God, that above any of the kings of Judah he was protected and rescued by the immediate hand of Heaven. How long Hosea prophesied in this king's reign appears not; but that he did prophesy a great while is most apparent, whether fifty, or sixty-five, or seventy, or seventy-five, or ninety years, which different computations have some to assert them, I determine not. Jeroboam; the great-grandson of Jehu, of whose greatness and sins you read 2Ki 14:24,25; he was of the religion of Jeroboam son of Nebat.
Joash; whose story you meet with 2Ki 13:10; though a great idolater, and reproved for it no doubt by Elisha, yet he gave a visit to the dying prophet, and with tears bewailed the public loss by Elisha's death, and by the prophet had a legacy given him, three victories over the Syrians; and more they should have been, had not Joash been sparing too much to his own great loss. I remember not any single visit so nobly and magnificently repaid.
Israel; kingdom of the ten tribes, contradistinguished to Judah. By this then it appears Hosea was sent to prophesy against the sins of Israel, or the ten tribes, as well as against the sins of Judah; against Israel he prophesied during Jeroboam's times, (and afterward left them to their obstinacy,) but he continued to prophesy to Judah until his death.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 8 1. Here is the prophet's name and surname; which…
1. Here is the prophet's name and surname; which he himself, as other prophets, prefixes to his prophecy, for the satisfaction of all that he is ready to attest what he writes to be of God; he sets his hand to it, as that which he will stand by. His name, Hosea, or Hoshea (for it is the very same with Joshua's original name), signifies a saviour; for prophets were instruments of salvation to the people of God, so are faithful ministers; they help to save many a soul from death, by saving it from sin. his surname was Ben-Beeri, or the son of Beeri. As with us now, so with them then, some had their surname from their place, as Micah the Morashite, Nahum the Elkoshite; others from their parents, as Joel the son of Bethuel, and here Hosea the son of Beeri. And perhaps they made use of that distinction when the eminence of their parents was such as would bring honour upon them; but it is a groundless conceit of the Jews that where a prophet's father is names he also was a prophet. Beeri signifies a well, which may put us in mind of the fountain of life and living waters from which prophets are drawn and must be continually drawing. 2. Here are his authority and commission: The word of the Lord came to him. It was to him; it came with power and efficacy to him; it was revealed to him as a real thing, and not a fancy or imagination of his own, in some such way as God then discovered himself to his servants the prophets. What he said and wrote was by divine inspiration; it was by the word of the Lord, as St. Paul speaks concerning that which he had purely by revelation, Th1 4:15. Therefore this book was always received among the canonical books of the Old Testament, which is confirmed by what is quoted out of it in the New Testament, Mat 2:15; Mat 9:13; Mat 12:7; Rom 9:25, Rom 9:26; Pe1 2:10. For the word of the Lord endures for ever. 3. Here is a particular account of the times in which he prophesied - in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel. We have only this general date of his prophecy; and not the date of any particular part of it, as, before, in Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, and, afterwards, in Haggai and Zechariah. Here is only one king of Israel named, though there were many more within this time, because, having mentioned the kings of Judah, there was no necessity of naming the other; and, they being all wicked, he took no pleasure in naming them, nor would do them the honour. Now by this account here given of the several reigns in which Hosea prophesied (and it should seem the word of the Lord still came to him, more or less, at times, throughout all these reigns) it appears, (1.) That he prophesied a long time, that he began when he was very young, which gave him the advantage of strength and sprightliness, and that he continued at his work till he was very old, which gave him the advantage of experience and authority. It was a great honour to him to be thus long employed in such good work, and a great mercy to the people to have a minister so long among them that so well knew their state, and naturally cared for it, one they had been long used to and who therefore was the more likely to be useful to them. And yet, for aught that appears, he did but little good among them; the longer they enjoyed him the less they regarded him; they despised his youth first, and afterwards his age. (2.) That he passed through a variety of conditions. Some of these kings were very good, and, it is likely, countenanced and encouraged him; others were very bad, who (we may suppose) frowned upon him and discouraged him; and yet he was still the same. God's ministers must expect to pass through honour and dishonour, evil report and good report, and must resolve in both to hold fast their integrity and keep close to their work. (3.) That he began to prophesy at a time when the judgments of God were abroad, when God was himself contending in a more immediate way with that sinful people, who fell into the hands of the Lord, before they were turned over into the hands of man; for in the days of Uzziah, and of Jeroboam his contemporary, the dreadful earthquake was, mentioned Zac 14:5 and Amo 1:1. And then was the plague of locusts, Joe 1:2-4; Amo 7:1; Hos 4:3. The rod of God is sent to enforce the word and the word of God is sent to explain the rod, yet neither prevails till God by his Spirit opens the ear to instruction and discipline. (4.) That he began to prophesy in Israel at a time when their kingdom was in a flourishing prosperous condition, for so it was in the reign of Jeroboam the second, as we find Kg2 14:25, He restored the coast of Israel, and God saved them by his hand; yet then Hosea boldly tells them of their sins and foretels their destruction. Men are not to be flattered in their sinful ways because they prosper in the world, but even then must be faithfully reproved, and plainly told that their prosperity will not be their security, nor will it last long if they go on still in their trespasses.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–11 The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea,....…
The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea,.... Whose name is the same with Joshua and Jesus, and signifies a saviour; he was in some things a type of Christ the Saviour, and prophesied of him, and salvation by him; and was the instrument and means of saving men, as all true prophets were, and faithful ministers of the word are: to him the word of the Lord, revealing his mind and will, was brought by the Spirit of God, and impressed upon his mind; and it was committed to him to be delivered unto others. This is the general title of the whole book, showing the divine original and authority of it:
the son of Beeri; which is added to distinguish him from another of the same name; and perhaps his father's name was famous in Israel, and therefore mentioned. The Jews have a rule, that where a prophet's father's name is mentioned, it shows that he was the son of a prophet; but this is not to be depended upon; and some of them say that this is the same with Beerah, a prince of the Reubenites, who was carried captive by Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, Ch1 5:6, but the name is different; nor does the chronology seem so well to agree with him; and especially he cannot be the father of Hosea, if he was of the tribe of Issachar, as some have affirmed:
Read full note →
in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel; from whence it appears that Hosea prophesied long, and lived to a great age; for from the last year of Jeroboam, which was the fifteenth of Uzziah, to the first of Hezekiah, must be sixty nine years; for Jeroboam reigned forty one years, and in the twenty seventh of his reign began Uzziah or Azariah to reign over Judah, and he reigned fifty two years, Kg2 14:23, so that Uzziah reigned thirty seven years after the death of Jeroboam, through which time Hosea prophesied; Jotham after him reigned sixteen years, and so many reigned Ahaz, Kg2 15:23, so that without reckoning any part, either of Jeroboam's reign, or Hezekiah's, he must prophesy sixty nine years, and, no doubt, did upwards of seventy, very probably eighty, the Jews say ninety; and allowing him to be twenty four or five years of age when he begun to prophesy, or only twenty (for it is certain he was at an age fit to marry, as appears by the prophecy), he: must live to be upwards of a hundred years; and in all probability he lived to see not only part of Israel carried captive by Tiglathpileser, which is certain; but the entire destruction of the ten tribes by Shalmaneser, which he prophesied of. Jeroboam king of Israel is mentioned last, though prior to these kings of Judah; because Hosea's prophecy is chiefly against Israel, and began in his reign, when they were in a flourishing condition. It appears from hence that Isaiah, Amos, and Micah, were contemporary with him; see Isa 1:1, within this compass of time Hosea prophesied lived Lycurgus the famous lawgiver of the Lacedemonians, and Hesiod the Greek poet; and Rome began to be built.
(h) Shalsheleth Hakabala, fol. 12. 1.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 The general title of the book, ver. 1. He…
The general title of the book, ver. 1. He is to convince them of their whoreing against God, by marrying a wife of whoredoms, ver. 2, 3. He is to foretell their ruin, by the names of his sons, ver. 4-9. He intimates, that God still had mercy in store for them, ver. 10, 11.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 Chronological Notes relative to the commencement of Hosea's
THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET HOSEA
Chronological Notes relative to the commencement of Hosea's
Read full note →
prophesying, upon the supposition that this event took place
in the last year of the reign of Jeroboam II., king of Israel
-Year of the world, according to the Usherian account, 3219.
-Year of the Julian period, 3929.
-Year since the Flood, 1563.
-Year from the vocation of Abram, 1136.
-Year from the foundation of Solomon's temple, 227.
-Year before the First Olympiad, 9.
-Year before the building of Rome, 32.
-Year before the vulgar era of Christ's nativity, 785.
-Cycle of the Sun, 9.
-Cycle of the Moon, 15.
-Second year of Coenus, the second king of Macedon; which was the thirtieth from the foundation of the monarchy.
-Thirteenth year of Agamestor, perpetual archon of the Athenians.
-Thirteenth year of Ardysus, king of Lydia.
-Twelfth year of Amulius Sylvius, king of the Albans.
-Twenty-fifth year of Charilaus, king of the Lacedaemonians.
-Forty-first year of Jeroboam II., king of Israel.
-Twenty-sixth year of Uzziah, king of Judah.
CHAPTER I
Under the figure of a wife proving false to her marriage vows,
and bearing children that would follow her example, the prophet
represents the shameful idolatry of the ten tribes, which
provoked God to cast them off. The whole passage is information
by action instead of words. This names of the children are all
emblematical. The first is intended to put Israel in mind of
their unrepented guilt, and the acts of cruelty committed in
their palace of Jezreel, (1Kg 21:1.)
The second and third, signifying not finding mercy, and not my
people, denote that, in consequence of their guilt, they were
to be rejected of God, 1-9.
God promises, however, to repair the loss to his Church by
calling in the Gentiles, 10;
and by uniting all the children of God under one head, the
Messiah, in the latter days, 11.
NOTES ON CHAP. I
Verse 1. Hosea, the son of Beeri] See the preceding account of this prophet.
In the days of Uzziah, c.] If we suppose, says Bp. Newcome, that Hosea prophesied during the course of sixty-six years, and place him from the year 790 before Christ to the year 724, he will have exercised his office eight years in the reign of Jeroboam the second, thirty-three years in the reign of Uzziah, the whole reigns of Jotham and Ahaz, and three years in the reign of Hezekiah but will not have survived the taking of Samaria. But see the preceding account of this prophet.
I think the first verse to be a title to this book added by the compiler of his prophecies, and that it relates more to facts which took place in those reigns, and had been predicted by Hosea, who would only be said to have prophesied under an those kings, by his predictions, which were consecutively fulfilled under them. By those, though dead, he continued to speak. The prophet's work properly begins at Ho 1:2; hence called, "The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea."
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 Hos 1:1. The word of the Lord that came…
Hos 1:1. The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea — The name of the prophet is the same with the original name of Joshua, and signifies a Saviour. The son of Beeri — This was the prophet’s surname; for in those days they had their surnames either from their parents, as we have, or from the places of their abode. Beeri signifies a well. In the days of Uzziah, &c. — “If we suppose,” says Archbishop Newcome, “that Hosea prophesied during the course of sixty-six years, and place him from the year 790 before Christ, to the year 724, he will have exercised his office eight years in the reign of Jeroboam the Second, thirty-three years in the reign of Uzziah, the entire reigns of Jotham and Ahaz, and three years in the reign of Hezekiah; but will not have survived the taking of Samaria.” It is probable, however, that he begun his ministry as early as the year 785; and therefore that he prophesied at least seventy, if not more, years. The Jews, indeed, suppose him to have prophesied near ninety years, and that he uttered much more than he wrote. If he exercised his office such a number of years, many of the other prophets, as Isaiah, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, and Micah, must have lived and prophesied during his time.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1–11 The word of the Lord, that came unto Hosea…
The word of the Lord, that came unto Hosea - Hosea, at the very beginning of his prophecy, declares that all this, which he delivered, came, not from his own mind but from God. As Paul says, “Paul an Apostle, not of men neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father.” He refers all to God, and claims all obedience to Him. That word came to him; it existed then before, in the mind of God. It was first God’s, then it became the prophet’s, receiving it from God. So it is said, “the word of God came to John” Luk 3:2.
Hosea - i. e., “Salvation, or, the Lord saveth.” The prophet bare the name of our Lord Jesus, whom he foretold and of whom he was a type. “Son of Beeri, i. e., my well or welling-forth.” God ordained that the name of his father too should signify truth. From God, as from the fountain of life, Hosea drew the living waters, which he poured out to the people. “With joy shall ye draw water out of the wells of salvation” Isa 12:3.
Read full note →
In the days of Uzziah ... - Hosea, although a prophet of Israel, marks his prophecy by the names of the kings of Judah, because the kingdom of Judah was the kingdom of the theocracy, the line of David to which the promises of God were made. As Elisha, to whose office he succeeded, turned away from Jehoram 2Ki 3:13-14, saying, “get thee to the prophets of thy father, and to the prophets of thy mother,” and owned Jehoshaphat king of Judah only, so, in the title of his prophecy, Hosea at once expresses that the kingdom of Judah alone was legitimate. He adds the name of Jeroboam, partly as the last king of Israel whom, by virtue of His promise to Jehu, God helped; partly to show that God never left Israel unwarned. Jeroboam I was warned first by the prophet 1 Kings 13, who by his own untimely death, as well as in his prophecy, was a witness to the strictness of God’s judgments, and then by Ahijah 1 Kings 14; Baasha by Jehu, son of Hanani 1 Kings 16; Ahab, by Elijah and Micaiah son of Imla; Ahaziah by Elijah 2 Kings 1; Jehoram by Elisha who exercised his office until the days of Joash 2Ki 13:14.
So, in the days of Jeroboam II, God raised up Hosea, Amos and Jonah. “The kings and people of Israel then were without excuse, since God never ceased to send His prophets among them; in no reign did the voice of the prophets fail, warning of the coming wrath of God, until it came.” While Jeroboam was recovering to Israel a larger rule than it had ever had since it separated from Judah, annexing to it Damascus 2Ki 14:28 which had been lost to Judah even in the days of Solomon, and from which Israel had of late so greatly suffered, Hosea was sent to forewarn it of its destruction. God alone could utter “such a voice of thunder out of the midst of such a cloudless sky.” Jeroboam doubtless thought that his house would, through its own strength, survive the period which God had pledged to it. “But temporal prosperity is no proof either of stability or of the favor of God. Where the law of God is observed, there, even amid the pressure of outward calamity, is the assurance of ultimate prosperity. Where God is disobeyed, there is the pledge of coming destruction. The seasons when men feel most secure against future chastisement, are often the preludes of the most signal revolutions.”
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 Israel. He reigned forty-one years, till the year of…
Israel. He reigned forty-one years, till the year of the world 3220. (Usher) --- The prophets usually give the date, that the prediction may be verified. Some Latin manuscripts intimate, that "the Jews attribute these titles to Esdras, (who is Malachias) or to the respective prophets, which is more probable." (St. Jerome, t. i.) --- Jeroboam II died twenty-six years before Ozias, towards the end of whose reign Isaias commenced; so that Osee was more ancient. (Worthington)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 SUPERSCRIPTION. Hos_1:1
SUPERSCRIPTION. Hos_1:1
1The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri,1 in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel.
Read full note →
______________
PART FIRST. Hos_1:2 to Hos_3:5
Hos_1:2 to Hos_2:3
A. The Rejection of the Kingdom of Israel, and especially of the House of Jehu, on account of their “Whoredom,” is symbolically announced.—Hos_1:2-9
2 The beginning2 of the Word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea [In the beginning when Jehovah spoke with Hosea, then Jehovah said to Hosea ]: Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms; for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord [Jehovah]. 3So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which [and she] conceived, and bare him a Song of Solomon 4 And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the 5 kingdom of the house of Israel. And it will come to pass in that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. 6And she conceived again, and bare a daughter. And God said unto him, Call her name Lo-ruhamah [Unpitied];3 for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel; but I will utterly take them away [that I should keep on forgiving them ]. 7But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by the Lord [Jehovah] their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle [war ], by horses, nor by horsemen. 8Now when she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son [And she weaned Lo-Ruhamah and conceived and bare a son ]. 9Then said God, call his name Lo-ammi [Not-my-people ], for ye are not my people, and I will not be your God [yours].4
B. And yet Israel will be again accepted by God
Hos_2:1-3
1 Yet [And] the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where5 it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said 2 unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head; 3 and they shall come up out of the land: for great is the day of Jezreel. Say to your brethren, Ammi [My-people ], and to your sisters, Ruhamah [compassionated ].
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
Hos_1:1. Superscription. It has been shown al ready in the Introduction (§ 1) that the chronological limits assigned in the title must be admitted to be essentially correct. Difficulties have been suggested to the minds of some from the circumstance that when the duration of Hosea’s ministry is given, it is, in the first line, placed in relation to the reigns of Judah, and that a king of Israel is mentioned only in the second line. To argue from this, however, that Hosea belonged to the kingdom of Judah, is inadmissible; for as we saw in the Introduction, all other evidence goes to prove that he was a resident of the Northern Kingdom.
But a further difficulty is felt. Only one king of Israel is named, whom Hosea long survived, and the succession of Judaic kings brings down the life of the prophet far beyond the time of that single monarch, Jeroboam II. Hence it is: alleged that the second part of the superscription does not agree with the first.
Keil seeks to solve this difficulty by assuming that the Prophet acknowledged only the legitimate rulers of the kingdom of Judah as the real kings of the people of God; and that he defined the limits of his ministry according to the real succession of that kingdom. He introduces along with the names of those kings, that of the Israelitish monarch, under whom he began his prophetic course, not only to indicate that occasion more definitely, but chiefly on account of the significant position occupied by Jeroboam in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes. He was the last king through whom God vouchsafed any aid to that state. The succeeding rulers scarcely deserved the title of king.
But this explanation, brought forward in order to defend the originality of the superscription, can scarcely be acquitted of the charge of arbitrariness. (The precedence assigned to the Judaic kings would be better explained on the hypothesis that Hosea, at a later period, took up his residence in Judah and there composed his book.) Ewald, who, to be sure, does not admit in its full extent the correctness of the chronological statements of the superscription, supposes that the allusion to the kings of Judah was added by a later hand (which also inserted Isa_1:1), while the remainder is the old original superscription, which, however, he thinks belonged at first only to chaps, 1, 2.
The question, whether the superscription in its present form is quite original, must be allowed to remain undecided.
[As serving however to defend the genuineness of the superscription, comp. with the view of Keil adduced above, the following full and forcible presentation of the probable design of the prophet in its insertion given by Hengstenberg in his Christology: “Hosea mentions, first and completely, the kings of the legitimate family. He then further adds the name of one of the rulers of the Kingdom of Israel, under whom his ministry began, because it was of importance to fix precisely the time of its commencement. Uzziah, the first of the series of the kings of Judah mentioned by him, survived Jeroboam nearly twenty-six years. Now, had the latter not been mentioned along with him, the thought might easily have suggested itself, that it was only in the latter period of Uzziah’s reign that the prophet entered upon his office; in which case all that he says about the overthrow of Jeroboam’s family, would have appeared to be a vaticinium post eventum, inasmuch as it took place very soon after Jeroboam’s death. The same applies to what is said by him regarding the total decay of the kingdom which was so flourishing under Jeroboam; for, from the moment of Jeroboam’s death, it hastened with rapid strides toward destruction. If, therefore, it was to be seen that future things lie open to God and his servants ‘before they spring forth’ (Isa_42:9), it was necessary that the commencement of the Prophet’s ministry should be the more accurately determined; and this is effected by the intimation that it took place within the period of the fourteen years during which Uzziah and Jeroboam reigned contemporaneously.6 That this is the main reason for mentioning Jeroboam’s name is seen from the relation of Hos_1:2 to Hos_1:1. The remark made in Hos_1:2, that Hosea received the subsequent revelation at the very beginning of his prophetic ministry, corresponds with the mention of Jeroboam’s name in Hos_1:1. But this is not all.… There was a considerable difference between him and the subsequent kings. Cocceius remarks very strikingly: ‘The other kings of Israel are not viewed as kings but as robbers.’ Jeroboam possessed a quasi legitimacy. The house of Jehu to which he belonged, had opposed the extreme of religious apostasy. It was to a certain degree recognized even by the Prophets. Jeroboam had obtained the throne not by usurpation but by birth. He was the last king by whom the Lord sent deliverance to the Ten Tribes; comp. 2Ki_14:27.”
The English commentators hold to the originality of the superscription, with the exception of Noyes, who speaks of it as “doubtful.” The arguments which establish it are mainly these: (1.) The very fact of its existence in its present form from the earliest known period. (2.) The analogy of other prophetic books as well as of many other portions of the Old Testament, the genuineness of whose superscriptions has never been successfully impugned either by German critics or their English followers. (3.) The improbability of any other hypothesis. Any “redactor” (Ewald and others) could have had no reason to insert such a peculiar title. Its anomalous character shows it to have been the work of the author himself. Any other would either have made no allusion to the kings of Israel, or would have given a complete list of the contemporary ones. There is a purpose manifest here which a collector would not have conceived, and which it was beyond his province to convey to the world by embodying it in an addition to his author’s writings. (4.) The exact correspondence between the character of the superscription, the contents of the book, and the position of the author, as partly shown above, and as might be further proved abundantly.
