Hosea 1:2-2:1 – From judgement and destruction to restoration and renewal

1:2 The Divine Imperative

Before we explore the tragic relationship be­tween Hosea and Corner we need to outline what God’s purpose was in issuing the directive to Hosea as found in this verse. The answer makes Hosea one of the truly profound books of Scripture. It is true that the book unfolds mani­fold judgements upon Israel but the real empha­sis is upon Yahweh Himself. The love He has for his people is revealed. The intense sorrow He felt as a result of their unfaithfulness permeates the book. The book declares the manner of the stubborn, self-willed wife of God. Israel’s atti­tude is one of contempt for its marriage bond with God. Its flirtations led to spiritual adultery as they served the gods of wood and stone – gods imported along with the abominable prac­tices associated with their worship.

Hosea was appointed to experience the infidelity of his wife so that he along with his contemporaries and future generations could appreciate that such human experience was but a trifle when compared to what God experienced and continues to suffer. Hosea’s lot may have been distressing but it was not of the same magnitude as Yahweh’s. God had showered His people with blessings and privileges. They responded by committing adultery. Israel failed to comply with an important principle: that divine privileges always place spiritual responsibilities on the receiver. That principle stands today, especially in relation to us as we are part of the divine family – children of God (Romans 8:16-17; Ephesians 1:4-6).

The Beginning of the word of Yahweh by Hosea — Beginning (Help) Techillah — initiation, commencement. In other words, the events that are to take place occurred at the outset of Hosea’s prophetic career. Hosea’s career commenced not with word but action. How he received the call is not indicated but in faith Hosea did exactly as requested.

Take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms — Here lies perhaps the most controversial aspect of the book of Hosea. Some regard the account of Hosea’s marriage as purely allegorical — a parable having no basis in fact. Others would consider Hosea’s wife to be a virgin who late sea.

I believe that we can discount confidently and immediately the theory that the record is fictional and accept Hosea’s marriage as a documented historical fact. To unravel the status of Corner at the point of marriage is not a simple process. Keil emphatically declares that Gomer was a harlot at the time of marriage as

“the wife of whoredoms does not represent the nation of Israel in its virgin state at the conclusion of the covenant at Sinai, but the nation of the ten tribes in it relation to Jehovah at the time of the prophet himself, when the nation, considered as a whole, had become the wife of whoredom, and its several members resembled children of whoredom.”

The weight of data tips however, the balances towards examining God’s command in a more conservative light. This proposition states that Corner represented Israel taken from Egypt in a virginal state by God but who subsequently sought out other suitors and left her husband – the God of Israel. The following notes may help to convince you of this outlook:-

• God’s command could have been contrary to the Law, certainly the spirit of the Law, if Corner was a harlot — “thou shalt not take a wife that is a whore” Lev 21:7. Admittedly, this refers to the priests but the reason for this article was to indicate and maintain the priests’ holiness before God. Hosea was set apart as holy in that he was the appointed vehicle for God’s word. See also Lev. 19:29 and Deuteronomy 24:18 for a further insight into God’s view of prostitution.
• It is difficult to perceive how marrying a confirmed harlot would not have done harm to the prophet in his attempt to get God’s message across to Israel; the people he was attempting to steer towards the path of righteousness and moral purity (Hosea 14:1).
• The allegory would suffer if Gomer was not married in her virginity. As Hosea 2:15 suggests, Israel was not faithless when God took her to Himself at the outset. Israel became so afterwards.
• The beginning of God’s “marriage” was prefaced by the remarks of Exodus 6:7 – “I will take you to me for a people …” This parallels with Hosea 2:14-16. The “honeymoon” was but a short one as it was not long before Israel became promiscuous. God’s anguish is reflected in Jeremiah 2:2.
• The woman was promiscuous by way of anticipation. She was in an environment that lent itself to adultery and prostitution. Involvement in Canaanitish worship, in many instances, included sexual activity.
• The Hebrew word for “whoredoms” Zanuwn is derived from the primary word Zanna and these terms apply to sexual misconduct, especially on the part of a woman. Zanna describes prostitution as a remunerative profession in only a small number of instances (e.g. Deuteronomy 23:18). In its literal application, Zanuwn is linked to women betrothed or married and, as Strong interprets, refers to adultery as opposed to professional hire — Tamar (Genesis 38:24), Jezebel (2 Kings 9:22). In one of its symbolic applications, adultery seems to be implied — Aholah and Aholibah (Ezekiel 23:11,29 refer 45). The excep­tion being Nineveh (Nahum 3:4) (although there was a time of oneness between Nineveh and Yahweh (Jonah 3:10), I do not believe that this would constitute a “marriage”.) The Soncino Bible also states that the Hebrew does not support Corner being a harlot at the time of marriage. It claims that it would have had to read as Ishshah Zonah if she was. The type in Hosea’s marriage is more accurate if misconduct occurred after marriage in the form of adultery (Jeremiah 3:8-14).

