Portraits from a Prophet’s Portfolio: Hosea 4

By Richard D. Patterson

[Richard D. Patterson is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Old Testament, Liberty University, Lynchburg, Virginia.]

The word “portfolio” often refers to a flat case for carrying documents or drawings. But the term can also refer to the contents of such a carrying case and by extension to a variety of achievements. This latter meaning is the focus of this study in considering Hosea’s artistry in painting word pictures. Words artfully drawn are pictures that speak to the heart and mind.

The literary dimension plays a vital role in the interpretation of Scripture. Viewing the Bible from a literary perspective deals with more than noticing the details of the text. Rather, it involves an appreciation of the author’s artistic craftsmanship in composing his work. As Ryken maintains, “Literature is an art form, characterized by beauty, craftsmanship, and technique. With literature, we focus not only on what is said but also on how it is said.”[1] Travers points out that figures of speech, for example, are not mere linguistic decorations or window dressing, but that they carry a meaning in themselves. They help portray what the author is writing, and they give fresh insight and perspective into the author’s thinking. Thus they demand that the reader be active rather than passive in seeking to grasp the author’s intentions.[2]

As Ostreich remarks, “Literal speech expresses what is considered to be the reality. . . . Metaphoric speech, on the other hand, invites the listener to apply structures and features of the semantic field of the vehicle to the focus subject himself. Since all metaphors need interpretation, metaphoric language prompts the audience to become active and involved in the process of establishing meaning for utterances.”[3]

Not many commentaries interact extensively with Hosea’s literary skills.[4] They have been noted, however, in some books such as VanGemeren’s Interpreting the Prophetic Word[5] and in a number of recent special studies.[6] This study seeks to add to these endeavors by considering the fourth chapter of Hosea as a representative example of the prophet’s literary artistry in painting word pictures that may be seen throughout his book.

Hosea’s Literary Style

Hosea was a master literary craftsman. His work is so elevated in style that it is often difficult to distinguish between his use of poetry and prose. He masterfully weds prevalent themes to his prophetic utterances such as Israel’s basic covenant with God (11:4; 12:9; 13:4), which they had violated repeatedly (6:7; 8:11–14) despite God’s faithfulness and love for them (2:18–23; 3:1–5; 8:1–14; 13:6). Both Israel’s need of repentance (2:14; 3:5; 5:6; 6:6–7; 7:8–10; 14:2) and practice of genuine righteousness (10:12; 12:6; 14:9) are important corollary themes.[7]

Additional major themes include marriage and infidelity in conjunction with Hosea’s metaphorical portrayal of God as a jealous husband (2:2–13) because of His wife Israel’s harlotry in being enamored with pagan idolatry (4:10–18; 5:3–4; 6:10; 7:4; 8:4–6, 9; 9:1, 10, 15; 11:2, 7; 12:11). Despite Israel’s spiritual infidelity, however, God remained a faithful husband, who longed to bring Israel back into a loving and committed relationship (2:14–3:5; 14:4).[8]

A closely related theme is that of knowledge. Words such as “know,” “knowledge,” and “acknowledge” occur repeatedly throughout the book (2:8, 20; 4:1, 6; 5:3–4; 6:3, 6; 8:2–4; 9:7; 11:3; 14:9). Israel stands condemned for routinely going through their traditional religious observances without genuinely acknowledging or even really knowing Yahweh. Still other themes of note include the motifs of third day (6:1–3) and the Exodus (11:1–2).

Hosea was also a master craftsman in his use of imagery. Some images are drawn from the agrarian world of sowing and reaping (2:3; 8:7; 10:12–13) and threshing and harvesting (2:5, 8–9, 11, 22–23; 6:11; 9:2). Hosea also wrote often of vine, vineyard, and wine (2:9, 15; 9:2, 4, 10; 10:1; 14:7). Other images reflect the animal world. In her political alliances Israel is likened to a stubborn trained heifer (4:16; 10:11), a senseless dove (7:11), and a wild donkey in heat (8:9–10). Such alliances were sapping her strength without her realizing it. Her condition was like that of a person who is growing gray but does not recognize the fact (7:9), God therefore warned Israel that He would deal with them like a ravenous lion (5:14–15) or a stalking leopard or angry bear robbed of its cubs (13:7–8). In a dramatic turn of imagery that speaks of God’s forgiveness and love, He is likened to a lion roaring, while the Israelites are compared to trembling lion cubs and to doves and other birds returning to their nests (11:10–11).[9]

Hosea’s literary expertise may also be seen in his rich use of metaphor and simile. As Johnson observes, “Indeed a thorough treatment of all of these items would practically amount to a commentary on the whole book.”[10] Hosea’s use of metaphor is indeed striking.[11] As already noted, God is portrayed not only as a ferocious lion (5:14) but also as a husband to Israel. Elsewhere He is presented as a compassionate father to Israel. “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. But the more I called Israel the further they went from me. They sacrificed to the Baals and they burned incense to images. It was I who taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by the arms; but they did not realize it was I who healed them. I led them with cords of human kindness, with ties of love” (11:1–4a).[12] God is also presented as a healing physician (6:1) as well as Israel’s provider during their wilderness wanderings (13:5).

