“The Bloodshed Of Jezreel”: Harmonizing Hosea 1:4 And 2 Kings 10:30

By Robert B. Chisholm Jr.

[Robert B. Chisholm Jr. is chair and senior professor of Old Testament Studies, Dallas Theological Seminary, Dallas, Texas.]

Abstract

Interpreters typically understand Hosea 1:4 as a promise that Yahweh would soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre he had carried out at Jezreel against the house of Ahab. However, this interpretation collides with the account of Jehu’s coup in 2 Kings 9–10. Of various solutions that have been proposed for this problem, it is most likely that Hosea 1:4 does not condemn Jehu’s actions at Jezreel, but uses them as a paradigm for the judgment that would fall on the house of Jehu.

Introduction

In Hosea 1:4 Yahweh tells Hosea to name his first son Jezreel and explains why: “For soon I will visit the bloodshed of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel.” Interpreters typically understand this to mean that Yahweh would punish the house of Jehu for the massacre he had carried out at Jezreel against the house of Ahab (2 Kgs 9–10). For example, consider the following translations of Hosea 1:4:

NIV 2011: “because I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel.”

ESV: “for in just a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel.”

NASB: “for yet a little while, and I will punish the house of Jehu for the bloodshed of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel.”

Tanakh: “for, I will soon punish the House of Jehu for the bloody deeds at Jezreel and put an end to the monarchy of the House of Israel.”

KJV: “for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel.”

NRSV: “for in a little while I will punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel.”

In support of this interpretation, one may point to several passages where the expression פָּקַד עַל refers to a retributive act. In such cases, the one(s) toward whom retribution is directed is (are) identified after the preposition, while the reason for retribution (wrongdoing) is the object of the verb, often being identified with the accusative sign (cf. Hos 1:4). For example, in Jeremiah 23:2 Yahweh declares: “I will bestow punishment on you for the evil you have done” (NIV 2011; lit., “I will visit upon you [accusative sign] the evil of your deeds”).[1] Furthermore, “bloodshed” (plural of דָּם), when used of humans, frequently has a negative connotation and is regarded as punishable (wrongdoing).[2] So there is ample semantic evidence in support of the usual interpretation of Hosea 1:4.

However, this interpretation of Hosea 1:4 collides with the account of Jehu’s coup in 2 Kings 9–10. In the historical account Yahweh, speaking through a young prophet sent to Jehu by Elisha, commissions Jehu to wipe out the house of Ahab as an act of divine vengeance for the slaughter of Yahweh’s prophets (9:7). It is clear that Jehu is simply the instrument of divine judgment; Yahweh is the Judge, as the three first-person verb forms in verses 7–9 make clear: “I will avenge . . . I will cut off . . . I will make.”[3] Yahweh emphasizes that the “whole house of Ahab will perish.” Indeed, Yahweh will, through Jehu, “cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel” (v. 8). Ahab’s dynasty will end, as Jeroboam’s and Baasha’s did (v. 9). Yahweh then singles out Jezebel for special judgment: dogs will devour her corpse (v. 10). The coming judgment on Ahab’s house will be thorough and violent; Yahweh himself will be the one working through Jehu.

Jehu carried out his commission with impressive speed and efficiency. He killed King Joram of Israel by shooting an arrow through his heart (v. 24). The use of the verb נכה echoes Yahweh’s commission (see v. 7). Jehu threw the corpse of Joram on the field that had belonged to Naboth, in fulfillment of a prophecy he had heard Yahweh deliver to Ahab following the king’s murder of innocent Naboth (vv. 25–26). Again, Jehu is clearly the instrument of Yahweh in implementing judgment against Ahab. But Jehu had more to do. He also killed Ahaziah, king of Judah (vv. 27–28), and Jezebel (v. 33). As prophesied by Yahweh, the dogs ate her corpse (vv. 34–37). Jehu next turned his attention to Ahab’s sons in Samaria. When pressured by Jehu, the leaders of the city executed the seventy princes and sent their heads to Jehu in baskets. Jehu put them in two piles outside the city gate of Jezreel (10:7–8). He then told the people that Yahweh had brought Elijah’s prophecy against the house of Ahab to fulfillment (vv. 9–11; cf. 1 Kgs 21:20–26).[4] Jehu still was not quite finished. When forty-two of the relatives of Ahaziah, king of Judah, arrived, he executed them (vv. 13–14). He went to Samaria and wiped out the rest of Ahab’s family (v. 17), as well as all of the Baal worshipers who showed up for a feast (vv. 18–29).