The superscription therefore is original, and original in its present form. As to the place of its composition there is no improbability in the opinion, mentioned by Schmoller above, that with the rest of the book it was composed in Judah. But this cannot explain, as he supposes, the anomalies of the superscription. It only increases the difficulties. Why was an Israelitish king mentioned at all? This question remains unanswered, while the old difficulty of the non-allusion to succeeding kings of Israel remains in all its force. The true solution must therefore be sought not in any local conditions of the Prophet, but in his necessary relations as a Prophet of God to the two kingdoms, as determined by their respective characters, and in his desire to assign definitely the limits of his ministry.—M.]
A. Hos_1:2-9. The Prophet announces symbolically to the Kingdom of Israel that it will be rejected on account of its Whoredom.”
Hos_1:2-3. In the beginning of Jehovah’s speaking with Hosea … and bare him a son—בְּהוֹשֵׁע, literally, in Hosea, that is, into Hosea. The simple translation in, as expressive of an inner revelation which he received, is excluded even by the usage of the language (comp. Zec_1:9; Zec_1:14); as also is the explanation: by Hosea. This “into,” however, must not be modified into simple “to him.” This would have been—אֶל. בְּ evidently expresses here a closer, personal relation into which the speaker enters with another person, while אֶל, “to,” merely indicates the direction of the discourse. It therefore betokens an energy of speaking, probably also in connection with a certain continuity; answering best to our “speaking with” (comp. besides the passages cited above, also Num_12:6; Num_12:8; Hab_2:1). The whole clause, תְּחִלַּת־בְּהִ׳, could be regarded as a kind of superscription = The beginning of that which Jehovah spoke with Hosea. The discourse would then begin with וַיּאמֶר. But it is preferable to attach the whole clause, as a specification of time, to the following וַיּאמֶר and to take תְּהִלַּת which is therefore = in the beginning, as an accusative of time: In the beginning, when Jehovah spoke. The sense would be: When Jehovah began to speak with Hosea, then, etc. [For the internal structure of the clause, see the first Grammatical Note.—J. F. M.] This means that God has begun his revelation to the Prophet with the command immediately following; in other words, that the prophet must enter upon active duty with the following testimony against the spiritual adultery of the kingdom of Israel: Go take to thee a wife of whoredom and children of whoredom. “Wife of whoredom:” זְכוּכִים occurs only in the plural, expressing a plurality of acts.—אֵשֶׁת ז֨, a woman whose element is whoredom, with whom the זנה is a thing not merely incidental. From this designation, as applied to the woman it is evident that it was just in her marriage with the prophet that she would show herself to be an אֵשֶׁת ז׳, and would thereby become an adulteress (though naturally this does not exclude the idea that the Prophet begets children by her). The truth to be represented demands this view of the case. For it is Israel married to Jehovah that commits whoredom.
But who are the יַלְדֵי זְנ׳? “Children” mentioned along with the “wife,” naturally make the latter appear to be the mother. But they cannot be called children of whoredom simply for the reason that their mother is an אֵשֶׁת ז׳. They can have that designation only because they themselves stand essentially connected with זנוּנים. But in what relation? It is readily suggested: “they are related to it as its results = they are the fruit of the זְנוּנים, of the mother, are born of the mother in consequence of her unchastity, are of illegitimate birth.” But, according to this explanation, the genitive would have a sense different from that which it has in the former connection, and this creates a difficulty. If a woman, who practices lewdness and is in fact wholly given up to it, is called אֵשֶׁתִ ז׳ it is most natural to assume that the construction exactly similar and immediately following should be understood in like manner to express action and disposition. יַלֵדֵי זְנוּנִים therefore = children who act and are disposed like their mother, children of the same character as their mother. And this must be admitted to be the correct explanation when it is remembered what is to be represented by the woman and her children, namely, Israel conceived of as the mother of a people, and its children. And the fact which is to be established with regard to Israel and its children is, that they all practice whoredom; comp. the explanatory clause, כִּי־תִזְנֶה הָאָרֶע. It is not said that the children are of adulterous origin, but that the whole people—the people as a whole and in their individual members, or, according to the Hebrew personifying mode of conception, the mother and her children, commit lewdness. “Go, take to thee:” לָקַח אּשָׁח is, according to the constant Hebrew usage, equivalent to our phrase, “to take a wife,” i.e., to take a woman to be a wife, to marry. And וַיִּקִּח (Hos_1:3), which expresses the fulfillment of the command given with קח, has certainly no other sense. In our verse, another object, still, יַלְדֵי זְנוּנִים, is joined to לקח. This is done by zeugma, in the sense: Accipe tibi uxorem et suscipe ex ea filios scortationum. He is, accordingly, to ally himself with an unchaste wife, and the children which he begets with her are to be like their mother. This is just the position of Israel. Israel, Jehovah’s spouse, committed lewdness, and the children, who belonged both to Jehovah and to her, acted just as their mother did. Wife and children grieved equally the Husband and Father. The reference here is therefore not to children which the woman is supposed to have had before her marriage with the Prophet. The force of the painful experience of grief over his own children, through which the Prophet was to pass, would then be lost. By these children of whoredom we are not to understand directly just the three children mentioned afterwards, for the expression is a general one, but they do certainly fall under this category, and it is only they who are named.
The command which the Prophet receives is supported by the words: for the whole land is whoring, whoring away from Jehovah (falling away from Jehovah). זָנָה: evidently a metaphorical expression here designating apostasy from Jehovah to idolatry, according to the conception of Israel’s relation to Jehovah as that of a marriage. He who serves idols accordingly commits whoredom and breaks the marriage vow, is unfaithful to a lawful spouse, because surrendering himself to a stranger, with whom no marriage relation can exist. This notion of infidelity is further indicated expressly by the addition: מֵאַחֲרֵי יי׳. מֵאַחֲריֵ is a significant composite preposition, which expresses not merely absence from Jehovah, but conveys the notion that a relation, the direct opposite of חַלַךְ אַחֲרֵי יי׳, has been entered into, and therefore expresses forcibly a position of infidelity, of a discontinuance of fidelity. On this notion of זָנָה in a spiritual sense, see the Doctrinal Section. As זָנֹה תִּזְנֶה expressed the intensity of the apostasy, so הָאָרֶץֽ expresses forcibly its extent. As the sequel shows, it is the inhabitants of the kingdom of Israel who are meant. This whole sentence gives the ground of the command which the Prophet receives to take a wife of whoredom. He is to take a wife who commits bodily unchastity because the whole land commits whoredom spiritually. Why? The most natural answer is: In order to hold up to the people a mirror in which they might behold their guilt, and thus to bring to their consciousness more surely and powerfully than could be done by mere didactic discourse, how greatly they, by their idolatry, had sinned against their God. and dishonored Him. God would thus be represented as standing in a position which would hardly be imputed to a man, namely, that of living in marriage with a woman given up to adultery; or that such a relation would be as dishonoring to God as marriage with a whorish woman would be to a prophet. But the taking of this wife had, besides, the express purpose of begetting children with her, who by their names should annonnce to Israel the punishment incurred by its guilt. For to the people (represented by the woman and her יַלְדֵי זְכ׳) was to be presented the consequence of their whoredom, and it was to be brought to their consciousness what punishments then rightful husband, Jehovah, would inflict as the consequences of their infidelity. The children, as יַלְדֵי זכְ׳, represent the children of Israel in their guilt, but, at the same time, by their names, the punishment thereby entailed, and as those names, significant of punishment, are affixed to those who represent the guilt, the fact is expressed that the punishment is directly consequent upon the guilt.
It is clearly incorrect to lay stress upon קַח־לְךָ and the alliance of the Prophet with the woman, by itself considered, and so give to the thought a positive turn: that, by the Prophet’s marriage with a lewd woman, and by the announcement of its results and by the names of the children, it was intended to be illustrated how Jehovah entered into a marriage with the faithless nation of Israel through Hosea, and that the children and the consequences of such marriage would represent severe chastisements from the hand of love (Löwe). This notion is imported into the sentence. In so far as it is correct, it belongs to chap. 3 and not here. But of an alliance being entered into between Jehovah and the disloyal people, there is nothing said even there, simply because Jehovah had, on his part, entered into such a marriage with the people long before. To infer from the fact of the Prophet’s marriage that God entered into the same alliance would be a false application of the image. The Prophet cannot be conceived of as standing already in that relation. He must contract this marriage in order to symbolize Jehovah’s marriage with the people already existing. It would be just as baseless, however, to infer from this marriage contracted by Hosea with the woman, that the original covenant between God and his people at Sinai is to be represented; that God had concluded the alliance with the people as with a pure virgin, and that they became unchaste after they came under the covenant; that therefore also אֵשֶׁת זְנ׳ is not a woman who has already practiced lewdness, but that an undefiled virgin is to be understood, of whom, however, it was foreseen that she would become unfaithful and bear children of adultery. Apart from the emphasis placed upon the words אֵשֶׁת זְנ׳, this view is seen to stand in direct contradiction to the causal sentence: “for the land,” etc. Because the land commits whoredom must the prophet take a maiden who will become unchaste? No. “The marriage which the prophet was to contract was simply intended to symbolize the relation already existing between Jehovah and Israel, and not the way in which it had come into existence. The wife does not represent the nation of Israel in its virgin state, when the covenant was being concluded at Sinai, but the nation of the Ten Tribes in its relation to Jehovah at the period of the prophet, when that kingdom, considered as a whole, had become a wife of whoredom, and in its several members resembled children of whoredom.” (Keil.)
Hos_1:3. Took Gomer, a daughter of Diblaim. The command is obeyed without delay. גֹּמֶר occurs elsewhere only as the name of a nation: Gen_10:2-3; Eze_38:6. If the name be taken here symbolically, the derivation from גָּמַר might afford the signification, “completion,” i.e., not annihilation, utter ruin; but, completion of whoredom=completed whoredom (so already Aben Ezra, Jerome). According to Fürst it is also possible to explain, “fire-glow,” literally, a being consumed with passion. דִּבְלַיִם occurs only as a proper name. In attempts to interpret it, it is usually explained as =דְּבֵלִים, fig-cakes (so already Jerome), in which an allusion is perceived to chap. 3 Hos_1:1, where raisin-cakes appear as an image of that idolatry which ministers to sensuality. “Daughter of fig-cakes” would then=loving fig-cakes, or more generally, deliciis dedita. The identification of דִּבְלַּיִם and דְּבֵלַים has its difficulties, however. Fürst supposes that the root דבל, besides the sense, press together, from which we have דְּבֵלָה, fig-cake, has also the signification, enclose, and thus gains the meaning, embracing (strictly, as in the dual form: double-embracing, copulation), therefore: daughter of embraces. And this would naturally mean, not the fruit of such embraces, but (as in the other explanation, expressing a connection or intercourse), abandoned to embraces, complexibus dedita. The interpretation of these names is accordingly attended with difficulties. For we cannot say that in themselves they necessarily demand such an explanation, at least so far as our knowledge of the Hebrew language permits us to judge. But it cannot be adduced against the admissibility of such interpretation that the names are not elucidated for us as are those in Hos_1:4 ff. “This may be simply explained from the circumstance that the name was not given to the woman, but that she had it already when the prophet married her” (Keil). If the names have really these meanings, it is clear that a woman designated, “consummata in scortatione, complexibus dedita,” would be a striking picture of Israel, uttering a severe rebuke.
[Henderson, holding the literal interpretation of the narrative, maintains that there is no need of assuming any symbolical meaning whatever for these names. On the other hand, if the narrative be not the record of actual occurrences, the necessity of a symbolical interpretation of the names is manifest. Most of the English expositors who note the names show a general agreement with the explanations: completed whoredom, and: given up to dainties.—J. F. M.]
And she conceived and bore to him a son. The taking of the wife had evidently in view the birth of children. That the woman conceived by the prophet, and that the son is to be regarded as his, is clear even from the simple connection of the words, but is placed beyond question by the express addition: bore to him. The opinion that the children were illegitimate, has arisen only from the false assumption, at variance with the context, that the woman must have formerly been a virgin; for the designation, אֵשֶׁת ז׳, must then be justified, and if she were not such before marriage, she must have become unchaste after it.
Hos_1:4-5. Then the Lord said to him: Call his name Jezreel—in the valley of Jezreel. The names of the children were to be significant, in view of the announcement of punishment, and must therefore be determined by God. That of the first child was to be Jezreel. This was to the house of Jehu a nomen cum omine, on account of the significant connection of the “plain of Jezreel” with that family. It should remind them of that place and of that which occurred there. It cried out to them according to the meaning of the word, “God will disperse,” and thus threatened punishment for what was there transacted; and also, according to what follows, presented to their fears the “plain of Jezreel” as the place where the punishment should be inflicted. Blood-guiltiness of Jezreel. Jehu had, by one fearful massacre, exterminated the whole house of Ahab in the city of Jezreel (2Ki_9:30; 2Ki_10:17). This city was situated in the plain of Jezreel, which lay in the well-known Valley of Kishon. Now there appears this difficulty: Jehu did this at the express command of God through Elisha (2Ki_9:1 ff.), and the deed was afterwards commended by God (1 Kings 10:30), and yet it is to be avenged as murder upon Jehu’s house. It might be said that in the mind of the author of the books of the Kings, and in that of the prophet, there were different views with regard to the violent overthrow of Ahab’s house. But the prophet also could regard the overthrow of a family like that of Ahab only as a merited judgment of God, and hold the same view with reference to the extension of the massacre to Ahaziah of Judah and his brethren, by reason of their connection with the house of Ahab. The correct solution may be seen in the words of Keil: “The apparent contradiction is resolved simply by distinguishing between the act itself and the motive by which Jehu was instigated. Regarded in itself, as a fulfillment of the command of God, the extermination of Ahab’s family was an act for which Jehu could not be held criminal.” But the motive which actuated Jehu was not at all the desire to fulfill the will of the Lord; for, even if he did not use the command of God as a cover for his own selfish and ambitious feelings, he did yet in no way enter into the intention of the Divine injunction. God desired that the kingdom of Israel should be cleansed from idolatry by the extermination of the house of Ahab and the elevation of a new dynasty. In that purpose lay the justification of the deed, which was to be simply a judgment of God upon idolatry. But Jehu, though ceasing from the worship of Baal, retained the worship of the calves. He fulfilled God’s command indeed, but only went half way. After he had gained the throne, to which God had destined him, he struck out for himself a false path, from a false policy in which he thought it advisable to retain the worship of the calves, and thus rendered God’s intentions nugatory. Thus was the bloody deed of Jehu divested of all real value, and thus it entailed a burden of guilt upon him and his house (wherefore also the possession of the throne was promised to him only to the fourth generation). This section of the book shows directly that the idolatry countenanced by Jehu and his house is to be brought into connection with his deed as an act of blood-guiltiness, for “the whoring of the land” is expressly designated as the sin to be punished (Hos_1:2). Such apostasy from Jehovah (this is the first announcement), is to be punished by the way in which the deed of blood in Israel is regarded and avenged as a sinful act of blood-guiltiness. The ground of the resentment towards that act therefore does not lie in the deed itself, but the punishment is inflicted for something else without which it would not have been incurred. The objection therefore is not just which maintains that this deed cannot be the crowning crime of Jehu and his house. Nor is there any discrepancy between the prophet and the books of the Kings, where all the members of that louse are adduced as guilty by not departing from the sin of Jerusalem. [Pusey: “Jehu, by cleaving against the will of God to Jeroboam’s sin, which served his own political ends, showed that in the slaughter of his master he acted not as he pretended, out of zeal (2Ki_10:16) for the will of God, but served his own will and his own ambition only. By his disobedience to the one command of God he showed that he would equally have disobeyed the other, had it been contrary to his own will or interest. He had no principle of obedience. And so the blood which was shed according to the righteous judgment of God, became sin to him who shed it in order to fulfill not the will of God but his own. Thus God said to Baasha: ‘I exalted thee, out of the dust and made thee prince over my people Israel,’ which he became by slaying his master the son of Jeroboam and all the house of Jeroboam (1Ki_16:2). Yet because he followed the sins of Jeroboam, ‘the word of the Lord came against Baasha for all the evil that he did in the sight of the Lord in being like the house of Jeroboam, and because he killed him’ (Hos_1:7). The two courses of action were inconsistent: to destroy the son and the house of Jeroboam, and to do those things for which God condemned him to be destroyed. Further yet; not only was such execution of God’s judgments itself an offense against Almighty God, but it was sin, whereby he condemned himself, and made his other sins to be sins against the light. In executing the judgment of God against another, he pronounced his judgment against himself, in that he that judged, in God’s stead, did the same things (Rom_2:1).” M.]
Will visit: alluding to extermination which corresponds to the act of Jehu. It followed not long after the death of Jeroboam II. in the murder of his son through the conspiracy of Shallum (2Ki_15:8 ff.). But the threatening goes further: will utterly destroy the kingdom of the house of Israel. “House of Israel” here designates the kingdom of Israel in a special sense, the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, as distinguished from the house of Jehu (ver 7). The kingly office in general should cease in the kingdom of Israel, and that would naturally be a cessation of the kingdom itself. But this was connected with the fall of the house of Jehu, because, in consequence of that event, a state of the wildest anarchy ensued, so that only one king, Menahem, had a son for successor, the rest being all overthrown and slain by conspirators. The fall of that house was therefore “the beginning of the end, the beginning of the process of rejection” (Hengstenberg).
Hos_1:5. And it happens in that day, that I break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. “That day” is the day on which the destruction of the kingdom takes place. “Bow of Israel” “by synecdoche for the military force on which the strength of the kingdom and consequently its existence rested” (Keil). The valley of Jezreel is the plain in which the city Jezreel lay, in the Apocrypha and Josephus: τὸ μέγα πεδίον Εσδραίλων, or simply: τὸ μέγα πεδίον. There the threat was to be fulfilled, because it was there that the bloody deed was committed. It was, moreover, the natural battle-field of the northern kingdom (comp. Jdg_4:5; Jdg_6:33). Israel forms here an unmistakable paronomasia with Jezreel. The words, and especially also the mention of a locality, point clearly to a battle, here an overthrow, by which the before-named destruction of the kingdom should be effected, and thus in this sentence not only is the punishment indicated, but the mode of its infliction stated. The enemy who should effect this annihilation of the kingdom is not yet indicated. No definite enemy is named before the second part of the book where Assyria is brought forward. (It is not mentioned in the books of the Kings where Assyria dealt this blow.)
Hos_1:6-7. And she conceived again and bore a daughter,—by horses and riders. The second child is a daughter who receives the symbolical name: לא̇ רֻחָמָה [See Gram. Note]. That the second child should be a daughter is not a voucher for the necessity of the literal view, but is grounded in the inner connection between the female sex and compassion. The announcement that there was no more compassion, becomes so much the more emphatic as the representative of the nation which was not to find compassion was a daughter. For the “female sex finds more compassion than the male,” and yet there is no compassion to be found. That must be a sad case indeed! The explanation is incorrect which supposes that the daughter signifies a more degenerate race (e. g., Jerome). For I will no longer have any compassion. An explanation, telling what the name of the daughter implies, namely, the exhaustion of Divine compassion. The kingdom owed its preservation in the midst of the prevailing idolatry only to the undeserved compassion of God. [On the rest of Hos_1:6, see Gram. Note.]
Hos_1:7. But I will have compassion on the house of Judah. A keen reproach for the house of Israel; if they were like the house of Judah, they too would find compassion; but they are not so; they live only by the compassion of Jehovah as is plain from the words. Why Judah finds favor, and Israel does not, is indicated in the words that follow, in the peculiarly emphatic expression: I will deliver them through Jehovah their God (comp. Gen_19:24). Here allusion is made to the connection in which Judah stands with Jehovah, while it contains, at least by implication, the thought that Judah owes its deliverance directly to the fact that it acknowledges Jehovah to be its God, and not, as is further said, to its military force, while Israel on the contrary, trusting in its military strength instead of in Jehovah who is its God no longer, shall for that very reason, and in spite of its warlike resources, utterly perish. By war is an unexpected expression as occurring along with, the other words; but it naturally means not: by weapons of war, but obviously: by waging war. The bow and the sword are named, as the weapons, and the words: by war, show more definitely that the employment of those weapons is meant. Horses and riders, according to a familiar mode of expression, indicate the force which completed the military strength in which so much pride was taken. The occurrence of these words at the close is specially emphatic. When Jehovah delivers, He needs no weapons of war, no horses or riders, nor can these give any help without Him.
Hos_1:8-9. And she weaned Lo-Ruhamah, will not be yours. The weaning and the conception are to be taken together, that is, as soon as she had weaned, she again conceived, in order to indicate the continuity of the announcement of evil. There is no interruption until the end of the rejection. [Henderson: “The mention of the weaning of Lo-Ruhamah seems designed rather to fill up the narrative than to describe figuratively any distinct treatment of the Israelites.” J. F. M.]. Not my people: thus should the people in the kingdom of Israel be designated. The covenant relation between God and his people is to be completely dissolved. לא̇־אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם=I will not belong to you [see Gramm. Note]. On the relation of the three threatenings to one another, see the Doctrinal Section (2). On the whole narrative see Introd. § 3.
