The Literary Structure Of Hosea 4–8

By Charles H. Silva

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

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

While the divisions within Hosea 4–14 are difficult to discern,[1] the chapters do reveal a distinct threefold structural arrangement (4:1–6:3; 6:4–11:11; 11:12–14:8).[2] These three lengthy sections—cycles D, E, and F—are primarily collections of Hosea’s individual prophetic oracles.[3] Most are messages of judgment that exhibit a cyclical interplay between announcements of Israel’s sin and God’s impending judgment.[4]

This repetitive interplay serves the rhetorical purpose of intensifying two facts: (a) the people of Israel were guilty of violating the stipulations of the Lord’s covenant,[5] and (b) as a consequence, judgment was unavoidable—the curses stated in the Mosaic Covenant were about to be released.

Also of note is the fact that each of these cycles concludes with restoration. Cycle D includes prophetic judgment oracles (4:1–5:15a), God’s promise of restoration (5:15b), and an exhortation to repent (6:1–3).[6] Cycle E includes prophetic judgment oracles (6:4–11:7) and concludes with the Lord’s promise to restore Israel, based solely on His divine compassion and grace (11:8–11). Cycle F includes prophetic judgment oracles (11:12–13:16), an exhortation to repent (14:1–3), and a final all-encompassing salvation oracle (14:4–8; cf. 3:5), in which the Lord promised to love His wayward people and to restore them to their land and to His manifold blessings.

Cycle D (4:1–6:3): The Lord’s Indictment Of Israel’s People, Priests, And Leaders

Demarcation Of Cycle D

The boundaries of this cycle are determined by several criteria.[7] First, the cycle opens with a “proclamation formula,” a formal call for Israel “to listen” or “pay attention” to the following message, “the word of the Lord” (4:1).[8] Second, the vocative “O sons of Israel” (or elsewhere “O Ephraim”) serves as a common opening device in chapters 4–14. Third, the cycle begins with an official judgment speech in the form of the רִיב oracle, in which the Lord brought a formal indictment or charge against His people for their breach of the Mosaic Covenant. Fourth, the cycle concludes with a fearsome depiction of the judgment the Lord was about to bring on Israel (5:12–15a), followed by a promise of restoration and an exhortation to repentance (5:15b–6:3). Fifth, the Lord’s direct address in 6:4 initiates a new cycle (cycle E) that extends through 11:11.

Contents Of Cycle D

This first cycle of the book’s second major division contains two lengthy collections of prophetic judgment oracles (4:1–19 and 5:1–15a) and concludes with a promise of Israel’s future repentance and restoration (5:15b–6:3). Both collections of prophetic speeches record numerous prophetic oracles[9] that were probably first delivered orally in various places and situations over the course of Hosea’s prophetic ministry.[10] The imperative שִׁמְעוּ (“Hear”) in 4:1 and 5:1, which represents a formal call for Israel “to pay attention,” begins both collections of oracles in this unit. Hosea’s oracles in this cycle may be outlined as follows.

First collection of judgment oracles (chap. 4). The initial judgment oracle in 4:1–3 presents the Lord’s covenant lawsuit (רִיב oracle) against Israel for covenant violation.[11] The people’s violation is detailed in three major offenses:[12] no faithfulness (אֶמֶת), no lovingkindness (חֶסֶד),[13] and no knowledge (דַּעַת) of God[14] (v. 1). Israel’s lack of a true “knowledge of God,” as recorded in the Law of Moses,[15] became the nation’s cardinal deficiency (v. 2).[16] The people rejected Yahweh’s covenant claims on them, as spelled out in the Mosaic Covenant mandates, that is, to worship Him, to know Him, and to serve Him only. The priests were responsible for disseminating the knowledge of the Lord to the people[17] through instruction (תּוֹרָה, “Torah”) whose content revealed the Lord’s righteous acts and demands (v. 6). Therefore “to know the Lord” serves as Hosea’s formula for faith in the Lord that Israel had rejected.

