Literary Features in the Book of Hosea

By Charles H. Silva

[Charles H. Silva is Pastor, Horizon Christian Church, Branson, Missouri.

This is the first article in a four-part series “A Literary Analysis of the Book of Hosea.”]

The Old Testament Prophetic books include distinctive literary forms and structures that help reveal the purpose of those books.[1] For example several of the eighth-, seventh-, and early sixth-century preexilic prophetic books are formulated for the most part according to a tripartite schema comprising (a) announcements of judgment against Israel and Judah, (b) announcements of judgment against the Gentile nations, and (c) promises of restoration/salvation for Israel and Judah, and the nations.[2]

Although the Book of Hosea is conventionally viewed as a book of prophecy, “this classification yields more to biblical scholars than to readers in general, for whom Old Testament prophecy remains a closed book.”[3] All would agree that the Book of Hosea exhibits the general features of biblical prophecy. Hosea was commissioned by God to serve as His covenant enforcement mediator in accusing the people of Israel (and Judah) of sin and in announcing judgment. This prophetic judgment speech form (accusation of sin and announcement of judgment) is dominant in Hosea, and at the end of the book there is a reversal with the promise of eschatological salvation and restoration of a righteous remnant.[4]

The “prophetic judgment speech” and the more specific “covenant lawsuit” (רִיב) are literary forms in the Book of Hosea with definite characteristics.

The Book of Hosea as a Covenant Enforcement Document

Based on the prophet Hosea’s commission to serve as God’s covenant enforcement mediator,[5] the Book of Hosea reflects a literary genre best dubbed a “covenant enforcement document.”[6] As a result of Israel’s violation of God’s covenant mandates, as recorded in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy, God’s covenant enforcement messengers, the prophets, were dispatched to accuse the people of sin and pronounce judgment according to the terms of the covenant. When Hosea, for example, accused Israel of breaking the Law and predicted coming judgment, he used language that referred back to the Mosaic Covenant, which was established between Yahweh and His elect people Israel at Mount Sinai (Exod. 19–24). As Stuart points out, “Understanding the message of the Book of Hosea depends upon understanding the Sinai covenant.”[7] Garrett argues that interpreting Hosea is virtually impossible without an adequate understanding of his dependence on Israel’s Torah and earlier historical traditions.[8]

Moses was appointed to serve as God’s first covenant mediator in announcing the stipulations of the Sinai Covenant, and thus he serves as a paradigm for the prophets who came after him.[9] The Mosaic Covenant called for the people to obey God’s mandates. That is, if the people of Israel faithfully obeyed the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant, He promised to bless them with a land (Canaan) where they would experience peace, life, health, prosperity, and agricultural abundance (Lev. 26:1–13; Deut. 4:32–40; 28:1–14). However, if they rejected the Lord and served the false gods of Canaan, He would judge them by means of the curses of the covenant (Lev. 26:14–39; Deut. 4:15–28; 28:15–32:42). He threatened to afflict Israel with agricultural and physical barrenness and with invading armies that would destroy them and take them into exile. Horrific judgments would follow their violation of the covenant stipulations.

Fee and Stuart suggest that the curses stemming from the Mosaic Covenant “may be conveniently memorized as a group under ten headings which begin with the letter ‘d’: death, disease, drought, dearth, danger, destruction, defeat, deportation, destitution, and disgrace.”[10] The covenant curses mentioned in Hosea and other preexilic prophets parallel many of the covenant curses mentioned in Leviticus 26:14–39 and Deuteronomy 28:15–68.[11] And several parallels exist between the Mosaic Law and the preexilic prophets’ accusations of sin.[12]

Hosea’s Theological and Covenantal Perspective

In condemning Israel (and Judah) for their covenant unfaithfulness,[13] Hosea reflected on Israel’s ancient traditions and mentioned several historical events that reflected God’s covenant faithfulness (חֶסֶד, “loyalty love”) to His aberrant people, and Israel’s history of idolatrous unfaithfulness.[14] Gemser suggests that Hosea’s condemnation of Israel’s sins was based on God’s “justice,” that is, “the God-maintained moral order in world—and national—and individual affairs. It is not a mechanical, automatic order of nature and natural ‘laws,’ but of thetic, genuine God-given laws and regulations. ‘Justice’ is the dominant conception in Israel’s religious and ethical way of thinking.”[15]