B. Hos_2:1-3. And yet Israel shall be accepted again.
Immediately upon the announcement of the judgment extending even to the complete rejection of the kingdom of Israel, follows, to the surprise of the reader, an announcement of deliverance. The verses, in distinction from the Hebrew arrangement, should form one section with chap. 1. The arrangement by which Hos_1:1-2 are joined to chap. 1, and a new chapter begun with Hos_1:3, as is done by the LXX. and Jerome, and after them by Luther, is more incorrect still.
Hos_2:1. And the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea,—children of the living God. The promise in Hos_1:1 a, agrees almost verbatim with the promise of Gen_22:17; Gen_32:13, an agreement which is designed. The rejection of the Ten Tribes just announced forms a strong contrast to the promise there made to the patriarch with regard to the boundless increase of his posterity. Now if the promise is firmly believed one might have doubts of the rejection, or if the threatening of the Prophet were to be accepted one might feel that he had mistaken the promise. Hence the Prophet goes back directly to that promise, and shows how the promise is in no way annulled by the threatening, but that the latter agrees well with the former, which will certainly reach its fulfillment. (Comp. also the reference to that promise in Isa_10:22, in opposition to false security, and in Jer_33:22). The promise given to the fathers is just the pledge that a time of deliverance will come again! The announcement of deliverance in Hos_1:1 ff. is rooted in that promise. Thus the words are strictly to be regarded as a citation=and yet what was promised will come true, that, etc., יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּנֶי is therefore naturally to be understood of the people of Israel generally (against Keil). For the promise is made with reference to the whole people, and in Hos_1:2 mention is made expressly of a union between those who had been divided. But that enlargement of the whole body cannot take place with the return of those whose rejection is now announced. Hence the second member of the verse turns to them. For those who are here called “not my people” are naturally identical with those referred to in Hos_1:9. In the place in which it is said to them, etc. There is no need of inquiring what place is meant, whether Palestine or the Land of Exile. The expression has rather the more general sense: “Just as it has been said—so will it now rather be said,” etc. The one will answer exactly to the other. Children of the living God. Instead of simply: my people, or, people of God, which would be expected at first, we have here a much stronger expression, אֵל הַי naturally in opposition to dead idols, whose service brings the people to ruin. They are not merely a people of God, but his children: they shall have in Him not merely a God but a Father (see below in the Doctrinal Section). There is no allusion here to the moral ground of this gracious acceptance, and such a notion must not be introduced. For to the darkness of the first part (chap. 1) the light is here contrasted quite abruptly and in a way quite unprovided for. The connecting link is not found before the more profound exhibition of the subject in chap. 2. It is understood, of course, that only a remnant is to meet with compassion, but it is not here expressed.
Hos_2:2-3. And the children of Judah and the children of Israel are gathered together—Ruhamah. The acceptance of the rejected ones by God will be followed by a reunion of’ those who had been separated (inwardly as well as outwardly—on the one side belief in God, on the other idolatry). Comp. Jer_50:4, which rests upon our passage, and 3:18, and still more fully Eze_37:15 ff. The children of Israel, by being contrasted with the children of Judah, receive here their more restricted and special meaning, as belonging to the Ten Tribes. The words: appoint for themselves one head, denoting one common king, express this union still more definitely (comp. Hos_3:5; Eze_34:24; Eze_37:24). And go up out of the land. These words are difficult. “The land” is, according to most, the land of Exile, and a return from it would therefore be expressed. It is certain that the Prophet does not in our section predict a leading away into exile; for “the place,” etc., in Hos_1:1 is not necessarily to be understood of a foreign land. Yet the remark of Reinke is not incorrect: When it is said of Israel that they are no more a people of God, and will no more receive compassion, the fact is presupposed that they could remain no longer in the Holy Land which they had received as God’s people and had retained through his mercy. Already in Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28 banishment into an enemy’s country was threatened to the people as the punishment of obdurate apostasy. It may be objected, however, that by this explanation, the Prophet would seem to have presupposed an exile of Judah, while he says absolutely nothing of it, but, on the contrary, distinguishes in Hos_1:7, Judah from Israel. Difficulty is felt further in the indefinite expression: צָלָה מִן־הֽאָרֶץ, which gives no hint of a land of exile. Reinke, however, as after him Keil, gives this explanation: The prophet refers to Exo_1:10 and borrows the expression from that passage, a supposition put beyond doubt by Hos_2:16-17, where the re-acceptance of Israel is represented as a leading through the wilderness to Canaan, and a parallel is drawn to the leading forth out of Egypt, as in chaps. Hos_8:13; Hos_9:3, the carrying into Exile is described as a carrying into Egypt (comp. also already Deu_28:68). Egypt was thus a type of the heathen world, over which Israel was to be dispersed; the deliverance from Egypt a type and earnest of deliverance from captivity and dispersion among the heathen. Well: but would מן הארץ ץלה, an altogether general expression, in telligible in itself, have been a strictly technical term for “going up out of Egypt.” And upon the single passage, Exo_1:10, in which, moreover, no allusion is really made to a withdrawal from Egypt as from a land of captivity, but Pharaoh only speaks of a departure of the Israelites from it, could such a linguistic usage have been based that עלה מן הארץ would have been understood correctly without any explanation? No other passages occur upon which such a usage could have been founded, and none in which it actually occurs. In Hos_2:15, e. g., “Egypt” is expressly mentioned. No matter how much, therefore, may be said for this explanation as being actually correct, it cannot be approved unconditionally. Others therefore understand “the land,” simply of Palestine. “Going up out of the land,” is thus viewed either as a marching up to Jerusalem (Simson), and to this the context gives much support, especially in the reference to the reunion of Israel and Judah under one head (David). This would imply that Jerusalem would become again the common central point of the nation. But to this also objection may be made (in another direction) to the too general expression עלה מן הארץ. The terminus a quo would then be quite irrelevant. Why then mention this terminus a quo, and omit the terminus ad quem—to Jerusalem (Zion), which is the important point? Hence עלה מן הארץ is regarded by others as a marching forth to victory (Ewald), as David did. The comparison with Mic_2:13 f. is certainly a fitting one. The preceding words, about their marshalling, and uniting and appointing one head, also suit this view well; one is led to think in this of a rising up to vigorous action (because viribus unitis). This explanation demands the mention of the place whither this עלה was to be directed less than the others. But perhaps it is indicated in the following still more obscure sentence: for great is the day of Jezreel. This naturally refers back to Hos_1:4-5. But there Jezreel was the place of overthrow of divine judgment. Keil supposes the same thing is meant here also, that that day of defeat was great, i.e., decisive, glorious, because it formed the critical occasion by which the return of the recreant and their reunion with Judah were rendered possible! Others think of the appellative meaning of the name Jezreel, which certainly appears in 2:24, 25: God sows. This use of the term is supposed to express the notion that the Valley of Jezreel, in consequence of the overthrow there suffered, becomes a place where God sows the seed of the people’s renovation. Keil also admits this as a secondary allusion. But to understand by יוֹם יִזְרְעֶאל, that day of disaster, and to suppose that a day of defeat is called great on account of its good remote results, is a far-fetched notion. Here in Hos_2:1-2, in the announcement of deliverance, we find ourselves upon other ground than that of Hos_2:4 ff. What is here praised as great, is not and cannot be the same as that which in chap. 1 is announced as punishment, but must be something of an opposite character. But if we leave out of view that day of battle, we have left only the vague notion: time of God’s sowing, i.e., when God plants as He had before rooted out, i.e., the time of reacceptance; and such a time is designated as great by גָּדוֹל. But our sentence cannot be supposed to give utterance to such a general thought. The confirmatory כִּי does not suit such a view; for יום יז׳ alludes too definitely (as Keil has perceived correctly) to Hos_1:4, and therefore refers to a definite event; only not the same event, but one which is its counterpart. The sense evidently is this, that there where Israel was overthrown, and its bow broken, a victory will yet be achieved: thither will the children of Israel and Judah gather themselves together under one king, marching up out of the country. And still the appellative significance of Jezreel may be retained; for by this victory God makes a new sowing or planting. Thus, as the threatening is connected with the names of the children, Hos_1:4 ff., so also is the promise: in the first name without any modification, in the other two by the change into their opposite by the omission of the לא̇. [The English expositors usually take the reference to be primarily to the return from the Babylonian captivity. Some of them (of whom Cowles is the latest) refer the fulfillment only to the consequences of the reign of Messiah, the “Head” chosen not only by the united children of Israel and Judah but also by the world. Henderson, denying any multiple sense in prophecy, interprets the “head” to be Zerubbabel, “because the Messiah, whom most suppose to be intended, is nowhere spoken of as appointed by men, but always as the choice and appointment of God.” But (1) it is not said that they will appoint their leader to be the Messiah. That is of course God’s appointment. (2.) The Messiah thus appointed must necessarily be the chosen leader of his people. It is the service of a “willing people” in which they engage. Even God always offers Himself to his people as their king. They are to choose whom they will serve. This argument is evidently only the plea of one who has a theory to uphold. As to the main application of these verses, it is probably best to regard its promise as partially and but to a very small degree fulfilled in the case of those out of the Ten Tribes who returned to Jerusalem after the Exile, and to be constantly undergoing its fulfillment in the increase of the true Israel until the “great multitude which no man could number of all nations” (the 144,000, the mystical number of those sealed of the twelve tribes of Israel), shall be completed. That the Messianic application is almost exclusively the true one is evident both from the grand comprehensiveness of the promise, and from the paucity of evidence as to subsequent reunion to any extent of the representatives of the two kingdoms.—M.]
Hos_2:3.—Say to your brethren, Ammi, and to your sisters, Ruhamah. According to some the children of the Prophet are addressed. Those who had first called out to the people by their own names: Not-my-people! and Unfavored! are now to call out to them the opposite, the son to his brethren, the daughter to her sisters, that is, to the rest of the Israelites. According to others, it is the people who obtain mercy that are addressed, whose members are to salute one another with the new name bestowed on them by God (Hengstenberg, Keil, Umbreit). The latter is to be preferred. For the verse is naturally connected with the close of Hos_1:2, and it should therefore present the rejoicing shouts of the victors. Their victory is to them a pledge of their acceptance by God, which is to be celebrated by these joyful shouts, according to the requirement of the Prophet, or rather of God through him.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. One of the most profound conceptions of the Old Testament is that which regards the covenant relation between Jehovah and Israel as a marriage. As a consequence, Israel’s idolatry and apostasy from God appear as whoredom or adultery; for idols are paramours as contrasted with Jehovah the husband.
The fundamental elements of this conception are found as early as in the Pentateuch: Exo_34:14-15; Lev_17:7; Lev_20:5-6; Num_14:33; (Num_15:39); Deu_31:16; Deu_32:16; Deu_32:21. Exo_34:14-15 must be regarded as the most important and the fundamental passage.
Other passages are Jdg_2:17; Jdg_8:33; 1Ki_14:24; 1Ki_15:12; 1Ki_22:47; 2Ki_9:22; 2Ki_23:7; 1Ch_6:25; 2Ch_21:11; 2Ch_21:13. Further in the Psalms (if we leave Psalms 45 out of the question); Psa_73:27; Psa_106:39.
Such passages of later time, as those from Chronicles, naturally presuppose the prophetic development of this doctrine. This is found first in our Prophet, who has made that conception the fundamental idea of his discourses, in some of which it is directly discussed, while it permeates others as an essential principle (e. g., in chap. 11). On the ground of these discourses it is more fully presented by Jeremiah (especially chaps. 3; Jer_5:7; Jer_13:27, etc.), and Ezekiel (chaps. 16–23). It is only hinted at in Isaiah (chaps. Isa_1:21; Isa_54:5; Isa_57:3; Isa_62:5). It is not met with in the other prophets. For Nah_3:4 ff. does not belong here (although the expressions show allusions to our prophet). Nor does Isa_23:16 ff.; for there it is not idolatry that is represented by the whoredom of Nineveh and Tyre. In addition, on the positive side, namely, the love of Jehovah to Israel, we must name the Song of Solomon, which bears besides, unmistakable allusions to our Prophet. In the New Testament this conception returns, naturally modified in form, in the description of the great Whore, Revelation 17. ff. (embracing, at the same time, the ideas that are found in the last-named passages concerning great and commercial cities). But the positive notion of a marriage of Jehovah to his people is found again in a New Testament form in Eph_5:22 ff, though there in an inverted order; for an actual marriage is first taken, and a parallel is then drawn between it and the relation of Christ to the Church.
For the meaning and significance of this whole conception of Jehovah’s relation to his people, our Prophet is, according to the above remarks, the best commentator in all his writings, and especially in chap. 2. See therefore the remarks upon that chapter.
2. “God will not be mocked” is the truth which the writings of the Prophet, written in letters of flame, bear upon their front in the announcement of the destroying judgments which God must and will inflict upon his apostate people. The mode of this announcement in our chapter through the three children with symbolical names, is full of instruction. The very fact that they represent the apostate children of Israel and declare by their names the punishment for this apostasy, sets forth unmistakably the close connection between sin and guilt, namely, that punishment is, so to speak, attached to sin. And the sudden appearance of the three children without any interval expresses evidently the certainty and unavoidableness of the infliction of the divine judgment. The three symbolic names, moreover, were given for the purpose of intensifying and emphasizing the announcement of the judgment. If the first name simply presages the fact of a retribution by an overwhelming judgment, the second unveils with terrible clearness its ground in the divine nature: it is that they shall no more find compassion, that God has turned away from them. And the result of all this is that the nation ceases to be a people of God. Thus the whole significance of this judgment is exhibited. Destruction, the cessation of I mercy, might be felt by any other people or kingdom; but with the people of God its influence was different, it was to them the loss of its special prerogative. Such a judgment has therefore a significance which is not merely political or social but also theocratic, and must be inflicted with a terrible severity elsewhere unfelt.
But it is most palpably enounced in our chapter how far judgment is from being the end of God’s ways toward his people. Immediately after the three strokes of destruction, so to speak, had been dealt, the sun of divine favor breaks forth from the darkest clouds of divine judgment in the brightest splendor of words of deliverance, as three names are again sounded forth each more distinctly than the former. This great transformation is presented without the least preparation, evidently as an enigma, thus exciting the greatest desire for its solution. The connecting link between these two announcements so broadly contrasted; namely, on the side of God, love, in which even his wrath against his faithless people is rooted—if He were indifferent He would not be angry,—and on the side of man, a return to Him in consequence of the chastening of his judgments, is not yet displayed here. This is done by the longer exposition given in the following chapter.
3. A man may be the instrument of God and, by his acts, execute his will, and yet be rejected: so Jehu. Our position is determined by the relation which we inwardly bear to that will, according to the simple truth that God regards the heart, whether we make the desires of God our own and are willing to be nothing but his instruments and to serve Him, or whether we assert and claim a place for our own interests, and thus in truth seek our own will and not the will of God. If we in this seek our own ends, the result is inevitable; our execution of the divine will is impeded and disturbed, if it is not rather only a seeming fulfillment and our labors abortive.
4. The New Testament conception of sonship with God, has as its Old Testament correlative that of a people of God. This places God in a close, unique relation to men. But God appears there as only Lord and King, though bestowing blessings and offering the conditions of life; and man, to whom He thus stands in relation, is not the individual but only the people of God as a whole. Therefore also this government of God has for one of its aims the restoration and preservation of the outward conditions of national existence, including the natural basis of such a community, the land itself. Under the New Covenant there is also a people of God, but the individuals, who constitute the whole, are all regarded as children of God.
But in another direction the Old Testament notion of a people of God tends undeniably towards the New Testament conception of sonship, and thus shows itself to be a germ ever developing with living power as the earnest of its fruit. All Israel appears as a son of God in the significant passage, Exo_22:11; comp. further Hos_11:1. The Israelites themselves are also called “sons of God,” Deu_14:1; Deu_32:19, and here in our chapter. But these are only single whispers, and the grand distinction must not be overlooked, that this expression is applied only to the totality of the people, even when it relates to their great multitude. Moreover our passage is contained in an announcement with regard to the future, and we must hold beyond question that the prophets go beyond the stand-point of the Old Covenant. It is just as Paul declares in Gal_4:1 ff. Israel indeed actually held the position of sonship toward God, but ἐφ̓ ὅσον χρόνον ὁ κληρον. νήπιός ἐστιν οὺ̀δὲν διαφέρει δούλου. Only the incarnation of the Son of God Himself in an individual person could confer the privilege of the relation of individual and personal sonship towards God, the υἱοθεσία of individual personality.
5. How is the promise in Hos_2:1-3 fulfilled? We might at first be inclined to seek the fulfillment in the return of the people from Babylonish Exile. For that event certainly marks the turning-point where God’s judgment upon his people reached its end and his favor again shone upon them. But in truth we cannot yet discern the accomplishment of the prophecy in that event. It could hardly be the subject of the promise, inasmuch as the Prophet only speaks and knows here of a judgment upon the Ten Tribes. But if a return from the Assyrian Exile and a consequent reunion with the kingdom of Judah had taken place, we might expect to see in these events a fulfillment of the promise. But such a return and consequent remission of the judgment upon the kingdom of Israel never took place; and the return from the Babylonish Exile affected that kingdom but very slightly, and brought about only to a very small degree a season of deliverance. God’s favor returned, indeed, inasmuch as this period was an assurance that God had not utterly rejected his people, and the hope of the fulfillment of the prophetic promises became so much the brighter. But it was not the fulfillment itself. No; to arrive at that we have only to look at our promise a little more closely.
Before the eye of the Prophet there is evidently standing here a picture of a people of Israel, not only innumerably increased and united into one kingdom, but also actually realizing the idea of a people of God (“sons of the living God”). That is, the time which he promises is in his mind directly the “time of fulfillment,” which we, upon the ground of other prophecies, since Hosea himself scarcely speaks of the Messiah (not even in Hos_3:5), must designate the Messianic. Hence we can in no case seek the fulfillment in events which transpired before the advent of the Messiah.
But now the Messiah has come in Jesus of Nazareth. Is this promise of prophecy already fulfilled? Is this picture of the future already realized? If we keep to the words of the Text we must answer, No.
In fact the coming of the Messiah did not bring for Israel, as a whole, the time of deliverance, but on account of its guilt, rather a time of rejection, and the consequence was the infliction of a new and still more complete judgment. It is quite clear also that we cannot find the fulfillment of the present promise in the acceptance of the Messiah by the comparatively few who did accept Him. Must we then say that God did indeed design for the people in the Messiah such blessings as are here promised; but that, since they rejected Him, the promised time will never be theirs? In one respect this is perfectly true. But we cannot rest satisfied with it. The prophetic promise with all its rich fullness of meaning would then simply fall to the ground.
But still more unjustifiable is the assumption that the promise is to be regarded as only suspended for the people of Israel during the time of their obduracy, and to expect its fulfillment in that nation when it shall be converted to the Messiah. For this opinion, though so much favored of late, simply holds mechanically and restrictively to the letter, with a complete misconception of the nature of the Old and New Testament and their mutual relations, and of the higher plane to which divine Revelation rose with Christ, and supposes it possible that Revelation could retreat from the stand-point of the fulfillment to that of the Old Testament preparation, where Israel as a people represented the kingdom of God. It would assume also that allusion was made to the one kingdom only, for the purpose of showing that the distinction between children of Judah and children of Israel was lost by the extinction of the whole kingdom, even of the kingdom of Judah, independently of the consummation of the reunion under one head here promised. And therefore a promise which takes that division for granted and holds out the prospect of its removal and conversion into a higher unity, cannot be regarded as one whose fulfillment (according to the plain sense of the words) is still to be expected; or is that division of the two kingdoms, which no longer exist, yet to take place, in order that it may at some time be removed? If we have to give up the main position of this assumption of a literal fulfillment yet to be accomplished, on account of its intrinsic impossibility, all support is taken away from the notion that the promise will be realized in and for the people of Israel upon the soil of the Holy Land. It falls to pieces from internal weakness.