Although Israel was God’s heifer trained to do plowing, yet she must bear her coming captivity as a yoke (10:11).[13] As Hubbard points out, “The trained heifer is the most extended of the metaphors in Hosea. The figure of a work-animal involved in the various tasks of agriculture drives home the elective purposes of God. Israel was chosen to serve him. That service is described in agrarian terms: sowing, ploughing, harrowing, reaping (vv. 11–13). The repeated pattern of these verbs, in varying combinations, depicts God’s discipline of the people (v. 11b), his expectations of them (v. 12) and their failure to meet those expectations (v. 13).”[14] God is thus the divine farmer who would reap a total harvest (i.e., the coming judgment, 6:11). Hosea himself was God’s watchman over Israel, but his way was dangerous because of the traps along the pathway of his service laid for him by his adversaries (9:8).

Hosea’s similes are equally bold and well drawn; they are often strung together in a single context with dazzling effect. Thus because of Israel’s unfaithfulness and harlotry, she would be exposed like a newborn infant and her land would become like a desert (2:3). In her foreign policy she was like a silly dove flitting back and forth to Egypt and then to Assyria (7:11). Such a policy made Israel resemble “a flat cake not turned over” (v. 8). Rather than trusting God, Israel had wandered over to Assyria like a wild and willful donkey (8:9). Her present status differed greatly from the time God first brought her into a covenant relationship with Him. Then she showed great promise, for it was like finding grapes in the wilderness or early fruit on a fig tree (9:10). All that she now valued would disappear like a bird flying away (v. 11).

Israel was spiritually and morally corrupt. Israelite society was so plagued by legal disputes that it resembled “poisonous weeds in the furrows of a plowed field” (10:4). Spiritually and morally bankrupt, Israel would fall to the Assyrians and her king would be carried away like a twig caught in water’s current (v. 7). Israel was facing a swift and imminent judgment. Her sudden disaster is pictured in chapter 13 by striking similes: morning mist and early dew, which quickly disappear with the heat of the day, chaff blown away from the threshing floor by the wind, and smoke pouring out through a window (v. 3).

At times Hosea also portrayed the tenuous condition of the southern kingdom of Judah. Her faithfulness to God was as shortlived as the morning mist and the dew of the dawn (6:4). Moreover, Judah’s land-grabbing leaders are compared to those who seize adjacent property by moving boundary stones (5:10).

Hosea’s literary skill also includes the figures of speech synecdoche and metonymy. For example Samaria at times serves as a synecdoche for all Israel (e.g., 13:16), while “bars” is a metonymy for the “city gates” in 11:6. An interesting coupling of synecdoche and metonymy is in 6:8 where the word “heel” serves as a synecdoche for the whole foot which in turn by metonymy refers to the impression left by the foot: “Gilead is a city of wicked men, stained with footprints of blood.”

The prophecy of Hosea also includes rhetorical questions (6:4; 8:5; 9:14; 10:9; 12:11; 13:10, 14; 14:8). Perhaps the most poignant occurs in 11:8. Here the Lord’s great love and compassion for His people are displayed in a series of striking rhetorical questions: “How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I treat you like Admah? How can I make you like Zeboiim?” Several examples of pseudo-sorites[15] also occur (e.g., 9:11–12, 16; 11:7; 13:15). Interestingly in Hosea 10:3 the pseudo-sorites involves a rhetorical question: “Then they will say, ‘We have no king because we did not revere the Lord. But even if we had a king, what could he do for us?’”

Hosea’s literary elements also include satire (13:2), double entendre (10:1), and several instances of paronomasia (e.g., אוֹן [“wealth”] versus עָוֹן [“iniquity”] in 12:8). Worth mentioning also is Hosea’s familiarity with the genre of wisdom literature (e.g., 14:9).