• It is probable that Corner was seduced by the licentious Canaanitish worship that was prevalent in Israel. This parallels with the influences that seduced Israel away from God.

How then do we understand what originally seemed so straight-forward? Firstly, the woman was one of adultery – that is a product of adultery, just as Israel was one brought out of Egypt. Secondly, whereas the language may have puzzled Hosea upon receipt it was very clear to him as he looked back upon them when he sat down to ‘record his experiences.

Thirdly, some explain it as one who would be likely to commit adultery — certainly a conjectural consideration but nevertheless one that permits us to view Hosea as being obedient to God’s command. As far as the children of whoredoms was concerned this, of course, was in a prophetical vein as Hosea would not know if his children would be the products of adultery until the appropriate time. It is obvious that he would not have encouraged his wife to transgress just as God did not encourage His people to serve other gods. Hosea’s and, more importantly, Yahweh’s distress would have appeared Hollow if they were in any way responsible for the infidelity of their wives.

Bullinger Claims that a figure of speech known as “Relative Ellipsis” is being employed here and that the sense is “and beget children”. “Relative Ellipsis” is where a word has been omitted but can be supplied from the immediate context. In this case the context being verses 3, 6 and 8. The word has been deliberately left out with the object being that the emphasis is not placed on the omitted word rather on something else in the verse. The unusual phrase draws our attention and puts the emphasis of Hosea 1:2 quite clearly on the aspect of whore­dom.

The children of whoredoms was typical of a long-term problem. The children were prod­ucts of their mother and followed their mother’s ways. The problem of Israel’s promiscuous behaviour was not an isolated occurrence. It was on on-going malaise despite the efforts of God’s counsellors, the prophets, to draw them back to a patient and loving husband. If only the children of adultery would have submitted to God then they would have been well catered for (Psalm 127).

For the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from Yahweh — Here lies the punchline to the whole book, Hosea’s life and the prophecies that followed. “The Land” refers to everything associated with it (Lev 19:29). It is an all-embracing title that in this context, includes the people and the national institutions.

What is more relevant is God’s decree as to how far the land had deteriorated. The AV has “great whoredom” which is a reasonable attempt in translating an awkward piece of Hebrew. Green and Young’s Literal Translation are perhaps as accurate as we can get – “for the land has utterly gone lusting away from Jehovah” (Green). Rotherham has a similar translation. The point being made is that at this period of time Israel was an habitual, unrepentant harlot. It is not a statement indicating occasional infidelity. The anguish of God is very clear. The land, everybody, has committed whoredom, utter whoredom and departed from God. Hosea’s episode was a parable of a far more traumatic experience.