Israel’s unfaithfulness to the Lord’s covenant mandates resulted in widespread and flagrant violation of five of the Ten Commandments. The people were guilty of swearing, deception, murder, stealing, and adultery, which in turn led to violence and bloodshed (v. 2).[18] The “therefore” in verse 3 announces the Lord’s coming judgment on the land of Israel. Both people and beasts would languish because of Israel’s sin. God would release the covenant curses, resulting in a catastrophic drought that would destroy beasts, birds, and fish.[19]

The second prophetic oracle (4:4–10) is a judgment speech that accused and condemned Israel’s apostate priesthood. The priests were especially guilty, for they rejected the very knowledge of the Lord they were commissioned to teach to the people of Israel (v. 6). As a result these priests would experience His poetic justice. He would reject them from being priests (cf. 1 Sam. 15:23). Since they had ignored (תִּשְׁכַּח, “forgotten”) His Law, God would ignore (אֶשְׁכַּח, “forget”) their children (v. 6). The more the priests multiplied,[20] the more they sinned against the Lord. So He would turn their glory (or “honor”) into a shameful disgrace (v. 7). The priests were actually guilty of promoting sin in Israel in order to obtain greater wealth (v. 8). The aphorism “like people, like priest” emphasizes that the priests were just as punishable as the people. They would be repaid for their deplorable deeds (vv. 9–10).

To emphasize his point, Hosea introduced an ironical polemic directed against Israel’s participation in the Canaanite fertility rites of Baal worship. The people’s worship of Baal, the Canaanite storm and fertility god, would result in reproductive decline and agricultural catastrophe. The Hebrew of verse 10 may be rendered this way: “They will eat [their profane] sacrifices, but not be satisfied; they will engage in sacred prostitution, but not increase; because they have forsaken the Lord to pursue other gods.”[21] The Israelites thought that engaging in sacred prostitution would enhance human and animal reproduction and ensure bountiful crops. But God would demonstrate that He alone is the true “Cloud Rider”[22] who controls the cycles of nature (rains, crops, and fertility), and not Baal (Deut. 10:14; 33:26; Pss. 18:10; 68:4, 9, 33–34; 104:3). Israel’s forsaking of the Lord would result in His releasing on them the curses in the Mosaic Covenant (Lev. 26:14–46; Deut. 4:23–27; 28:15–68).

In the third prophetic oracle (Hos. 4:11–14) the Lord pronounced judgment against the Israelites for their involvement in idolatrous worship.[23] The people stood condemned for following the apostasy of their leaders. Their debauchery and spiritual harlotry caused them to depart from the Lord (vv. 11–12).[24] Idolatrous worship of the Canaanite gods was practiced at localized cultic centers throughout the land (v. 13a). As a result all levels of family life were perverted: Israelite daughters, brides, and men committed adultery with temple prostitutes (vv. 13b–14). Again all this was because of a lack of “understanding” or knowledge (דַּעַת) of the Lord and their covenant obligations. Israel’s spiritual bankruptcy would result in the nation’s ruin (v. 14c).

In verses 15–19 Hosea wove three oracles of judgment together. First, they were to stay away from the cultic immorality practiced at Gilgal and Beth-aven.[25] Second, Hosea leveled an additional judgment oracle against Israel by likening Israel to a stubborn heifer (v. 16). Hosea asked the people, “Can the Lord now pasture them like a lamb in a large field?” The implied answer is, “No, of course not!”

Third, Ephraim/Israel’s decision to join themselves to idolatry, drunkenness, and harlotry would result in the Lord’s judgment (vv. 17–19). Israel’s perverted rulers, who loved shame, are condemned for promoting the people’s shameful behavior.[26] As a result of Israel’s stubborn rejection of the Lord, His word, and His ways, the nation and her perverted leaders would be swept away by a violent wind of judgment. Ironically the spirit (רוּחַ) of harlotry that led Israel to forsake the Lord (v. 12) would become a whirlwind (רוּחַ) that would sweep them away in judgment (v. 19).

Second collection of judgment oracles (5:1–15a). This second panel, like the previous unit, also consists of a series of individual prophetic oracles.[27] The Lord’s condemnation of Israel and her leaders (accusations of sin interspersed with announcements of judgment) continues in verses 1–7. Israel’s rebellion and rejection of their God and covenant must be punished (vv. 8–15a). Israel’s affliction will lead a future remnant to repentance and restoration (vv. 15b–6:3).

As noted previously, the opening (5:1–2) of this second series of judgment oracles parallels that of 4:1–3. The unit opens with a threefold formal summons for Israel to give attention to the following message. The Lord pronounced judgment against Israel’s priests, people, and king in 5:1a–b. The following כִּי (“for”) in 5:1c introduces the Lord’s reason for Israel’s judgment.