Hosea’s Literary Style in Chapter 4

Motifs and Stylistic Concerns

With the opening verse of chapter 4 the reader is immediately charmed by Hosea’s literary genius. Hosea began this section of his prophecies with the well-known prophetic call, “Hear the word of the Lord” (cf. 1 Kings 22:19; 2 Kings 20:16; Isa. 1:16; 28:14; 39:5; 66:5; Jer. 7:2; 19:3; 21:11; 22:2, 29; 31:10; 34:4; 44:24; Ezek. 20:47; 21:3; 25:3; 34:7, 9; 36:4; 37:4; Amos 7:16). This prophetic call motif occurs with great frequency throughout the prophets even without the accompanying phrase “the word of the Lord” (e.g., Isa. 28:23; Jer. 28:7; Ezek. 18:25; Hos. 5:1; Joel 1:2; Mic. 1:2; 3:1, 9; 6:1, 9). The motif is notable also in Amos (e.g., 3:13; 8:4), especially as introductions to individual oracles (e.g., 3:1; 4:1; 5:1).[16]

Hosea rightly noted the great need for a special message from Yahweh at this time. The eighth century B.C. during which he ministered was a time of dramatic change for the twin kingdoms of Israel and Judah as well as for the ancient Near East. During the reigns of Jeroboam II in Israel (792-752 B.C.) and Uzziah in Judah (792-740 B.C.) both kingdoms enjoyed a prosperity unparalleled since the days of Solomon both economically and politically.[17] Unfortunately the high-water mark of prosperity would not long endure. After the death of Jeroboam II in 752 B.C. kings of lesser ability in the Northern Kingdom often vied for local if not national supremacy. Internal squabbling was compounded by the rise and expansion of the Neo-Assyrian kingdom from the mid-eighth century B.C. onward. Because of internal weakness and external aggression the Northern Kingdom soon came to an end with the fall of Samaria in 722 B.C.

Hosea was God’s man for a difficult era spiritually. “Prosperity had brought an unprecedented degree of cultural corruption. The much-sought-after political power had opened Israel to foreign cultural influence, including the demoralizing influence of Canaanite Baal worship (2:7, 17; 11:2) with its fertility cults and bacchanalian orgies (4:10–13).”[18] Hosea was a man of deep spiritual conviction who throughout his long ministry became progressively concerned for the Lord’s person and reputation and His troubled people. Hosea’s heartfelt concern over Israel’s spiritual complacency, religious syncretism, and critical position in relation to the major powers of the ancient Near East may be felt in the advancing flow of his messages. As Pusey remarks, “Corruption had spread throughout the whole land; even the places once sacred through God’s revelation or other mercies to their forefathers. Bethel, Gilgal, Gilead, Mizpah, Shechem were especial scenes of corruption or of sin. Every holy memory was effaced by present corruption. Could things be worse?”[19] Accordingly Hosea’s call to “hear the word of the Lord” was an urgent one. Moreover, what he said did not come from his own personal opinions but from the Lord Himself. It is therefore of utmost significance.

Not surprisingly, then, the first verse in Hosea 4 includes elements of the familiar accusation/indictment speech. Although Hosea employed legal type language (cf. 5:4), Garrett correctly observes that “accusations do not necessarily make for a courtroom setting even if the word ‘complaint’ (rîb) is used.”[20] Moreover, as Sweeney remarks, “The existence of a clearly defined covenant lawsuit speech is increasingly questioned by scholars, however, in that no standard literary structure or terminology is apparent throughout all of the various examples of the form that have been put forward, and there are great difficulties in portraying YHWH as both plaintiff and judge in a legal proceeding.”[21]

The threefold charge against Israel reflects Hosea’s style of frequently listing items in groups of three. Verses 4–5 refer to three groups of guilty parties before the Lord: priests, prophets, and people. Similarly three types of creatures affected by the drought are land animals, birds, and marine life (v. 3). Hosea listed three types of trees where the unacceptable religious rites were carried out: oak, poplar, and terebinth (v. 13). And Judah received a threefold warning not to go to Gilgal or Bethel, or to recite oaths at the false religious sites.[22] Hosea also employed literary links or hooks to stitch together the various subsections of chapter 4.[23] Verses 1–3 are linked with verses 4–14 by means of accusations or charges (see vv. 1, 4), while verses 4–14 are linked to verses 15–19 by the theme of prostitution/adultery (see vv. 14–15).

Metaphor, Simile, And Imagery

Hosea’s fondness for metaphor is attested in several verses in chapter 4. God’s judgment affected the environment by means of a drought. So great was the withering effect that the land was personified and depicted as being in mourning.[24] “Because of this the land mourns, and all who live in it waste away; the beasts of the field and birds of the air and the fish of sea are dying” (v. 3).