This comment of the land “utterly gone lust­ing” gives an indication as to where Hosea’s work began. It depicts a time towards the conclusion of Jeroboam II’s reign. During Jeroboam’s rule Jonah, the son of Amittai, pro­phesied. What is also evident is that Jonah’s words came to pass and thus the word of Yah­weh while not exactly revered was possibly lis­tened to, even respected (2 Kings 14:25). Hosea’s comment demonstrates that when he took his wife the word of God was rejected. Amos had suffered rejection. Amaziah, the pries of Bethel, told Amos to go away, return to Judah because his words were not wanted (Amos 7:10-13). Amos gave a response that included the remarkable prophecy of Amos 7:17:- “Therefore thus saith Yahweh; Thy wife shall be an harlot in the city …”

After this prophecy came Hosea who sym­bolised those words in his life. One wonders if his life had any impact on those who heard the words of Amos 7:17 — words which could have been possibly the last uttered to an Israelite.

1:3–5 Jezreel

So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived and bare him a son — What we first notice is that Hosea selected his bride. He was not forced to take a wife selected by God. We could also assume with safety that Gomer was willing to enter into covenant relationship with Hosea. The parallel is clear. Yahweh was under no compulsion to establish His name within the people of Israel (Matt 3:9; Luke 3:8).

He selected them and they went with Him. The principle applies to us. We may be selected as prospective members of the Bride of Christ but it is up to us to accept that calling. Those that will be with the Lamb, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings are not the called and chosen. We have all been called. God has chosen us for great honour but those with Christ in the final day will be “called, chosen and faithful” (Rev 17:14).

Attempts have been made to place signifi­cance on the names of Gomer and Diblaim. Although the names may have been included purely as an historical statement, Gomer meaning “completion” (Stg) and Diblaim “two cakes” (Stg, Ges) could indicate that:

• Gomer was a symbol of the Kingdom of Israel at the end of or completion of its time of probation
• As a daughter of Diblaim or the daughter of two cakes of figs (as all parallel records indicate — 1 Sam 25:18; 30:12 etc.) she was linked to the flesh. According to the Com­panion Bible “a double cake of figs (is) symbolic of sensual pleasure”. However, none of the other references in scripture to the cakes or lumps of figs endorse the Companion Bible statement.

It is not of major significance if the children were of Hosea or another. There is no problem in understanding Jezreel to be begotten of Hosea. The children in keeping with the prophecy of verse 2 followed in their mother’s way. They were of her ilk and no contradiction should be considered to exist between verses two and three. It also seems to indicate that the marriage commenced on a loving, affectionate basis. It appears that the subsequent children were products of adultery and thus the relation­ship of Hosea and Comer had deteriorated dramatically.

Verse Four

Jezreel — The first of the three children in Hosea 1 is born. It is apparent from verse 3 that Jezreel was the progeny of Hosea. The naming of the child signifies a prophecy against the royal household. The name Jezreel presents a dual meaning. We see it is “May God Sow!” (Anchor) and we see it as the place where Jehu mercilessly wiped out the house of Ahab. We observe God’s beneficence and mercy in providing the fruits of the earth and we have recorded God’s severity in the destruction of a profligate dynasty (2 Kings 9-10). The Companion Bible sees the term as meaning “may God scatter and may God sow”. Both these terms can be applied to God’s dealings with Israel (Jeremiah 31:10; Zechariah 10:9).

For yet a little while and i will avenge the blood of jezreel upon the house of Jehu  — Indeed it was but a little while that the house or dynasty of Jehu was wiped out in an act of violence with the assassination of Zechariah (2 Kings 15:10). The house of Jehu was founded in blood and it ended in blood. Why did God end the dynasty of Jehu in this fashion? After all, Jehu’s violent acts in destroying the house of Ahab were praised by Yahweh in 2 Kings 10:30:-

“… because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in mine eyes, and hast done unto the houses of Ahab according to all that was in mine heart, they children of the fourth generation shall sit upon the throne of Israel.”

True, Jehu’s acts were quite monstrous but nevertheless divine approval is recorded. Why then the prophecy uttered with the birth of Jezreel? Amos 7:9 gives us a clue —

“And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste; and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.”

God’s punishment was not prophesied as a result of Jehu’s violence in destroying Ahab’s line. It was because the destruction of Ahab’s line was meaningless. It bore no positive fruit. The systems Ahab introduced were removed but they were replaced by another form of apostacy — the calf worship of Bethel and Dan (2 Kings 10:29). It is clearly stated that Jehu “took no heed to walk in the law of Yahweh” (2 Kings 10:31).