The poetic and literary structure of this “carefully constructed gem stands on its own as an individual oral unit.”[28] The three imperatives in verse 1 summon Israel to “hear. .. give heed [and] listen” to the Lord’s accusations against the priesthood, the people, and the royal court. These three summons are paralleled by three metaphors taken from hunting (vv. 1c–2a): “a snare at Mizpah,” “a net spread out on Tabor,” and “a pit dug deep at Shittim.”[29]

God had established the religious and civil authorities (priests and king) to give His people religious instruction and political stability. However, the entire nation had become ensnared by the idolatry and immorality practiced at the various cultic sites of Canaanite religious perversion, and as a result all would face the Lord’s judgment (“I will chastise all of them,” v. 2b).

In the first oracle (vv. 3–7) in this collection Hosea stated that Israel had become so possessed by a “spirit of harlotry” that they no longer had any knowledge of the Lord (vv. 3–4). Their arrogance would cause the people to stumble (v. 5); they would continue in their hypocritical worship, but would soon discover the Lord had withdrawn from them (v. 6); and their treacherous acts with cult prostitutes resulted in the births of illegitimate children (cf. 4:13–14). And so Israel’s deplorable sins would lead to their ultimate judgment (5:7).

In the second oracle (vv. 8–15a) in this collection Hosea first sounded a call to battle[30] against Gibeah, Ramah, Beth-aven, Benjamin, Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel (vv. 8–9).[31] Judah too would experience the Lord’s judgment (v. 10).[32] Ephraim had already begun to experience it and would eventually be crushed because they were determined to pursue the worthless idols established by Jeroboam I (v. 11; cf. 10:11). The Lord compared His judgments against Ephraim and Judah to the unseen destructive work of a moth and the decay that eats away at bones (5:12). Sensing the danger from international threats, Ephraim and Judah attempted to forge foreign military alliances for security, rather than turning to the Lord (v. 13). Ephraim’s enlistment of help from “King Jareb” (cf. 10:6), a reference to the king of Assyria (probably Tiglath-pileser III, to whom the Israelite king Menahem paid tribute; 2 Kings 15:19–20) would prove to be futile, as no one could deliver them from the Lord’s judgment. In Hosea 5:14–15a, the Lord is described as a lion coming to rip His people Ephraim and Judah to pieces (cf. 13:7–8), from which there would be no escape. In fulfillment of this prediction Israel was captured and carried away into exile by Assyria in 722 B.C. (2 Kings 17:3–6), and Judah was later conquered by the Babylonians and carried away into exile in three successive deportations in 605, 597, and 586 B.C. (2 Kings 25).

The Lord’s threat of judgment resulting in Israel’s repentance (5:15b–6:3). The first collection of judgment speeches (4:1–5:15a) is followed by a note of restoration (v. 15b), coupled with an exhortation to repent (6:1–3). The context suggests that this exhortation in 6:1–3 concludes the judgment sequence because of several verbal links with 5:12–15: “wound” in 5:13 and “wounded” in 6:1; “heal” and “cure” in 5:13 and “heal” in 6:1; “tear” in 5:14 and “torn” in 6:1; “earnestly seek” in 5:15 and “let us know, let us press on to know” in 6:3.[33]

The fact that the following judgment oracle in 6:4–6 opens the next cycle with the Lord’s assessment (accusation) that Ephraim’s (Israel’s) and Judah’s loyalty is superficial and insincere (v. 4) has led some commentators to regard 6:1–3 as a spurious repentance on the part of Hosea’s generation.[34] Keil represents others who suggest that these words introduce “a call addressed by the prophet in the name of the Lord to the people, whom the Lord had smitten or sent into exile,” and thus they serve as an acceptable response to divine punishment.[35] Chisholm similarly proposes that these verses “record the words the penitent generation of the future will declare as they [return to] seek the Lord.”[36] These words of repentance can legitimately represent those of a future generation of Israelites (cf. 3:5).

Summary Of Cycle D

Both lengthy collections of judgment oracles (4:1–19 and 5:1–15a) in this cycle open with a summons for everyone to listen to the Lord’s accusations and announcements of impending judgment. These oracles present the Lord’s indictment against the leaders of Israel and also against Judah for promoting an idolatry that had led to a spirit of harlotry from which there was no escape.

Rejecting the Lord and His word, the nation’s leaders led the way in playing the harlot, with the result that every strata of Israelite society had become polluted. Judah was warned not to participate in Ephraim’s idolatry and immorality. Israel’s leaders had led the people so deep into depravity that judgment was the inevitable consequence. Any attempt to enlist help from Assyria would prove futile. The Lord’s horrific judgment would eventually lead a future generation of Israelites to seek restoration.