The inhabitants of the land (whether mankind[25] and creatures, or just the three types of creatures listed in the accompanying list) are said to wither like inanimate life. Although the verb used here can denote the fate of the wicked (e.g., Ps. 37:1–2), Sweeney points out that in Hosea 4:3 there may well be an allusion to the Genesis creation account. “If human beings fail to maintain the proper order of their lives, the entire world of creation suffers. In this case, Hosea’s reference to the ‘gathering’ of ‘the beasts of the field,’ ‘the birds of the heavens,’ and ‘the fish of the sea’ employs the language of Gen 1:26 to express the consequences of the failure to live up to the human responsibility for their own actions and the welfare of the natural world. Similar sentiments and language appear in Zeph 1:2–3.”[26]

Another metaphor associated with the agrarian world is in Hosea 4:16. Here the coming exile of God’s people is likened to a “broad field” (NET). Coupled with this is the imagery of God as shepherd pasturing His lambs (Israel).[27] The New International Version presents this as a rhetorical question that asks how God could act as a shepherd to His lambs when they refused to follow Him faithfully. Since the sentence in Hebrew lacks a clear interrogative particle, however, the NET Bible gives a better translation: “Soon the Lord will put them out to pasture like a lamb in a broad field.” This indicates that because Israel refused to serve God properly, they would find that their “pasture” had been changed from the promised land to exile in a foreign field.[28]

Alongside this imagery of God as shepherd and Israel as a lamb is the simile of Israel as a stubborn heifer. Oestreich says this is an “absurd simile.” “The image expresses Yahweh’s disappointment at the fact that Israel does not fulfill his purpose. Of course, every farmer wants to have a trained heifer, which obeys and does its task. We could call the image of the stubborn cow an absurdity according to purpose.”[29] Thus the entire verse focuses on God’s concern over the fact that because Israel had been unfaithful, it must face His judgment and be sent into exile. No longer treated as a trained heifer (cf. Hos. 11:4), which accomplishes its proper tasks, Israel would be put out to pasture like a lamb in a wide field—a strange land where without its shepherd to lead and protect it, it is helpless and at the mercy of its captors.

Israel is also portrayed as a mother. “You stumble day and night, and the prophets stumble with you. So I will destroy your mother” (4:5). However one understands the precise force of the metaphor, it is clear that “mother Israel” had failed to be the spiritual example and teacher she should have been. The metaphor “mother” is an allusion to what had been portrayed in the first three chapters, where Gomer, the mother of Hosea’s children, symbolized Israel. As Gomer was to be rebuked (2:2–3), so mother Israel was to face disaster because of her sins and her lack of genuine knowledge of the Lord.[30]

Two other metaphors of note occur in verse 18. Here the difficult reading מַגִנֶּיהָ (“her shields”) has commonly been rendered in a manner that reflects Israel’s shameful behavior—“their rulers dearly love shameful ways.” Sweeney suggests that Israel gives “shame for her shields.”[31] He likewise proposes that the “wind with wings” (cf. v. 19) should be translated “her skirts.” He says that “the meaning ‘her skirts’ is clear from the sexual imagery of the preceding verse (cf. Isa 8:8; Ezek 16:8; Ruth 3:9; cf. Deut 23:1 [NRSV, 22:30]; 27:20).”[32]

Themes

The first two verses of Hosea 4 accuse Israel of violating the basic conditions of their covenant with God, as seen in their infidelity, disloyalty, and failure to know God.[33] Although God had remained faithful to His people despite their sins (cf. Exod. 34:5–7; Pss. 36:7; 63:3; Isa. 63:7; Jer. 3:3; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2), the Israelites had not been faithful to Him in return. “A fundamental principle of OT (indeed biblical) ethics is the imitation of God: as Yahweh is, likewise Israel is to be.”[34] Israel’s infidelity demonstrates that they had no real commitment to God. Nor did they truly know Him in a living, experiential way. As Fretheim points out, “To know God is to be in a right relationship with him, with characteristics of love, trust, respect, and open communication.”[35]

No wonder, then, that God’s people had continually violated the Ten Commandments: false swearing (the third commandment; Exod. 20:7; Deut. 5:11), lying (the ninth commandment; Exod. 20:16; Deut. 5:20), murder (the sixth commandment; Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17), stealing (the eighth commandment; Exod. 20:15; Deut. 5:19), and adultery (the seventh commandment; Exod. 20:14; Deut. 5:18). In short, the Israelites were covenant lawbreakers (Hos. 4:6). This is especially true of the priests who had misused the Law for their own benefit (vv. 7–8).

The charge of covenant-breaking with its attendant violations points out the importance of the theme of the covenant. Some have suggested that this is the basic theme of the Old Testament. As Dyrness says, “This then is the theme of the OT: God’s relation to Israel based on the covenant.”[36] And Eichrodt suggests, “In the face of all objections, the ‘covenant’ has been retained as the central concept, by which to illuminate the structural unity and the unchanging basic tendency of the message of the OT. For it is in this concept that Israel’s fundamental conviction of its special relationship with God is concentrated.”[37]

Though many writers do not agree that the concept of the covenant is the unifying factor in the Old Testament, the significance of covenant is certainly great. This theme appears repeatedly throughout most of the Old Testament and culminates in the establishment of the New Covenant (e.g., Jer. 31:31–37; 32:36–44; 33:14–26; Ezek. 34:11–14; 37:21–27), which finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ (cf. Matt. 26:27–29; 2 Cor. 3:6; Heb. 8:6).