One might think that all of this bloodshed was repulsive to Yahweh, but Yahweh commended Jehu (v. 30): “Because you have done well in accomplishing what is right in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all I had in mind to do, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation.” Yahweh’s commendation is not qualified in any way.[5]

This, of course, presents a problem for those who understand Hosea 1:4 as condemning Jehu’s actions at Jezreel. In this article I will discuss various proposed solutions to the problem, pointing out the weaknesses and, in some cases, strengths of each. I will conclude that Hosea 1:4 does not condemn Jehu’s actions at Jezreel, but uses them, ironically, as a paradigm for the judgment that would fall on the house of Jehu. This view is not unique to me, but in endorsing this proposal I hope to put it on more solid ground by marshaling additional contextual support for it and by exposing more aggressively and clearly the weaknesses of alternative attempts at harmonization proposed by scholars.

Proposed Harmonizations

Hosea 1:4 Contradicts 2 Kings 10:30

Many scholars are content to conclude that Hosea 1:4, by condemning Jehu’s purge of the house of Ahab, contradicts 2 Kings 10:30. For example, after surveying attempts to resolve the problem, Irvine concludes: “Hosea cites Jehu’s massacre of the house of Ahab as the specific reason for divine judgment. The prophet resorts to this assertion as a way of countering the recently composed propaganda of Jeroboam’s court in 2 Kings 9–10.” (Irvine is referring to Jeroboam II.) Dating Hosea’s oracle to 750 BC, he argues that Hosea’s “threat reflects the political difficulties of the house of Jehu as Syria confiscated much of Jeroboam’s kingdom and Israelites increasingly opposed his rule and the dynasty as a whole.”[6] This is unsatisfactory, for identifying 2 Kings 9–10 as propaganda originating in Jeroboam’s court works only if one isolates the account proper from its conclusion, which is decidedly anti-Jehu (10:31).

Others also, like Irvine, pit Hosea against 2 Kings 9–10. Hasegawa states that Hosea “condemns what is justified” in the Jehu narrative.[7] Robker sees 2 Kings 9–10 as a response to Hosea, rather than vice-versa.[8] Begg accounts for the omission of Hosea in the Deuteronomistic History as being due to his condemnation of Jehu’s revolt, which is viewed positively in the History.[9] Wolff sees Hosea as being at odds with “prophetic circles gathered around Elijah and Elisha (2 Kgs 10:30),” but he does not think the opposition was “conscious” because, in his opinion, Hosea would not have known these prophetic traditions.[10] Macintosh argues that Hosea takes the higher ethical ground: “Hosea will have nothing to do with the suppression of conscience in the interests of fanatical Yahwism; true Yahwism recognizes what is ethically good and reflects the ethical nature of Yahweh.”[11] Similarly, Davies affirms: “For Hosea murder is a sin (cf. 4:2; 7:7), and the end does not justify the means.”[12] Harper sees Hosea as a moral reformer: “A century had given the prophets a better point of view.”[13]

Pitting Hosea against 2 Kings 9–10 is deeply flawed at a hermeneutical-theological level. In both Hosea 1:4 and 2 Kings 10:30 Yahweh speaks in the first person after the introductory formula “Yahweh said.” If we take this fact seriously, then we cannot legitimately argue that Hosea and the author of Kings had different perspectives or that one was correcting the other. That will work only if one or both of the authors is putting words in Yahweh’s mouth. But if Yahweh really did speak on both occasions, seeing the statements as contradictory is not a valid option, unless one is ready to argue that Yahweh was ethically confused or had forgotten by the time of Hosea what he had told Jehu. Any theologian in his right mind would rightly dismiss either suggestion as ludicrous. Actually, those who propose that Hosea and the author of Kings are in contradiction have a deficient view of the dynamics of biblical prophecy and of biblical inspiration. Did Yahweh really speak in the first person in both instances? If so, then the statements cannot be contradictory, given the divine character. If not, then one or both of the biblical authors are misleading us.

Jehu’s Actions Were Excessive

Some try to resolve the tension by arguing that Jehu’s actions were excessive in attitude and/or scope. For example, Wood states that Jehu “sinned in killing more people than God intended” and “acted more out of a desire for personal advancement than obedience to God.”[14] Andersen and Freedman draw a comparison to Assyria and Babylon, who, though instruments of divine judgment, misunderstood their role, proudly attributed their success to their own power, and gloated over and mistreated God’s people. They explain, “So in the very act of carrying out the will of God, first Assyria and then Babylonia sinned against the Lord of heaven and earth, and thus merited the destruction which overtook them subsequently.” They then propose that Hosea viewed Jehu’s actions in such a “dual light: in the very act of carrying out the divine judgment against the house of Ahab, he overstepped the bounds of his mandate and showed that arrogance and self-righteousness which was the undoing of the preceding dynasty.” More specifically, they point out that Jehu did not stop with the house of Ahab, but also tried to wipe out the “royal house of Judah.”[15]