Corner was an epitome of this time in Israel’s history. It was obvious she initially sought to please her husband by producing his son but her adulterous thoughts later manifested themselves just as Jehu’s adultery with idolatry became obvious despite the blessings God granted him. It is all very well to purge out of ourselves that which God may dislike but we still need to place the positive aspects of service and dedication into the void that is left. The parable of the unclean spirit highlights this dilemma (Matt 12:43-45; Luke 11:24-26). The person who fails to replace evil with good exposes himself to a far worse state whereby other “spirits” take control “and the last state of the man is worse than the first”.

According to Bullinger the word “blood” is an example of synedoche, where blood is put for murder, cruelty or death generally (Deuter­onomy 19:12; Psalm 9:12). This is endorsed by a number of translations — “massacre” (NIV) “blood shed” (NEB, Anchor) “bloodshed” (JB).

Significantly, although Judah appears to be fairing well in Hosea 1:7, Jeremiah uses striking parallel terms in denouncing Judah at a later date (Jeremiah 23:2). One of the main reasons for Judah’s demise was the lack of sound lead­ership. Surely a warning for today. More impor­tantly it shows to us that while we may be progressing today it means little if in a future time we decline. The work of the truth is to be constant and consistent. We cannot simply notch up “Brownie-points” and hope they will tide us over to the Judgement Seat (see also Ezekiel 33:12-13).

Will cause to cease the kingdom of Israel  — Anchor believes this to mean the rule of the house of Jehu. This is not considered to be the case by other commentators and translations. It was not just the end of Jehu but the start of the end of Israel culminating in the invasion of Shalmaneser of Assyria.

Verse Five

I Will break the bow — The bow is used in scripture as a symbol of strength (Genesis 49:24; Jeremiah 49:35). In this context if refers to the strength of Israel. In verse seven it is listed first among the weapons of men. It was symbolic, in some contexts, of the very best of the soldiers (1 Sam 2:4).

As a weapon it was swift and powerful. Jehu used the bow with astonishing effect to slay Jehoram, King of Israel, in 2 Kings 9:24. The breaking of the bow is a term used in scripture to indicate the removal of strength (Psalm 37:15; 46:9; Jeremiah 51:56). In battle conditions a broken bow would expose the archer to the enemy. This was what happened to Israel as God withdrew His protection and allowed Assyria free entry into the land (Amos 2:9-16). True, the Kingdom of Israel continued some thirty years after Zechariah’s death but the strength of the Kingdom was broken. Despite all this, God eventually will comfort His people and break the bow of those that would venture to oppress them (2:18) so that they will lie down safely.

The valley of Jezreel— As we saw in the notes on verse 4, Jezreel has definite links with Jehu’s destruction of the House of Ahab. The problem is that although it is a simple process to ascertain the significance of Jezreel to the commencement of Jehu’s dynasty, how does it relate with the demise of the dynasty? In 2 Kings 15:10 we read of the last of Jehu’s dynasty, Zechariah, being assassinated by Shallum. The answer to our dilemma may lie in the term “before the people” in 2 Kings 15:10. This is considered to be a dubious phrase (IDB, Knox) and is rendered as “in Keblaam” in the LXX. The majority of modern translations adopt the Greek manuscript in preference to the Hebrew and render the phrase as “in Ibleam” (JB, RSV, NEB, Moff, GNB, MLB etc.). Anchor supports such an interpretation adding that Ibeam was but a few miles from Jezreel.

Although it may not seem a convincing case, such an interpretation fits with Hosea and is poetic justice that the dynasty of Jehu began and ended in the same district and in the same circumstances.