Hosea’s accusation of covenant-breaking is therefore important in understanding his additional charges about conditions in Israel.[38] One of these is the theme of knowledge, to which Hosea referred several times in the succeeding verses (cf. Hos. 4:2 with vv. 6, 11, 14). In fact, as already noted, knowledge is an important theme not only in chapter 4 but also throughout Hosea’s prophetic messages (5:3; 6:1–3, 6; 8:2–3; 9:7; 11:1–4; 13:4; 14:9). Thus Israel’s failure to reproduce godlike qualities in their lives or to keep His standards demonstrates that they did not know Him in a vital way.[39]

Judgment is yet another theme that emerges because of Israel’s condition (4:3, 6, 9–10, 14, 19). Because of their violation of the Law (v. 3), and because of their entrenched apostasy—which began with their leaders (vv. 5–8) and spread throughout the populace (vv. 9–14)—all were in a degraded condition (vv. 15–19).[40] The entire chapter may well be seen as a judgment oracle.[41]

One of the most pervasive themes is that of spiritual adultery (vv. 1, 12–13, 15) with its attendant vices of idolatry (vv. 12, 17) and prostitution, both cultic and otherwise (vv. 10–14, 18). Israel’s precious daughters and daughters-in-law had been pressed into the debauchery of prostitution—often in the name of religion. An accompanying vice with all of this harlotry was wine drinking (vv. 11, 18). So Hosea warned that prostitution and wine had taken away Israel’s capacity to reason properly. “They will eat but not have enough; they will engage in prostitution but not increase, because they have deserted the Lord to give themselves to prostitution, to old wine and new, which take away the understanding of my people” (vv. 10–12a). Although the New International Version may be correct in rendering these verses as one sentence, it does so by inserting the word “themselves” into verse 10 before continuing the sentence into verse 12.

The translation of verse 10 is a notorious problem, and has occasioned many suggested solutions.[42] Particularly difficult is the problem of לִשְׁמֹר, the last word in the verse. Because it is an infinitive construct and is most often translated “to keep or guard,” one would naturally expect an object to follow it. Therefore the New International Version has inserted the reflexive pronoun “themselves.”[43] However, the infinitive construct may be viewed as a gerund (“keeping”), belonging to the beginning of verse 11, with the conclusion of the sentence coming with the first word in verse 12: “The keeping of prostitution/harlotry, and old and new wine, have taken away the heart/mind of My people.”[44] Thus construed, Hosea may be viewed as presenting a picturesque contrast.[45] On the one hand God’s people had abandoned Yahweh, while on the other hand they had maintained their adulterous practices, with their overindulgence of wine causing their reasoning powers to diminish and causing their hearts to turn from God. Ritual and physical prostitution as well as all kinds of wine were symptomatic of a deeply entrenched spiritual adultery and lack of true knowledge of God and His standards.[46]

Hosea’s literary artistry is also displayed in his employment of a proverbial saying, “It is true, ‘A people that lacks understanding will come to ruin!’” (v. 14, NET).[47] Hosea used this wisdom saying in connection with his condemnation of the practice of prostitution. The word “people” provides a further linkage with several of the earlier verses in the chapter (vv. 6, 9, 12).

Not to be forgotten in Hosea’s literary repertoire is his use of paronomasia. He played on the word “sins” to include not only the people’s sins but also the sin offering in the sacrificial system (v. 8). Regarding the sin offering Garrett observes, “Instead of being a means of confession and grace, it had become a means of permissiveness for the people and of gluttony for the priests.”[48] Stuart adds, “Profit has become the interest of the priesthood rather than service to God, and indulgence has become the posture of the nation rather than purity of worship and deeds.”[49]

Both priests and people were guilty of gross sin, and the sacrificial system had been severely compromised. Hosea probably intended a bit of satire here: The priests’ misuse of the sin offering had become a public disgrace and despicable sin.[50] Satire and wordplay may also be seen in Hosea’s condemnation of the national sins conducted at Gilgal and Bethel (v. 15). With reference to Bethel he constructed a satirical pun by calling that town Beth Aven. Because of the apostate religion at Bethel (“house of God”) the site was more appropriately called Beth Aven (“house of iniquity or deception”).[51] Later Hosea singled out the Bethel/Beth Aven comparison in 5:8 and 10:5. The latter reference clearly points to the calf worship established by Jeroboam I (1 Kings 12:28–30).[52]

Conclusion

This rehearsal of Hosea’s literary artistry demonstrates that close attention to this dimension of an author’s work yields fuller and more fruitful insight into his intended meanings and nuances. Hosea’s various motifs and themes in chapter 4 cause the reader to contemplate other passages that provide allusions or relations to other scriptural contexts where similar ideas and truths are given. Hosea’s use of figures of speech such as metaphors and similes compel interpreters to seek to understand the full impact of any imagery the author wished to convey. Also Hosea’s clever plays on words demonstrate both his wit and his disgust at what he saw in degraded Israelite society.