Was Jehu’s attitude corrupted by pride? There is no indication in the narrative of 2 Kings that this was the case. As noted earlier, Yahweh commended him in no uncertain terms. Jehu did what was right in the eyes of God and accomplished all that Yahweh intended regarding the house of Ahab (10:30). Jehu was conscious of being Yahweh’s instrument in the fulfillment of prophecies against the house of Ahab (9:25–26, 36; 10:10), and the narrator casts him in this role as well (10:17). When we compare the Jehu narrative with the classic passage on Assyrian hubris, Isaiah 10, there is a marked difference. Isaiah 10 specifically accuses Assyria of acting outside the boundaries of the divine commission (vv. 5–8) by displaying an arrogant attitude in relation to God (vv. 8–11, 13–15). Yahweh says nothing of this sort to or about Jehu. On the contrary, he speaks only words of commendation with no qualifying remarks.

Did Jehu overstep the bounds of his commission by attacking the royal house of Judah? One can make a case that he did. Yahweh’s commission to Jehu made it clear that the house of Ahab was to be wiped out in its entirety (2 Kgs 9:8). No mention is made of the house of Judah, either in the commission or in Yahweh’s commendation, which specifically mentions Yahweh’s intentions toward the house of Ahab (10:30). An assault on the house of Judah was an assault on the house of David, to whom God had granted special royal status (2 Sam 7).

Yet other factors make this proposal problematic. Hosea specifically speaks of the bloodshed of Jezreel, where Jehu wiped out the house of Ahab (2 Kgs 9:15–26, 30–37; 10:6–11). True, Ahab’s seventy sons were executed in Samaria (10:1–3, 7), but their heads were delivered to and stacked up at Jezreel. The geographical focal point of Jehu’s purge of the house of Ahab is Jezreel. This is not the case with the house of Judah. Ahaziah was with Joram when Jehu killed the king of Israel, but he fled. He was wounded near Ibleam, died in Megiddo, and was buried in Jerusalem (9:27–28). Jehu killed the forty-two relatives of Ahaziah at Beth Eked, not Jezreel (10:12–14). The slaughter of the house of Judah took place in conjunction with the purge of the house of Ahab in Jezreel, so perhaps it could be called the “bloodshed of Jezreel,”[16] but the fact remains that only slaughter of the house of Ahab was associated with Jezreel per se.

More problematic for the proposal is the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 22, which attributes Ahaziah’s death to God (v. 7). The Chronicler portrays Ahaziah very negatively. His mother was the evil Athaliah (v. 2), the daughter of Ahab (2 Kgs 8:18; 2 Chr 21:6) and granddaughter of Omri (2 Kgs 8:26). In other words, Ahab was Ahaziah’s maternal grandfather. Ahaziah was heavily influenced by his mother, so much so that the Chronicler says he “followed [walked in] the ways of the house of Ahab” (2 Chr 22:3). His evil behavior was like that of the house of Ahab (v. 4). The Chronicler all but identifies Ahaziah with the house of Ahab. He did evil in the sight of Yahweh (v. 4), and his demise, like that of the house of Ahab, is God’s doing (v. 7).

The Hebrew text of verse 7a requires a closer look. It reads:

“And from God was the [תְּבוּסַת] of Ahaziah by going to Joram.” The meaning of the word תְּבוּסַת (construct of תְּבוּסָה) is uncertain, accounting for the variation among the versions and prompting emendations.[17] Perhaps the noun is related to בוס, “tread down.” Similar expressions of divine providence (using “from with Yahweh/God”) in 1 Kings 12:15 and 2 Chronicles 10:15 have סִבָּה /נְסִבָּה, “turn of events.” So some prefer to emend the text to one of these forms in 2 Chronicles 22:7. But the appearance of Ahaziah’s name after the word in question is problematic, forcing proponents of the emendation to revise the word order of the sentence. Of course, the more complex such proposals become, the more unlikely they are. Despite the semantic uncertainty, it is clear from the context that Ahaziah’s downfall is in view.

Furthermore, God clearly is the direct source of Ahaziah’s demise. Similar uses of “from God/Yahweh” suggest that this is not merely a reference to God providentially allowing something to occur. Laban and Bethuel recognized that the peculiar circumstances surrounding the arrival of Abraham’s servant and his proposal for Rebekah’s hand in marriage were “from Yahweh” (Gen 24:50, מֵיְהוָה יָצָא הַדָּבָר). Samson’s attraction to the Timnite girl was “from Yahweh” (Judg 14:4, מֵיְהוָה הִיא), for he was seeking an occasion to ignite a war of liberation against the Philistines. Adonijah acknowledged that Solomon’s rise to the throne was “from Yahweh” (1 Kgs 2:15, מֵיְהוָה הָיְתָה לּוֹ), for Adonijah had all but taken the throne when circumstances suddenly changed. Rehoboam’s foolish rejection of the northern labor force’s protest was “from Yahweh” (1 Kgs 12:15; מֵעִם יְהוָה; cf. 2 Chr 10:15), for Yahweh was intent on punishing Solomon for his idolatry. In all of these cases, Yahweh intervened, albeit through human instruments, to bring about an outcome in accordance with his will. We must conclude that this is the case in 2 Chronicles 22:7 as well. God wanted Ahaziah dead, and nothing in either 2 Kings 9–10 or 2 Chronicles 22 indicates that Jehu overstepped his bounds in serving as the divine instrument.