Cycle E (6:4–11:11): The Lord’s Denunciation Of Israel’s Apostate Religious Profession And Harlotrous Practices

Demarcation Of Cycle E

The boundaries of this second lengthy cycle (6:4–11:11) are informed by several criteria. First, the cycle commences with a shift in speaker from Israel in 6:1–3 to the Lord as the speaker in 6:4–11a. Second, in verse 4 the familiar opening device, the vocative of address plus the names “O Ephraim” and “O Judah,” indicates that a new unit begins here. Third, the thematic shift from the Lord’s promised restoration (5:15b) and a future generation’s repentance (6:1–3) to the Lord’s lament and condemnation of the ephemeral nature of Ephraim/Israel’s and Judah’s covenant loyalty (6:4–11a) signals the beginning of a new cycle of judgment oracles. Fourth, the cycle concludes with the Lord’s promise of restoration: following judgment, He promises to regather and restore His exiled people to their land and to Himself (11:8–11). Fifth, the stereotypical closing device, “declares the Lord” (11:11), terminates this judgment-restoration cycle.

Contents Of Cycle E

This second cycle (6:4–11:11) in this second major division of the book consists of two sizable collections of judgment oracles (6:4–8:14 and 9:1–11:7) followed by the Lord’s concluding promise of restoration (11:8–11). The two collections of judgment speeches each include additional judgment oracles, which are likewise further divisible into sequential judgment oracles of varying sizes. These oracles seem to have been assembled according to common themes and subject matter.

The initial collection of judgment oracles in 6:4–8:14 includes two collections: 6:4–7:16 and 8:1–14.[37] The second collection of judgment oracles in 9:1–11:7 has a threefold subdivision: 9:1–9; 9:10–10:15; 11:1–7.

The following outline of this collection of individual prophetic oracles shows this rather lengthy judgment and restoration cycle.

I. First Collection of Judgment Oracles (6:4–8:14)

A. The Lord’s announcement of judgment against Ephraim/ Israel and Judah (6:4–7:16)

1. The Lord’s lament over the ephemeral nature of Ephraim/Israel’s and Judah’s covenant loyalty (6:4–11a)[38]

2. The Lord’s announcement of judgment on Israel/ Ephraim’s leaders (6:11b–7:16)

B. The Lord’s announcement of judgment on Israel for covenant violations (chap. 8)

1. Israel’s rejection of the Lord resulting in His rejection of Israel (8:1–7)

2. Israel’s ironic demise: taken captive by Assyria, the very nation they had hired to protect them (8:8–14)

II. Second Collection of Judgment Oracles (9:1–11:7)

A. The Lord’s announcement of judgment on Israel for forsaking Him in order to pursue idolatrous Canaanite worship (9:1–9)

B. The Lord’s review of Ephraim/Israel’s long history of idolatry and evil (9:10–10:15)

1. Israel’s guilt in pursuing idolatry and immorality since Baal-Peor (9:10–17)

2. Israel’s guilt of establishing idolatrous worship at Beth-aven (10:1–8)

3. Israel’s guilt of rebelling and practicing immorality since the days of Gibeah (10:9–15)

C. The Lord’s announcement of judgment on His beloved son Israel (11:1–7)

III. Concluding Restoration Oracle (11:8–11)

A. The Lord’s announcement of judgment against Ephraim/Is-rael and Judah (6:4–7:16). This collection of judgment speeches opens with God’s condemnation of Ephraim/Israel’s and Judah’s lack of true covenant loyalty (6:4–11a).[39] Verse 4 begins with the Lord’s lament and accusatory question addressed to Ephraim and Judah (v. 4a). The Lord’s assessment of His people’s condition (v. 4b) suggests that their covenant-loyalty (חֶסֶד) was deceptive, since it was as fleeting as the early morning fog and dew. The Lord declared that He delights in “loyalty” (חֶסֶד) and in “the knowledge of God” (דַּעַת אַוֹּהִים), rather than in burnt offerings (v. 6; cf. 1 Sam. 15:22–23). Ephraim/Israel and Judah had failed to respond to the Lord’s repeated attempts to restore them. The scathing accusations in Hosea 6:6–11a highlight the universal extent of His people’s incessant covenant violations and harlotrous cultic practices. Like an unfaithful wife, Israel’s harlotry led to her defilement (v. 10). Judah’s coming judgment is likened to a harvest (v. 11a).