Instead, therefore, of dreaming of a future fulfillment in the literal sense, we must rather say, that the Prophet knows of a people of God only in the form of Israel, and hence what he hopes and promises for the people of God he hopes and promises for Israel, and in the form conditioned by Israel’s history. But it has become clear to as under the New Testament through Christ: Israel was only a type, necessary for its time and chosen by God, of the true people of God, only a shell which contained the kernel in the mean while, but at the same time was also to protect it until the time of its maturity. But the shell was too small and must be burst; the kernel had not and has not sufficient room, and it would be reversing the order of things, after the kernel is laid bare to retain the shell. It is not the outward Israel that is God’s people; it was just the period of its ruin, just the rejection of the Messiah at his coming by the external Israel that opened the way for this. It was made clear that a people as such was insufficient for this high calling, to be the chosen people of God, as the prophets themselves distinguished more and more between the mere external Israel and the true Israel, and saw the heathen coming to Zion and entering the breach. And though Israel is still held as the central point, the fulfillment is not in outward form, but ideally, inasmuch as Christ came the “Saviour of the Jews;” Israel therefore remaining the root in which the others were engrafted. We can understand now the promise of the innumerable increase (Hos_2:1). Literally it would apply to the people of Israel, but can only apply to them as the people of God; and even though the older prophets say nothing as yet of the calling of the Gentiles, as Micah and Isaiah do, we have now assuredly a right to abandon the notion of an increase of the external Israel, and to see the fulfillment in the founding of a people of God by Christ just in the time of the final ruin of Israel, who have become, especially by the conversion of the heathen, a numberless multitude, and will become still more numerous. Then the reunion of the divided kingdoms is an essential element in the Messianic picture of the future held up in prophecy, as this very passage shows. This is altogether natural. Since prophecy knows a people of God only in the form of the people of Israel, it was necessary, if salvation was to be brought by the reign of the Messiah, that the breach, so harmful to God’s people, and the fruitful source, even more than the consequence, of apostasy from Jehovah, should be removed. If Israel was to be described as becoming converted to God, it must also be represented as returning to its unity under the divinely chosen House of David. This element also in the promise belongs naturally to its form, the form which it must naturally assume under the Old Covenant. As in the New Testament it was declared that the outward Israel was not to constitute God’s people for all time, this element lost its significance; we cannot expect a literal fulfillment of this promise, but the idea which lies at its foundation has been and is being realized, that is, the idea of the real unity of God’s people under one head of the house of David, who was, however, more than the son of David, namely, under Christ. These promises have thus a higher range than the Prophet conceives, and find their fulfillment in a far higher sense than he hopes, and as they are thus more than mere human aspirations and pious wishes, they are seen to proceed from the Spirit of God, who preformed and prevised the New Covenant in the Old. So little does this view do away with the divine authority of the prophetic word, that it is rather its only real attestation and adequate expression, unlike the other literalizing view disproved above.
But if the reproach of spiritualizing should be brought against this conception, our defense is that we only spiritualize in reference to Old Testament promises, along with the Apostles, and would not be more realistic than they, who (1Pe_2:10; Rom_9:25-26), although fully aware of the literal sense of our passages, yet do expressly refer them to the conversion of the heathen. Peter in the same connection (Hos_1:9) sets the New Testament people of God, Christians, directly in the place of those of the Old Testament, and therefore the former are now the true Israel. This extension with reference to the heathen is also quite consequent. If the words: not my people, were once pronounced over Israel, it was because they had sunk quite to the level of the heathen. And if they are to be received again, they would be received just as those who had actually become like heathen; and it is no longer right to exclude the heathen, who are behind them in no respect. But there is this difference between the reacceptance and the first choice. When the Israelites were chosen they were not in positive opposition to God, but now they are so; and therefore a longer exclusion of the heathen would be a particularizing to a greater extent than their disciplinary training demanded; it would be a violation of justice. For the rest: Paul declares clearly that Israel itself shall not be excluded (Rom_11:26). Only thus should the people of God attain to its full increase (And surely, in the fact of the preservation of Israel in its nationality even under the New Testament, we may see a promise of this conversion, although that wonderful preservation by God’s providence is to be regarded in its most patent aspect as a part of the judgment decreed upon Israel by God. It is preserved as a living witness of the rejection decreed by God on account of its unbelief and rejection of the Messiah.) Only Paul says not a word, when promising Israel’s conversion, that would lead us to think that a people of God, κατ̓ ἐξοχήυ, will be continued, not a word of the “glory of the kingdom of Israel,” though his heart beat so warmly (comp. chap. 9) towards his nation in its outward sense.
Finally we have only further to remark that in our references to the Messianic period inaugurated by Christ, as the time of the fulfillment of the prophetic promises, “Messianic time” is taken in the fullest sense of the term, and the whole course of the New Testament dispensation, from its foundation to its completion, is regarded as one whole, so that we have not yet attained to the perfect fulfillment, although the promises of prophecy have been undergoing their realization since the time of Christ. “For it doth not yet appear what we shall be.” The fulfillment is not yet complete, but we stand in expectation of it. This perfect realization consists least in the literal fulfillment with respect to the external Israel alone, but it too, in so far as it is converted to the Messiah, will have a share in the complete salvation ready for all who will be converted to God through Christ.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
Hos_1:2. Starke: All departure from God’s Word and from true religion is a spiritual whoredom. Blessed are they who beware of this!
Hos_1:4. Starke: As a good intention without God’s counsel does not make a cause good, so it cannot be said that the divine will has been fulfilled, when it has been executed with a perverted heart and not in accordance with the divine purposes. (Comp. the Doctrinal and Ethical section, No. 3.)
Würt. Summ.: God’s wrath often falls upon posterity, and they must suffer for the sins of their forefathers, if they walk in their evil footsteps (Exo_20:5).
Tub. Bible: Public sins of a whole nation or of its kings and princes are followed by a general judgment of God, by which whole lands are destroyed.
[Pusey: So awful a thing it is to be the instrument of God in punishing or reproving others if we do not by his grace keep our own hearts and hands pure from sin.—M.]
Hos_1:6. Würt. Summ.: Behold here the severity of the divine wrath. God is certainly compassionate, but his compassion is regulated by his holy righteousness. His compassion exceeds all human petitions and understanding; but his wrath goes beyond all human reckoning. Men may keep on sinning against our beloved God too long, so that when He has waited long exhorting them to repentance, and they do not follow Him, his words at last are: “Lo-Ruhamah Lo-Ammi.” Beware of this and do not defer your repentance; for God may soon become as angry as He was merciful.
Hos_1:7. Cramer: When human help ceases, divine help begins. He is not limited to the use of means, but is Himself our Help and Shield.
[Burroughs: The more immediate the hand of God appears in his mercy to his people, the more sweet and precious ought that mercy then to be. Dulcius ex ipso fonte. Created mercies are the most perfect mercies.—M.]
Starke: Woe to him whose God the Lord will no longer be. Let men therefore beware lest by presumptuous sin they trifle away all intercourse with God.
Rieger: When God thus renounces those who were his people, it is much more lamentable than any severance between those who are married or betrothed. “I will be your God and ye shall be my people,” was the formula of the covenant. They had broken the last condition by their unbelief; and thus they stirred up the Lord to anger so that He renounced the first. Yet He has not expressly retracted the whole formula of the covenant. He did not say: I will not be your God, but He cut short his words in anger: I will not be yours. Thus room is left for that mercy which shall awake anew for them.
Hos_1:9. The threatenings are indeed terrible: but how merciful it was in God to announce the judgment before it comes; and the plainer and more striking these threatenings are the greater the mercy. This is a ground for hoping that the judgment will be averted.
Chap. 2 Hos_2:1. This is the order and method of God’s dealings: He slays, not that He may keep under the power of death, but that He may bring to repentance. Thus He dispersed Israel among the heathen, and without any compassion and mercy, as it seemed to outward observation, rejected them utterly. For the Ten Tribes have not yet returned to their own land. But how abundantly has God compensated to them this misfortune! For those who were scattered among the heathen, He gathered again by the Gospel, and so gathered them that a great multitude of the heathen came to the knowledge of the kingdom of Christ along with the remnant in the kingdom of Israel. He points the people of Israel to this compensation, that they may not despond in such affliction, as we also assuage, by the hope of the future glory, prepared for us by the death of Christ, the sorrows of those calamities which we see before our eyes.
[Burroughs: If we expect God to be a living God to us, it becomes us not to have dead hearts in his service. If God be active for our good, let us be active for his honor.—M.]
Hos_2:2. Starke: The Church of the New Testament has only one Head, who is Christ. Blessed are we if we cleave to and follow Him!
[Matthew Henry: To believe in Christ is to appoint Him to ourselves for our Head, that is, to consent to God’s appointment and willingly to submit to his guidance and appointment; and this in concurrence and communion with all good Christians who make Him their Head; so that though they are many, yet in Him they are one, and so become one with each other. Qui conveniunt in aliquo tertio inter se conveniunt.—M.].
Hos_2:3. The prophet gives the best application of the names which God bade him apply to his children in order that the Christian Church may be convinced thereby that all the former things are reversed, that wrath is done away, and that the unfathomable compassion and mercy of God stand open to every man. For how should God, after He gave his son, not with Him have given all things? This word “say” belongs to the office of public preaching. We are to understand by it that the servants of God in the New Testament are commanded to comfort believers, and to declare to them that they stand in mercy and are a people of God.
[Pusey: The words “my people” are words of hope in prophecy; they become words of joy in each stage of fulfillment. They are words of mutual joy and gratulation when obeyed; they are words of encouragement until obeyed. God is reconciled to us, and willeth that we should be reconciled to Him.—M.].
Footnotes:
[1][Hos_1:1.—בְּאֵרִי—explained by Gesenius as meaning, fountain; by First et al.: one who explains, comp. Deu_1:5. If a symbolical meaning is sought, the latter is probably to be preferred; if not, the signification must remain undecided. There seems to be no necessity for holding a symbolical sense.—M.]
[2]Hos_1:2.—תְּחִלַּת דּ׳. By the construct state in which the first word stands the following (דִּבִּר יי׳ being not an infinitive but a præterite), becomes a sort of substantive phrase subordinate to תחלת. [ תחלת is thus made equivalent to an adverb of time=when at first (Ewald). The construction would thus be similar to that of the phrase בְּיוֹם דִּבֶּר־יי, Exo_6:28; 1Sa_25:15 et al. See Ewald, Gr., § 286, 3. For the view which regards the first clause of the verse as a “kind of superscription,” see the exposition and Green, Heb. Gr., § 255, 1,2.—M.]—זָנֹה תִזְנֶה, according to the familiar Heb. emphatic mode of expression, the זנה is here marked as complete.
[3] Hos_1:6.—רֻחָמָה is usually regarded as a participle with מ fallen away. But according to Keil it is rather the 3 fem. præt. (in the pausal form on account of the Athnach, as in 2:3, 24)=“she finds no sympathy, is not compassionated.” [This is a question which must remain undecided, as the word occurs only in pause. Yet the common view is preferable, because (1) the part. is the better form for an appellative, as it approaches more nearly to a noun, and (2) if the verb became an appellative it would probably remain a fixed form, or at least not be subject to such changes as the 3 præt. undergoes in pause. The part, would of course retain the Kamets in any case.—M.]
The difficult words כִּי נָשׂא וג׳ probably give a further explanation of the אֱרַחֵם. נָשָׂא= to forgive: I will no longer have compassion on them that I should forgive them (Meier: כִּי is climactic=how much less forgive them). The object: sin, is certainly then to be supplied as also in Gen_18:24. But, according to the context, it is easier to supply this than to translate with Hengstenberg: I will take away from them, namely, what they have, or everything they have. In Gen_5:16, נשׂא in the sense of taking may without difficulty be construed absolutely. But here, especially with the dative, an object is expected.
[Pusey, Henderson, Cowles, et al. follow E. V. in rendering: But I will utterly take them away. Newcome: But I will surely take them away. Ewald agrees with Meier in the translation given above. Henderson admits that נָשָׂא followed by לְ elsewhere means to forgive, and that it might have the same sense here if it were only preceded by the copulative וְ, but that כִּי meaning but excludes such repetition. Here it is forgotten that כִּי may mark consecution or result, as it does frequently, comp. Gen_40:15; Isa_29:16; Psa_8:5, with many other passages. But Schmoller as well as Keil, who discern the true connection and meaning of the words, have overlooked the occurrence of the inf. before the future of the same verb. All the other critics give to this combination the force of emphasis or intensity. Is it not better to suppose that repetition is implied, which is the fundamental notion? And if the last clause is explanatory of the preceding, the עוֹד of the one must find its counterpart in the frequentative construction of the other: I will no longer have mercy on them that I should continue to forgive them. Greater fullness of meaning and appropriateness is also seen to mark this part of the verse: God had overlooked their sins often before, but He would not keep on overlooking them forever.—M.]
[4][Hos_1:9.—לאֹ אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם; I will not be for you, i.e, not be yours, not belong to you. There is no need of maintaining that “God” is understood, as Henderson, Cowles, and the English expositors generally do. The sense is complete without supposing an ellipsis. Houbigant (followed by Newcome) has gone so far as to transpose the letters of the last two words into אלהיכם. But this has no support in the MSS. or Versions, and is besides very improbable, not to mention that it supposes the omission of the latter ה.—M.]
[5] Hos_2:1.—בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר. We might be inclined to render: in the place of [its being said]; the usage of the expression elsewhere is however too clearly opposed (comp. Lev_4:24-33; Lev_14:13; Jer_22:12; Ezek. 21:35; Neh_4:14). But מְקוֹם with the subject following is perhaps=instead of, in Isa_33:21.
[6][This will show the groundlessness of the opinion of Noyes, that “from the contents of the book it is probable that he did not exercise his office until after the death of Jeroboam, when the kingdom of Israel was in, a state of great distraction and anarchy.”—J. F. M.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2–11 beginning--not of the prophet's predictions generally, but of those…
beginning--not of the prophet's predictions generally, but of those spoken by Hosea.
take . . . wife of whoredoms--not externally acted, but internally and in vision, as a pictorial illustration of Israel's unfaithfulness [HENGSTENBERG]. Compare Eze 16:8, Eze 16:15, &c. Besides the loathsomeness of such a marriage, if an external act, it would require years for the birth of three children, which would weaken the symbol (compare Eze 4:4). HENDERSON objects that there is no hint of the transaction being fictitious: Gomer fell into lewdness after her union with Hosea, not before; for thus only she was a fit symbol of Israel, who lapsed into spiritual whoredom after the marriage contract with God on Sinai, and made even before at the call of the patriarchs of Israel. Gomer is called "a wife of whoredoms," anticipatively.
Read full note →
children of whoredoms--The kingdom collectively is viewed as a mother; the individual subjects of it are spoken of as her children. "Take" being applied to both implies that they refer to the same thing viewed under different aspects. The "children" were not the prophet's own, but born of adultery, and presented to him as his [KITTO, Biblical Cyclopædia]. Rather, "children of whoredoms" means that the children, like their mother, fell into spiritual fornication. Compare "bare him a son" (see Hos 2:4-5). Being children of a spiritual whore, they naturally fell into her whorish ways.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 1, 2a. Title — intended as a heading for…
1, 2a. Title — intended as a heading for the whole book. On its probable original form, its accord with internal evidence, etc., see pp. 15ff.
Word — As in Isa_2:1 (compare “vision,” Isa_1:1), denotes the substance of the divine revelation, whatever the manner in which it was received (see pp. 14f.).
Read full note →
Jehovah — Thus the A.R.V. reproduces throughout the entire Old Testament the name of God rendered in A.V. LORD).
Beeri — Introduction, p. 10.
The beginning of the word of Jehovah by Hosea — R.V., “When Jehovah spake at the first by Hosea.” A.V. is more satisfactory, and is supported by the ancient versions. The words are a new heading, perhaps by Hosea himself, for part of the book; not chapters 1-3 (Cheyne), but chapters 1, 2. To “beginning” corresponds “again” in Hos_3:1.
By — Better, R.V. margin, “with” (Zec_1:9; Num_12:2). In what sense this was the beginning of Hosea’s prophetic activity, see Introduction, pp. 15f. The narrative — for such is chapter 1 — begins with Jehovah said to Hosea; it closes with Hos_1:9, in Hebrew the end of chapter 1.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 1. On the heading, see Introduction.
1. On the heading, see Introduction.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 (1) In the days of Uzziah.—On the historical questions…
(1) In the days of Uzziah.—On the historical questions involved in this verse, see Introduction.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1–11 The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea,…
The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri. The prophets are divided into the former (rishonim, Zec_1:4) prophets and the later prophets. The writings of the former prophets comprise most of the historical hooks, for the Hebrew conception of a prophet was that of an individual inspired by God to instruct men for the present or inform them of the future, whether orally or by writing; the later were the prophets properly so called, while these, again, are subdivided into the greater, consisting of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, and the lesser, or minor, including the remaining twelve. The designation "minor" does not imply any inferiority in importance of subject or value of contents, but has respect solely to the smallness of their size as compared with the larger discourses of the others. The twelve minor prophets were added to the canon before its completion as a single book, "lest," says Kimchi, in his commentary on this verse, "a book of them should be lost because of its smallness, if each one of them should be kept separate by itself." They were accordingly reckoned as one book dwdeka en monobiblw , as Eusebius expresses it. The name Hosea, like other Hebrew names, is significant, and denotes "deliverance," or" salvation;" or, the abstract being put for the concrete, "deliverer," or "savior." It is radically the same name as Joshua, except that the prefix of the latter implies the name of Jehovah as the Author of such deliverance or salvation; while the Greek form of Joshua is Jesus, which in two passages of the Authorized Version stands for it. The form of the name in the original is closely connected with Hosanna (hoshia ha)," save now," which occurs in Psa_118:25. In the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel. The period of Hosea"s prophetic activity is one of the longest, if not the longest, on record. It continued during the reigns of the four kings of Judah above mentioned, and during that of Jeroboam II King of Israel, which was in part coincident with that of Uzziah. Uzziah and Jeroboam reigned contemporaneously for twenty-six years. Somewhere during or rather before the end of that period Hosea commenced his ministry. Uzziah survived Jeroboam some twenty-six years, then Jotham and Ahaz in succession reigned each sixteen years. During all these fifty-eight years Hosea continued his ministerial labors. To these must be added a few years for the beginning of his prophetic career during the reign of Jeroboam, and some two or three years before its close in the reign of Hezekiah; for the destruction of Samaria, which took place in the fourth year of that king, the prophet looks forward to as still future. Thus for three score years and more probably nearer three score years and ten, the ordinary period of human life the prophet persevered in the discharge of his onerous duties. It may seem strange that, though Hosea exercised his prophetic function in Israel, yet the time during which he did so is reckoned by the reigns of the kings of Judah. The single exception of Jeroboam II is accounted for in a rabbinic tradition on the ground that he did not credit or act on the evil report which Amaziah the priest of Bethel preferred against the Prophet Amos, as we read, (Amo_7:10) "Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent to Jeroboam King of Israel, saying, Amos hath conspired against thee in the midst of the house of Israel; the land is not able to bear all his words" (see also vers. 11-13 of the same chapter). The real reason for the reckoning by the kings of Judah, and for the exceptional case of Jeroboam, was not that assigned by the rabbins; neither was it an indication, on the part of the prophet, of the legitimacy of the kingdom of Judah on the one hand, and evidence, on the other hand, of the performance of God"s promise to Jehu that his sons would sit upon the throne to the fourth generation, while Jeroboam, Jehu"s great-grandson, was the last king of that dynasty by whom God vouch-sated help to Israel, his son and successor Zechariah retaining possession of the kingdom only for the short space of six months. The true cause is rather to be sought in the regicides, usurpations, occasional anarchy, and generally unsettled state of the northern kingdom, inasmuch as such instability and uncertainty furnished no sure or satisfactory basis for chronological calculation. Thus we find that, on the death of Jeroboam II, there was an interregnum of some dozen years, during which, of course, a state of anarchy prevailed. At length Zechariah succeeded to the throne; he had reigned only six months when he was murdered by Shallum. Shallum"s reign only lasted a month, when he was put to death by Menahem. During his reign often years occurred the invasion of Pal. Menahem"s son, Pekachiah, had only reigned two years when he was murdered by Pekah, in whose reign Tiglath-pileser invaded the land. Hoshea slew Pekah. Next followed an interval of anarchy lasting eight years. Then, after Hoshea"s short reign of nine years, the kingdom was destroyed. Thus it was only in the southern kingdom that a sufficiently firm foundation for chronological reckoning was available, while under these circumstances Jeroboam"s reign was necessary to show the prophet"s connection with Israel, and also that the prediction of the fourth verse preceded the event foretold. The general heading of the whole book is contained in this verse and Divine authority is thus claimed for the whole, as the prophet to whom the word of the Lord came is only Jehovah"s spokesman.
Vers. 1-3. The sin of Israel sharply reproved.
Read full note →
The great sin, the root-sin we may call it, of Israel at this time was idolatry. But that sin was not alone; it was aggravated, as usual, by accompanying abominations. All along, from the period of the disruption, idolatry had been their besetting sin. The oft-repeated statement that Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, "made Israel to sin" has a special significance in this regard. As long as Jerusalem remained the gathering-place of the tribes, arid Solomon"s temple remained the national sanctuary, Judah must have retained the supremacy. To undermine that supremacy, or rather to transfer it to Israel, required a stroke of bold, unscrupulous policy; but the audacity, or rather godlessness, of Jeroboam was quite equal to the occasion. Under pretence of facilitating the religious service of his subjects, as though it was too much for them to go up to Jerusalem, but in reality to prevent the people turning again in their allegiance to the dynasty of David, he changed the place of religious worship, appointing Dan and Bethel at the northern and southern extremities of his kingdom the one on the Syrian and the other on the Judaic frontier. But this change of place necessitated other changes in keeping therewith. The mode of worship had to be changed from that of the true God to that of the calves, symbolical representations of the true God. With such symbolic representation of Deity he had, no doubt, become familiar in Egypt, as previously Aaron and the Israelites had carried it with them on their emancipation from that land. There was something very insidious in this change; it was only a half-measure, but a preparation for the whole. It was not the introduction of new gods, such as Baal and Ashtaroth, the dual deities of Phoenicia, of which sin Ahab was guilty; it was the worship of Jehovah under an external form. It was not the violation, at least directly, of the first commandment, which forbids the having of other gods; it was the transgression of the second, which condemns the making a graven image; so that Stanley says of Jeroboam that "to keep the first commandment he broke the second." The people took far too kindly to the change, and clung to it with fatal tenacity for two hundred years, subsequently even in the time of the Prophet Hoses, as we learn from several passages in this very book the calves were still objects of idolatrous worship. In our study of these verses we have for consideration the following.