According to the Mosaic Covenant Israel was bound by oath to worship God alone (Exod. 20:1–6; Lev. 26:1–14; Deut. 4:15–31; 6:4–7; 28:1–14). Hosea repeatedly portrayed Yahweh as Israel’s covenant God “from the land of Egypt” (Hos. 12:9; 13:4).[16] And in 1:10 Hosea alluded to the Abrahamic Covenant, which promised Abraham a numerical and spiritual posterity that would be innumerable—“like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered” (cf. Gen. 22:17). Hosea compared the deceptive practices of Israel to those of the patriarch Jacob (Hos. 12:3–4, 12; cf. Gen. 25:26; 28–29; 32).[17] The Lord had formed Israel in Egypt (Hos. 11:1; 12:9; 13:4) and brought her out of Egyptian slavery (2:15). He found the Israelites like “grapes in the desert” and as “early fruit on the fig tree” (9:10). And He brought Israel to Mount Sinai where He entered into covenant relationship with the nation (6:7; 8:1), like a husband’s relationship with his wife (2:7). Moses’ role as Israel’s Exodus deliverer and mediator of God’s Law earned him the title “prophet” (12:13). Yet from the beginning Israel refused to obey the Law (4:6; 8:1, 12), and they experienced forty years of wilderness wanderings because of their disobedience (2:3; 9:10; 13:5). Afterward the Lord gave Israel a land flowing with milk and honey (2:8). Hosea reminded the Israelites that throughout the passing years they had wandered further from their covenant God, Yahweh, Israel’s “first [and only true] husband” (2:7).

This overview of Hosea’s controlling genre, prophetic function, and theological and covenantal perspective reveals that Hosea’s rhetorical purpose was to serve as God’s covenant enforcement mediator. In this role he enforced God’s covenant mandates by accusing the people of sin, announcing imminent judgment for continued covenant violation, and announcing the nation’s future restoration and salvation. Most of the oracles God spoke through Hosea were of judgment and not blessing.[18]

Subgenres or Literary Forms Employed by the Prophet Hosea

As already noted, while the generic classification “covenant enforcement document” serves as an inclusive term that represents the overall literary genre for the Book of Hosea, the prophet made use of a number of literary forms or prophetic speech types.

The Prophetic Judgment Speech

The prophetic judgment speech, also called prophecy of disaster or thejudgment oracle,[19] represents the literary form most widely used in the prophetic messages of the preexilic writing prophets.[20] In this literary form God spoke through His prophets to announce disaster on nations, groups, or individuals. The prophetic judgment speech has two parts: the sins that are the reason(s) for the judgment and the prediction of impending and often brutal deportation at the hands of a foreign army.[21] The prediction of judgment is usually introduced by “therefore.” In Hosea, oracles of judgment occur more frequently than oracles of salvation and restoration.[22]

God Himself executed the announced judgment, usually carried out by foreign invaders (i.e., Israel was conquered by Assyria and Judah by Babylon).

The prophetic judgment speeches are frequently introduced by God’s commission to the prophet (“Go and say”) and/or a call for the people to hear (“Hear this word,” etc.). They also often give reasons for the disaster introduced by “because” or “for” (כִי). God’s initial judgment speech against Israel recorded in Hosea 1 is a good illustration of this prophetic form: Prophetic commission—“When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, ‘Go take to yourself a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry’ (1:2a); accusation of sin—“for [כִי] the land commits flagrant harlotry, forsaking the Lord ” (v. 2b); announcement of judgment—“for [כִי] … I will punish the house of Jehu …, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel [and] I will break the bow of Israel” (vv. 4–5); “for [כִי] … I will no longer have compassion on the house of Israel … but I will have compassion on the house of Judah” (vv. 6–7); “for [כִי]… you [Israel] are not My people and I [Yahweh] am not your God’ ” (vv. 8–9).

God accused Israel of harlotrous covenant violation in their forsaking Him to pursue the Baals of Canaan.[23] Hosea’s marriage to adulterous Gomer and the births and naming of their three children serve as metaphorical symbols of Israel’s adultery against her divine Husband, Yahweh.

