Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: Minor Prophets

By Daniel J. Simundson

The Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries provide compact, critical commentaries on the books of the Old Testament for the use of theological students and pastors. The commentaries are also useful for upper-level college or university students and for those responsible for teaching in congregational settings. In addition to providing basic information and insights into the Old Testament writings, these commentaries exemplify the tasks and procedures of careful interpretation to assist students of the Old Testament in coming to an informed and critical engagement with the biblical texts themselves.

The prophetic books gathered together in the book of the Twelve are sometimes called the "minor" prophets because of their relatively small size when compared with Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. They are often neglected, at least partly because their words of judgment make the reader uncomfortable. Yet they have considerable theological and ethical value--for their call for social justice (especially Amos and Micah), their insights about the passionate love of God (in Hosea), God's grace and forgiveness (Jonah, Hosea, and elsewhere), and the finality of hope, even in the face of terrible catastrophes.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Abingdon Press
• Release date: Sep 1, 2011
• ISBN: 9781426750564

Daniel J. Simundson

Recently retired from Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Mn after thirty-one years as a professor of Old Testament. He also served as the academic dean at Luther. His publications include, Faith under Fire, The Message of Job, and the commentary on Micah in the New Interpreters' Bible.

Book preview

INTRODUCTION: HOSEA

Hosea stands first among the prophets that are grouped together in the Book of the Twelve. This collection of twelve prophetic books was already recognized as a unit by Sirach in the second century B.C.E. (Sir 49:10). They are often called the Minor Prophets because of their brevity compared to the large books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. Unfortunately, some have taken this designation to mean unimportant, of little consequence. Such a perspective is certainly unworthy of Hosea and others of the twelve.

Hosea is placed first, though it is not clear why the books are in their present order. If they were put in chronological order, Amos would be first, with Hosea second. Hosea has some prominence because it is the longest of the twelve prophetic books, though the rest of the books are not ordered according to size. Its theme of God’s relentless, redeeming love make it a favorite prophetic book for many and, perhaps, sets an underlying tone for all the prophetic words that follow, a backdrop against which to read all the harsh words of judgment that permeate most prophetic books.

KEY ISSUES

1. The Hebrew text of Hosea is very difficult to translate. There was probably some corruption of the text as it was carried to Judah from the Northern Kingdom of Israel when that nation was destroyed by Assyria in 722 B.C.E. Some of the difficulties of language may also be due to differences between the Hebrew spoken in Israel in the north and that common to Judah in the south. Hosea was the only writing prophet native to the north and may have spoken a Hebrew dialect that is less familiar and, therefore, harder to translate.

This means that when one attempts to do a careful reading of Hosea, there will be numerous times when the translator or commentator must admit to a lack of certainty about what the text actually says. This happens more often with Hosea than almost any other biblical book.

2. Hosea easily divides into two parts: chapters 1–3 about his life and wife and children, and chapters 4–14 containing a rich mixture of prophetic sayings. It is very difficult to find order, structure, or an organizing principle for chapters 4–14. Further discussion of some possibilities will follow.

3. The story of Hosea’s personal life is very intriguing, though elusive. Surely his own experiences informed his understanding of God’s relationship to Israel and gave him language and metaphor to convey his message to his people. The reader would like to know more about what really happened between Hosea and Gomer and what was the sequence of events described in chapters 1–3. One cannot talk in depth about Hosea’s theology without trying to understand Hosea’s personal life. They were intricately intertwined. As was true of other prophets (most notably Jeremiah), Hosea really lived his message.

4. Hosea makes many references to the history of Israel. Key names and places are mentioned to remind his listeners of their relationship with God in the past, to point out what has gone wrong, and to explain what plans God has for their future. Those who are not familiar with details of Old Testament history will need to be reminded of the events to which Hosea frequently alludes. The commentary section will try to give enough detail about these allusions to make fuller sense of the pronouncements from Hosea.