I THE PERSON OF THE PROPHET. He introduces himself to us by his name and surname, or patronymic. His name, Hosea or Savior, is one of good omen and happy augury, at least in his case; his patronymic of Ben-Beeri, "son of my well," has also a pleasing significance of its own. By the former we are reminded of that Savior to whom the prophet pointed and to whom he bore his testimony, and thus became an instrument of salvation; while the surname may call to mind him who is the Well-spring of salvation and the Fountain of living water, according to his own words, "Whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life." Or if the name have reference to the function of the prophet himself, it may denote his pouring out the water of life from the Divine Fountain of life.
II THE POWER WITH WHICH HE WAS INVESTED. This, of course, touches on his Divine commission, and the corresponding inspiration which qualified him for the proper execution Of that commission. Like the apostles in after times, he claims to hold his commission from God, and to be charged with the commands of God. Thus in Luk_3:2 we read that "the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness;" Gal_1:1 we find the apostle of the Gentiles speaking of his commission in the following terms: "Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead." Thus in the case of Paul, his apostolic authority was not from (apo ) men, as the source of that authority by whom it is conferred, nor by (dia ) man, the single representative of any body of men, as the channel of that authority through whom it is conveyed. It was through the two Persons of the blessed Trinity Son and Father, agent and origin, medium and source a direct Divine commission. So with the prophet in this introductory passage. But he not only held his commission from God, he had his instructions from God. His position was like that of a diplomatist or ambassador sent out by an earthly sovereign, who is commissioned to represent his sovereign, and in that capacity to adhere faithfully to the instructions he has received, correctly interpreting the will and wishes of his monarch and scrupulously communicating the same. Three several times is the source of Hosea"s instructions insisted on. There is the first general statement of the word of the Lord coming to him; then there is the notification of the beginning of the word of the Lord being in Hosea; and next we learn that the Lord spake to him. The conveyance of these instructions is presented under a threefold aspect. They come to him from the Lord and so with Divine authority; they reach him by direct communication, for the Lord himself spoke to him; and they are in him, reflected on his mind and retained in his memory, and ready for present and practical use. God made him a depositary of his truth and thus fitted him for declaring it to others; he revealed his will to him, and by the inspiration of his Spirit qualified him to record it without error for the benefit of present and succeeding generations. Though not possessing or presuming to possess this special inspiration of prophets under the Old and apostles under the New Testament, the preacher of the gospel is truly commissioned and strictly commanded to declare the whole counsel of God, not with wisdom of words, not with enticing words of man"s wisdom, not handling the Word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending himself to every man"s conscience in the sight of God.
III THE PERSEVERANCE OF THE PROPHET. The official life of Hosea reached the length of an ordinary lifetime, falling little short of the ordinary three score years and ten. The summer"s heat and winter"s cold of all those long and weary years still found him at his post, as a prophet of the Lord. Many a dynastic change had taken place during that period: sovereigns might rise or sovereigns fall; men might come and men might go, but he went on as ever. Faithful to his God, faithful to his king and country, alike pious and patriotic, he persisted in the work to which God had caned him. To most men work long continued at last becomes irksome; the performance of duties in incessant round and for a lengthened period disposes men to seek respite or release; age itself, with its weight of years, brings manifold infirmities; but however it may have been with the prophet, he does not plead age, or infirmity, or length of service, or exhausted energies, or enfeebled strength, or failing powers either of mind or body, in order to obtain exemption from further service, or to secure in the evening of his days that ease or rest which he had so well earned; nay, unceasingly as uncomplainingly he persists in his onerous duties, and plies the task which Providence assigned him.
IV THE PATIENCE OF THE PROPHET. If our work be pleasant, and especially if it prove successful, we are greatly encouraged thereby, and in some sort enabled to persevere. Want of success, on the other hand, too often paralyzes men"s powers and puts an end to their exertions. Not so with Hosea. His efforts for the spiritual amelioration of his people were ineffectual; his labors in that direction were not crowned with the desired success. Yet in shadow as in sunshine, through evil report as good report, whether his work was appreciated or despised, with fruit or wanting it, he had learnt to possess his soul in patience. Many an untoward event, many a froward or perverse action on the part of those to whom he ministered, many a hard speech, discouraged his heart, we are sure, from the history of those evil days and the godless generation among whom he lived and wrought. His patience was tried sorely tried, yet triumphed over all What a lesson to all who are engaged in work for God!
V THE PECULIARITY OF THE PERIOD AT WHICH HE PUBLISHED HIS PREDICTIONS, That peculiarity consists in the fact that it was a period of unwonted prosperity. Had it been otherwise; had it been a time of positive decline or partial disorganization; had disintegration actually and obviously set in as at a later period, it might have been said that coming events were so casting their shadows before that a sagacious calculator of probabilities might readily predict the coming catastrophe. But in the reign of Jeroboam II, son and successor of Joash, and largely by his prowess, the power of Israel was revived. During his reign of forty-one years he had enlarged his kingdom beyond all preceding limits from the time of its separation item Judah; he had recovered Damascus, the capital of Syria, though that city had been lost even in the days of Solomon, together with Hamath on the Oronte., the key of Eastern Syria, thus checking if not crushing that hostile power. The northern kingdom had reached an unprecedented height of wealth and power; the sovereign had been triumphant in war, and his subjects were now happy and prosperous in peace. But at this very period of material wealth and military glory, after he had restored the coasts of Israel from the entering of Hamath the lower part of the Coelo-Syrian valley, from the gorge of the Litany to Baalbek to the sea of the plain," amid the splendor of his achievements and the opulence of his subjects, the prophet foretold, not merely the decline, but the actual downfall, of the kingdom of Israel. An important lesson connects itself with this. It is not only the truth of the prediction, so contrary to all calculation, so opposed to all seeming probability, but the warning thus furnished against mistaking temporal prosperity for a proof of Divine favor, or reckoning and resting on the permanence of earthly possessions. In the case before us, however, a worm was at the root of the gourd. The moral progress of the nation was in the inverse ratio of its material prosperity.
VI THE PAINFUL DECLARATION OF THE NATIONAL SIN. That sin was more than ordinary apostasy, bad as such a state of things assuredly is; it was idolatry which is spiritual adultery. This was expressed by the symbol of the prophet, whether in reality, vision, or parable, wedding an unchaste woman, a wife of whoredoms, by name Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim. If such a union, even in symbol, was humiliating to the pure spirit of the prophet, how dreadful for a people to be in a condition so disgustingly loathsome and fearfully sinful, exposed to the deserved wrath of the Almighty, and obnoxious to the doom he has pronounced against such, "Thou hast destroyed all them that go a-whoring from thee!" If such relationship is repulsive in the extreme to every man of proper sentiments and virtuous feeling, how unspeakably hateful to the infinitely holy God to stand in the position of husband to a people so abominably faithless and impure! Yet their Maker had been their Husband, even the Lord of hosts, which is his adorable name.
HOMILIES BY C. JERDAN Ver. 1. The prophet and his work.
This subject may be appropriately introduced with some remarks about the minor prophets. They are "minor," not because their work was of less consequence than that of the four major prophets, but simply because the Scriptures which they wrote are shorter. The contents of the minor prophets are very unfamiliar to many Christians. Possibly the pulpit is partly to blame for this.
I THE PERSON OF HOSEA.
1. His name and descent. Our names are mere arbitrary labels affixed to us; but, among the Jews, names were often given in allusion to circumstances in character or destiny. "Hosea" means "salvation." To some readers this name may appear to stand in direct contrast to his message, seeing that he denounced national ruin. Yet it was appropriate, after all; for Hosea"s ultimate prophetic word was the redeeming mercy of Jehovah. We know nothing of his father, Beeri; or of his own life, except as reflected in his book. He was a native and citizen of the kingdom of the ten tribes. (Hos_1:2 Hos_7:5) He loved his fatherland with the deep love of a patriot; and his life-message was to "Ephraim." He is the only prophet of that kingdom who has contributed to the Bible a book which is really a prophecy.
2. His lengthened ministry. Hosea must have been a young man when, during the powerful reign of Jeroboam II, he began his life-work; and he maintained his testimony throughout the turbulent period which ensued after the death of that prince, and indeed nearly to the time of the deportation of Israel into Assyria. He thus labored bravely during more than two generations. He did not withdraw from his ministry after thirty or forty years" work, upon the plea of long service. Nor did he retire on the ground of his non-success, although it does not appear that he ever made a convert, or enjoyed the sympathy of even "a very small remnant" of his fellow-countrymen.
II HIS TIMES. Hosea lived in the eighth century before Christ, about the time when Rome was being built. He must have begun his labors some years before Isaiah in the southern kingdom. His times were characterized by:
1. Deep spiritual apostasy. Indeed, his life extended over the darkest period of the whole history of Israel. God had, in great grace, espoused the Hebrew people to himself, and had called himself their Husband. But they had been miserably unfaithful to him. The kingdom of the ten tribes, especially, had "committed great whoredom" (ver. 2). Its very existence as a separate kingdom was a course of adultery. Its political flirtations with Egypt and Assyria, when it ought to have relied wholly on Jehovah, were acts of adultery. The calf-worship at Jeroboam"s two "chapels of ease" was adultery. The Baal-worship introduced by Jezebel, with its shameful rites, was adultery. The nation, in fact, had cast off all fear of God, and lost all knowledge of him.
2. Fearful moral corruption. Wherever the foundations of religion are undermined, immorality becomes gross and rampant. Hoses contemplated almost with despair the universal secularity and violence and dissoluteness (or rather, dissolution) of society in his day. Riot and drunkenness prevailed everywhere. Sensuality was observed as a sacrament in the temples of Baal and Ashtoreth. Rivers of blood flowed through the land. (Hos_4:1-3)
3. Hopeless political anarchy. After the death of Jeroboam II, the flames of revolution burst forth, and were never entirely quenched until the nation was suddenly carried into captivity. There was often confusion in the government, and sometimes utter anarchy. Kings perished by the hand of the assassin, and factions strove one with another until they were mutually devoured. Soon came the final rush of rain; and Hoses must have lived almost to see it.
III HIS LIFE-WORK. Hosea is the Jeremiah of the northern kingdom. But his isolation was more complete, his sorrow more tragic, and his prophetic work more barren of results than even Jeremiah"s.
1. He denounced Ephraim"s sin. The nation had rejected Jehovah as its Husband, and gone a-whoring after other gods. So Hosea was raised up on purpose to rebuke this unfaithfulness in all its forms: the Baal-worship, the calf-worship, the rampant licentiousness, the revolt from the house of David, and the leaning for aid upon heathen powers.
2. He pronounced Ephraim"s doom. When he began his ministry there were as yet no signs of ruin. Hosea"s thunderbolts dropped at first out of a clear sky. It was the time of Jeroboam II, when the kingdom was in the zenith of its prosperity. But from first to last the prophet warned the ten tribes that their commonwealth would soon become a total wreck. They would be carried away into perpetual exile. God would set their kingdom aside on account of its sins, and not for seventy years only (as would be the case with Judah), but forever.
3. He announced redeeming love in store for Ephraim. For, after all, Hoses was not a despairing pessimist. He spoke with confidence of the continuance of the Divine tender mercy towards Israel. The northern kingdom, as such, must perish; but, notwithstanding, Jehovah will yet have a people for himself, who shall be gathered out of all the twelve tribes. So Hoses mingled with his menaces urgent calls to repentance. His appeals are surcharged with the tenderest pathos. It has been pointed out that he is the first of the Hebrew prophets who calls God"s affection for his people by the name of "love;" the first clearly to forecast the Christian conception of the fatherhood of God, with the infinite tenderness implied in it. Hosea"s message of grace was that God has still the heart of a husband towards Israel, and the heart of a father towards her children.
IV HIS scour. It is important to distinguish between a prophet"s life-work and his contribution to Holy Scripture.
1. The arrangement. This book is by no means a methodical record of Hosea"s long ministry. It comprises only a few notes indicative of its burden and spirit. Yet the order of the book seems to be chronological. The first three chapters tell of the "word" given him before the fall of Jehu"s house, and while the kingdom still seemed strong and flourishing. The other chapters reflect those vicissitudes of frightful anarchy and feeble misrule which characterized the fifty years that followed (see Pusey"s Introduction, p. 5).
2. The speaker. It is worthy of notice that throughout the book the speaker is generally the Lord in his own person. The whole prophecy contemplates Israel"s disobedience to "the first and great commandment;" and so the first personal pronouns usually refer to God himself. The Lamentations of Jeremiah is a sad book, but the Book of Hoses reverberates with even a profounder bass of sorrow; it is the saddest book of Holy Scripture, being in effect the lamentations of Jehovah. Hoses shows us the Divine heart as it were agitated with such conflicts of passion as a good man might experience whose conjugal and parental love had been cruelly blighted.
3. The style. Hoses is really a poem. It is so even in literary form; for only Hosea 1 and Hos 3 are written in prose. The first three chapters constitute a symbolical introduction, while the body of the book (Hosea 4-14) is a dirge, composed of mingled wailings, entreaties, threatenings, and promises. The style is abrupt, sententious, laconic, and "rather to be called Hosea"s sayings than Hosea"s sermons" (Matthew Henry). But "a verse may find him who a sermon flies.
4. The profitableness of the book to us. Although Hoses was raised up primarily for Israel, his prophecy has its place as an elect stone in the temple of Divine revelation. It teaches the politician that only "righteousness exalteth a nation." It reminds the moralist that a sound and pure ethics can rest only upon a foundation of living religion. It warns the Christian of the danger of harboring idols within his heart. Hoses is by no means a shallow book. It is not for superficial minds. It requires as its epilogue (Hos_14:9) suggests very deep and diligent study. C.J.
HOMILIES BY J.R. THOMSON Ver. 1. The word of the Lord.
It is characteristic of the inspired Hebrew prophets that they sank themselves, their own individuality, in their Divine commission, and in the authority which accompanied it. In reading their prophecies we feel, as those to whom they were first addressed must have felt, that there was no desire on their part to speak their own thoughts, their own words.
I FROM WHOM THE WORD COMES. Their formula was this: "Thus saith the Lord." Their word was "the word of the Lord." This is witness:
1. To the personality and spiritual nature of God. Words are the clothing of thought. He who speaks first thinks. The Divine mind is presumed in the Divine utterance. Language like that of the text could not be used of a principle, an abstraction, a law, an unconscious force, such as stone would thoughtlessly substitute for the living God.
2. To the interest of God in the moral state and welfare of men. Why should the Supreme concern himself to address the members of our race? That he has done so is evidence of his grace and benevolence. And to this the mission of the prophets bears witness only less powerfully than the advent and ministry of the incarnate Word.
II BY WHOM THE WORD CAME.
1. By the medium of human spirits. There might have been other methods of communicating with mankind; but infinite Wisdom made choice of this. Man has ever been the minister of God to man.
2. The appeal of Heaven is thus seen to be to the human reason and conscience. It is plain that the Divine intention was not to overwhelm with an irresistible impression, but to convince and to persuade.
3. The Lord made choice of agents morally in sympathy with his holy character and aims. The prophets uttered the word of God, but they made that word their own. They plainly felt indignation with rebellion and unfaithfulness, and commiseration for wretchedness, and joy in every righteous endeavor and aim. In a word, they were what their designation implies inspired utterers of the Divine mind, voices to all who would hear.
III TO WHOM THE WORD CAME.
1. In every case it came to beings naturally capable of understanding it, and therefore responsible for the manner in which it was received.
2. To Israel the word came with an especial emphasis and adaptation; for the people had already received from the Lord such revelations as rendered them peculiarly qualified now to hear and to obey.
3. The especial circumstances of the northern tribes, the northern kingdom, were such as to make it peculiarly appropriate that Hosea should address to them language, first of severity, and then of consolation and encouragement.
4. The fact that these prophecies form a part of the canon of the Old Testament is an evidence that these words are profitable to all; and of this the experience of the Church is a sufficient confirmation. T.
HOMILIES BY D. THOMAS Ver. 1. Scripture, kings, and truth.
"The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, Kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, King of Israel." This verse leads us to consider three things.
I THE ESSENCE OF SCRIPTURE. What is the essence of the Bible? It is here called "The word of the Lord." Analyze the expression:
1. It is a word." A word fulfills two functions; it is a revelation and an instrument. A true word reveals the mind of the speaker, and is at the same time an instrument to accomplish his purpose. The Bible is the manifestation of God; it shows his intellect and heart; and is his instrument as well, by which he accomplishes his purpose on the human mind. By it he is said to enlighten, quicken, cleanse, conquer, etc.
2. It is a Divine word. "The word of the Lord." Words are always powerful and important according to the nature and character of the speaker. The words of some men are unclean and weak, the words of others pure and mighty. Because the Lord is all-mighty and holy, his word is all-powerful and pure.
3. It is a Divine word concerning men. The prophecy came to Hoses in relation to Israel. The Lord has spoken many words, words to other intelligences unknown to us. If all the words he has spoken in the universe were written in books, what globe or system would contain them? But the Bible is a word to man.
4. It is a Divine word concerning man coming through men. The Lord"s word came now through Hoses to Israel. In the Bible God speaks to man through man. This gives the charm of an imperishable humanity to the Bible.
II THE MORTALITY OF KINGS. Several kings are here mentioned who appeared and passed away during the ministry of Hosea. He prophesied "in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, Kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, King of Israel." Uzziah was the eleventh king of Judah. His example was holy, and his reign peaceful and prosperous. Ahaz was a son of Jotham; at the age of twenty he succeeded his royal sire. He gave himself up to idolatry, and sacrificed even his own children to the gods of the heathen. Hezekiah, the son and successor of Ahaz, was a man of distinguished virtue and religion, animated by true piety and patriotism. Jeroboam was the son of Joash, and great-grandson of Jehu, and followed the former Jeroboam, the man who made Israel to sin, and, like him, sank into the lowest idolatry and corruption. Some of these kings had come and gone during the ministry of Hoses; Kings die, etc.
1. This fact is a blessing. Royalty has a tendency so to feed and fatten the depravity of human nature, that, were not death to interpose, the lives of men would become intolerable. When we think of such kings as those of which Ahaz and Jeroboam were types, we thank God for death, and rejoice in the "king of terrors," who comes to strike the despots down.
2. This fact is a lesson. What does the death of kings teach?
(1) The rigorous impartiality of death. Death is no respecter of persons; it treats the pauper and the prince alike. The black camel death kneeleth once at each door, And mortal must mount to return never more.
(2) The utter powerlessness of wealth. The wealth of empires cannot bribe death, nor can all the armies of war ward off his blow or keep him at bay.
(3) The sad hollowness of worldly glory. Death strips sovereigns of all their pageantry and reduces them to common dust. It is a monitory truth, I ween, That, turning up the ashes of the grave, One can discern no difference between The richest sultan and the poorest slave.
III THE PERPETUITY OF TRUTH. Although these kings successively appeared and passed away, the ministry of Hosea kept on.
1. The "Word of the Lord" is adapted to all generations. It is congruous with all intellects, it chimes in with all hearts, it provides for the common wants of all.
2. The "Word of the Lord" is necessary for all generations. All men in all ages and lands want it; it is as indispensable to their happiness as air is to their life. Generations may appear in the distant future who may not require our forms of government, our social institutions, our artistic devices, our mechanical inventions, and who may despise our literary productions; but no generation will ever appear who will not require the "Word of the Lord. D.T.
HOMILIES BY J. ORR Ver. 1. Superscription.
Consider here
I THE PROPHET. "Hoses, the son of Beeri." Hoses, whose name (Hoshea, "salvation") remittals of Jesus, (Mat_1:20) was:
1. A native of Israel. One, therefore, who lived in the midst of the evils which he describes, and felt a patriot"s love for his people.
2. A man of gentle, pensive, and confiding nature. This made his anguish at the thought of the nation"s sins and impending ruin the more poignant. There are striking resemblances between this prophet and Jeremiah, who sustained a relation to Judah similar to that which Hoses sustained to Israel.
3. A man sorely tried by domestic sorrow. Hoses was no mere spectator of the evils of the time. The iron had entered his own soul. He had been tried in the sorest way a man can be tried, by the unfaithfulness of his with. It was, however, in connection with this sorrow that God"s word came to him (ver. 2). It was his own experience which enabled him to enter so deeply into the mystery of God"s love to Israel.
II HIS TIMES. "In the days of Uzziah, Jotham," etc. He dates by the reigns of the legitimate kings of the house of David. Israel, after the fall of Jeroboam"s house, was governed by usurpers (Menahem, Pekah, Hoshea, etc.).