The Covenant Lawsuit Speech

God used the covenant lawsuit (רִיב), also called the trial speech or lawsuit oracle,[24] to charge or indict Israel for their idolatrous breach of the stipulations of the Mosaic Covenant.[25] In the covenant lawsuit God is portrayed figuratively “as the plaintiff, prosecuting attorney, judge, and bailiff in a cosmic court case against the defendant, Israel.”[26] The form is most often related to ancient Near Eastern juridical trial procedures or international suzerain-vassal treaties.[27] God used the preexilic writing prophets to serve as His messengers, or covenant enforcement agents, in accusing the people of Israel and Judah of breach of covenant, and to warn them of impending judgment as an inevitable consequence.[28]

The prophetic lawsuit speech generally includes four elements: the call to hear and the summons to trial, the specific charges or accusations of sins committed, evidence proper, and the verdict or announcement of judgment. Hosea 4:1–3 includes a Call to hear—“Listen to the word of the Lord, O sons of Israel”; summons to trial—“For the Lord has a case [רִיב] against the inhabitants of the land”; charge or accusation—“Because there is no faithfulness or kindness or knowledge of God in the land”; evidence—“There is swearing, deception, murder, stealing, and adultery”; and verdict or consequences—“Therefore the land mourns, and everyone who lives in it languishes along with the beasts of the field and the birds of the sky, and also the fish of the sea disappear.”[29]

Mendenhall, Huffmon, Harvey, and Hillers have demonstrated that the רִיב is related to the international suzerain-vassal treaty form.[30] Mendenhall affirms that the Old Testament messages of judgment on Israel were indictments for their breach of the Mosaic Covenant.[31] Huffmon follows Mendenhall on this point[32] and argues that the curses and blessings of the covenant invoked by the Old Testament prophets were derived directly from Deuteronomy 27–28.[33] Huffmon concludes that the prophets mixed several elements in their judgment oracles: those stemming from the suzerain-vassal treaties, the judicial procedures practiced in ancient Israel,[34] and the covenant curses derived directly from Israel’s violation of God’s covenant mandates.[35]

Harvey analyzes the parallels between the covenant lawsuit form employed in the prophets and the ancient Near Eastern international suzerain-vassal treaty forms.[36] And in a similar but more moderate fashion Hillers compares the covenant curses found in the ancient treaties with the covenantal judgment speeches (lawsuits) of the prophets and concludes that the traditional maledictions used in suzerain-vassal treaties might have had some influence on the prophets.[37]

The ancient Near Eastern international suzerain-vassal treaty stipulated the relationship and responsibilities that existed between a lord (suzerain) and his people (the vassals). As has been noted by many, the international suzerain-vassal treaty form and the Mosaic Covenant exhibit eight characteristics.[38]

Historical preparation. The document commences by recording the date (Exod. 19:1), geographical setting, and activity of the suzerain (v. 2). The covenant mediator is named and the suzerain’s message is recorded (vv. 3–25).

Preamble. The author of the covenant is identified—the suzerain or great king, in this case, the God of Israel (20:1).

Historical prologue. The historical prologue records the previous relations between the two parties of the covenant. The past benevolence of the faithful suzerain is stated in order to inspire gratitude and obedience on the part of the vassal people (v. 2).

Stipulations, laws, and regulations of the covenant. The stipulations spell out the obligations placed on the vassal by the suzerain.

The basic stipulations correspond to the Ten Commandments and provide a concise statement of the suzerain’s will (vv. 3–17).

Provisions for the reading and deposit of the treaty. A copy of the covenant was deposited in the sanctuary of both the suzerain and the vassals (25:16, 21) and was to be read to the people from time to time to remind them of their covenant obligations to their suzerain (Deut. and Josh. 24).

Deity witnesses. Long lists of gods were called on to witness the ratification of the covenant and to testify as legal witnesses in case of default. Since Israel recognized no god but Yahweh, the “witnesses” invoked were elements of nature: the mountains, rivers, heaven, and earth (Deut. 4:26; 30:19; 31:28; 32:1). When the prophets were dispatched to serve as God’s covenant enforcement mediators, they often appealed to “heaven and earth” to testify against Israel for covenant violation (Isa. 1:2; Mic. 6:1–2).

Curses and blessings. Both the suzerain-vassal treaties and the Mosaic Covenant invoke blessings for covenant obedience and loyalty (Deut. 28:1–14) and curses for covenant disobedience and disloyalty (27:15–26; 28:15–68).

Covenant ratification. The covenant was ratified when the people agreed to abide by its conditions, offered a sacrifice and sprinkled blood, and participated in the eating and drinking of the covenant meal (Exod. 24).

Thus Hosea was a royal diplomat or covenant enforcement mediator whom God (the divine suzerain) used to call His servant nation Israel (the vassal) into account for idolatrous and harlotrous breach of covenant.