5. Hosea’s message is a mix of doom and hope, punishment and forgiveness, discipline and love. As in other preexilic prophets (Amos, Isaiah, Micah), there are many harsh words, warnings, frightening pictures of a God who will punish and destroy. How does one sort out the good news from the bad news? What is the final word from God? Is there always another chance so that punishment is never the last word? Hosea seems to say yes to this last question, but there are many hard words along the way before the reader can rest easy with that conclusion.

6. Hosea emphasizes faithfulness toward God as the proper response for all that God has done for Israel. The sin of idolatry, therefore, is the great offense against which he prophesies. Unlike some other prophets (Amos is the classic case), he does not talk much about injustice and other evils within society. Rather he rails against the root of all sin—turning away from God toward other gods. This emphasis does not indicate that Hosea is indifferent to matters of social justice.

7. Hosea’s persistent use of the metaphor of the faithful husband and the adulterous wife causes much difficulty for many readers of the book, particularly women. Is it still a helpful description of God and a rebellious people, or does it carry too many negative possibilities to be of positive value? In the commentary and in sections on theological and ethical issues, this matter will be discussed in more detail.

LITERARY GENRE, STRUCTURE,

AND CHARACTER OF THE WRITING

As stated above, the book of Hosea easily falls into two main parts. Chapters 1–3 gather material about his personal life, his marriage, and his children. The first two chapters alternate between words of punishment and hope for reconciliation. The section concludes in chapter 3 with an autobiographical account of Hosea’s love for an adulterous woman and the promise of a similar salvation for Israel.

Chapters 4–14 is a collection of prophetic sayings probably addressed orally to an audience. This section can be subdivided into two parts: chapters 4–11 and 12–14. Chapter 4 begins with the imperative Hear the word of the LORD and the section ends with says the LORD (11:11). Prophetic messenger formulas common in other prophets are rare in the book of Hosea (says the LORD occurs only in 2:13, 16, 21, and 11:11). Further, 4:1 states that the LORD has an indictment against the inhabitants of the land, language borrowed from the legal proceedings in the city gate where one party raises a legal claim against another. The only other place where this disputation style occurs is in 12:2 (the LORD has an indictment against Judah), perhaps another indication that chapter 12 begins a new subsection.

Each of the three sections—chapters 1–3, 4–11, and 12–14—ends with a word of hope. After chapter 3, the only strong words of hope are in chapters 11 and 14, again indicating the conclusion to a collection of prophetic sayings. For these reasons, this commentary will divide the book into three parts: chapters 1–3, 4–11, and 12–14.

Several commentaries believe that there is a loose chronological order in chapters 4–14 (e.g., Birch, Mays, Limburg). With some variation, 4:1–5:7 is assigned to the stability of Jeroboam’s reign at the beginning of Hosea’s ministry, parts of chapters 5 and 6 to the time of the Syro-Ephraimite War, and chapters 12–14 to the last days of Israel before its total destruction at the hand of the Assyrians. (More detail about this historical context will follow.) There is much less certainty about dating specific prophetic sayings in the rest of the book. Since there is no narrative to substantiate any of these dates, there is a certain degree of guesswork at reading between the lines and hypothesizing the historical context of a particular saying. Nevertheless, a plausible case can be made for the historical setting of some specific texts.

The prophetic sayings in Hosea are hard to analyze because they do not fit the typical forms of prophetic speech that are seen in other prophets. The lines are often blurred so that the reader does not know where one oracle ends and another begins. The difficulty with translating the Hebrew text (mentioned above) also adds to the problem. Also, as already stated, typical messenger formulas are seldom used.

The most frequent form is the first person of divine speech where God speaks directly to the people. In some passages, however, there is a sudden shift and God’s words and actions are described in the third person (e.g., 4:1-3; 5:4-7; 9:1-9; 10:1-8). Most of the sayings are messages of judgment that combine reproach (the indictment—reasons why punishment is coming) and the announcement of what form the actual punishment will take. There are only two narratives in the book, both in the section about Hosea’s marriage and children (1:2-9 and 3:1-5). Poetry is the vehicle of prophetic speeches for Hosea and other biblical prophets. No oracles against other nations are contained in the book (in contrast to Amos, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel). Hosea’s primary concern is God’s relation to Israel and vice versa.