1:6-7 Lo-Ruhamah

This section marks a deterioration in the relationship of Hosea and his wife and thus God and His wife. The birth of Jezreel was a prophecy against the royal household — the leadership of the nation. The birth of Lo-Ruhamah extends the prophecy to include the whole nation and its condition when rejected by God: unpitied. It seems apparent that Lo-Ruhamah was a child of adultery. Hosea is not mentioned as father even though Hosea was delegated the task of naming the child. This principle applied to Israel as much as it does to us in this generation. Israel went lusting after other suitors just as we may crave the trimmings of this world. Despite our behaviour God is still in charge. Hosea named the child. God knows our history, outlook and motives. God condemned Israel. God monitored their activities just as he observes ours. We may leave God but God does not necessarily leave us.

There seems to be little significance, if any, in Gomer’s second child being a daughter.

Verse Six

Lo-Ruhamah — “the unpitied one” (Soncino) “Not having obtained mercy” (AV mg). Despite Israel’s abominable behaviour Yahweh had persisted in displaying compassion towards them (2 Kings 13:23). However, the long suffering of Yahweh had been stretched as far as He would permit it. Israel was to be removed from God’s sight (2 Kings 17:23) and forgiveness would not be forthcoming to this generation.

For I will have no more mercy on the house of Israel — A wordplay on Lo-Ruhamah is found in this phrase as Racham (or Ruhamah) is the word used for “mercy”. In Exodus 33:19 we read, “I … will show mercy (Racham) on whom I will show mercy (Racham)”. In other words mercy is not some all-pervasive characteristic that is never denied and given to all. God is selective. He grants mercy and He withdraws mercy. One of the ways to have it withdrawn was to break a covenant with God as Israel did in whoring after other gods (Exodus 34:15-16). This concept parallels easily with Hosea 1:2.

It may seem that God’s judgement here af­fects all future generations of Israel. Some trans­lations lean that way. Hosea 2:23 however, shows that God “will have mercy upon her which obtained not mercy” and the name of Lo­Ruhamah is changed to Ruhamah in 2:1 to indi­cate that God would not do away with His nation forever.

I will utterly take them away — “them” places the application of the prophecy to the nation of Israel at that time and not to the Jewish race forever.

This term is more commonly rendered in similar terms to the AV mg — “that I should altogether pardon them” (see also Roth, NW etc.). Admittedly, this does not change the overall meaning but it does disclose God’s feelings. Rather than say, “I will cut you off” the ap­proach is, “I cannot find any way to forgive you”. God would have been willing to forgive His wayward wife but this was not appropriate in the circumstances. The nation of Israel needed punishment and God is the best author­ity in determining when it should occur and at whose hands.

Verse Seven

But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by Yahweh their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen.

Why should Judah receive such mercy? Hosea 11:12 helps provide the answer in that “Judah yet ruleth with God and is faithful with the saints”. Remember that of the four kings during Hosea’s time, only one, Ahaz, was absolutely despicable. The other three were God-fearing individuals. Ahaz was possibly the cause of the more severe judgements against Judah as found in Hosea 5:10, 14.

The impact that 1:7 would have had on the Northern Kingdom was possibly stronger than may of the preceding verses. Any false trust in the mercy of God is now taken from the Israelites. The fact is that while deliverance is promised to Judah, Yahweh has dissolved His relationship with the idolatrous Israel. The expression “by Yahweh their God,” instead of “through me” or “by Yahweh your God” is introduced to show that Yahweh extends His help to those who worship Him as their God (Nahum 1:7: Psalm 2:12: 33:18).

The blessing that came upon Judah was spe­cifically evident in the resounding defeat of the Assyrians after a visitation from an angel of Yahweh (2 Kings 19:35). The people of Israel were removed by the Assyrian whereas Judah survived despite not being, in any human way, able to match the military might of Assyria.

Significantly, the latter part of verse 7 bears this out. Judah would not be saved by her own military prowess. Isaiah 31:8-9 clearly rein­forces this prophecy as it states prior to Sennacherib’s invasion :—

“Assyria will fall by a sword that is not man’s, will be devoured by a sword that is more than human, he will flee before the sword and his young warriors will be enslaved. In his terror he will abandon his rock, and his panic-stricken leaders desert their standard. It is Yahweh who speaks, whose fire is in Zion, and his furnace in Jerusalem.”