The covenant lawsuit form is clearly prominent in Hosea’s condemnation of the sins of the people of the Northern Kingdom (Hos. 2:2–13; 4:1, 4; 12:2). Gemser argues that “Amos employed the rîb to summons and accuse, threaten and decide judgment against the neighboring nations (1:3–2:3), culminating in the sternest charges and accusations against Israel (2:6–8) [but] Hosea, perhaps the least ‘legal-minded’ of the prophets, is the first to proclaim emphatically a rîb between Yahweh and His people and its leaders, religious as well as political.”[39] Craghan suggests that “it is not difficult to gauge [what effect] such an artistic genre must have had on Hosea’s listeners. The people could not defend themselves against such a forceful prosecuting attorney.”[40]

The Oracle of Salvation

In oracles of salvation or hope a prophet spoke on God’s behalf [41] to predict future salvation, restoration, deliverance, and blessing to an individual, group, or nation.[42] Announcements of salvation and restoration serve as a counterbalance to or reversal of the pronouncements of judgment.[43] The basic pattern of the proclamation of salvation includes a proclamation of future deliverance followed by the promise of a blessing. These prophecies of salvation include (a) an introductory messenger formula or appeal for attention, usually characterized by the introductory divine “I,” thus calling the hearer’s or reader’s attention to Him who makes the future salvation a reality, (b) the Lord’s prediction of salvation and restoration, and (c) a future-oriented basis of the promise (“in that day” or “in the last days”), solemnized by the Lord, the One who both authorizes and will graciously bring the promise to pass.

In 2:14–23 Hosea introduced a dramatic reversal to God’s covenant lawsuit (רִיב) against Israel (2:2–13). “In that day” occurs in verse 16, 18, 21. A second example is 3:4–5, which records Yahweh’s announcement of Israel’s prolonged dispersion, but promises that they will be restored to Him “in the last days.” A third example is 14:4–8, in which God promised to someday heal Israel’s long history of apostasy by restoring them to Himself and His rich blessings.

Variations of the prophecy of salvation are recorded in 1:10–2:1 and 11:8–11, where God announced a reversal of judgment for both Israel and Judah.[44] Hosea’s first oracle of judgment closes with a dramatic reversal in which God promises a future reunification of the northern and southern kingdoms and appointment of a Davidic Ruler (1:10–2:1). Having predicted judgment on Israel for flagrant harlotry (1:2), illustrated through Hosea’s marriage to Gomer and in God’s symbolic naming of Hosea’s three children (1:2–9; cf. Isa. 8:18),[45] God reversed the message of judgment by changing the meaning of Hosea’s children’s names to reflect Israel and Judah’s ultimate restoration and blessing, both numerically and spiritually. In the second reference (Hos. 11:8–11), God lamented over His decision to bring judgment on Israel and promised that even though the judgment was certain, He would one day “roar like a lion” (v. 10), thereby summoning a remnant of Israel to be restored in their relationship with Himself and to the land of promise.

The Prophetic Call or Commission

The prophetic call or commission, usually recorded in a book’s superscription, was identified by the words “The word of the Lord which came to…” (1:1)[46] These words pointed out the divine origin of the prophet’s message and spokesman. Then when Israel’s destruction and deportation came to pass in 722 B.C., this event authenticated his book as inspired by the Lord.

The Symbolic Action

Another prophetic form employed by Hosea is referred to as the symbolic action or acted parable.[47] This form is often identified as a prophetic narrative,[48] in which a prophet recorded a symbolic action in either a first- or third-person narrative that described the prophet’s performance of an act that represented God’s intentions or actions toward His people.[49] “Action, rather than words, provides the key element.”[50] In Hosea, for example, chapter 1 is recorded as a third-person biographical memoir detailing God’s command to Hosea to marry “a wife of harlotry and have children of harlotry.” This symbolized the idolatrous harlotry and unfaithfulness of His people, Israel, who had rejected her faithful husband Yahweh (1:1–9). Chapter 3 presents a subsequent first-person autobiographical account by Hosea of God’s command to redeem and restore his faithless wife Gomer. This symbolized God’s future restoration of His faithless wife Israel.[51]

Other Literary Genres and Forms

Proverbs and wisdom sayings. Hosea employed several proverbs (4:9, 11, 15; 8:7; 10:12), and a wisdom saying (14:9) to punctuate or summarize his message at crucial points. He seems to have used these wisdom sayings somewhat sarcastically, to condemn the people for violating God’s word and will and to emphasize the fact that their rebellious actions would result in inescapable judgment.