Hosea was a creative thinker. He borrowed forms from legal traditions (as in 4:1 and 12:2) and wisdom traditions and gave them distinctive and memorable shape. He was familiar with the history and traditions of Israel and grounded his message in that history, especially the formative times of exodus, wilderness, and conquest. He used folk sayings, comparisons, wordplays (usually lost in translation), and a rich variety of metaphors for God, the people, and the judgment that was coming. God was like a husband (2:7, 16-20), maggots and rottenness (5:12), a lion (5:14 and 11:10), a parent (11:1-4, 8-9), a leopard, bear, or other wild animal (13:7-8), a farmer (10:11), a bird catcher (7:11-12), and a physician (14:4). The people were pictured as a harlot put to shame (2:3, 10), as faithful as a morning cloud or dew that goes away early (6:4), a heated oven (7:4-7), a silly dove about to be caught in a net (7:11-12), a defective bow (7:16), and chaff or smoke that will quickly blow away (13:3).

OCCASION AND SITUATIONAL CONTEXT

Hosea lived in the Northern Kingdom of Israel during a time of rapid decline and political unrest. He began his ministry in the last days of Jeroboam II (786–746 B.C.E.) and his final prophecy (13:16) anticipates the fall of Samaria that occurred in 722. His ministry began in a time of stability and prosperity and ended in a time of chaos and impending doom. He came on the scene a little later than Amos, who also prophesied during the reign of Jeroboam. Amos had also spoken about coming disaster even as prosperity continued. The calamities that Amos anticipated were already happening in Hosea’s time.

The first verse in Hosea locates him during the reigns of five kings, four from Judah and one from Israel, a range of almost 100 years from the beginning of the reign of Uzziah (783–742) to the reign of Hezekiah (715–687). Almost certainly Hosea was active before the death of Jeroboam because his prophecy about Jezreel was directed to Jeroboam, the last of the Jehu dynasty (1:4-5). If he was still alive at the final destruction of Samaria in 722, there is no record of any statement by him that reflects that event. So his active ministry is sometime between 750 and 722.

It is interesting to note that, though he was from Israel and prophesied there, none of the kings who followed Jeroboam are mentioned, only those from Judah. This may be a result of the final editing of the book in Judah after the fall of Samaria. It may also indicate complete disdain for all the kings that came after Jeroboam till the end of the nation.

Political chaos, assassinations, and ineffectual leadership in Israel coincided with the revival of Assyria’s interest in the lands to the west after the ascension to the throne of Tiglath-pileser III. After Jeroboam died, his son Zechariah ruled for a short time until he was murdered by Shallum, who was then killed by Menahem (745–738). Menahem tried to appease Assyria by paying tribute (2 Kgs 15:19). His son, Pekahiah (738–737) succeeded him and then was murdered by Pekah (737–732). Pekah and the king of Syria, formed an alliance to rebel against subservience to Assyria. They tried to persuade King Ahaz of Judah to join their alliance and when he refused they threatened war against Judah but were unsuccessful (the so-called Syro-Ephraimite War; see 2 Kgs 15:37; 16:5; Isa 7:1-17; 8:1-8a). In 733, Assyria retaliated against this act of rebellion by invading Syria and Israel. Syria became a vassal of Assyria, much of Israel’s land was occupied, and many were deported. Pekah was then murdered (another assassination) by Hoshea ben Elah. He promptly paid tribute and Israel was allowed to exist, though in diminished form and subject to Assyrian dominance. During Hoshea’s reign (732–724) a time of relative quiet prevailed. Then Hoshea decided to withhold tribute and sought help from Egypt (possible references to this in Hos 9:3; 11:5; and 12:1). Assyria would not tolerate this and within two years, the Northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed forever as a nation.

It was during this turbulent time that Hosea carried on his ministry, warning of the destruction that seemed ever more certain, and still finding some words of hope for the nation in its last days.