The next judgment speech (6:11b–7:16) is divisible into several individual judgment oracles. The initial oracle in 6:11b–7:2[40] is addressed to Israel and continues the theme of the Lord’s desire to restore His wayward people. Then the accusation and judgment speech in 7:3–7 is in the form of a “chiasm of key words.”[41] Each of Israel’s wicked kings had an insatiable lust for power, which is compared to a smoldering baking oven (vv. 4, 6–7).[42] It prevented any possibility of reconciliation with the Lord. All of Israel’s kings (murderous usurpers) would fall; yet not one of them would call on the Lord for help (v. 7). The following list shows the unique chiasm in 7:3–7.

A. “king” (v. 3)

B. “all of them” (v. 4)

C. “like an oven” (v. 4)

D. “heated” (v. 4)

E. “day” (v. 5)

F. irony: “to lay hold of” (מָשַׁךְ) rather than “to anoint” (מָשַׁח) (v. 5)

E´. “night” (v. 6)

D´. “smolders” (v. 6)

C´. “like an oven” (v. 7)

B´. “all of them” (v. 7)

A´. “their kings” (v. 7)

Hosea 7:8–12 includes three judgment oracles (vv. 8–9; v. 10; vv. 11–12), each of which continues the Lord’s denunciation of Israel’s leaders. A new judgment speech is indicated by the name “Ephraim” in verse 8. Ironically in the Lord’s accusation against Ephraim (7:8) the foreign alliances that Israel forged to achieve strength only made Israel weak: “Strangers devour his [Israel’s] strength, yet he does not know it” (v. 9). The change in name from “Ephraim” to “Israel” in verse 10 introduces a new accusation speech. Israel’s pride would lead to their demise because the people refused to “return” to (שׁוּב, “to seek penitently”) the Lord their God. The change in name from “Israel” back to “Ephraim” in verse 11 introduces another judgment oracle that concludes in verse 12. When Ephraim attempted to seek help from Egypt and Assyria, they met with judgment from the Lord.

In another judgment speech (7:13–16) the introductory “Woe!”[43] (אוי) introduces a divine lament similar to the Lord’s lament that opened this unit in 6:4–11a.[44] The unit evidences an intricate literary structure that consists of the Lord’s introductory interjection and accusation of Israel’s apostasy (v. 13a) and two parallel panels (vv. 13b–14 and vv. 15–16a) that contrast the Lord’s benevolence with Israel’s rebellion and refusal to repent. The unit ends with an announcement of Israel’s judgment (v. 16b).

The pronouns “them,” “they,” and “their” in verses 13–16 all point to Ephraim in the previous judgment speech in verses 11–12. This oracle contrasts the Lord’s covenant faithfulness with Israel’s covenant rebellion. Whereas He desired to redeem them, they spoke only lies and practiced deceit and continually rebelled against Him. All the nation’s princes (cf. v. 3) would fall by the sword because of their insolent speech (v. 16). The reference to the death of Israel’s princes signals thematic closure. Strong irony is noted here, since Israel would be consumed by the very nations they had depended on for help, especially Assyria.

B. The Lord’s announcement of judgment on Israel for covenant violations (chap. 8). The subunit of chapter 8 includes two prophetic speeches in verses 1–7 and 8–14. The first speech has two prophetic oracles (vv. 1–6 and v. 7), and the second speech has three (vv. 8–10; vv. 11–13; and v. 14). The opening of a new unit of prophetic speech is indicated by the “summons to alarm” or “call to battle” motif in verse 1. The occurrence of the name “house of the Lord” as a reference to “Israel” also indicates the opening of a new prophetic speech. The judgment speeches in this unit reiterate many of the themes recorded in the previous unit (6:4–7:16).

The “trumpet” in 8:1 depicts the Lord’s summons of Assyria, whom He would use as His instrument of judgment on Israel (vv. 9–10). Israel stood condemned for rebellion against the Lord’s covenant and Law for several reasons: (a) for “rejecting” the ethical and moral good associated with true worship (vv. 2–3); (b) for political infighting (v. 4); and (c) for idolatrous calf worship (vv. 4–6). Israel’s golden calf of Samaria would be broken to pieces and carried away (“thrown out”)[45] by Assyria (vv. 5–6). A proverbial saying in verse 7 symbolizes the judgment the Lord would bring on Israel for rejecting Him in favor of idols and foreign alliances. All their idolatrous religious and political pursuits are compared to “sowing the wind,” which was about to turn into a violent whirlwind.

The name Israel in verse 8 introduces a new prophetic speech. The phrase “is swallowed up” provides a rhetorical link to the previous oracle, which used the phrase “swallow it [Israel’s produce] up” (v. 7). Irony resonates throughout this announcement of judgment. Israel had forsaken the Lord, their true source of blessing, and hired Assyria to give them military protection (vv. 9–10a). But the Lord was about to gather them up for destruction (v. 10b).