Call to alarm or battle warnings. The imperatival trumpet blast served to dramatize the terror and suddenness associated with Yahweh’s judgment (5:8; 8:1).

The woe oracle. In this speech form the Hebrew word הוי (“woe”) is followed by a direct address to the group or individual that is guilty and would experience God’s judgment. The woe oracle is a mixed genre[52] that includes elements of the judgment speech (viz., accusation of sin and announcement of judgment). In Hosea 7:13 the woe oracle affirmed the fact that Israel’s departure from the Lord would result in destruction, deportation, and death: Woe—“Woe to them [the people of Israel]”; accusation—“for they have strayed from Me!”; announced judgment—“Destruction is theirs”; accusation—“for they have rebelled against Me!”

Rhetorical questions. Hosea used several rhetorical questions to emphasize Israel’s guilt and dependence on the Lord (4:16; 6:4; 8:5; 9:5, 14; 10:3, 9; 11:8; 13:9–10, 14).

A penitential song. Commentators have identified 6:1–3 as a penitential song ascribed to Israel, a priest, or the prophet Hosea.[53] This song of repentance functions as a response to God’s threatened judgment announced in the numerous prophetic judgment speeches in the previous two sections (4:1–5:15).

A divine lament. Hosea 11:8–11 records God’s divine dilemma as He wrestled with the demands of His holy abhorrence of Israel’s sin, which demanded judgment, and His loyal love, which demanded compassion and mercy in the form of deliverance and restoration.

An admonition or exhortation to repent. In 14:1 the admonition for Israel to return to the Lord was couched in the imperatival form, to which a reason (“for,” “because”) was added. “Return, O Israel, to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity.”

A love song. Hosea used a love song to solemnize God’s promise to restore a righteous remnant in the future (14:5–7).

Conclusion

Each of the literary forms (or prophetic speech types) employed by Hosea in his prophetic book is typical of those found in the covenant enforcement documents of the preexilic prophets of the eighth, seventh, and sixth centuries. Hosea used the prophetic judgment speech and the more specific prophetic lawsuit speech (רִיב) to accuse Israel of their sins of idolatrous and harlotrous covenant violation and to announce imminent judgment. Hosea’s oracles of salvation and restoration are messages of hope based on God’s faithfulness to Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3; 15; 17; 22) and to David (2 Sam. 7:12–16; Ps. 89).

Hosea’s rhetorical purpose was to serve as God’s covenant enforcement mediator in announcing to the sinful people of Israel that divine judgment was both necessary and certain. The prophet’s message of divine judgment was based on the stipulations in the covenant made at Mount Sinai, and reiterated by Moses to the second generation of Israelites just before they entered the promised land. Hosea concluded five of his six major sections on judgment with Yahweh’s promise to restore a future righteous remnant to covenant privilege, prosperity, and blessings (1:10–11; 2:14–23; 3:5; 5:15b; 11:8–11; 14:4–8).

The theme of God’s steadfast faithfulness (חֶסֶד) for His elect people, Israel, in spite of their continued covenant violations, resonates throughout every section of the book (1:10–2:1; 2:14–23; 3:1, 4–5; 5:15b; 11:1–4, 8–11; 13:4–6, 14; 14:1–8), and is vividly depicted in chapters 1–3 by Hosea’s domestic experiences. Much as Hosea demonstrated his unrelenting faithfulness and loyalty love for his unfaithful and adulterous wife Gomer, so too God demonstrated His covenantal faithfulness and loyalty love for His unfaithful and adulterous people, Israel and Judah. This is clearly demonstrated in His compassionate cry of distress in 11:8–11.