THEOLOGICAL AND ETHICAL SIGNIFICANCE

1. Hosea provides the reader with many metaphors for understanding and reflecting on the divine/human relationship. Of particular note are the relationships between husband and wife and between parent and child, but there are also many other images that provide resources for those who are looking for appropriate and useful language to talk about God. Some biblical images seem to survive well from culture to culture and over long periods of time. Others may seem outdated, strange, incomprehensible, or even offensive to the modern reader. The description of God as a parent who refuses to disown a beloved son (ch. 11) wears well over the ages and is arguably the most loved passage from Hosea. The way the prophet (and God) relates to the adulterous woman is a much more problematic issue in the minds of many contemporary readers. They do not like the picture of women who are completely subject to the will of males, who can be bought and sold, who are always in the role of the offending partner in a relationship that has gone bad. Some would prefer to discard this metaphor altogether. Even those who would like to redeem and continue to use marriage language to describe God’s relationship with people are not sure that it is possible in these days of sexual abuse and feminist concerns. More will be said on this subject in the discussion of chapters 1–3.

2. Hosea reveals not only the actions of God but also the feelings of God in a powerful way. God is capable of emotional responses to the behavior of human beings. Just as Hosea felt rejection, betrayal, hurt, and anger at the unfaithfulness of his spouse, so God reacts in similar ways to Israel’s breaking of the covenant. As Hosea was able to reconcile with his faithless wife, so was God. Hosea could empathize with God because of his own experience. He could understand God in relational terms that were quite personal, more so than any other prophet, with the possible exception of Jeremiah. (Most scholars think that Hosea influenced Jeremiah in his use of marriage imagery, his identification of his own life with God’s message, and his willingness to speak about God’s emotional side.)

It is certainly presumptuous for human beings (even inspired biblical writers) to look inside God’s head and heart and to assume they know what God thinks and feels. It seems to give too much power to mere mortals if their attitudes and activities can have an effect on how God thinks and feels. Yet, God’s response to what humans do is central to the biblical story. Those who believe in a relational God quite regularly use words like loving, caring, angry, compassionate, forgiving to describe what God is like.

3. Hosea vividly presents the picture of a loving God who can never let Israel go. Hosea raises the question of how far God will go to forgive. Is there such a thing as an unforgivable sin? Will God ever decide that enough is enough and slam the door in the face of the unrepentant sinner? Will there always be another chance to repent? For Hosea, the end of the kingdom is not the end of hope, the final abandonment by God. There is more to come. The relationship still exists. Hosea is a powerful biblical resource for those who want to speak that word of hope in times as desperate as Hosea’s.

4. Hosea, like other prophets, is totally immersed in his message. His own life gives content to the message he speaks. His own experience teaches him what God is like in relationship with human beings. And then his life becomes a living symbol, an acted-out parable. Those who know Hosea and his marriage difficulties observe how he deals with his wife and that becomes a visual representation of the verbal message that he proclaims. Biblical prophets could not be impartial observers of society and objective reporters of God’s criticism and promise. They were deeply involved in the message themselves, sometimes so much so that it is hard to discern who is speaking, God or the prophet. The true prophet is the one who supposedly speaks for God. The false prophet utters only his own opinion. But when the two (God and the prophet) are so closely connected in thought and feeling, it is hard for the listener (or reader) to know for sure what is an authentic word from God and what is merely the personal view of the prophet.

5. Hosea criticizes his culture by using language and metaphors common to his culture. In order to speak about God’s covenant with Israel and Israel’s faithlessness, he dares to talk about God as husband and Israel as wife. The idolatry against which he contends is the fertility religion of Canaan where the god Baal is the source of all fertility, and sexual symbols and activities abound. It is dangerous to put the God of Israel into the same role occupied by the fertility god. One runs the risk of assimilating the alien religion with Israelite traditions, merely substituting the name of one god for another and carrying along all the baggage that goes with the worship of Baal. The possibility of being misunderstood is great. But this is the way Hosea chose to enter into the culture and critique it from the inside, to communicate in language that people understood.