1. The chronology of the times. This has important bearings on the duration of the prophet"s ministry, and on the time which elapsed before the downfall of the kingdom. We cannot here, however, enter at length into the tangled questions raised by the apparent conflict of Hebrew and Assyrian dates (cf. Robertson Smith, "Prophet of Israel," Leer. 4. and notes), It seems to us
(1) that the biblical data do not warrant us in assuming the identity of the 2Ki_15:19, 2Ki_15:20, to whom Menahem paid tribute, with Tiglathpileser; (of 1Ch_6:26) and that insuperable difficulties attend the lowering of the dates of the kings to the degree necessary to bring them into entire accord with the dates in the Assyrian canon. We believe it will be found that there is a break in the canon at B.C.. 745, sufficient for the insertion of the reign of Pul, and that the Menahem of the monuments, who paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser in B.C. 738, is not the Menahem of Scripture, but probably a second Menahem, a rival of Pekah"s, whom Tiglath-pileser, after putting down the revolts of B.C. 743-748, attempted to set on the throne in his own interest. We have a Menahem of Samaria, clearly an Assyrian viceroy, as late as B.C. 702, in the reign of Sennacherib (Smith, "History of Assyria," p. 113).
(2) On the other hand, there are strong grounds for believing that the interregna commonly assumed to have existed between the death of Jeroboam II and the accession of Zachariah (eleven years), and again, between the murder of Pekah and the accession of Hoshea (eight or nine years), must be abandoned as untenable. Scripture does not recognize them, and, as shown by the monuments, Pekah and Rezin of Damascus (2Ki_16:5 Isa_7:1) were certainly at war in B.C. 734. The numbers are probably to be harmonized by assuming that the regnal years of Uzziah and Jotham include, the former, eleven years of association with Amaziab, and the latter, eight or nine years of association with Uzziah. (of 2Ch_26:21) For an example of this mode of reckoning, see 2Ch_21:5 compared with 2Ki_8:16. This lowers the dates by nineteen years, and assuming a break of twenty-eight years in the canon at date of Pul (Rawlinson, "Ancient History," allows him twenty-five years), we bring the two chronologies from Ahab downwards into harmony. A formidable objection to the theory of a break in the canon is the mention, under date June, 763 B.C., of an eclipse of the sun, known to astronomy to have taken place at that date; but it is noteworthy that a similar eclipse took place June, 791 B.C., that is, twenty-eight years earlier, which exactly satisfies the conditions of our hypothesis. (see Pusey on Amo_8:9) The seventeenth of Pekah, given in 1Ki 16, as the year of the accession of Ahaz, must, on this theory, be corrected to the seventh, and this is the only change required in the biblical numbers. Accepting these dates, it will follow that Jeroboam II died about B.C. 762 or 763, a little more than forty years before the fall of Samaria (B.C. 721). If, further, we assume Hosea 1 3, of this book to be based on real history, and to have been composed before the downfall of the house of Jehu, we must suppose the prophet to have commenced his ministry about the middle of Jeroboam"s reign, and to have labored for nearly sixty years.
2. The character of the times. They were evil exceedingly. The state was tottering to its downfall. Revolution succeeded revolution. (Hos_7:7) The land was filled with idolatry and with every species of wickedness. (Hos_4:1, Hos_4:19) Priests and prophets, instead of reproving sin, openly encouraged it. (Hos_4:5-9) The result was a general dissolution of social ties. (Hos_4:2) To internal miseries were added the horrors of foreign invasion. (Hos_5:8-11) Yet in their distress the people sought not to God, but turned instead to Assyria and Egypt. (Hos_5:13 Hos_7:11 Hos_8:9 Hos_10:6 Hos_12:1) The nation, in short, was reeling to its ruin, and remonstrance and warning had no longer any effect upon it. The blow fell in the capture of Samaria, followed by the captivity of the people. (Hos_13:16)
III HIS MISSION. "The word of the Lord that came unto Hoses." Hosea"s task in Israel was:
1. To testify against Israel for its sins; to hold up to the people a mirror which should show them to themselves.
2. To show them the root of their transgressions in apostasy from God.
3. To show them how God felt to them in their backslidings how strong, pure, consistent, and unchanging was his affection towards them.
4. To warn them of the inevitable destruction they were bringing on themselves by sin.
5. To blend promise with threatening, and declare how grace would triumph even over Israel"s unfaithfulness. Though sharing in many of the calamities of the latter days of the nation, Hosea seems to have been removed before the final stroke fell. This was God"s mercy to him; he was "taken away from the evil to come". (Isa_57:1)
IV HIS BOOK. Hosea"s prophecy preserves to us the substance of his public teaching. The materials wrought up in it belong to different periods of his ministry. Hosea 1-3, belong to the, reign of Jeroboam. (Hos_1:4) They show no traces of the anarchy which set in after that monarch"s death. Hosea 4-6, belong to the succeeding period, the reign of Menahem, and earlier years of Pekah. Hosea 7 and Hos 8 may be a little later. They speak of a time of busy political intrigue, and of chastisement by the Assyrians. We are disposed to refer them to the middle of the reign of Pekah, when the Assyrians were frequently in Palestine (B.C. 743-73?). The key-note of Ho 9, "Rejoice not," suggests a gleam of returning prosperity. This answers to Pekah"s later days when at war with Ahaz, (2Ch 28) prior to the crushing of his power by Tigtath-pileser. (1Ki_15:29) Ho 10 plainly takes us unto the times of Hoshea, while Hosea 11-13, refer to the very last days of the kingdom. The abruptness, pathos, and quick emotional transitions which have been noted as characteristic of the prophet"s style appear in these chapters in an exceptional degree. Ho 14 is the fitting conclusion to the whole. Calm succeeds to storm. Thelanguage is soft, gliding, peaceful, and laden with tenderness; the imagery is idyllic; glorious vistas open themselves into the future. Keil"s division of the second part of the book into three sections, viz. Ho 4-6:3 Hos 6:4-11:11 Ho 12-14, each section rounded off by promise, is as good as any. J.O.
Vers. 1-3. The "wife of whoredoms.
We cannot doubt but that real incidents in the prophet"s history underlie the representations of this chapter. Hosea, in obedience to what he recognized to be a word of God, took to wife Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim. The names (Gomer, "completion;" Diblaim, "fig-cakes") may possibly be symbolical, the real name of the prophet"s wife being concealed Hos_3:1, "The children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love grape-cakes"). We need not suppose Gomer to have been unchaste at the time of her marriage, though she soon afterwards fell into light ways. Ver. 2 is not to be pressed too literally. The prophet, in the light of his later knowledge, reads back into the beginning of his relations with Gomer a meaning which could hardly have been obvious to him at the time. Children were born of the marriage, to whom, by Divine command, the character of the mother having by this time revealed itself, Hosea gave prophetic names. These, as they grew up, appear to have followed only too faithfully in their mother"s footsteps. "Wife of whoredoms," "children of whoredoms." Hosea did all he could to reclaim his wife from her sinful ways, but without success. The sequel of the story is given in Ho 3. The present section yields the following lessons:
I A DIVINE LEANING IS TO BE RECOGNIZED IN THE EVENTS OF LIFE. In what befell Hosea there was, as the prophet came afterwards to see, a clear Divine purpose. He was bidden take Gomer, for "the land hath committed grievous whoredom, departing from the Lord." The object of the union was to afford a symbol of the unhappy relations subsisting between Jehovah and his people. The prophet, further, was to be trained through his own great personal sorrow to sympathy with God in his. The human heart was to be made an interpreter of the Divine. Life is shaped for us by a power higher than our own. Its events embody words of God. The meaning hidden in them is often not manifest till afterwards. They are shaped for our instruction. They are parables to us and to others of Divine things. The teaching of the Spirit should be sought to aid us in understanding them.
II THERE IS A NATURAL ANALOGY BETWEEN EARTHLY MARRIAGE AND THE AFFIANCE OF THE SOUL WITH GOD. It is tiffs analogy which underlies the representation of Israel"s apostasy from God as whoredom. "The whole Jewish Scriptures," says R. H. Hutton, "insist with a strange and almost mystical monotony on the close connection between the constancy required in marriage and the constancy which God demands in the spiritual relation of worship to himself. Sometimes there appears to be almost a confusion between sins against the one kind of fidelity and sins against the other, as if it were implied that he who is incapable of appreciating duly the sacredness of the human tie, will necessarily be incapable of appreciating the sacredness of that which is at once more awful and more intimate. It is clear that the Jewish prophets regarded constancy in the most intimate of human relations, as a sort of initiation into the infinite constancy of God." God claims our heart-whole love. The least wandering of desire from him is sin. Paul warns against the slightest deviation from perfect simplicity of affection towards Christ as a species of unchastity. (2Co_11:1)
III THE BEST-GUARDED HOMES ARE NOT SAFE FROM THE INFECTION OF SURROUNDING EVIL. No home would be more jealously guarded than Hosea"s. Yet the infection entered it. In a dissolute state of society it is almost impossible to exclude the pestiferous germs with which the moral atmosphere is loaded. They find insidious lodgment in places and hearts where we would least suspect their presence. Our safety lies in vigilance, and in doing our utmost to resist the spread of moral corruption.
IV CHILDREN TEND TO FOLLOW IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE PARENTS. Especially of the mother. A mother"s influence is greater than a father"s. A pious mother is the best of blessings, as a wicked mother is the worst of curses. J.O.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 The Word of the Lord that came to Hosea.
Hos_1:1
The Word of the Lord that came to Hosea.
Read full note →
The prophet Hosea
I. He was divinely commissioned. Holy men of old spake not of their own wisdom or of their own will; they spake the Word of God. In what a contemptuous light their conduct places those who in the present day quote the sayings of the Fathers, the Church, or Tradition, or suggest modern innovations, and strange interpretations. We have the Word of God, and the prompting of the Spirit; and is not that enough?
II. He had worthy ancestry. His fathers name would not have been mentioned had it not been to honour the son. How the father can strengthen and establish the son, or the son ruin and crush the father!
III. He prophesied at a critical period.
1. It was a long time. Probably eighty years.
2. It was a changeable time. Various scenes. Different characters of kings and peoples. He lived in the reigns of one good king and four bad ones. He saw plenty and famine. He saw one revival and much sin.
3. It was a tentative time. Upon the conduct of the Jews depended their ultimate existence.
IV. Practical thoughts.
1. Hosea must have begun his ministry very young.
2. How very little we have of his prophesyings. His chief work was directly relative to his age. God has preserved what was of permanent interest.
3. How long a man of God may labour, and yet how little good he may accomplish. He did not prevent the Captivity. We arc not answerable for our success, but we are for our duty. We are not to relax our efforts because men am blind or fools. (William Jay.)
The prophet Hosea
I. Who he was. His name means a saviour, one who brings salvation, and many saving and savoury truths this prophet brings to us. The Jews say that when a prophets fathers name is given, the father was a prophet as well as the son. Beeri means a well that has springing water in it, freely and clearly running.
II. To where was the prophet sent? Especially to the Ten Tribes. The Ten Tribes, rending themselves from the house of David, separated themselves also from the true worship of God, and horrible wickedness and all manner of abominations grew up amongst them.
III. What was Hoseas errand to them? To convince them of their abominable idolatry, and those other wickednesses in which they lived, and to denounce severe threatenings, yea, most fearful destruction. His threatening is more severe than any given before, Yet he, too, has a message of mercy.
IV. What was his commission? He had the Word of Jehovah. Hosea did not go for the Word of the Lord, but the Word came to him. The knowledge of a call to a work will help a man through the difficulties of the work.
V. The time when Hosea prophesied. About the time that the city of Rome was built. The beginning of the Olympiads. During the reign of four kings, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. A lengthened prophesying of nearly fourscore years. See what of Gods mind will spring from this.
1. It pleases God sometimes that some mens labours shall abide more full to posterity than others, though the labours of those others are greater and as excellent as theirs.
2. It appears that Hosea began to prophesy very young.
3. Hosea prophesying thus long it appears he lived to grow old in his work.
4. By Hosea s continuance m so many kings reigns, it is evident he must have gone through a variety of conditions. He preserved a constancy of spirit, however varied might be the difficulties of his work.
5. God may continue a prophet a long time amongst a people, and yet they may never be converted.
6. It is an honour to the ministers of God, who meet with many difficulties and discouragements in their, way, yet continue fresh and lively to the very end.
7. It pleases God many times to let His prophets see the fulfilling of their threatenings upon the people against whom they have denounced them. (Jeremiah Burroughs.)
Scripture, kings, and truth
I. The essence of scripture. What is the essence of the Bible? It is here called The Word of the Lord. Analyse the expression.
1. It is a Word. A word fulfils two functions; it is a revelation and an instrument. The Bible is the manifestation of God, it shows His intellect and heart, and is His instrument as well; by which He accomplishes His purpose on the human mind. By it He is said to enlighten,--quicken,--cleanse,--conquer, etc.
2. It is a Divine Word. The Word of the Lord. Words are always powerful and important according to the nature and character of the speaker. Because the Lord is all-mighty and holy, His Word is all-powerful and pure.
3. It is a Divine Word concerning men. The prophecy came to Hosea in relation to Israel. The Bible is a Word to man.
4. It is a Divine Word concerning man coming through men. In the Bible God speaks to man through man. This gives the charm of an imperishable humanity to the Bible.
II. The mortality of kings. Several kings are here mentioned who appeared and passed away during the ministry of Hosea. Uzziah was the eleventh king of Judah. His example was holy, and his reign peaceful and prosperous. Ahaz was a son of Jotham: at the age of twenty he succeeded his royal sire. He gave himself up to idolatry, and sacrificed even his own children to the gods of the heathen. Hezekiah, the son and successor of Ahaz, was a man of distinguished virtue and religion, animated by true piety and patriotism. Jeroboam was the son of Joash, and great grandson of Jehu, and followed the former Jeroboam, the man who made Israel to sin, and, like him, sank into the lowest idolatry and corruption. Some of these kings had come and gone during the ministry of Hosea;--kings die, etc.
1. This fact is a blessing. When we think of such kings as those of which Ahaz and Jeroboam were types, we thank God for death, and rejoice in the king of terrors, who comes to strike the despots down.
2. This fact is a lesson. What does the death of kings teach?
(1) The rigorous impartiality of death. Death is no respecter of persons, it treats the pauper and the prince alike.
(2) The utter powerlessness of wealth.
(3) The sad hollowness of worldly glory. Death strips sovereigns of all their pageantry and reduces them.to common dust.
III. The perpetuity of truth. Although these kings successively appeared and passed away, the ministry of Hosea kept on.
1. The Word of the Lord is adapted to all generations. It is congruous with all intellects, it chimes in with all hearts, it provides for the common wants of all.
2. The Word of the Lord is necessary for all generations. (Homilist.)
Trouble a teacher
A wonderful book is this prophecy of Hosea (b.c. 800-725). The man himself at once attracts our sympathy and regard by his personal sufferings. There is no teacher of Divine truth to be compared for one moment for excellence so deep and great as trouble. Hosea had an infinite sorrow at home; therefore he was so great and tender a teacher of Divine truth. He read everything through his tears; hence the enlargement, the colour, the variety, the striking beauty of his visions. When the sorrow is home grief it assumes a tenderer quality. Hosea had children, but they had evil names; their very names were millstones round the prophets neck. If one of them had a name historically and ideally beautiful, it was to be used for the expression of judgment and vengeance. As for the others, one represented the vanished mercy of God, and the other represented the alienation of the people from God, and the alienation of God from the people. Only sorrow should read some parts of the Bible, because only sorrow could have written them. You cannot properly sing a mans music until you know the man himself. Hosea will have a tone of his own; he will talk like nobody else; he will be an eccentric, peculiar individual; he will begin when he pleases, and he will take a circuit marked out for him by an invisible guide; but now and again he will come down to the road we travel, and will present us with flowers and fruits, and will say little sweet sentences to us that shall be as angels, covered with light, and tremulous with music. The sorrow of Hosea was symbolic. All sorrow is meant to be symbolic. Whoso has sorrow is meant to be a teacher. You have no right to the exclusive use of your own sorrow. Sorrow should only be silent for a time; by and by it should find all its words, refine, enlarge, and dignify them, and pass them on as messages, bright as Gospels. But for his own sorrow, he never could have understood Gods grief. Again and again God asks us to look at Him through ourselves. Happy they who come up out of household trouble, public disappointment, and social criticism, and loss and desolation, to pray larger prayers, and offer to those who are outside a larger hospitality of love and rest. If sorrow makes us narrower in thought and purpose, then sorrow has failed to convey Gods meaning to the soul. (Joseph Parker, D. D.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v1 Hosea 1-3
THE STORY OF THE PRODIGAL WIFE
Hosea 1-3
Read full note →
IT has often been remarked that, unlike the first Doomster of Israel, Israels first Evangelist was one of themselves, a native and citizen, perhaps even a priest, of the land to which he was sent. This appears even in his treatment of the stage and soil of his ministry. Contrast him in this respect with Amos.
In the Book of Amos we have few glimpses of the scenery of Israel, and these always by flashes of the lightnings of judgment: the towns in drought or earthquake or siege; the vineyards and orchards under locusts or mildew; Carmel itself desolate, or as a hiding-place from Gods wrath.
But Hoseas love steals across his whole land like the dew, provoking every separate scent and color, till all Galilee lies before us lustrous and fragrant as nowhere else outside the parables of Jesus. The Book of Amos, when it would praise Gods works, looks to the stars. But the poetry of Hosea clings about his native soil like its trailing vines. If he appeals to the heavens, it is only that they may speak to the earth, and the earth to the corn and the wine, and the corn and the wine to Jezreel (Hos_2:23) Even the wild beasts-and Hosea tells us of their cruelty almost as much as Amos-he cannot shut out of the hope of his love: "I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground." (Hos_2:20) Gods love-gifts to His people are corn and wool, flax and oil; while spiritual blessings are figured in the joys of them who sow and reap. With Hosea we feel all the seasons of the Syrian year: early rain and latter rain, the first flush of the young corn, the scent of the vine blossom, the "first ripe fig of the fig-tree in her first season," the bursting of the lily; the wild vine trailing on the hedge, the field of tares, the beauty of the full olive in sunshine and breeze; the mists and heavy dews of a summer morning in Ephraim, the night winds laden with the air of the mountains, "the scent of Lebanon." {Hos_6:3-4; Hos_7:8; Hos_9:10; Hos_14:6; Hos_7:7-8} Or it is the dearer human sights in valley and field: the smoke from the chimney, the chaff from the threshing-floor, the doves startled to their towers, the fowler and his net; the breaking up of the fallow ground, the harrowing of the clods, the reapers, the heifer that treadeth out the corn; the team of draught oxen surmounting the steep road, and at the top the kindly driver setting in food to their jaws. {Hos_7:11-12; Hos_10:11; Hos_11:4 etc.}
Where, I say, do we find anything like this save in the parables of Jesus? For the love of Hosea was as the love of that greater Galilean: however high, however lonely it soared, it was yet rooted in the common life below, and fed with the unfailing grace of a thousand homely sources.
But just as the Love which first showed itself in the sunny Parables of Galilee passed onward to Gethsemane and the Cross, so the love of Hosea, that had wakened with the spring lilies and dewy summer mornings of the North, had also, ere his youth was spent, to meet its agony and shame. These came upon the prophet in his home, and in her in whom so loyal and tender a heart had hoped to find his chieftest sanctuary next to God. There are, it is true, some of the ugliest facts of human life about this prophets experience; but the message is one very suited to our own hearts and times. Let us read this story of the Prodigal Wife as we do that other Galilean tale of the Prodigal Son. There as well as here are harlots; but here as well as there is the clear mirror of the Divine Love. For the Bible never shuns realism when it would expose the exceeding hatefulness of sin or magnify the power of Gods love to redeem. To an age which is always treating conjugal infidelity either as a matter of comedy or as a problem of despair, the tale of Hosea and his wife may still become what it proved to his own generation, a gospel full of love and hope.
The story, and how it led Hosea to understand Gods relations to sinful men, is told in the first three chapters of his book. It opens with the very startling sentence: "The beginning of the word of Jehovah to Hosea:-And Jehovah said to Hosea, Go, take thee a wife of harlotry and children of harlotry: for the Land hath committed great harlotry in departing from Jehovah."
The command was obeyed. "And he went and took Gomer, daughter of Diblaim; and she conceived, and bare to him a son. And Jehovah said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little and I shall visit, the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will bring to an end the kingdom of the house of Israel; and it shall be on that day that I shall break the bow of Israel in the Vale of Jezreel"-the classic battlefield of Israel. "And she conceived again, and bare a daughter; and He said to him, Call her name Unloved," or "That-never-knew-a-Fathers-Pity; for I will not again have pity"-such pity as a Father hath-"on the house of Israel, that I should fully forgive them. And she weaned Unpitied, and conceived, and bare a son. And He said, Call his name Not-My-People; for ye are not My people, and I-I am not yours."
It is not surprising that divers interpretations have been put upon this troubled tale. The words which introduce it are so startling that very many have held it to be an allegory, or parable, invented by the prophet to illustrate, by familiar human figures, what was at that period the still difficult conception of the Love of God for sinful men. But to this well-intended argument there are insuperable objections. It implies that Hosea had first awakened to the relations of Jehovah and Israel-He faithful and full of affection, she unfaithful and thankless-and that then, in order to illustrate the relations, he had invented the story. To that we have an adequate reply. In the first place, though it were possible, it is extremely improbable, that such a man should have invented such a tale about his wife, or, if he was unmarried, about himself. But, in the second place, he says expressly that his domestic experience was the "beginning of Jehovahs word to him." That is, he passed through it first, and only afterwards, with the sympathy and insight thus acquired, he came to appreciate Jehovahs relation to Israel. Finally, the style betrays narrative rather than parable. The simple facts are told; there is an absence of elaboration; there is no effort to make every detail symbolic; the names Gomer and Diblaim are apparently those of real persons; every attempt to attach a symbolic value to them has failed.