See also Psalm 33:16-19; 44:3-7 for additional cross references.

This punishment of Israel and blessing of Judah was not a permanent state of affairs. Ju­dah finally, after a number of invasions, was carried away by the Babylonians during the reign of Zedekiah.

The time will come when “Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely” (Jeremiah 23:5-8). God’s punishments on His people are acts of chastisement and although, at this time, Israel’s royalty was disgraced and the nation unpitied He will still elevate the nation to pre­eminence in the Kingdom of God.

1:8-9 Lo-Ammi

Verse Eight

It seems strange that the weaning of Lo­Ruhamah is mentioned when that of Jezreel is not. Most commentators gloss over verse eight as being of little, if any, significance. I believe that it indicates the degradation of Gomer. It demonstrates that one calamity follows another as Lo-Ammi is again a child of adultery. Gomer more than likely returned to her adulterous ways prior to weaning Lo-Ruhamah. It appears that she conceived very soon after weaning her daughter.

God was despondent over His people’s ac­tivities. He had ceased to be compassionate with them as can be seen in naming Lo-Ruha­mah. In naming the third child Lo-Ammi He shows that He had rejected Israel as His people. Hosea’s affection for his wife was obviously jolted by the birth of one child out of adultery. With the birth of the second he would have been cast into a state of increased estrangement from his wife.

Verse Nine

Yahweh had rejected the royalty of Israel, withdrawn His compassion from the nation and now in the final step of isolation from Israel he rejects the people. The child is named Lo­Ammi — “Not my people” Soncino — “You are not my people, and I am not Ehyeh to you” Anchor. See also Companion Bible.

“My People” was possibly the most beloved title conferred on Israel by Yahweh. It is an intimate and honourable title. In Lev 26:12 we read — “And I will walk among you, and will be your God and ye shall be my people.”

This beautiful relationship is reversed. No more would God consider this generation to be His people. No more would His Holy Name reside with them. The relationship established some hundreds of years ago is undone — dissolved. In Deuteronomy 32:21 unidentified foreigners are labelled as LO-AM — “a non-people”. Israel, in the eyes of God, is no better than the heathen.

This declaration is entirely to be expected. This stern judgement eventuated from the illegitimate offspring of their activities idolatry, immorality, greed, injustice. Everything seemed so pleasant. The illicit affair seemed right. In God’s eyes it was wrong and Amos and Hosea publicly decried what the Israelites had by now taken for granted. To make announcements which basically said, “You are not God’s people. God is no longer manifested in you. God withdraws His Name from you”, would have required immense courage in the heady days of Jeroboam II.

Why use the name “Ehyeh” (1st person) in­stead of “Yahweh” (3rd person)? We cannot be sure, but perhaps it is significant for “Ehyeh” is rarely used as a title.

What a pathetic state Israel was in. As each child was named the oracles against Israel be­came more comprehensive, more direct and more severe. It took time, perhaps six years or more, before the strongest prophecy was uttered with the naming of Lo-Ammi. Even though Judah was commended in Verse Seven she too would become a “Lo-Ammi” as Jeremiah 15:1 records:-

“Though Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this people: cast them out of my sight, and let them go forth.”

Even from this degraded nation’s condition, however, there would still be hope for the individuals who were motivated by true repentance.

1:10-2:1 Predicted reversal of names and meanings

Hosea 1:10 actually marks the commencement of Chapter 2 in the Hebrew Bible. It is also the first of a number of shafts of light that appear in a message heavily laden with gloom and despair. Hosea’s record is full of dark prophecies of judgement but it also reveals sudden prophetic outbursts which are focused on a time beyond the immediate situation and subsequent punishment — a time of reunion and joy when Israel and Judah will be united in safety. This presents a problem to some. They have difficulty coping with fierce denunciations followed by a message of hope and good cheer.