This issue is ever present whenever the preacher or teacher desires to speak the ancient word to a strange culture, whether it be on a foreign mission field or in the diverse cultures of twenty-first century America. How does one speak to the culture in language that will be understood, being true to the historical tradition, without becoming one with the current culture? Hosea is an example, ancient as it is, of a messenger of God attempting to do just that.

6. Related to what has just been said, the great sin of Israel, according to Hosea, is idolatry. There is only one God who should command the loyalty of the people. Whenever some other person, ideal, activity, material object, or divine symbol becomes the center of one’s life, that is idolatry and it will lead to terrible consequences. Only the Lord God of Israel is worthy of the supreme place in Israel’s life. The Lord is the only one whose opinion matters, the only one with the power to help, the only one who has created and sustained the covenant people, the only one who can promise a future with hope. To turn anywhere else for what only God can give is utter folly and very dangerous.

Each generation of believers will ask what is idolatry in its own day. How does Hosea’s attack on idolatry relate to their time and place? It may be much more subtle than outward religious practices, though, in some forms, the ancient fertility religion of Canaan has not disappeared from the scene. In a list of idolatries for the twenty-first century, accommodations to the culture, materialism, and nationalism could be included, along with many other things.

COMMENTARY: HOSEA

MARRIAGE, REJECTION, AND RECONCILIATION (CHS. 1–3)

The first three chapters of Hosea gather material about Hosea’s marriage and children, following the editorial heading in 1:1. This section provides the only information available about who Hosea was, when he lived, and a few details about his marriage and children. Any other understanding of Hosea must be inferred from the message that he proclaims. Hosea’s own relationship with his wife becomes a metaphor for God’s relationship with God’s covenant people.

Literary Analysis

The only narrative passages in the book are in 1:2-9 and 3:1-5. The latter is the only autobiographical statement. Chapter 2 is a long poetic section. Poetry is the usual vehicle for prophetic speech. It comes between the narrative passages and draws a parallel between Hosea’s marital difficulties and the relationship between God and Israel.

The verse numbering in English Bibles is different from the numbering in the Hebrew Bible. In Hebrew, chapter 1 ends with verse 9 and chapter 2 begins with verse 10. Chapter 2, verse 1 in English is actually 2:3 in Hebrew. As a result, chapter 2 in Hebrew has twenty-five verses rather than twenty-three. This commentary will use the verse numbers of the English Bible, but if one wishes to refer to the Hebrew Bible, this differential needs to be noted.

At the beginning of chapter 2, the reader may be uncertain who is speaking. Since chapter 1 tells about Hosea’s marriage to Gomer, one might assume that Hosea is the speaker who will reject and shame his wife. At least by 2:8, it is clear that the speaker is actually God. What began as an account of Hosea and his wife has now become a statement about the Lord and his adulterous wife, Israel. The feelings and thoughts of God and the prophet are parallel. What Hosea has experienced, God has also endured. The prophets of the Bible were so deeply involved with God and their message that sometimes it is hard to know if the prophet or God is speaking. In some cases there is a gradual, even subtle, transition from the prophet’s words to God’s. A good example of this is in Jer 8:18–9:3 and possibly in Amos 5:1-3.

A swing back and forth from doom to hope, rejection to redemption, occurs in both chapters 1 and 2. Words of doom in 1:2-9 are followed by promises of restoration in 1:10–2:1. Proclamation of rejection and shaming in 2:2-13 is quickly alleviated by assurance that God has not given up and will renew the relationship in 2:14-23. Chapter 3 ends with the promise of a good future, but not before a time of punishment has run its course (vv. 3-4).

This movement back and forth is a little confusing. Though Hosea is unrelenting in his condemnation of Israel’s idolatry, he never wants to say that the relationship is over, that all is hopeless between God and the people. The rest of the book, after chapters 1–3, is mostly accusations (indictments) and proclamations of doom. Only two times, in chapters 11 and 14, does Hosea speak hopefully. The last word of each section of the book (chs. 1–3, 4–11, 12–14) is to reassure that God will again restore Israel. Perhaps some words of promise and hope are the addition of editors from Judah, updating Hosea’s words to their own time. The words of Hosea were preserved by persons in Judah after the Northern Kingdom of Israel was destroyed by Assyria. In the process, they probably added promises to make the book more relevant to Judah’s situation, especially in Judah’s own time of exile. Nevertheless, the overall structure of Hosea is consistent with the inclusion of hope even in the midst of terrible calamity.