Viewing the Scriptures with literary sensitivity as well as grammatical and historical/cultural accuracy and theological correctness is of immense, even crucial importance.[53] Ryken discusses the rich benefits of noting the literary dimension of the Scriptures. “We must be sensitive to the physical and experiential qualities of a passage and avoid reducing every passage in the Bible to a set of abstract themes. . . . Literature conveys a sense of life—a sense of how the writer thinks and feels about what really exists, what is right and wrong, what is valuable and worthless. Literature can be true to reality and human experience as well as being the embodiment of a true proposition.”[54] Rightly employed, these tools provide a rich and colorful carpet on which to tread as the reader makes his or her way toward entering into the living room of the author.

Notes

1. Leland Ryken, Words of Delight (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 16.
2. Michael E. Travers, Encountering God in the Psalms (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003), 34.
3. Bernhard Oestreich, “Absurd Similes for Israel in the Book of Hosea,” in Creation, Life, and Hope, ed. Jrří Moskala (Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 2000), 124.
4. Notable exceptions include Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980); Duane A. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997); David Allan Hubbard, Hosea, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989); and Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 2 vols. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000). For a helpful survey of the value of literary stylistic devices in the Minor Prophets see Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Interpreting the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 15–17. For a consideration of literary features in general see Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1991; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996), 123–68.
5. Willem A. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 108–20.
6. Many could be mentioned including Irene Kerasote Rallis, “Nuptial Imagery in the Book of Hosea: Israel as the Bride of Yahweh,” St. Vladimir’s TheologicalQuarterly34 (1990): 197-220; Paul A. Kruger, “The Marriage Metaphor in Hosea 2:4–17 against Its Ancient Near Eastern Background,” Journal of the Old TestamentSociety of South Africa5 (1992): 7-25; Rick Johnson, “Hosea 4–10: Pictures at an Exhibition,” Southwestern Journal of Theology 36 (1993): 20-26; Francis Landy, “In the Wilderness of Speech: Problems of Metaphor in Hosea,” Biblical Interpretation3 (1995): 35-59; Ehud Ben Zvi, “Observations on the Marital Metaphor of YHWH and Israel in Its Ancient Israelite Context: General Considerations and Particular Images in Hosea 1.2,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament28 (2004): 363-84; and Emmanuel G. Nwaoru, “The Role of Images in the Literary Structure of Hos 7:8–8:14, ” Vetus Testamentum54 (2004): 216-22. Helpful information on the fourth chapter of Hosea may be found in Charles H. Silva, “The Literary Structure of Hosea 4–8, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 164 (July–September 2007): 291-307.
7. Because of the widespread corruption of Israelite society, including priests, prophets, and people, Hosea’s prophecies largely take the form of judgment oracles.
8. This theme is portrayed in Hosea’s relationship with Gomer (Hos. 1–3).
9. For other examples of Hosea’s rich mine of images and literary features see Hosea 6:4; 9:5; 11:8; 12:11; 13:10, 14; 14:9.
10. Johnson, “Hosea 4–10: Pictures at an Exhibition,” 20.
11. Landy, “In the Wilderness of Speech,” 35–39.
12. Unless noted otherwise, all Scripture quotations are from the New International Version.
13. John H. Walton, Victor H. Matthews, and Mark W. Chavalas suggest that the animal involved is an ox. “It may be that young oxen were first trained to accept the yoke by putting them to work on the threshing floor. This relatively simple task, during which they had the opportunity of the reward of grazing (Deut 25:4), made them more docile (see Jer 50:11)” (The IVP Bible Background Commentary Old Testament [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000], 758).
14. Hubbard, Hosea, 179 (italics his).
15. This figure of speech reuses an item from one sentence in the next sentence, often in a way that stretches the bounds of logic. Unlike a formal sorites, in which the predicate of the first premise becomes the subject of the second (and so on in a series) leading to a conclusion in which the subject of the first premise becomes the subject of the conclusion, Hosea uses a form of argument in which the principal theme (or topic) of the initial premise is emphasized via a hypothetical possibility. For the complex problem of the intricate relations between topic and grammatical and logical subject see John Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 343–45.