The Jerusalem Bible has taken it upon itself to shift 1:10-2:1 to the end of Chapter 3. This is unfortunate because convincing arguments for this relocation are not to be found and the vast majority of commentaries and Bible versions retain the traditional order. In fact we observe that Hosea often sets the most opposite ideas side-by-side in striking contrast. Yahweh’s power includes the ability to completely reverse anything. He can change “My People” into “Not-My-People”.

There had been a number of occasions when God’s impending judgements were not implemented, sometimes as a result of intervention by a prophet or a man of God (e.g. Genesis 18:32 — Sodom “I will not destroy it for ten’s sake” — see also Exodus 32:7­14; Amos 7:1-3). On this occasion Hosea offers no intercession on behalf of the people. The prophecy of 1:6 would surely come to pass. The people produced no change of heart. Therefore Yahweh’s hand will fall and Israel will be discarded. Hosea 1:10-2:1 follows, describing the steps God will take only after He has completed His judgements. As Hosea 3:4-5 indicates, the “latter days” of restoration will occur after “many days”.

The particulars of Hosea’s vision are seen in the verbal links between 1:10-2:1 and Chapter 1. “Jezreel” takes on its positive meaning. “Lo­-Ruhamah” and “Lo-Ammi” are negated to become “Ammi” and “Ruhamah”.

The actual pattern is as follows :

 

Verse Ten

Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea  — Despite God’s wrath, mercy can still be manifested (Habakkuk 3:2). The reason for God not being willing to put away Israel for ever can be found in the phrase, “as the sand of the sea”. Although this was a common Hebrew expression even to the point of being a cliche, it directs us back to the promise God made to the Hebrew Fathers (Genesis 13:16; 22:17; 32:12 see also Isaiah 48:19). Despite His rejection of Israel, God’s word remains sure (Isaiah 55:11). His promises will surely be accomplished.

In the place where it was said unto them—There are a couple of ways this phrase is rendered. The Soncino Bible renders it as “instead of that which was said unto them”. This is supported by the AV margin. However, most translations and commentaries support the AV. In doing so it adds particular significance to the verse. The place of renunciation may be the place of reinstatement. In 1:2 we have “the land” (ERETZ) condemned yet great blessings will fall on that same “earth” (ERETZ) in 2:23. The land of Israel will be the place of their restoration in the eyes of God.

Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, ye are the sons of the Living God — Israel’s restoration is not merely something God will do regardless of how they react. As Bro. Thomas writes in Eureka:-

“Therefore it is that, because ‘the flesh profits nothing’, Israel after the flesh are not now the people and sons of Deity. They are broken off because of unbelief in the Gospel Paul preached. But, they will not always continue a faithless and stiff necked generation; for ‘they shall be willing in the day of the power of David’s son and Lord’ (Psalm 110): and then, ‘in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there shall it be said unto them, Ye are the sons of AIL the living one’ (Hosea 1:10)” Eureka Volume 2 page 313 (Logos Edition); Eureka Volume 2  page 252 (1972 Edition); Eureka Volume 2 page 298 (Black Edition).

Indeed, in the times of Hosea, Israel could not be classified as the sons and daughters of the living God. Their allegiances were divided between various gods of wood and stone and the calves of Samaria (Hosea 8:4-6; 11:1-2; Malachi] 2:11). The term “living God” is used in the vast majority of cases in the Old Testament in contrast to false gods, which have no life (Jeremiah 10:10-11), or nations and systems which attempt to deny the existence of Yahweh (2 Kings 19 : 4­-16). In Hosea 1:10 the singular “El” is used. There can be no mistaking the message. Firstly, God will act to fulfil His promises made to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Secondly, this would necessitate the restoration of the stock of Abraham. Thirdly, God will personally be responsible for this act. He declares the singleness of His purpose. The plural “Elohim” could have been used except God wishes to emphasise His involvement. It will be the work of the elohim to perform (Isaiah 43:3-6) but it is His power, His covenant, His land, His people and His glory that will be evidenced when the great day of Hosea 1:10 occurs (Isaiah 43:12).