She was, therefore, no dream, this woman, but flesh and blood: the sorrow, the despair, the sphinx of the prophets life; yet a sphinx who in the end yielded her riddle to love.
Accordingly a large number of other interpreters have taken the story throughout as the literal account of actual facts. This is the theory of many of the Latin and Greek Fathers, of many of the Puritans and of Dr. Pusey-by one of those agreements into which, from such opposite schools, all these commentators are not infrequently drawn by their common captivity to the letter of Scripture. When you ask them, How then do you justify that first strange word of God to Hosea, {Hos_1:2} if you take it literally and believe that Hoses was charged to marry a woman of public shame? They answer either that such an evil may be justified by the bare word of God, or that it was well worth the end, the salvation of a lost soul. And indeed this tragedy would be invested with an even greater pathos if it were true that the human hero had passed through a self-sacrifice so unusual, had incurred such a shame for such an end. The interpretation, however, seems forbidden by the essence of the story. Had not Hoseas wife been pure when he married her she could not have served as a type of the Israel whose earliest relations to Jehovah he describes as innocent. And this is confirmed by other features of the book: by the high ideal which Hosea has of marriage, and by that sense of early goodness and early beauty passing away like morning mist, which is so often and so pathetically expressed that we cannot but catch in it the echo of his own experience. As one has said to whom we owe, more than to any other, the exposition of the gospel in Hosea, "The struggle of Hoseas shame and grief when he found his wife unfaithful is altogether inconceivable unless his first love had been pure and full of trust in the purity of its object."
How then are we to reconcile with this the statement of that command to take a wife of the character so frankly described? In this way-and we owe the interpretation to the same lamented scholar. When, some years after his marriage, Hosea at last began to be aware of the character of her whom he had taken to his home, and while he still brooded upon it, God revealed to him why He who knoweth all things from the beginning had suffered His servant to marry such a woman; and Hosea, by a very natural anticipation, in which he is imitated by other prophets, pushed back his own knowledge of Gods purpose to the date when that purpose began actually to be fulfilled, the day of his betrothal. This, though he was all unconscious of its fatal future, had been to Hosea the beginning of the word of the Lord. On that uncertain voyage he had sailed with sealed orders.
Now this is true to nature, and may be matched from our own experience. "The beginning of Gods word" to any of us-where does it lie? Does it lie in the first time the meaning of our life became articulate, and we are able to utter it to others? Ah, no; it always lies far behind that, in facts and in relationships, of the Divine meaning of which we are at the time unconscious, though now we know. How familiar this is in respect to the sorrows and adversities of life: dumb, deadening things that fall on us at the time with no more voice than clods falling on coffins of dead men, we have been able to read them afterwards as the clear call of God to our souls. But what we thus so readily admit about the sorrows of life may be equally true of any of those relations which we enter with light and unawed hearts, conscious only of the novelty and the joy of them. It is most true of the love which meets a man as it met Hoses in his opening manhood.
How long Hosea took to discover his shame he indicates by a few hints which he suffers to break from the delicate reserve of his story. He calls the first child his own; and the boys name, though ominous of the nations fate, has no trace of shame upon it. Hoseas Jezreel was as Isaiahs Shear-Jashub or Maher-shalal-hash-baz. But Hoses does not claim the second child; and in the name of this little lass, Lo-Ruhamah, "she-that-never-knew-a-fathers-love," orphan not by death but by her mothers sin, we find proof of the prophets awakening to the tragedy of his home. Nor does he own the third child, named "Not-my-people," that could also mean "No-kin-of-mine." The three births must have taken at least six years; and once at least, but probably oftener, Hosea had forgiven the woman, and till the sixth year she stayed in his house. Then either he put her from him or she went her own way. She sold herself for money and finally drifted, like all of her class, into slavery. {Hos_3:2}
Such were the facts of Hoseas grief, and we have now to attempt to understand how that grief became his gospel. We may regard the stages of the process as two: first, when he was led to feel that his sorrow was the sorrow of the whole nation; and, second, when he comprehended that it was of similar kind to the sorrow of God Himself.
While Hosea brooded upon his pain one of the first things he would remember would be the fact, which he so frequently illustrates, that the case of his home was not singular, but common and characteristic of his day. Take the evidence of his book, and there must have been in Israel many such wives as his own. He describes their sin as the besetting sin of the nation, and the plague of Israels life. But to lose your own sorrow in the vaster sense of national trouble-that is the first consciousness of a duty and a mission. In the analogous vice of intemperance among ourselves we have seen the same experience operate again and again. How many a man has joined the public warfare against that sin, because he was aroused to its national consequences by the ruin it had brought to his own house! And one remembers from recent years a more illustrious instance, where a domestic grief-it is true of a very different kind-became not dissimilarly the opening of a great career of service to the people:-
"I was in Leamington, and Mr. Cobden called on me. I was then in the depths of grief-I may almost say of despair, for the light and sunshine of my house had been extinguished. All that was left on earth of my young wife, except the memory of a sainted life and a too brief happiness, was lying still and cold in the chamber above us. Mr. Cobden called on me as his friend, and addressed me, as you may suppose, with words of condolence. After a time he looked up and said: There are thousands and thousands of homes in England at this moment where wives and mothers and children are dying of hunger. Now, when the first paroxysm of your grief is passed, I would advise you to come with me, and we will never rest until the Corn Laws are repealed." {from a speech by John Bright}
Not dissimilarly was Hoseas pain overwhelmed by the pain of his people. He remembered that there were in Israel thousands of homes like his own. Anguish gave way to sympathy. The mystery became the stimulus to a mission.
But, again, Hosea traces this sin of his day to the worship of strange gods. He tells the fathers of Israel, for instance, that they need not be surprised at the corruption of their wives and daughters when they themselves bring home from the heathen rites the infection of light views of love. {Hos_4:13-14} That is to say, the many sins against human love in Israel, the wrong done to his own heart in his own home, Hosea connects with the wrong done to the Love of God by His peoples desertion of Him for foreign and impure rites. Hoseas own sorrow thus became a key to the sorrow of God. Had he loved this woman, cherished and honored her, borne with and forgiven her, only to find at the last his love spurned and hers turned to sinful men: so also had the Love of God been treated by His chosen people, and they had fallen to the loose worship of idols.
Hosea was the more naturally led to compare his relations to his wife with Jehovahs to Israel, by certain religious beliefs current among the Semitic peoples. It was common to nearly all Semitic religions to express the ration of a god with his land or with his people by the figure of marriage. The title which Hosea so often applies to the heathen deities, Baal, meant originally not "lord" of his worshippers, but "possessor" and endower of his land, its husband and fertilizer. A fertile land was "a land of Baal," or "Beulah," that is, "possessed" or "blessed by a Baal." Under the fertility was counted not only the increase of field and flock, but the human increase as well; and thus a nation could speak of themselves as the children of the Land, their mother, and of her Baal, their father. When Hosea, then, called Jehovah the husband of Israel, it was not an entirely new symbol which he invented. Up to his time, however, the marriage of Heaven and Earth, of a god and his people, seems to have been conceived in a physical form which ever tended to become more gross; and was expressed, as Hosea points out, by rites of a sensual and debasing nature, with the most disastrous effects on the domestic morals of the people. By an inspiration, whose ethical character is very conspicuous, Hosea breaks the physical connection altogether. Jehovahs Bride is not the Land, but the People, and His marriage with her is conceived wholly as a moral relation. Not that He has no connection with the physical fruits of the land: corn, wine, oil, wool, and flax. But these are represented only as the signs and ornaments of the marriage, love-gifts from the husband to the wife. {Hos_2:8} The marriage itself is purely moral: "I will betroth her to Me in righteousness and justice, in leal love and tender mercies." From her in return are demanded faithfulness and growing knowledge of her Lord.
It is the re-creation of an Idea. Slain and made carrion by the heathen religions, the figure is restored to life by Hosea. And this is a life everlasting. Prophet and apostle, the Israel of Jehovah, the Church of Christ, have alike found in Hoseas figure an unfailing significance and charm. Here we cannot trace the history of the figure; but at least we ought to emphasize the creative power which its recovery to life proves to have been inherent in prophecy. This is one of those triumphs of which the God of Israel said: "Behold, I make all things new."
Having dug his figure from the mire and set it upon the rock, Hosea sends it on its way with all boldness. If Jehovah be thus the husband of Israel, "her first husband, the husband of her youth," then all her pursuit of the Baalim is unfaithfulness to her marriage vows. But she is worse than an adulteress; she is a harlot. She has fallen for gifts. Here the historical facts wonderfully assisted the prophets metaphor. It was a fact that Israel and Jehovah were first wedded in the wilderness upon conditions, which by the very circumstances of desert life could have little or no reference to the fertility of the earth, but were purely personal and moral. And it was also a fact that Israels declension from Jehovah came after her settlement in Canaan, and was due to her discovery of other deities, in possession of the soil, and adored by the natives as the dispensers of its fertility. Israel fell under these superstitions, and, although she still formally acknowledged her bond to Jehovah, yet in order to get her fields blessed and her flocks made fertile, her orchards protected from blight and her fleeces from scab, she went after the local Baalim. {Hos_2:13} With bitter scorn Hosea points out that there was no true love in this: it was the mercenariness of a harlot, selling herself for gifts. {Hos_2:5; Hos_2:13} And it had the usual results. The children whom Israel bore were not her husbands. {Hos_2:5} The new generation in Israel grew up in ignorance of Jehovah, with characters and lives strange to His Spirit. They were Lo-Ruhamah: He could not feel towards them such pity as a father hath. They were Lo-Ammi: not at all His people. All was in exact parallel to Hoseas own experience with his wife; and only the real pain of that experience could have made the man brave enough to use it as a figure of his Gods treatment by Israel.
Following out the human analogy, the next step should have been for Jehovah to divorce His erring spouse. But Jehovah reveals to the prophet that this is not His way. For He is "God and not man, the Holy One in the midst of thee. How shall I give thee up, Ephraim? How shall I surrender thee, O Israel? My heart is turned within Me, My compassions are kindled together!"
Jehovah will seek, find, and bring back the wanderer. Yet the process shall not be easy. The gospel which Hosea here preaches is matched in its great tenderness by its full recognition of the ethical requirements of the case. Israel may not be restored without repentance, and cannot repent without disillusion and chastisement. God will therefore show her that her lovers, the Baalim, are unable to assure to her the gifts for which she followed them. These are His corn, His wine, His wool, and His flax, and He will take them away for a time. Nay more, as if mere drought and blight might still be regarded as some Baals work, He who has always manifested Himself by great historic deeds will do so again. He will remove herself from the land, and leave it a waste and a desolation. The whole passage runs as follows, introduced by the initial "Therefore" of judgment:-
"Therefore, behold, I am going to hedge up her way with thorns, and build her a wall, so that she find not her paths. And she shall pursue her paramours and shall not come upon them, seek them and shall not find them; and she shall say, Let me go and return to my first husband, for it was better for me then than now. She knew not, then, that it was I who gave her the corn and the wine and the oil; yea, silver I heaped upon her and gold-they worked it up for the Baal!" Israel had deserted the religion that was historical and moral for the religion that was physical. But the historical religion was the physical one. Jehovah who had brought Israel to the land was also the God of the Land. He would prove this by taking away its blessings. "Therefore I will turn and take away My corn in its time and My wine in its season, and I will withdraw My wool and My flax that should have covered her nakedness. And now"-the other initial of judgment-"I will lay bare her shame to the eyes of her lovers, and no man shall rescue her from My hand. And I will make an end of all her joyance, her pilgrimages, her New-Moons and her Sabbaths, with every festival; and I will destroy her vines and her figs of which she said, They are a gift, mine own, which my lovers gave me, and I will turn them to jungle and the wild beast shall devour them. So shall I visit upon her the days of the Baalim, when she used to offer incense to them, and decked herself with her rings and her jewels and went after her paramours, but Me she forgat-tis the oracle of Jehovah." All this implies something more than such natural disasters as those in which Amos saw the first chastisements of the Lord. Each of the verses suggests, not only a devastation of the land by war, but the removal of the people into captivity. Evidently, therefore, Hosea, writing about 745, had in view a speedy invasion by Assyria, an invasion which was always followed up by the exile of the people subdued.
This is next described, with all plainness, under the figure of Israels early wanderings in the wilderness, but is emphasized as happening only for the end of the peoples penitence and restoration. The new hope is so melodious that it carries the language into meter.
"Therefore, lo! I am to woo her, and I will bring her to the wilderness,
And I will speak home to her heart.
And from there I will give to her her vineyards
And the Valley of Achor for a doorway of hope.
And there she shall answer Me as in the days of her youth,
And as the day when she came up from the land of Misraim."
To us the terms of this passage may seem formal and theological. But to every Israelite some of these terms must have brought back the days of his own wooing. "I will speak home to her heart" is a forcible expression, like the German "an-das Herz" or the sweet Scottish "it cam up roond my heart," and was used in Israel as from man to woman when he won her. But the other terms have an equal charm. The prophet, of course, does not mean that Israel shall be literally taken back to the desert. But he describes her coming exile under that ancient figure, in order to surround her penitence with the associations of her innocency and her youth. By the grace of God, everything shall begin again as at first. The old terms "wilderness," "the giving of vineyards," "Valley of Achor," are, as it were, the wedding ring restored.
As a result of all this (whether the words be by Hosea or another),
"It shall be in that day-tis Jehovahs oracle-that thou shalt call Me,
My husband, And thou shalt not again call Me, My Baal:
For I will take away the names of the Baalim from her mouth,
And they shall no more be remembered by their names."
There follows a picture of the ideal future, in which-how unlike the vision that now closes the Book of Amos!-moral and spiritual beauty, the peace of the land and the redemption of the people, are wonderfully mingled together, in a style so characteristic of Hoseas heart. It is hard to tell where the rhythmical prose passes into actual meter.
"And I will make for them a covenant in that day with the wild beasts, and with the birds of the heavens, and with the creeping things of the ground; and the bow and the sword and battle will I break from the land, and I will make you to dwell in safety. And I will betroth thee to Me for ever, and I will betroth thee to Me in righteousness and in justice, in leal love and in tender mercies; and I will betroth thee to Me in faithfulness, and thou shalt know Jehovah."
"And it shall be on that day I will speak-tis the oracle of Jehovah-I will speak to the heavens, and they shall speak to the earth; the earth shall speak to the corn and the wine and the oil, and they shall speak to Jezreel," the "scattered like seed across many lands"; but I will sow him for Myself in the land: and I will have a fathers pity upon Un-Pitied; and to Not-My-People I will say, "My people thou art! and he shall say, My God!"
The circle is thus completed on the terms from which we started. The three names which Hosea gave to the children, evil omens of Israels fate, are reversed, and the people restored to the favor and love of their God.
We might expect this glory to form the culmination of the prophecy. What fuller prospect could be imagined than that we see in the close of the second chapter? With a wonderful grace, however, the prophecy turns back from this sure vision of the restoration of the people as a whole, to pick up again the individual from whom it had started, and whose unclean rag of a life had fluttered out of sight before the national fortunes sweeping in upon the scene. This was needed to crown the story-this return to the individual.
"And Jehovah said unto me, Once more go, love a wife that is loved of a paramour and is an adulteress, as Jehovah loveth the children of Israel," the "while they are turning to other gods, and love raisin-cakes"-probably some element in the feasts of the gods of the land, the givers of the grape. "Then I bought her to me for fifteen "pieces" of silver and a homer of barley and a lethech of wine. And I said to her, For many days shalt thou abide for me alone; thou shalt not play the harlot, thou shalt not be for any husband; and I for my part also shall be so towards thee. For the days are many that the children of Israel shall abide without a king and without a prince, without sacrifice and without maccebah, and without ephod and teraphim. Afterwards the children of Israel shall turn and seek Jehovah their God and David their king, and shall be in awe of Jehovah and towards His goodness in the end of the days."
Do not let us miss the fact that the story of the wifes restoration follows that of Israels, although the story of the wifes unfaithfulness had come before that of Israels apostasy. For this order means that, while the prophets private pain preceded his sympathy with Gods pain, it was not he who set God, but God who set him, the example of forgiveness. The man learned the Gods sorrow out of his own sorrow; but conversely he was taught to forgive and redeem his wife only by seeing God forgive and redeem the people. In other words, the Divine was suggested by the human pain; yet the Divine Grace was not started by any previous human grace, but, on the contrary, was itself the precedent and origin of the latter. This is in harmony with all Hoseas teaching. God forgives because "He is God and not man." (Hos_9:9) Our pain with those we love helps us to understand Gods pain; but it is not our love that leads us to believe in His love. On the contrary, all human grace is but the reflex of the Divine. So St. Paul: "Even as Christ forgave you, so also do ye." So St. John: "We love Him," and one another, "because He first loved us."
But this return from the nation to the individual has another interest. Gomers redemption is not the mere formal completion of the parallel between her and her people. It is, as the story says, an impulse of the Divine Love, recognized even then in Israel as seeking the individual. He who followed Hagar into the wilderness, who met Jacob at Bethel and forgat not the slave Joseph in prison, remembers also Hoseas wife. His love is not satisfied with His Nation-Bride: He remembers this single outcast. It is the Shepherd leaving the ninety-and-nine in the fold to seek the one lost sheep.
For Hosea himself his home could never be the same as it was at the first. "And I said to her, For many days shalt thou abide, as far as I am concerned, alone. Thou shalt not play the harlot. Thou shalt not be for a husband: and I on my side also shall be so towards thee." Discipline was needed there; and abroad the nations troubles called the prophet to an anguish and a toil which left no room for the sweet love or hope of his youth. He steps at once to his hard warfare for his people; and through the rest of his book we never again hear him speak of home, or of children, or of wife. So Arthur passed from Guinevere to his last battle for his land:-
"Lo! I forgive thee, as Eternal God Forgives: do thou for thine own soul the rest.
But how to take last leave of all I loved?
I cannot touch thy lips, they are not mine
I cannot take thy hand; that too is flesh,
And in the flesh thou hast sinned; and mine own flesh,
Here looking down on thine polluted, cries I loathe thee; yet not less, O Guinevere,
For I was ever virgin save for thee,
My love thro flesh hath wrought into my life
So far, that my doom is, I love thee still.
Let no man dream but that I love thee still.
Perchance, and so thou purify thy soul,
And so thou lean on our fair father Christ,
Hereafter in that world where all are pure
We two may meet before high God, and thou
Wilt spring to me, and claim me thine, and know
I am thine husband, not a smaller soul
Leave me that, I charge thee my last hope.
Now must I hence.
Thro the thick night I hear the trumpet blow."
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 10 THE FIRST COMMUNICATIONS.—Hos_1:1
HOMILETICS
THE FIRST COMMUNICATIONS.—Hos_1:1
Read full note →
I. The chosen servant.
1. His human descent. “Son of B.” The Jews say that the prophet whose father is named was the son of a prophet. Nothing recorded of Ber. Hosea dignified and distinguished not by noble birth nor worldly grandeur. Rank and riches are not moral worth. Life outlined by noble deeds; greatness acquired by religious service. Character in its noblest embodiments, exhibits the highest qualities, commands the greatest influence and admiration. Apostles of great thoughts and rulers of the human mind have sprung from no exclusive rank in life, but have been called from schools of the prophets and workshops of the poor.
2. His spiritual training. God spoke in Hosea; gave him knowledge and experience first, then commissioned him to teach others. Personal dedication before public duty; fellowship in private before reward in public. We must speak what we know; be blessed ourselves before we can bless others. This is a law of Christian economy. We can only teach others as we are taught ourselves. Our influence upon others must be measured by the Divine gifts within us. The best proof of Christianity is the energy with which we can Christianize. God bestows blessings not to nurse in our bosoms but to radiate in beneficent influence to others. “I will bless thee and make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing.”
3. His outward call. Probably when a young man, and hence the length of his ministry. Samuel and Timothy given to God when young. Jeremiah consecrated from the womb. An honour and privilege to serve God in youth. Energy and enthusiasm are necessary as well as talent and experience. “I remember thee, the kindness of thy youth.”
II. The Divine message.
1. Its nature. A “word,” the expression of the mind and purpose of God. The power of a word to influence character and change the destinies of life. Words of monarchs have decided the fate of empires. The word of God, judgment or mercy, the message of life or death to a people. “To the one we are the savour of death unto death, and to the other of life unto life.”
2. Its origin. “The word of the Lord.” Not by man nor from man, not self-originated; it was first God’s and then became the prophet’s. “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man.” Men not left to their own devices and must not declare their own opinions. God finds the message and speaks with Divine certainty and authority. All teaching deserving the name comes to us not as the product of human thought but of the Holy Spirit. “Preach the preaching I bid thee.” The Bible is pre-eminently the prophetic word. “Ye do well that ye take heed to it.”
3. Its medium. Through Hosea. God’s message through men and to men. Man in his moral nature is renewed, elevated, and qualified to teach and bless a fallen people. This displays Divine wisdom and love, creates sympathy for our fellow-creatures, humanizes the Bible, and renders the gospel more charming and attractive.