God sometimes gave commands to prophets, telling them to perform certain symbolic acts. The demand may be for a very significant life-altering action (like being told to marry a wife of whoredom, 1:2) or it could be a one-time act to dramatize a preaching point (like the breaking of a jug in Jer 19:10-13). Along with the directive, God would provide an interpretation. The prophet’s life became a living parable, a visual symbol of the message that he was called to proclaim. Such was the case of the marriage of Hosea to Gomer and the names God gave to their children. Other examples of this kind of prophetic symbolic action commanded by God are: Isaiah walked naked for three years in Isa 20:1-6; Jeremiah was told not to marry or have children in Jer 16:1-4; Ezekiel was told to lie on his left side for 390 days and then on his right side for forty days in Ezek 4:4-8.

Exegetical Analysis

The Lord Tells Hosea to Take a Wife and Have Children (1:1-9)

The book opens with an editorial heading that places Hosea in a certain period of history by locating him within the reign of several kings. Such notations are common at the beginning of prophetic books. His father’s name is given, but no mention of his hometown or occupation (cf. Amos 1:1). Most assume that Hosea was from the Northern Kingdom of Israel because he speaks primarily of place-names in Israel and most of his message is directed to that nation. The name Hosea means salvation or deliverance. The name appears only in 1:1-2.

At the very beginning, the reader is told that the word of the LORD came to Hosea. Several other prophetic books begin this way (e.g., Joel, Micah, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Zechariah). From the outset, it is clear that Hosea is recognized as a legitimate prophet, one who speaks for God and does not simply express his own observations and opinions. As seen by what immediately follows, the word of the Lord is not only an oral presentation but was also conveyed by Hosea’s life and symbolic actions.

Hosea likely began his ministry before the death of Jeroboam since he prophesied against the house of Jehu (1:4), a dynasty that ended within months after Jeroboam’s death (in 746). It is not certain when to date his latest prophecies, though there seem to be none after the fall of Samaria in 722. (See the discussion of Hosea’s historical context in the introduction.) Since Hosea was from the north and prophesied there, it is curious that four kings of Judah are listed, only one from Israel, and the ones from Judah are listed first. This could show the bias of the final editing in Judah. Possibly the confusion at the end of the northern kingdom, with several bloody insurrections and rapid turnover of kings, made it difficult to get an accurate historical accounting of this tumultuous time. Or maybe the kings following Jeroboam were not mentioned because they were held in contempt by the editors, who considered them unworthy of recognition.

The first thing the Lord tells Hosea to do is to marry a woman of whoredom and have children of whoredom (v. 2). Immediately following this strange assignment, God gives an interpretation of what this symbolic act means. For the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the LORD (v. 2). As mentioned above, prophets were often commanded by God to do strange and unpleasant things to dramatize their message. This directive by God has been particularly troubling because God asks Hosea to do an immoral thing. Further, Hosea then actually does it. In the past many interpreters tried to get around their feeling of discomfort about all this by understanding the marriage of Hosea as allegorical, a device used to illustrate the message of God’s dealing with an unfaithful covenant partner, but not something that Hosea actually did. So chapters 1–3 would not describe real events but only symbols for what God was doing. Almost all modern studies would reject that view. As described above, prophets often acted out their message at God’s instruction. Such accounts would lose their significance for the prophet and his audience if they were not actions seen and interpreted.