Notes

1. Marvin A. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39: With an Introduction to the Prophetic Literature, Forms of the Old Testament Literature (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 17.
2. D. Brent Sandy and Ronald L. Giese Jr., Cracking Old Testament Codes (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 19.
3. Leland Ryken, “Amos,” in A Complete Literary Guide to the Bible, ed. Leland Ryken and Tremper Longman III (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 338.
4. Ibid.
5. For a development that seeks to reconstruct an Old Testament office of covenant mediator see H. J. Kraus, Worship in Israel (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1966), 110–12.
6. Stephen J. Bramer seems to be the first to use the term “covenant enforcement document” as a technical term for the genre of an entire prophetic book (“The Literary Genre of the Book of Amos,” Bibliotheca Sacra 156 [January-March 1999]: 43-49).
7. Douglas K. Stuart, “Hosea,” in Hosea-Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 6–7.
8. Duane A. Garrett writes, “It is impossible to analyze Hosea without a thorough reckoning with his allusions to the Torah and to Israelite history. Hosea stood squarely within the traditions of Israel as he addressed the crises facing his generation. In particular, the stories of Genesis and the exodus event dominate the book of Hosea. In short, Hosea’s critique of his generation is founded entirely upon the Pentateuch. Against this evidence it is difficult to resist the implication that the Pentateuch. .. preexisted the Book of Hosea. For our purposes, however, it is important to recognize that the interpretation of Hosea is impossible without reckoning with how he used the Torah as his canon” (Hosea, Joel, New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997], 27–29). See also Umberto Cassuto, “The Prophet Hosea and the Books of the Pentateuch,” in Biblical and Oriental Studies, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1973), 1:79–100.
9. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993), 168. For an overview of the characteristic generic elements in the prophetic messenger speech form, the role or function of which is first attributed to God’s initial messenger Moses, see James Muilenburg, “The Form and Structure of Covenantal Formulations,” Vetus Testamentum 9 (1959): 347-65; and idem, “The Office of the Prophet in Ancient Israel,” in The Bible in Modern Scholarship, ed. J. Philip Hyatt (Nashville: Abingdon, 1965), 94–121. See also Walter Brueggemann, Tradition for Crisis: A Study in Hosea (Richmond, VA: John Knox, 1968), 98–128; and James F. Ross, “The Prophet as Yahweh’s Messenger,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, ed. Bernhard W. Anderson and Walter Harrelson (New York: Harper, 1962), 98–107, reprinted in Prophecy in Israel, ed. David L. Petersen, Issues in Religion and Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 112–21. According to Ross, Köhler was one of the first to demonstrate the existence of the “prophetic Botenspruch,” in which the prophet was commissioned by the Lord to serve as His duly authorized messenger (ibid., 98-99; reprint, 112). See Ludwig Köhler, “Deuterojesaja (Jesaja 40-55) stilkritisch untersucht,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 37 (1923): 102-9.
10. Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 168.
11. Stuart provides a convenient chart summarizing the various Pentateuchal covenant curses employed in Hosea (“Hosea,” xxxi-xl).
12. See Richard V. Bergren, The Prophets and the Law (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974), 182–83.
13. For insights into Hosea’s covenantal theology see Charles F. Fensham, “The Covenant-Idea in the Book of Hosea,” Die Ou-Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap van Suid-Afrika 7/8 (1964–1965): 35-49; Brueggemann, Tradition for Crisis; and Carl Brinton Hoch Jr., “The Relation of Hosea’s Prophecy to the Sinaitic Covenant” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1966).
14. Tucker surveys a number of scholarly works that support the view that many aspects of the prophets’ messages were based on the older Sinai-Exodus-Conquest traditions (Gene M. Tucker, “Prophecy and the Prophetic Literature,” in The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, ed. Douglas A. Knight and Gene M. Tucker [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985], 331–35). Mark F. Rooker notes that “Hosea has long been recognized by many as a prophet that was very familiar with the earlier narrative writings of the Old Testament” (“The Use of the Old Testament in the Book of Hosea,” Criswell Theological Review 7 [1993]: 51-66). See also Steve McKenzie, “Exodus Typology in Hosea,” Restoration Quarterly 22 (1979): 100-108; and Dwight R. Daniels, Hosea and Salvation History: The Early Traditions of Israel in the Prophecy of Hosea (New York: de Gruyter, 1990).
15. B. Gemser, “The Rîb-or Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality,” in Wisdom in Israel and in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. Noth and D. Winton Thomas, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 120–37.