16. Silva terms this a “proclamation formula” (“The Literary Structure of Hosea 4–8, ” 293). The prophetic call motif is to be distinguished from the call-answer motif, which could express a positive or negative idea. On a positive note it could indicate the believer’s sure hope in calling on God (a) as a refuge or for protection in times of distress or trouble (Pss. 17:6–12; 20:6–9; 81:6–7; 91:14–16; 102:1–2; 138:8); (b) for guidance (99:6–7; Jer. 33:2–3); or (c) to experience intimate communion and fellowship with God (Job 14:14–15; Ps. 73:23–26). The motif could also deal with God’s future plan to bless Israel (e.g., Isa. 65:24; Zech. 13:7–9). Negatively the motif notes that God does not answer the prayers of believers who are guilty of sin (Ps. 66:18). In a dramatic turn God is at times represented as calling out to people (Isa. 66:4), sometimes to those who turn away from Him. Tragically eleven times in the Book of Jeremiah the prophet reported that God earnestly sought to meet with His disobedient people only to find that they did not keep their appointed time of communion.
17. For details see Walter C. Kaiser Jr., A History of Israel (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1998), 352; and M. Haran, “The Empire of Jeroboam ben Joash,” Vetus Testamentum 17 (1967): 296.
18. VanGemeren, Interpreting the Prophetic Word, 106. See also Eugene H. Merrill, Kingdom of Priests (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), 391–430.
19. E. B. Pusey, The Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953), 1:12.
20. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 109.
21. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 1:12. Silva follows the lead of several scholars in viewing this as a formal covenant lawsuit (Silva, “The Literary Structure of Hosea 4–8, ” 294).
22. Hosea’s threefold listings can be seen at least once in almost every chapter (e.g., 2:11; 5:1; 6:5; 7:1; 8:4; 9:11; 10:12; 11:3–4; 12:6; 13:16; 14:9).
23. For a study of common compositional and compilational techniques see H. Van Dyke Parunak, “Transitional Techniques in the Bible,” Journal of Biblical Literature 102 (1983): 540-41; U. Cassuto, Biblical and Oriental Studies (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973), 1:1–6; and Richard D. Patterson, “Of Bookends, Hinges, and Hooks: Literary Clues to the Arrangement of Jeremiah’s Prophecies,” WestminsterTheological Journal51 (1989): 109-31.
24. Joel used similar language in describing the effects of the devastation caused by a series of locust invasions (Joel 1:5–10). Isaiah also depicted the land as mourning because of the devastation wrought by Assyrian invaders (Isa. 33:9).
25. The Hebrew verb is often used metaphorically of human conditions. See Roy E. Hayden, “מָלַל,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 2:966.
26. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 1:45. For the allusion to the reversal of creation in Zephaniah 1:2–3 see Richard D. Patterson, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah (Chicago: Moody, 1991), 299–301. See also M. De Roche, “Zephaniah 1:2–3: The ‘Sweeping’ of Creation,” Vetus Testamentum 30 (1980): 104-9.
27. As their shepherd God led Israel (Gen. 48:15; Ps. 80:1), seeing to all their needs (23:1) and protecting and guiding them in accord with His good purposes for them (Isa. 40:9–20; Ezek. 34:20). God announced through His prophets that He would send His own true shepherd, the Messiah, who would save and care for His flock (Ezek. 34:22–24). Christ affirmed that He is that good shepherd who would lay down His life for the sheep (John 10:11–18). Christ is further revealed as the great shepherd who sees to the well-being of His believing flock (Heb. 13:20–21; cf. 1 Pet. 2:25). He is also the chief shepherd who has entrusted His work to other under-shepherds until He shall come again for His sheep (1 Pet. 5:4).
28. Douglas Stuart suggests that the Hebrew noun is a synecdoche for the afterworld. Therefore coupled with the figure of the lamb, this “vivid metaphor makes clear that Israel’s sins are mortal ones” (Hosea–Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary [Waco, TX: Word, 1987], 85).
29. Oestreich, “Absurd Similes for Israel in the Book of Hosea,” 102.
30. The mother metaphor has been variously understood. Many commentators take a position similar to that expressed above, that “mother” refers to corporate Israel (e.g., Hubbard, Hosea, 179; Thomas McComiskey, “Hosea,” in The Minor Prophets, ed. Thomas E. McComiskey [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992], 1:60–61; Leon J. Wood, “Hosea,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7 [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985], 185). Some suggest that “mother” refers to those most responsible for Israel’s condition, namely, the priests (Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 117; and Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 1:46–47). Others suggest that the reference is to the priests’ mothers (e.g., Elizabeth Achtemeir, Minor Prophets I, International Biblical Commentary [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996], 36; Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 351; and Chisholm, The Minor Prophets, 30). Still others propose emending the text to read “your people” (cf. NET Bible).
31. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 1:51.
32. Ibid.