“Bloodshed” Does Not Refer Exclusively To Jehu’s Actions At Jezreel

Some attempt to resolve the tension between 2 Kings 9–10 and Hosea 1:4 by arguing that “bloodshed” has a broader referent and includes the subsequent sins of Jehu’s dynasty. For example, Jeremias sees Jehu’s actions as a starting point or model of bloodshed that came to characterize the regicide of Hosea’s time. It is this series of murders that prompts Yahweh’s judgment; the monarchy had perverted God’s intentions.[18] But, as Irvine points out, this proposal is problematic. Hosea 1:4 specifies Jezreel as the location, and more important, the verb forms anticipate the fall of Jehu’s dynasty, an event that occurred before the string of assassinations. In Jeremias’s proposal the punishment precedes the crime![19]

Smith understands “bloodshed” as metonymic. He argues that in Hosea 1:4 it refers “to any evil, treacherous, shameful acts perpetrated by the house of Jehu, not just murder and bloodletting.”[20] He points out that Jehu was pro-Assyrian and made a covenant with Assyria, that is, “acted whorishly against YHWH” (cf. 1:2b), and “renounced Israel’s covenant relationship with YHWH.”[21] For Smith “acting whorishly” refers to foreign alliances. He contends that “bloodshed” is not limited in its Old Testament usage to murder or the guilt that accompanies it. He appeals to 2 Samuel 16:8, where, he argues, the term does not refer to bloodshed perpetrated by David against Saul, because David did not inflict bloodshed on Saul. Instead, he suggests, the term probably refers to the shame David inflicted on Saul’s family when he replaced Saul on the throne. Furthermore, “bloodshed” is sometimes parallel to evil (Isa 33:15), bribery (Isa 33:15), iniquity (Isa 59:3), treachery (Ps 5:7), wrongdoing (Mic 3:10), and shame (Hos 12:15). So, he concludes, “bloodshed” is “a metonym” for those ideas.

Smith’s proposal is exegetically flawed: (1) The specificity of Jezreel militates against a broader referent for “bloodshed” in this context. (2) Parallel terms can be complementary, not necessarily synonymous. This is clearly the case in all of the poetic texts cited by Smith, where “bloodshed” is one of a list of crimes or the specific form that evil took. (3) Shimei (cf. 2 Sam 16:8) was accusing David of perpetrating bloodshed against the house of Saul. The speaker’s (Shimei’s) perspective/intention is the key to determining the semantic nuance of “bloodshed” here, not David’s innocence.

Rabbinical tradition also attempted to see “bloodshed” in Hosea 1:4 as broader in scope than the slaughter at Jezreel perpetrated by Jehu. Macintosh discusses the interpretive tradition (attested in the Targums, ibn Ezra, Rashi, Kimchi) that Jehu’s persistence in the idolatry of Jeroboam I, despite his purge of Baalism, is the real problem: “In other words, his residual and persistent idolatry rendered culpable the bloodthirsty deeds which, without it, would have incurred no guilt.”[22] But how could an action that is commended by Yahweh in such glowing terms be subsequently transformed into a sinful, punishable action by committing a sinful action that was chronologically and categorically distinct from the commendable action?

A variation on this (cf. ibn Ezra) might be formulated as follows: The bloodshed of Jezreel was the blood of the prophets and of Naboth shed by Ahab. Indeed, “bloodshed” is used in 2 Kings 9:7 (of the prophets’ blood) and 26 (of Naboth’s and his sons’ blood). If so, then Hosea could be indicating that Ahab’s crimes (which were avenged through Jehu) are now extended to include Jehu because his house continued in the sins of Ahab by perpetuating the idolatry of Jeroboam I (cf. 1 Kgs 16:31). But why should the good done by Jehu be transformed into the murderous deeds of his predecessor simply because Jehu subsequently perpetuated the idolatry of that predecessor? Apples are apples, and oranges are oranges, and no amount of red or orange paint will change that fact.