III. The dark days.
1. Days of prevalent idolatry. “The land hath committed whoredoms.” Idolatry was made the national religion. The worship of Baal was a rival to the worship of God. Calf-worship led to sin, licentiousness and sensuality. The first in rank were first in excess. Sad when men of high position fall into vice! Now, even, men profess to own God, talk of “nature” and “natural laws,” yet forget God, or “change their glory (i.e. their God) into the similitude” of an ox, a man, a hero, or an abstract principle.
2. Days of political anarchy. Kings came to the throne by the murder of their predecessors and were in turn murdered by their successors. Military despotism disturbed the peace, and horrible slaughter stained the people of the land.
3. Days of threatened judgment. Hosea sent to urge to repentance, for captivity was imminent, certain, and irreversible; but God was forsaken, the nation was insensible of its moral and political decay, and judgments lost their terror. In spite of warning after warning the people sought to prop themselves up by alliance with Egypt and Assyria. When a nation is rotten at the core no outward power or splendour can prevent its decay. It carries within it the seeds of death. The sky grew darker and darker; the thunder at last resounded; calamities could not be averted; then judgments fell upon them without mercy in dispersion and destruction.
4. Days of little success. Israel was not converted but taken into captivity, yet Hosea laboured on year after year, through good and evil report (Amo_7:10; Amo_7:12). No abatement of his earnestness and efforts. He was faithful to his trust and to his God. It is often the lot of God’s servants to labour long and see little fruit. Isaiah cried, “I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength for nought, and in vain.” We must be content to toil on and deliver our message to the greatest sinners in the darkest days, and feel like the prophet named, “surely my judgment is with the Lord, and my work with my God.”
HOMILETIC HINTS AND OUTLINES
In the days of, Hos_1:1.—Hosea’s ministry.
1. A type of God’s long-suffering and mercy; waiting long, sending prophets, and offering grace to a sinful people, until beyond the reach of mercy.
2. A type of service fixed in time and sphere, in chequered scenes and great discouragements. God gives to every servant his special place and peculiar gifts. In hope and humble confidence he must labour on.
The days of Jeroboam II., days of prosperity and political pre-eminence. He reigned 41 years; recovered lost cities (2Ki_14:28; Amo_1:3; Amo_1:5); was victorious in war (2Ki_13:4; 2Ki_14:26); and enjoyed the teaching of Hosea, Joel (Joe_3:16), Amos (Amo_1:1), and Jonah (2Ki_14:25). But idolatry was mixed with the worship of Jehovah; drunkenness and oppression prevailed in the country, and the prophets predicted its downfall.
1. Temporal prosperity is no guarantee for public morality. The kingdom, amid splendour and popularity, rotten at the core, decaying in vigour, and under the judgment of God.
2. Temporal prosperity is no security against public calamity. “Temporal prosperity is no proof either of stability or of the favour of God. Where the law of God is observed, there, even amid the pressure of outward calamity, is the assurance of ultimate prosperity. Where God is disobeyed, there is the pledge of coming destruction. The seasons when men feel most secure against future chastisements, are often the preludes of the most signal revolutions” [Pusey].
Kings rise and empires fall, but God’s purpose is the same; carried on through all times and by all agencies. Kings die and are buried in the dust; prophets live in all ages and rewarded in eternity. “Monarchs have their times and their turns, their rise and their ruin” [Trapp].
Men pass away—notwithstanding wealth and talent. Nations pass away—notwithstanding political power and military glory. God is eternal and carries on his work.
The perpetuity of truth. Although these kings successively appeared and passed away, the ministry of Hosea kept on.
1. The “Word of the Lord” is adapted to all generations. It is congruous with all intellects, it chimes in with all hearts, it provides for the common wants of all.
2. The “Word of the Lord” is necessary for all generations. All men in all ages and lands want it, it is as indispensable to their happiness as air is to their life. Generations may appear in the distant future, who may not require our forms of government, our social institutions, our artistic devices, our mechanical inventions, and who may despise our literary productions, but no generation will ever appear who will not require the “Word of the Lord” [Homilist].
ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 1
Our Age and Work, Hos_1:1. Every great man is the son of his age, but not its pupil [Guesses at Truth]. The dream, the common mistake, of the present day, is the belief that a man cannot be useful and noble without great endowments and a grand sphere. If we had great opportunities, and great duties, we could do something in life, and make a mark after death. The littleness of our trust is often an excuse for its neglect, like the servant with one pound who hid his Lord’s money. But with moderate powers, in a small sphere, we may be faithful to duty, and secure our reward. We must live and act in the present; realize what God has given us to do to-day, and do not look beyond it. “David after he had served his own generation, by the will of God, fell on sleep.”
Mother’s conduct. “I am a missionary in my nursery,” once observed a Christian mother. “Six pair of little eyes are daily watching mamma’s looks, and listening to her words, and I wish my children never to see in me that which they may not imitate.” “The mother lives again,” says Smiles, “in her children. They unconsciously mould themselves after her manner, her speech, her conduct, and her method of life. Her habits become theirs, and her character is visibly repeated in them.”
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v1 Hosea's Marriage and its Lessons
Hosea's Marriage and its Lessons
1. A general heading. Hos_1:2-9. The prophet's marriage with Gomer, the birth of her three children, and the symbolical meaning attached to them.
Read full note →
Hos_1:1 to Hos_2:1. The future material and religious prosperity of the people.
1. A general heading, perhaps the work of a late Judæan editor. Hosea 1-3 probably belong to the time of Jeroboam II; but it is extremely improbable that any of the prophecies belong to so late a date as the days of Hezekiah, when the punishment foretold at the hands of Tiglath-pileser (Pul) had already been partially fulfilled on Israel (2Ki_15:29). That Hosea wrote the book is clear from Hos_3:1.
2. The beginning.. Lord] RV 'When the Lord spake at the first by Hosea.' A wife of whoredoms] Hosea is probably speaking in the light of his later experiences. His wife was probably innocent of this evil when he married her—or if not the prophet was ignorant of her true character.
4. For the giving of names for a prophetic purpose cp. Isa_7:8-14; Isa_8:1-4. The name Jezreel ('God will sow') signified, (1) the town which was the capital of Israel during Jehu's dynasty, and the scene of the murders by which he established his rule (2 Kings 9); (2) the resowing of the restored Israel (Hos_1:11). The name was given to the child as a reminder of the punishment due for the massacre. I will avenge the blood] This prophecy was fulfilled by the overthrow of the ruling dynasty when Jeroboam's son, Zechariah, had reigned six months: see 2Ki_15:10, and cp. Amo_7:9. Hosea looks at Jehu's murders from a different point of view from that of Elisha and the editors of the book of Kings: see especially 2Ki_10:30. They regarded chiefly his outward religious policy and his probably genuine detestation of Baal-worship. Hosea sees mainly the motives of personal ambition and lust of cruelty which underlay his actions. Time had shown that neither Jehu nor his descendants had justified his zeal by any high religious principle. Will cause to cease] This and Hos_1:5 extend the prophecy to the final destruction of the kingdom at the hands of the Assyrians: see 2Ki_17:6. The valley of Jezreel was the battlefield of Palestine, and nothing would seem more probable to the prophet than that the final overthrow would take place there.
6. Lo-ruhamah] i.e. 'not pitied.' But.. away] RV 'that I should in any wise pardon them.'
7. The verdict on the kingdom of Judah is in the earlier portions of the book more favourable than in the later; cp. Hos_5:10, Hos_5:14, etc. This prophecy was fulfilled by the destruction of Sennacherib's army (2Ki_19:35).
9. Lo-ammi] i.e. 'not my people.' By their sin and perfidy Israel had ceased to act as God's people. They had refused the responsibilities of their calling, and could not expect its privileges.
10. Here, as elsewhere, Hosea cannot bear to dwell upon God's punishments without looking beyond them to His greater mercies. Here he evidently contemplates a restored people, fulfilling the promise of earthly greatness made to Abraham (Gen_32:12), and brought into even closer relation to God, that of sonship: cp. Rom_9:26. Living God] i.e. God manifesting His power in action.
11. As with many other prophecies, the vision of the future includes the union once more of Israel and Judah in one people (cp. Isa_11:13; Eze_37:19), a prophecy unfulfilled except so far as the church is symbolised by the whole of Israel, The day of Jezreel] The union of Israel and Judah is to be marked by a prosperity which shall take away the reproach from Jezreel (see on Hos_1:4). This is more fully explained in Hos_2:23.
Hos_2:1. Ammi.. Ruhamah] This v. is closely connected with Hos_1:10-11, and must be read along with them. As Jezreel is to become a name of honour in the predicted future, so also the old names of the other two children will have become quite inappropriate. The not will have to be omitted, and they will become 'My people,' 'Pitied.'
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv1, 9, 10 i.e. of the 1260,1290, and 1335 days.
days
i.e. of the 1260,1290, and 1335 days.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v1 Analysis and Annotations
Analysis and Annotations
I. THE REJECTION OF ISRAEL AS THE ADULTEROUS WIFE AND HER FUTURE RECEPTION AND RESTORATION
Read full note →
CHAPTER 1
Israel’s Sin and Promise of Restoration
1. The introduction (Hos 1:1)
2. The prophet’s marriage and birth of Jezreel (Hos 1:2-5)
3. The birth of Lo-Ruhamah (Hos 1:6-7)
4. The birth of Lo-ammi (Hos 1:8-9)
5. The future restoration (Hos 1:10-11)
Hos 1:1. This superscription gives the period of Hosea’s ministry. First stands the statement that the word of the Lord came to him. Hosea means salvation; his father’s name, Beeri, means “my well.” Both are typical names. Critics have pointed out that Hosea was undoubtedly a resident of the northern kingdom of Israel, yet he mentions but one of the kings of Israel, Jeroboam, while four kings of Judah are given in this introduction. Inasmuch as Hosea long survived Jeroboam, the king of Israel, and the Judaic kings extend far beyond the time of the one Israelitish king, it has been alleged that the second part of the superscription does not harmonize with the first. Such is not the case. The superscription is made in this manner for some purpose. Hosea marks his Prophecy by the names of the kings of Judah, because in Judah the theocracy remained. He mentions Jeroboam (the Second), whose reign ended in the fourteenth year of Uzziah, because he was the last king of Israel through whom God acted and vouchsafed help to the rival kingdom. All the other kings of Israel who came after Jeroboam, by whom the Lord sent deliverance to the ten tribes 2Ki 14:27 were therefore recognized by the prophets of God; the kings which followed were robbers and murderers, whose names the Spirit of God finds unfit to mention in the prophetic ministry of Hosea.
Hos 1:2-5. In the beginning of his ministry, when Hosea was a young man, the Lord commanded him to take unto him a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms, and that for the reason, because the land hath committed great whoredoms, departing from the Lord. This command was at once executed by the prophet; he took to wife Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim.
We are confronted with an interesting question. What is the nature of these transactions? Were they real events, that Hosea literally took this woman and had children by her, or were they nothing but pictorial, visionary illustrations of the spiritual adultery and unfaithfulness of Israel? Did the prophet actually and literally enter into such an impure relationship, or, is it wholly an allegory? Luther supposed that the prophet called his lawful wife and children by these names at a certain time to perform a kind of drama before the people and thus remind them of their apostasy. The objectors to the literalness of this incident, and defenders of the allegorical explanation, have pointed out that it would be unworthy of God to command and sanction such an unchaste union. The allegorical meaning is entirely excluded by the text, which speaks of a literal transaction. All is related as real history, the marriage and the birth of the children. We quote first Dr. Pusey’s words in support of the literal meaning of this command by the Lord.
“We must not imagine things to be unworthy of God, because they do not commend themselves to us. God does not dispense with the moral law, because the moral law has its source in the mind of God Himself. To dispense with it would mean to contradict Himself. But God, who is absolute Lord of all things which He made, may, at His sovereign will, dispose of the lives or things which He created. Thus, as sovereign judge, He commanded the lives of the Canaanites to be taken by Israel, as, in His ordinary providence, He has ordained that the magistrate should not bear the sword in vain, but has made him His minister, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. So, again, He, whose are all things, willed to repay to the Israelites their hard and unjust servitude by commanding them to spoil the Egyptians. He, who created marriage, commanded to Hosea whom he should marry. The prophet was not defiled by taking as his lawful wife, at God’s bidding, one defiled, however hard a thing this was.”
This is the strongest defense of the literal interpretation of this incident. But there is another interpretation possible, which we believe is the correct one. As the context shows the symbolical meaning of Hosea’s marriage is to illustrate Israel’s unfaithfulness. But Israel was not always unfaithful; she played not always the harlot. Of necessity this had to be symbolized in the case of the prophet’s marriage. The question then arises, was Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim an impure woman when Hosea married her, or did she become unchaste after her marriage to the prophet? We believe the latter was the case. The Hebrew does not require the meaning that she was impure at the time of the marriage; in fact, as already indicated, the supposition that Gomer lived the life of a harlot before her marriage to the godly prophet, destroys the parallelism, which the prophet’s message embodies, with the relation of God to Israel. The expression “a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms” simply intimated to Hosea what the woman he married was going to be. If not taken in this sense it would mean that Gomer had already children when Hosea married her.
Gomer was called “a wife of whoredoms” by the omniscient Lord, in anticipation of her future conduct. She fell and became immoral after her union with Hosea, and not before. In this way she became a symbol of Israel, married unto the Lord, but afterwards became the unfaithful wife. With this view, the entire prophetic message of Hosea in the beginning of this book harmonizes. The name of the woman is likewise suggestive. Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, means “Completion--a double cake of figs.” Israel’s wickedness is symbolized as complete and the double cake of figs is symbolical of sensual pleasures. And the prophet in spite of her unfaithfulness still loved her and did not abandon her. This illustrates Jehovah’s love for Israel.
Then she bore him a son. Expositors have stated, “The children were not the prophet’s own, but born of adultery and presented to him as his.” But that can not be the meaning in view of the plain statement “she conceived and bare him a son.”
The Lord commands him to call this son “Jezreel.” Jezreel has likewise a symbolical meaning. It means “God shall scatter” Jer 31:10; but it also means “God shall sow” Zec 10:9. Thus Israel was to be scattered and sown among the nations. Jezreel was the valley in which Jehu executed his bloody deeds. On account of his hypocritical zeal, the blood of Jezreel is now to be avenged, and the kingdom of the house of Israel would cease. Thus the name Jezreel (resembling in sound and form “Israel”) indicates the speedy end of Israel, scattered and sown among the nations, on account of their whoredoms (see Eze 23:1-49).
Hos 1:6-7. Next a daughter is born. Here “bare him” as found in verse 3 is omitted. The prophet receives a name for her--Lo-ruhamah, which means “not having obtained mercy.” Interesting are the two renderings of the Holy Spirit of this passage in the New Testament. In Rom 9:25 it is rendered “not beloved” and in 1Pe 2:10, “hath not obtained mercy.” Love and mercy were now to be withdrawn from Israel and they were to be taken away utterly.
Then the house of Judah is mentioned. They shall be saved by the Lord their God, because He has mercy on them. Their salvation was not by bow, by sword, or by battle, horses and horsemen. It was only a little while later when the Assyrian, who was God’s instrument in the execution of judgment upon Israel, came before the gates of Jerusalem, but Jerusalem was saved in the manner as predicted here, not by bow or sword, but the angel of the Lord smote the army of 185,000 in one night. And later Judah was saved and a remnant brought back from Babylon. Then there is a future salvation for Judah in the end of the age.
Hos 1:8-9. Another son is born and “God said, Call his name Lo-ammi, for ye are not my people and I am not your God.” Lo-ammi means “not my people.” Lo-ruhamah and Lo-ammi are symbolical of Israel’s rejection and the withdrawal of God’s mercy. That this is not to be permanent the next two verses make this clear.
Hos 1:10-11. Abruptly we are transported from the present into the distant future, and a prophetic utterance of great depth follows. The tenth verse is quoted by the Holy Spirit in Rom 9:1-33 and gives full light on the meaning of the passage here. God’s sovereignty is the theme of the ninth chapter of Romans: “And that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He has afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. As He saith also in Osee (Greek form of Hosea), I will call them My people, which were not My people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not My people, there shall they be called the children of the living God” Rom 9:23-33. Here is the commentary of Hos 1:10. It means first that Israel shall be reinstated; but it also means the call and salvation of the Gentiles, and Gentiles called in sovereign grace are to be constituted “the sons of the living God.” It is a prophetic hint on the blessing to come to the Gentiles, and that blessing is greater than Israel’s.
The eleventh verse is a great prophecy and remains still unfulfilled. Some expositors claim that it was fulfilled in the return of the remnant of Jews under Zerubbabel. But the Babylonian captivity is not in view here at all. The great day of Jezreel will come, when King Messiah, our Lord returns. Then shall Judah and Israel be gathered together under one head, and gather once more to their national feasts in the land.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 10 Israel to be Rejected on Account of its Idolatry
Israel to be Rejected on Account of its Idolatry
v. 1. The word of the Lord that came unto Hosea, the son of Beeri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, who are probably mentioned in the sequence of their reign on account of the stability of their rule, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel, this statement being added to bring out the fact of Hosea’s having prophesied in the earlier part of the century, before there was any indication of decay in Israel from which one might reasonably have deduced the probability of the nation’s downfall, a fact which would have weakened the idea of a prophecy.
Read full note →
v. 2. The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea, literally, "In the beginning when Jehovah spoke with Hosea,". and the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms, most commentators believing this to have been done internally and in a vision, since the force of the symbolical act would otherwise be lost, and children of whoredoms. The figure represents the northern kingdom in its relation to Jehovah at the time of the prophet, when the nation as such had become unfaithful and in its individual members could well be compared to children of adultery, as the prophet says; for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord, its idolatry was of a kind to call forth the righteous anger of the Lord.
v. 3. So he, the prophet, went and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, whose very name was descriptive of the life in which she delighted; which conceived and bare him a son.
v. 4. And the Lord said unto him, Call his name Jezreel, the name of a very fruitful valley in the northern part of the land; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel, namely, the blood that had been spilled by Ahab and other wicked kings in this garden spot, upon the house of Jehu, who had loaded blood-guiltiness upon himself by acts of murder for which he had no command of God, Cf 2 Kings 9, 10, and will cause to cease the kingdom. of the house of Israel, the end of the kingdom thus being predicted while it still seemed to be at the height of its power.
v. 5. And it shall come to pass at that day that I will break the bow of Israel, the military force on which the strength of the kingdom rested, on which its existence depended, in the Valley of Jezreel, for the Assyrians, within four decades, overthrew the power of Israel completely.
v. 6. And she conceived again and bare a daughter, a female child being named in order to represent the entire nation, both men and women, in the sons and daughters of the people And God said unto him, Call her name Lo-ruhamah ("not having obtained mercy"); for I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel, but I will utterly take them away, literally, "for not will I add any more to have compassion on the house of Israel that I should keep on forgiving them," that is, His patience was now exhausted, and His judgment upon them would soon be carried out.
v. 7. But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, the southern kingdom, in which His worship was still being observed by the few who represented His kingdom on earth, and will save them by the Lord, their God, by an almighty deliverance, and will not save them by bow nor by sword nor by battle, by horses nor by horsemen, the heaping of the synonyms showing the futility of all human power over against the Lord’s decrees.
v. 8. Now, when she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived and bare a son, there being no interruption in the announcement of evil.
v. 9. Then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi ("not My people"); for ye are not My people, namely, on account of their rejection of Him, and I will not be your God, they could not claim Him as their highest good, they could not call upon Him as their Helper. When people deliberately reject the true God, they cut themselves off from all the manifestations of His grace and mercy; they bring misfortune upon themselves and can blame no one but themselves for their unhappy state.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 6, 8, 10 the word of Yahweh that came
the word of Yahweh that came
This is an idiom. AT: "the word that Yahweh God spoke" (See: Idiom)
Read full note →
Beeri
This is the name of a man. (See: How to Translate Names)
Uzziah ... Jotham ... Ahaz ... Hezekiah ... Jeroboam ... Joash
The events in this book happened during the time of these kings. (See: How to Translate Names)
Yahweh
This is the name of God that he revealed to his people in the Old Testament. See the translationWord page about Yahweh concerning how to translate this.
great prostitution
Here "prostitution" represents the people being unfaithful to God. (See: Metaphor)
translationWords
word of God
Hosea
Uzziah
Jotham
Ahaz
Hezekiah
king
Judah
Jeroboam
Joash
Israel
Yahweh
prostitute
forsake
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 1:1 The Lord gave this message: The book of…
1:1 The Lord gave this message: The book of Hosea begins by declaring that these are not merely human words but a message from the only true God (cp. Joel 1:1; Mic 1:1; Zeph 1:1). • Hosea son of Beeri: Several other important people in the Old Testament are also named Hosea (or Hoshea; both are spelled the same in Hebrew; Num 13:8; 2 Kgs 17:1). Hosea means “the Lord saves,” an appropriate name for this prophet. • Jeroboam . . . king of Israel: Hosea prophesied to the northern kingdom of Israel during the reigns of its last seven kings, though only one of them, Jeroboam II, is listed here (see Hosea Book Introduction, “Setting”).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.