33. God’s faithfulness (אַמֶת) and love (חֶסֶד) are fundamental qualities in His character. Although the order is more commonly reversed from what is here, Hosea’s order does occur also in Micah 7:20. As Kenneth L. Barker points out, “The Hebrew words for ‘true’ (אַמֶת) and ‘mercy’ (חֶסֶד) are sometimes rendered ‘truth’ or ‘faithfulness’ and ‘grace’ respectively” (“Micah,” in Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1999], 135).
34. R. W. L. Moberly, “אמת,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 1:429.
35. Terence E. Fretheim, “ידע,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, 2:413.
36. William A. Dyrness, Themes in Old Testament Theology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1979), 116.
37. Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961), 1:13–14.
38. The covenant concept is among the earliest themes in the ancient Near East, being especially related to the making of treaties. Throughout the ancient Near East scores of treaty documents have been found in various formats dating from the third to the first millennium B.C. It is also found in several scriptural passages concerning the records of man’s early existence and activities (e.g., Gen. 2:16–17; 3:14–19; 9:1–17; 12:1–7; 15; 17:1–14).
39. See Gregory Vall, “Hosea and Knowledge of God,” The Bible Today 39 (2001): 335-41.
40. For the strategic force of Hosea 4:1–3 see Carl J. Bosma, “Creation in Jeopardy: A Warning to Priests (Hosea 4:1–3),” Calvin Theological Journal 34 (1999): 64-116.
41. Chisholm, The Minor Prophets, 29–31.
42. For details see Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 363–64.
43. For other similar renderings see the New Jerusalem Bible, the New Revised Standard Version, and the Revised English Version. Among versions that retain the final infinitive of verse 10 without including material from the following verse, one may note the rendering in the Holman Christian Standard Bible: “For they have abandoned their devotion to the Lord.”
44. The use of the Hebrew infinitive construct in nominal fashion is well established. See for example Bruce K. Waltke and M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 601–3, 605–6.
45. As in the New International Version, verses 10–12a may be considered as one sentence by inserting a colon after the word Lord, the supplementary thought thus concluding the sentence with verses 11–12a. Or one may understand verse 11 as initiating a new sentence with the theme of prostitution/harlotry serving as bookending markers forming an inclusio. In this scenario verses 11–14 form a separate subunit in verses 4–14. Silva also considers verses 11–14 as one unit, although he includes the word “prostitution” in verse 11 with the sentence begun at verse 10 (“The Literary Structure of Hosea 4–8, ” 296).
46. The above remarks are in harmony with the commonly held belief that Canaanite fertility rites included cultic prostitution (cf. Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 153–8; Chisholm, The Minor Prophets, 31; Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 123; and Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, 1:49). On the other hand Frédéric Gangloff believes that these verses relate to the worship of the goddess Asherah, thus disallowing any reference to sacred prostitution (“A l’ombre des Déesses-arbes? [Os 4:12–14],” Biblische Notizen 106 [2001]: 13-20). Johnson observes, “Whatever happened in the cult, Hosea considered worship of anyone besides Yahweh to be harlotry” (“Hosea 4–10, ” 21).
47. See Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 371.
48. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 120.
49. Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 79.
50. For Hosea’s use of wordplays see Chisholm, The Minor Prophets, 16–17.
51. For the use of satire in the Scriptures see Richard D. Patterson, “Prophetic Satire as a Vehicle for Biblical Instruction,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50 (2007): 47-69.
52. See Wood, “Hosea,” 188. The church father Jerome wrote this about the religious harlotry and its accompanying results. “Desire is insatiable, and the more it is felt, the more it creates in those who enjoy it a greater hunger. On the contrary: ‘Blessed are the ones who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they will be satisfied.’ For righteousness satisfies, while wickedness—because it has no substance—deceives by fraud those who feed on vain things and leaves empty the stomachs of those who hunger. ‘They played the whore continually.’ In fornication they ran out of strength, yet the ardent desire of the fornication does not make a pause. The ten tribes played the whore with the idols of Jeroboam” (Jerome, “Commentary on Hosea 1.4,” in The Twelve Prophets, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament, ed. Thomas C. Oden [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003], 20).
53. This may be called the “chair of biblical hermeneutics” (Richard D. Patterson, “Psalm 22: From Trial to Triumph,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47 [2004]: 213-33). See also D. Brent Sandy and Ronald L. Giese Jr., eds., Cracking Old Testament Codes (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 4.
54. Leland Ryken, How to Read the Bible as Literature (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 20–21 (italics his).