16. For insight into the role that prophetic persuasion played in the process of theological and social development in Israel see Gary V. Smith, The Prophets as Preachers: An Introduction to the Hebrew Prophets (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 5–25.
17. For Hosea’s reference to and usage of the “Jacob Tradition” see Edwin M. Good, “Hosea and the Jacob Tradition,” Vetus Testamentum 16 (1966): 137-51; and Steven L. McKenzie, “The Jacob Tradition in Hosea XII 4–5, ” Vetus Testamentum 36 (1986): 311-22.
18. Stuart, “Hosea,” 7.
19. Klaus Koch objects to the juridical association of the designation “prophetic judgment speech” and proposes the more neutral form “prophecy of disaster” (The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-Critical Method, trans. S. M. Cupitt [New York: Scribner, 1969], 210–13).
20. William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr., Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, ed. Kermit A. Ecklebarger (Dallas: Word, 1993), 300.
21. The prophetic judgment speech pattern typically presents an alternating interchange of accusations for sin and announcements of judgment, like the alternating links in a chain (Stuart, “Hosea,” 17). While the two components of the judgment speech typically form a unit, either component may occasionally occur in isolation.
22. Stuart points out that roughly two-thirds of the book is composed of “evidence” sections (accusations of sin) and another one-fourth is devoted to pronouncement of curses (announcements of judgment) (ibid.). Some of the evidence sections are quite extensive in length (e.g., 6:6-7:11). However, the evidence or accusations sections are usually only a few verses in length and are followed by an immediate announcement of judgment (as in chap. 5).
23. Israel’s adulterous lovers are introduced in 2:5, 7, 8–13 as the Baals of Canaan.
24. Aage Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Copenhagen: Gad, 1952), 1:199–200. See also Hans Walter Wolff, Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea, trans. Gary Stansell, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 31–33, 65–69; and Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, trans. Hugh Clayton White (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967; reprint, Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 169–180, 199–204.
25. The literature on the covenant lawsuit or rîb-pattern employed in the preexilic writing prophets is quite extensive, including among others, the following works: B. Gemser, “The Rîb-or Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality”; Julien Harvey, “Le ‘Rîb-Pattern,’ requisitoire prophetique sur la rupture de l’alliance,” Biblica 43 (1962): 172-96; Delbert R. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets, Biblica et orientalia (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1964); Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” Journal of Biblical Literature 78 (December 1959): 285-95; Kirsten Neilsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge: An Investigation of the Prophetic Lawsuit (Rîb-Pattern), trans. Frederick Cryer, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield: JSOT, 1978); James Limburg, “The Root ריב and the Prophetic Lawsuit Speeches,” Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969): 291-304; idem, “The Lawsuit of God in the Eighth-Century Prophets” (Th.D. diss., Union Theological Seminary, 1969); Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech; and G. E. Wright, “The Lawsuit of God,” in Israel’s Prophetic Heritage, 26–67.
26. Fee and Stuart, How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 177. The clearest example of this “cosmic lawsuit” form is found in the רִיב oracle delivered against sinful Israel in Micah 6:1–7:10.
27. Köhler’s informative study of the rîb-pattern employed in Isaiah 40–55 suggests that the literary form originated in the legal proceedings associated with lawsuits conducted in ancient Israel (“Deuterojesaja [Jesaja 40–55] stilkritisch untersucht,” 110–20). Wolff supported and further developed Köhler’s views, stating that the רִיב literary form “most probably has its setting in the announcements of judgment given by the court assembled at the city gate” (Wolff, Hosea, 66).
28. See Neilsen, Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge.
29. The consequences of God’s judgment on Israel introduced by “therefore” (עַל־ן) in verse 3 continue throughout the remainder of Hosea 4. A second indictment is in 5:1–11. Yahweh’s judgment is detailed in verses 12–15.
30. Harvey, “Le ‘Rîb-Pattern,’ Requisitoire prophetique sur la rupture de l’alliance”; Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets; and Charles F. Fensham, “Maledictions and Benedictions in Ancient Near Eastern Vassal-Treaties and the Old Testament,” Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 74 (1962): 1-9.
31. George E. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Pittsburgh: Presbyterian Board of Colportage of Western Pennsylvania, 1955), 32–34, 40–44.
32. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” 295.
33. Ibid., 292; cf. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East, 34, 42.