“Visit Upon” Does Not Mean “Punish For” And “Bloodshed” Does Not Mean ”Bloodguilt”

McComiskey argues that Hosea 1:4 “does not clearly establish a causative relationship between Jehu’s bloody purge and the demise of his dynasty, but establishes a relationship expressing supreme irony.”[23] He shows that the expression פָּקַד עַל need not mean “punish for” when used of judgment.[24] It only has this meaning when the direct object of the verb is within the semantic field of sin[25] or refers to sin, albeit indirectly.[26] However, sometimes the object of the verb is not within this semantic field, nor does it refer to sin. For example, in Jeremiah 15:3 Yahweh announces, “I will visit upon them [the sinful people] four destroyers,” which he then identifies as sword, dogs, birds, and wild animals (mirroring nicely the four forms of judgment mentioned in verse 2: death, sword, starvation, and captivity). The object of the verb (the destroyers) is not the reason for judgment, but the instrument of judgment.[27] In Jeremiah 51:27 the command is given: “Appoint [literally, “visit upon”] her [Babylon] a commander.” Again, the object of the verb (“commander”) is not the reason for judgment but the instrument.[28] So, to summarize, it is clear that the collocation פָּקַד עַל, in and of itself, does not mean “punish for.” It has this nuance only when the object is in the semantic field of sin or refers to sin.

This, of course, raises the question of the meaning of the object in Hosea 1:4, “the bloodshed of Jezreel.” Is “bloodshed” (the plural of דָּם) in the semantic field of sin? If not, does it refer to a sinful action? McComiskey shows that “bloodshed” does not always connote “bloodshed worthy of punishment.”[29] The word does not convey this meaning in and of itself. On the contrary, “it is apparent that the context invests the word with connotations that determine its position in the range of moral values.” While “bloodshed,” when referring to the shed blood of humans, is often viewed as an act worthy of punishment,[30] there are exceptions. In 1 Kings 2:5 the term refers to the shedding of blood in war (דְּמֵי מִלְחָמָה), which is not inherently sinful in the biblical world view. In fact, in this passage David condemns the murderous acts of Joab, who killed Abner and Amasa in a time of peace, as if it were a time of war. The implication is that the “bloodshed of war” may be justified, in contrast to the murders perpetrated by Joab. In 1 Kings 2:31 the phrase “bloodshed without cause” (דְּמֵי חִנָּם) is used of Joab’s murders. Specifying “without cause” implies that sometimes “bloodshed” is justified. In 1 Chronicles 22:8 and 28:3 “bloodshed” is used of David’s wartime efforts as a warrior. This shedding of blood was not wrong; in fact, David fought with God’s endorsement and through his enablement. However, the Lord did not want the builder of his temple, a symbol of peace, to be a warrior. But this divine decision does not imply that the “bloodshed” of David in war was sinful.

To summarize, the semantic evidence indicates that the collocation פָּקַד עַל could mean “punish for” in Hosea 1:4, but only if “bloodshed” refers to a sinful deed. Usage of “bloodshed” certainly makes that a strong possibility from a statistical standpoint, but context as well as important parallel texts must ultimately determine if this is indeed the case.

For Hosea 1:4 both context and parallel texts indicate that Jehu’s actions are not the basis for the coming judgment on his dynasty. In this case, as McComiskey and others have argued, the language used has a different nuance than the translations suggest. We have already established that the key parallel text, 2 Kings 10:30, in which Yahweh speaks in the first person (as in Hosea 1:4), makes the usual interpretation of Hosea 1:4 problematic, even though it may be based on a solid semantic foundation.

As we will now see, an analysis of the immediate context of Hosea 1:4 also militates against the usual translation of the verse and supports McComiskey’s position. Functionally, Hosea 1:2–9 is a judgment speech against Israel (with a positive word for Judah inserted in verse 7). The accusation appears in verse 2, where Yahweh commands Hosea to marry an unfaithful wife as an object lesson of how Israel has been unfaithful to its covenant commitment. Verses 3–9, where Yahweh gives Hosea’s children symbolic names, formally announce judgment. The symbolic names reflect judgment and its consequences (note the “I will” statements in verses 4–5, 6, 9). There is no formal accusation in verses 3–9, though an accusatory element may be implicit in verse 9, since the pertinent statement (“you are not my people”) matches thematically the formal accusation of verse 2. To summarize, the discourse structure of the passage is best understood as containing a formal accusation (v. 2) followed by a formal announcement of judgment (vv. 3–9, except v. 7). The implicit accusatory element in verse 9 rounds off the unit and signals closure.