Gomer is identified as a wife of whoredom (1:2-3). There have been many efforts to further identify what this designation means. Was she only a symbolic representation of a faithless people and not a real person, as discussed above? Perhaps she was not yet a person of ill repute but would become so later after Hosea married her. Was she a professional prostitute, either a woman of the streets who sells her body for money or a temple prostitute who is engaged in Canaanite fertility rituals? Maybe she was just an adulterous, promiscuous wife seeking sexual pleasure with someone besides her husband. (See listing of these possibilities in Mays 1969b, 23, and Birch 1997, 20.) One could even hypothesize that Hosea’s understanding of God’s command to marry a wife of whoredom came to him after the fact. If he already had a bad marriage, coupled with a strong belief that God was directing his life, maybe he struggled to make sense out of his marital mess and wondered if God intended for him to find some greater meaning in his personal suffering.

Speculation becomes even more fanciful if one tries to get inside of Gomer’s mind to imagine what Hosea’s behavior meant to her. What would it be like to be taken as a wife only because God demanded it? How would she react to the weird, negative sounding names Hosea insisted on giving to their children? How would it feel to be set up by God and Hosea in order to illustrate a point in Hosea’s preaching, her whole life now a kind of object lesson open to the scrutiny of even those with prurient interests? Such speculation might be interesting and intriguing, but it will not lead to any definitive conclusions about Hosea and Gomer.

Because of the limited available data about Gomer, uncertainties of interpretation will remain. A few things can be said with some confidence. The text likely relates actual experiences in Hosea’s life. This is not a symbolic, allegorical story, created out of the mind of Hosea or a disciple as a rhetorical gimmick. Further, there is a high probability that Gomer was actually a cult prostitute, one who was publicly known for her activity and whose profession embodied exactly the idolatrous (read also: adulterous) practices condemned by God in Hosea’s prophecies. Hosea’s own marriage became a metaphor for God’s relationship to an unfaithful people. God is the husband; Israel is the wife. What God thinks and feels about being betrayed by those he had loved is like that experienced by Hosea.

The language of sexual promiscuity that is dominant in Hosea was particularly appropriate for the religious situation in Israel. Reality and metaphor almost merged into one. Israel’s sin was to turn away from the Lord to the fertility cult of Canaanite religion. At various shrines, sexual practices were enacted, by both men and women, in which the god Baal supposedly gave fertility to the land. Very little is known about what actually took place at these shrines. Israel was guilty of sexual promiscuity in two ways—by their actual participation in fertility rituals and as a metaphor for giving oneself to gods other than the Lord God of Israel.

God directed Hosea to have children of whoredom (v. 2). Apparently, they would be given that designation because of the status and reputation of their mother since it is assumed that Hosea and Gomer were married and Hosea was indeed the father (v. 3 says "she conceived and bore him a son, emphasis added). Three children, two boys and a girl, were born to them (unless there were more who are not listed). It was God who provided the names for them because each child was to symbolize, through his or her name, a message about the consequences of Israel’s sins. Hosea is not unique in giving symbolic names to his children. Isaiah is the best example of this practice (Isa 7:3; 8:3-4; note also the name Immanuel in Isa 7:14). It is not only the prophet whose life becomes an acted out presentation of the message. Even the children become participants in the proclamation of the prophetic word. Though the text tells us nothing about these offspring of this strange marriage, one can only imagine the burden of going through life with names like Not Pitied and Not My People. Sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me. The Bible provides ample evidence that it was very difficult to be a prophet and speak a word from God to an indifferent or even hostile audience (Jeremiah, sometimes called the weeping prophet" is the classic example of this). Hosea’s children cause one to imagine how hard it must have been to be part of the prophet’s family.

God names the first child Jezreel (v. 4), which means God plants or sows. That sounds harmless enough. Standing by itself it could represent good news about what God does. The meaning turns ominous, however, when one reflects on the history of what happened at Jezreel and its association with the dynasty of Jehu, of whom Jeroboam was a descendant. Jezreel is a beautiful valley in a strategic location between the mountains of Galilee and Samaria. The Jehu dynasty began with the bloody overthrow of the house of Omri, with several events occurring at Jezreel (2 Kgs 9–10), including the slaying of the hated Jezebel (the widow of King Ahab), the public display of the heads of Ahab’s sons, and a mass extermination of Baal worshipers. Earlier, Jezebel had plotted the murder of Naboth in order to possess his property in Jezreel for a summer palace (1 Kgs 21). It would be strange, indeed, to give a child the name of a place that had such a violent history.