Verse Eleven

This verse refers to the future conversion and restoration of the Jews and Israelites under one head; Jesus Christ. There will be one flock and one shepherd. What is also interesting is that some of the terms of verse 11 can be found in the Pentateuch. The term “come up out of the land” was used in reference to the exodus from Egypt (Exodus 1:10; 12:38; Numbers 32:11) and this is not surprising when one considers the direct allusion to the exodus in Hosea 2:14-15. A new leader would arise that will take them from the wilderness and unite the nation under his rule. This is in direct contrast to the incident in the times of Moses when they attempted to appoint a head (same Hebrew structure is used) in Numbers 14:4. On that occasion they were dissatisfied with Moses. In the time of restoration they will eagerly and willingly submit to their King (Jeremiah 3:18-19; 31:7-9; Ezekiel 16:60-­63). Their conversion will be genuine and not the sham Judah was guilty of during the reign of Josiah. As Hosea 3:5 records:-

“Afterwards the children of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God, and David” (i.e. the beloved) “their King; and they shall come in fear to the Lord and to his goodness in the latter days” (RSV).

The future is nostalgic in its link back to the days of Moses but its glory is in the fact they will leave Egypt again — this time forever. No longer will they be slaves in the wilderness of the Gentiles. The future, although grim in the short-term, holds great lofty visions unprecedented in the history of the nation.

For great shall be the day of Jezreel  — As we noted in 1:4 Jezreel means both “May God Scatter” and “May God Sow”. In 1:4 we have the prophecy of the scattering of Israel. In 1:11 we have the first of the reversal of the names of Gomer’s children. Jezreel was first used as a symbol of scattering in destruction. Now Jezreel is used for productiveness and growth.

Chapter two

Verse One

Chapter 2:1 provides a fitting climax to the dramatic transformation from the judgement and destruction proclaimed in Chapter 1 to the restoration and renewal promised from 1:10 onwards. The reversal of the names of the two younger children brings the whole process to a conclusion.

Say ye unto your brethren, Ammi — The singular is used (“Say ye to your brother, My People”) by some modern translations (e.g RSV, JB, MLB) but the plural is more accurate. Despite the incongruity it is rendered in the plural by a large proportion of translators including all literal versions consulted (Roth, Y. Lit, Green, Soncino, Keil, Anchor). The incongruity lies in the fact God is not addressing the types in this verse. The terms are being applied directly to His people.

God will say to Israel, “You are my people”. In doing this He will establish a new covenant with them (Jeremiah 31:31-33; 32:38-40) – a covenant of peace (Ezekiel 37:26-27) that will see the hearts of the people turned to God. They will walk in God’s statutes (Ezekiel 11:20; 36:26-28) as they will have realised how great God is. God could have easily cast them off as they had broken the covenant He established with them and disobeyed His voice (Exodus 19:5-6).

This does not mean that the transformation will be without pain. The Lord Jesus Christ declared that Israel will not see him until the people say, “Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord” (Matt 23:39). The great tribulation that shall overtake the nation in the latter. days will accomplish this. It will humble Israel, and cause the nation to seek the interven­tion and help of God. Then they will be pre­pared to acceptably receive the Lord. Their God will establish His new covenant with His people (Zechariah 13:8-9).

And to your sisters, Ruhamah – “and of your sisters, My Loved One” (NIV) “…She has obtained pity” (RSV). The love and pity she will receive is from God (Hosea 2:23). The nations will look upon her in awe. They have little pity or love for Israel but when God moves to restore His people the nations will be compelled to acknowledge the elevation of the Jewish nation (Zechariah 10:5-12).

The themes in 1:10 – 2:1 may be summarised:

• 1:10 a The Israelites will be numerous
• 1:10 b The designation or description will be changed
• 1:11 a The Israelites will be united
• 1:11 b The day is great
• 2:1   The names will be changed.

The order of events is reversed chronologi­cally: it is only when the favour of Yahweh is restored (the names are changed) (2:1) that all Israel can be united (1:11). It is only when all come up from the land under one head (1:11) that the Israelites will be like the sands of the seashore (1:10). It is only at the end of the proc­ess that the children of Israel will become the children of the Living God.