Of course, one could argue that “the bloodshed of Jezreel” is implicitly accusatory, like the statement “you are not my people” in verse 9. However, in this case (unlike in verse 9) the accusation does not correspond thematically to the formal accusation of verse 2, which deals with idolatry. Furthermore, if one finds an additional accusation in verse 4, this undermines the main point of the unit and of Hosea’s symbolic marriage, namely, that Israel (“the land” in v. 2) is being punished for spiritual adultery in the form of idolatry. This theme is consistent with what we see in 2 Kings, where the house of Jehu is guilty of idolatry. They perpetuate the sins of Jeroboam I and there is even mention of Asherah in 13:6 (though there is no specific reference to Baal worship, which was clearly a problem in Hosea’s time). This is what leads to the demise of Jehu’s dynasty, not the purge at Jezreel for which he was commended.

So if Hosea 1:4 is not saying that the house of Jehu will be punished for the bloodshed carried out at Jezreel, what is it saying? Usage in judgment contexts suggests that the basic meaning of the expression פָּקַד עַל is something akin to “cause to (re)appear (in the experience of the one being judged).”[31] Often it is a sin that reappears as the basis for the announced judgment. But in two cases it is the instrument of judgment that appears. If we understand Hosea 1:4 in this way, then Yahweh will cause the bloodshed of Jezreel to reappear in the experience of Jehu’s dynasty as an instrument of judgment.[32] As McComiskey puts it, “If we understand Hosea 1:4 in this way, it states that the bloodshed at Jezreel will reappear hauntingly in Jehu’s dynasty, bringing it to an end.”[33] As I have said elsewhere, “In this case there is great irony, for the dynasty ends in the same way it began, suggesting it had become just as guilty and defiled as the dynasty it so violently replaced.”[34] Garrett says it well: “This is not punishment for Jehu’s zeal in the slaughter at Jezreel; rather it is punishment for not learning the lesson of Jezreel” (emphasis his). As Garrett goes on to explain, Jehu had repeated the apostasy of the house of Omri, and so his dynasty met the same fate as the one it replaced. But, as Garrett aptly observes, the purge at Jezreel, “if anything,” was “the main reason God did not eliminate his dynasty sooner.”[35]

Actually, it is possible that Hosea 1:4 is not announcing punishment on the house of Jehu per se. Israel is the focal point of the judgment (note the “land” in v. 2 and “Israel” in vv. 4b and 5). Yahweh will punish Israel by causing the very successful house of Jehu, represented by Jeroboam II (see 2 Kgs 14:25, 28), to fall. The violence of Jezreel ironically will reappear in the house of Jehu, which will be destroyed as judgment upon “the land” for its covenantal unfaithfulness. This marks a turn from divine deliverance (2 Kgs 14:27) to judgment. The fall of this dynasty, which gave the north stability, will culminate in the end of the northern kingdom (“house of Israel,” Hos 1:4b) as the Lord breaks its military power (bow) in the valley of Jezreel (= on the field of battle) (1:5). This will all be tangible proof that the Lord has withdrawn his mercy and has terminated his relationship with Israel (1:6–9) because of its unfaithfulness.

Conclusion

The harmonization of Hosea 1:4 with 2 Kings 10:30 poses a serious interpretive challenge. Yahweh, speaking in the first person, commends Jehu for wiping out the house of Ahab in 2 Kings 10:30, but then, again speaking in the first person, he appears to say he will punish Jehu’s dynasty for the violence Jehu perpetrated at Jezreel.

Interpreters have offered various explanations. Many are content to see contradictory viewpoints, but this “solution” is not satisfactory if one takes seriously the first-person form of Yahweh’s speeches in both texts. This proposal will work only if one or both of the authors (the narrators of Kings and Hosea) put words into Yahweh’s mouth, a concept that is hermeneutically and theologically deficient.

Others suggest that Jehu, though commended for carrying out his divine commission, exceeded the limits set by Yahweh by displaying an improper attitude and/or by attacking the royal house of Judah, something Yahweh did not specifically commission him to do. But there is nothing in the text to suggest his attitude was improper; unlike the proud Assyrians and Babylonians (to which he is compared by some), he is very much aware that he is an instrument of Yahweh in carrying out the divine will. As for his attack on the house of Judah, the Chronicler seems to absolve Jehu of guilt by closely associating Ahaziah, king of Judah, with the house of Ahab, his maternal grandfather, and by attributing Ahaziah’s death to the Lord’s intervention.

Still others attempt to resolve the problem by arguing that “bloodshed” encompasses more than the purge at Jezreel. Proposals include: (1) Jehu’s violent actions set the pattern for the regicide that plagued the northern kingdom. (2) “Bloodshed” is a metonym for the unfaithfulness of the northern kingdom. (3) Jehu’s purge, though commendable at one time, mysteriously became sinful when he perpetuated the idolatry of the dynasty he destroyed. But each of these flawed proposals is unsatisfactory.