34. R. B. Y. Scott points out that these reproach oracles stem from the adjudication of disputes typically conducted before the elders in the city gates (“The Literary Structure of Isaiah’s Oracles,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy, ed. H. H. Rowley [Edinburgh: Clark, 1950; reprint, New York: Scribner, 1957], 179). See also Ludwig Köhler, “Justice in the Gate,” in Hebrew Man, trans. Peter R. Ackroyd (London: SCM, 1956), 148–75. For examples of adjucating legal cases in the city gates see Ruth 4:1–12; Isaiah 29:21; and Amos 5:10–12, 15.
35. Huffmon, “The Covenant Lawsuit in the Prophets,” 293.
36. Harvey, “Le ‘Rîb-Pattern,’ Requisitoire prophetique sur la rupture de l’alliance.” Mendenhall is one of the first scholars to note parallels between Israel’s covenant and the international suzerain-vassal treaties of the late second-millennium Anatolia and Syria (Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient Near East).
37. Hillers, Treaty-Curses and the Old Testament Prophets. See also Dennis J. McCarthy, who provides an extensive bibliography on this subject (Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in the Ancient Oriental Documents and in the Old Testament [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978]; and J. Wijngaards, who argues that the Hittite suzerainty treaties offer a number of surprising parallels with Hosea’s references to death and resurrection (“Death and Resurrection in Covenantal Context [Hos. VI 2],” Vetus Testamentum 17 [1967]: 226-39). See also J. Carl Laney, “The Role of the Prophets in God’s Case against Israel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (October-December 1981): 316, summarizing Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago: InterVarsity, 1966), 90–91.
38. These eight characteristics have been adapted from Laney, “The Role of the Prophets in God’s Case against Israel,” 316–17, summarizing Cleon L. Rogers, “The Covenant with Moses and Its Historical Setting,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 14 (1971): 147-54.
39. Gemser, “The Rîb-or Controversy-Pattern in Hebrew Mentality,” 129. John F. Craghan also concludes that “the covenant lawsuit or ‘rîb pattern’ wherein Israel is indicted for her violation of the covenant and sentenced is not wanting in Hosea” (“The Book of Hosea: A Survey of Recent Literature on the First of the Minor Prophets,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 1 [1971]: 146).
40. Ibid., 146-47.
41. “The prediction of salvation is usually characterized by the introduction of the divine ‘I’ and thus calls the hearers’ [readers’] attention to Him who makes the future restoration a reality (Hos. 2:14–23; 11:8–11; 14:4–8)” (Werner H. Schmidt, “The Form of Prophecy,” in Old Testament Introduction [New York: Crossroad, 1984], 188).
42. Salvation oracles, following messages of judgment addressed to Israel, are found in Hosea 1:10–2:1; 2:14–23; 3:5; 11:8–11; and 14:4–8. A second group consists of salvation oracles to Judah, following messages of judgment addressed to Israel in 1:7; 4:15; and 6:11. See Claus Westermann, Prophetic Oracles of Salvation in the Old Testament, trans. Keith Crim (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 102, 113–18.
43. Michael Lee Catlett, “Reversals in Hosea: A Literary Analysis” (Ph.D. diss., Emory University, 1988). The reversal from condemnation and curses to restoration and blessings is a regular feature in the preexilic prophetic books and serves as a structuring pattern in the Book of Hosea.
44. Though these references do not have the phrase “in that day” or “in the last days,” the future-oriented promise of Israel and Judah’s restoration is clearly intended.
45. Whereas the people of Israel are called Lo-ammi (“not My people,” v. 9), Yahweh promised that they will someday be regathered and called “the sons of the living God (v. 10). “Jezreel,” the place of “scattering” or judgment (v. 4), will become the location of future blessing and prosperity when Yahweh regathers and “sows them” in the land of promise in the kingdom age (v. 11).
46. Jeremiah 1:1–2; Ezekiel 1:1–3; Hosea 1:1–2; 3:1; Joel 1:1; Jonah 1:1; 3:1; Micah 1:1; Zephaniah 1:1; Haggai 1:1; Zechariah 1:1; Malachi 1:1.
47. J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1962), 165–73.
48. Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 302.
49. Sweeney, Isaiah 1–39, 19. Isaiah’s two sons served as signs to apostate Judah of God’s impending judgment and restoration (Isa. 7:1–8:18).
50. David L. Petersen, The Prophetic Literature: An Introduction (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 2002), 20.
51. The symbolic action form was frequently employed by the major prophets (Isa. 7:3; 8:1–4, 18; 20:1–6; Jer. 13:1–11; 16:1–4, 5–7, 8–9; 32:1–15; Ezek. 3:22–26; 4:1–3, 4–8, 9–11, 12–14; 5:1–3; 12:1–16, 17–20; 21:6–7, 18–24; 24:15–24; 37:15–28).
52. The “woe oracle” (הוֹי) is an impassioned expression of grief and despair that comes from the funeral dirge (1 Kings 13:30; Jer. 22:18; 34:5; cf. Amos 5:16). Yahweh pronounced woe on the living in order to bring home to Israel that the seeds of death were already present and would soon overtake them for their sins (Schmidt, “The Form of Prophecy,” 186).
53. Wolff, Hosea, 110–12. Wolff proposes that this penitential song was most likely sung by priests in times of grave danger (ibid., 116-17).