Omri, Ahab, and Jezebel were considered to be evil leaders who led Israel away from the true God. Jehu’s rebellion and usurpation of the throne would surely have been welcomed by many as a necessary cleansing of Israel from alien religions. Even so, the violence of the revolution seemed excessive and would finally come back on Jehu’s house. More immediately, the problem with Jeroboam (and the Jehu line of kings) was that they had now become as disloyal to the Lord as had the house of Omri, Ahab, and Jezebel. The revolutionaries, the reformers, had now become as bad as those they had driven out of office. They will also be destroyed as had happened to Omri’s house at the beginning of the dynasty at Jezreel. The boy’s name was connected to the sin of the past and, through God’s pronouncement, a prediction of impending doom. Not only will the Jehu dynasty be removed (as happened when Jeroboam’s son was murdered after only a few months as king) but the kingdom itself will come to an end. God says, I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel (v. 4b). This came to pass in 722 with the conquest of Samaria by the Assyrians.

The name Jezreel appears again in 1:11, where the defeat at Jezreel is replaced by restoration and a new beginning. At that time, great shall be the day of Jezreel.

The second child, a daughter, also received a symbolic name. The Lord commanded to give her the name Lo-ruhamah. The basic root of the Hebrew word has a variety of meanings such as compassion, mercy, sympathy, tenderness, pity. It contains the same root letters as the word for womb. It is an emotional word, usually having a very positive meaning that could well describe the way parents ordinarily feel about their children. But the name given to Hosea’s children is a negation of those feelings. The children of Hosea and Gomer are not loved or pitied. The daughter’s name suggests a parent who was once loving and compassionate but now has withdrawn support and affection, no longer cares what happens to the child, and, in effect, has disowned the one who at one time was loved. As the daughter goes through life carrying such a name, she will be a constant reminder of a lost relationship, God’s once-loving concern that has now been withdrawn. That is a terrible thought and an awful name.

The anxiety raised by the idea of God’s total rejection is already seen in verse 7. The Northern Kingdom of Israel cannot be saved. It is too late for that. But God still has compassion (pity) on the Southern Kingdom of Judah. God promises to save them, not by their own military weapons or skill, but by direct intervention by God himself. God’s compassion has not disappeared completely. Judah, if not Israel, can still live in hope as they carry forward the covenant relationship with God. It seems a little strange that Hosea would concern himself with these hopes for Judah since he is addressing the kingdom of Israel. Most scholars assume that this reference to the salvation of the nation of Judah was added later. Perhaps it reflects the miraculous escape of Jerusalem from the Assyrian invasion led by Sennacherib in 701 (see 2 Kgs 19:32-37). Probably it was included in the Hosea book before the actual fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586.

The third child, another son, was named Lo-ammi, which means Not my people. Again, it is God who directs how the children shall be named so that their mere existence will convey God’s message. This, too, is a terrible name. It signifies no less than the end of the covenant between God and the people. In Israelite tradition, the expression my people was commonly used to describe Yahweh’s covenant with Israel (e.g, Exod 6:7; Lev 26:12; Deut 26:17-19; 2 Sam 7:24; Jer 11:4). God breaks the covenant by saying "you are not my people." The old traditions about God’s special relationship and protection from harm are cancelled. It is like a divorce. In verse 9b, the shift from third-person to second-person direct address—"You are not my people"—adds to the intensity of this frightening pronouncement (italics added).

Many questions arise from the text. Where does this leave Israel? Has God forever abandoned them? What happened to the special relationship promised to the religious ancestors like Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and David? Is there any possibility of reconciliation and renewal? Is there such a thing as unconditional love from God or is it always subject to removal if the sins of the people finally exhaust God’s patience? These names certainly project a bleak prospect for Israel’s future—the end of the kingdom, the removal of mercy and compassion and pity, and the end of the covenant relationship with God. This would be a terrifying word if it ended here. But it does not. The book of Hosea does not leave the reader in despair but quickly provides words of hope. This happens several times in chapters 1–3 as