The best solution is to question the premise that creates the problem, namely, the assumption, reflected in most translations, that Hosea 1:4 speaks of Yahweh “punishing” Jehu’s house “for the bloodshed [understood as “bloodguilt”] of Jezreel.” Following the lead of McComiskey, I have argued that פָּקַד עַל has the basic meaning “cause to (re)appear” and does not necessarily carry the connotation of “punish” unless its object is in the semantic field of sin or refers to sin. “Bloodshed,” the object in Hosea 1:4, can refer to a punishable act, but not always. Though the traditional translation is possible in light of the semantic evidence, it is not preferable in this context because, when compared with 2 Kings 10:30, it makes Yahweh speak in a contradictory manner. Furthermore, it does not fit well within the discourse structure of Hosea 1:2–9, where the formal accusation (v. 2) is followed by the announcement of judgment (vv. 3–9). Israel’s coming judgment, which includes the fall of the Jehu dynasty, is due to unfaithfulness (idolatry). Introducing an additional accusation (violence at Jezreel) within the announcement of judgment would undermine, or at least divert attention from, the main point of the passage. Hosea 1:4 ironically announces that Yahweh will, as part of his judgment on Israel, cause the violence of Jezreel to reappear (as an instrument of judgment, as it were) in the house of Jehu, because Jehu’s dynasty and the nation as a whole had perpetuated the sins of the house of Ahab.

Notes

1. Other examples include Jer 25:12; 36:31; Hos 2:15 (Eng. v. 13); Amos 3:2. Many times the accusative sign does not appear: Exod 20:5 (cf. 34:7; Num 14:18; Deut 5:9); 32:34; Lev 18:25; 2 Sam 3:8; Isa 13:11; 26:21; Hos 4:9 (note the reference to retribution in the parallel line); Amos 3:14.
2. See, for example, 2 Kgs 9:7, 26; Hos 4:2; 12:15 (Eng. v. 14), among many others.
3. The Septuagint has a second-person singular verb form in the first two cases, harmonizing the verb forms to the second-person form at the beginning of verse 7 and making verses 7–8 a description of what Jehu is to accomplish. Even if one were to accept the second person as original, verse 9 makes it clear Yahweh is the Judge and Jehu the instrument.
4. Peter Manseok Chang shows that the narrator describes Jehu in several ways that are reminiscent of Elijah. See his “The Significance of Jehu’s Revolution in the Literary and Theological Development of the Deuteronomic/Deuteronomistic History” (PhD diss., Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education, 2000), 172.
5. There are intertextual links between Yahweh’s words here and texts within and outside the Jehu narrative. These links support the notion that Yahweh endorses Jehu’s actions. See Lissa May Wray Beal, “The Deuteronomist’s Prophet: Narrative Control of Approval and Disapproval in the Story of Jehu (2 Kings 9 and 10)” (PhD diss., University of St. Michael’s College, 2004), 206–9.
6. Stuart A. Irvine, “The Threat of Jezreel (Hosea 1:4–5),” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 57 (1995): 494–503.
7. Shuichi Hasegawa, Aram and Israel during the Jehuite Dynasty, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 34.
8. Jonathan Miles Robker, The Jehu Revolution: A Royal Tradition of the Northern Kingdom and Its Ramifications, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2012), 64n225.
9. Christopher T. Begg, “The Non-mention of Amos, Hosea and Micah in the Deuteronomistic History,” Biblische Notizen 32 (1986): 41–53.
10. Hans W. Wolff, Hosea, trans. G. Stansell, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 18.
11. A. A. Macintosh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997), 17.
12. Graham I. Davies, Hosea, New Century Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 55.
13. William R. Harper, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Amos and Hosea, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1905), 211. Others who pit Hosea against 2 Kings 9–10 include H. G. M. Williamson, “Jezreel in the Biblical Texts,” Tel Aviv 18 (1991): 79; James E. Brenneman, “Prophets in Conflict: Negotiating Truth in Scripture,” in Peace and Justice Shall Embrace—Power and Theopolitics in the Bible: Essays in Honor of Millard Lind, ed. Ted Grimsrud and Loren L. Johns (Telford, PA: Pandora, 1999), 49–63; J. L. Mays, Hosea, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969), 28; and Susan Niditch, War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 72–73.
14. Leon J. Wood, “Hosea,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 7, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1985), 171.
15. Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), 180. See also J. Andrew Dearman, The Book of Hosea, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 93; Grace I. Emmerson, Hosea: An Israelite Prophet in Judean Perspective, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 28 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), 112; Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Interpreting the Minor Prophets (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990), 24; Chang, “Jehu’s Revolution,” 178–79. Dearman refers to Jehu’s “murderous excess” in attacking the king of Judah and his relatives. Emmerson states that “the principle of stable dynastic succession in Judah was endangered” by Jehu’s “bloodshed and violence” that resulted in Athaliah’s seizure of the throne. She suggests that Jehu was inappropriately attempting to reunify the thrones of Israel and Judah. Chisholm speaks of the “needless slaughter” of Ahaziah and his relatives that was “unauthorized by the Lord.” Chang speaks of “indiscriminate bloodshed.”
16. Chisholm, Interpreting the Minor Prophets, 24.
17. See Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Walter Baumgartner and Johann Jakob Stamm, trans. M. E. J. Richardson (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 4:1681.
18. Jörg Jeremias, Der Prophet Hosea, Das Alte Testament Deutsch (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 31. He speaks of Jehu’s actions as “Ausgangspunkt bzw. Modell eines Blutvergiessens, das die Gestalt des Konigtums in Hoseas eigener Zeit pragt.” The monarchy had become “die heillose Perversion einer Ordnung Gottes.”
19. Irvine, “The Threat of Jezreel (Hosea 1:4–5),” 497.
20. D. A. Smith, “The Sin of Jehu,” Journal for Semitics 10, no. 1 (1998–2001): 112–30, esp. 124.
21. Ibid., 123–24.
22. Macintosh, Hosea, 17.
23. Thomas Edward McComiskey, “Prophetic Irony in Hosea 1:4: A Study of the Collocation פקדעל and Its Implications for the Fall of Jehu’s Dynasty,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 58 (1993): 93. See also Thomas Edward McComiskey, “Hosea,” in The Minor Prophets, ed. Thomas Edward McComiskey (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 20.
24. McComiskey, “Prophetic Irony,” 94–99; “Hosea,” 20–22.
25. Examples include Exod 20:5; 32:34; 34:7; Lev 18:25; Num 14:18; Deut 5:9; 2 Sam 3:8; Isa 13:11; 26:21; Jer 23:2; 25:12; 36:31; Amos 3:2, 14.
26. For example, in Hosea 2:15 (Eng. v. 13) Yahweh says he will “visit upon” Israel “the days of the Baals,” which refers to Israel’s idolatry. In Hosea 4:9 Yahweh says he will “visit upon” the object of judgment “his ways,” which refers to the sinful actions of the typical Israelite, whether commoner or priest (cf. vv. 4–8). The second line of the verse uses the language of retribution (hiphil of שׁוב).
27. McComiskey, “Prophetic Irony,” 97–98; “Hosea,” 21. See as well Duane A. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997), 57n57.
28. Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 339.
29. McComiskey, “Prophetic Irony,” 99; “Hosea,” 21–22. See also Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 29.
30. See Gen 4:10; Exod 22:1 (Eng. v. 2); Deut 19:10; 22:8; 1 Sam 25:26, 33; 2 Sam 1:16; 3:28; 16:7–8; 21:1; 1 Kgs 2:31, 33; 2 Kgs 9:7, 26; Isa 1:15; 4:4; 9:4 (Eng. v. 5); 26:21; 33:15; Ezek 7:23; 9:9; 16:36; 22:2; 24:6, 9; 2 Chr 24:25; Pss 5:7 (Eng. v. 6); 9:13 (Eng. v. 12); 26:9; 51:16 (Eng. v. 14); 55:24 (Eng. v. 23); 59:3 (Eng. v. 2); 106:38; 139:19; Prov 29:10; Hos. 4:2; 12:15 (Eng. v. 14); Mic 3:10; 7:2; Nah 3:1; Hab 2:8, 12, 17. Isaiah 26:21 is of particular interest since the “bloodshed” in view there is associated with the iniquity (עָוֹן) of the earth’s inhabitants. That iniquity is referred to within the collocation “visit upon” (note “to visit the iniquity of the inhabitant[s] of the earth upon him”). David T. Lamb argues that this “strengthens the argument that the ‘visitation’ of Hosea 1:4 is meant to be a punishment caused by the violent deeds of Jehu.” See Righteous Jehu and His Evil Heirs: The Deuteronomist’s Negative Perspective on Dynastic Succession (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 87. Perhaps this is so, but all that the parallel in Isaiah 26:21 really does is demonstrate that sometimes “bloodshed” is worthy of punishment and that the phrase “visit upon” can refer to punishment, observations readily acknowledged. But this does not mean that the contextual factors at play in Isaiah 26:21 should be imposed on Hosea 1:4, if other contextual factors militate against it.
31. McComiskey suggests a gloss “visit upon” or “attend to.” See “Prophetic Irony,” 97; “Hosea,” 20.
32. Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets, 339.
33. McComiskey, “Hosea,” 21. See also “Prophetic Irony,” 100. Garrett (Hosea, Joel, 57) states, “God would bring upon Jehu’s dynasty the same violent destruction that befell Omri’s dynasty.”
34. Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets, 340.
35. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 57.