The change of name from Israel to Ephraim in verse 11 introduces a new judgment speech (vv. 11–13). Also the thematic change to accusations against Ephraim’s (Israel’s) idolatry suggests a new literary unit. Ephraim’s practice of multiplying altars for sacrifice and ignoring the precepts recorded in the Law is condemned. The Lord announced that Israel would be ravaged and carried off into exile by Assyria (v. 13).

The introduction of the name Israel in verse 14 introduces a concluding judgment speech. The Lord was about to send a fire to destroy Israel for forsaking their Maker and building palaces and fortified cities.

The final article in this series will discuss Hosea’s remaining oracles in Hosea 9–14.

Notes

1. Scholars concur that the demarcation of major structural units and subunits and the delimitation of their individual prophetic speech units is especially difficult in the Book of Hosea. The primary problem is that Hosea did not regularly follow the structural procedures normally associated with the prophetic compositions of his day (James L. Mays, Hosea, ed. Peter Ackroyd et al. [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969], 5). “The absence of clear introductory and concluding formulas makes it impossible to establish unequivocally the limits of the small rhetorical units” (Hans Walter Wolff, Hosea: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Hosea, trans. Gary Stansell, Hermeneia [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974], 75). Mowinckel and Wolff observed that it is not easy to follow the “intuition picture” or the “inner structure” that marks off the individual textual units in Hosea (Sigmund Mowinckel, Prophecy and Tradition: The Prophetic Books in the Light of the Study of the Growth and History of the Tradition [Oslo: Jacob Dybward, 1946], 55–57; and H. W. Wolff, “Der grosse Jesreeltag (Hosea 2:1–3),” Evangelische Theologie 12 [1952–53]: 83).
2. See the outline of Hosea proposed in Charles H. Silva, “The Literary Structure of Hosea 1–3, ” Bibliotheca Sacra 164 (April–June 2007): 181. Mays proposes that this second major section of the book (chaps. 4–14), in contrast to chapters 1–3, is composed entirely of large collections of Hosea’s individual prophetic sayings (Hosea, 5–7, 61). These individual prophetic speeches, he says, were woven together into integrated compositions that are held together by a common theme or setting (ibid., 6). Mays is no doubt correct in his assessment that the prophetic oracles in chapters 4–14—some only a verse or two in length—record excerpts taken from Hosea’s prophetic messages delivered at different times and in different locales over the course of his forty-year prophetic ministry to Israel. The prophetic judgment oracle, composed of an accusation(s) of sin and announcement(s) of judgment, is predominant throughout every unit of this second division. See also Francis I. Andersen and David Noel Freedman, Hosea: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1980), 313–30.
3. Cycle A is 1:2–2:1; cycle B is 2:2–23; and cycle C is chapter 3 (see Silva, “The Literary Structure of Hosea 1–3, ” 181–97).
4. Andersen and Freedman have noted that the usual development or logical arrangement of judgment oracles, in which an accusation is made and then the punishment is proclaimed (as was used in the structuring of chapters 1–3), is not followed here in chapters 4–14 (ibid., 321). Instead, Hosea implements a perplexing method of interspersing accusations of sin and announcements of judgment. For example in 4:4–10 the Lord pronounced the priests’ judgment in verse 5, which precedes the accusation in verse 6. The central accusation, which usually introduces the oracles, comes in the middle of this judgment oracle in verse 6, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge” (because of the priests’ willful failure to teach them the Law). In a few instances Hosea introduced accusations without providing an announcement of judgment (as in 4:11–13), or he transitioned to additional accusations (as in 5:3–5).
5. The judgment oracles in chapters 4–14 are tied together with the judgment oracles in chapters 1–3 by the central theme of the Lord’s case against His adulterous wife Israel (cf. 2:2–13). The Lord’s central charge was delivered against Israel’s egregious violations of His covenant. Israel’s adultery and prostitution (both spiritual and literal) are attributed to the priests’ failure to instruct the people in the Law so that they might know and obey Him.
6. Identification of this closing restoration unit is not as conclusive as the other units. Whereas in the other five units God promised to restore a future generation of repentant Israelites, the promise of restoration following judgment in 5:15b, coupled with an exhortation to repentance in 6:1–3, has occasioned much discussion. Several interpretations proposed by commentators will be examined and discussed in connection with the following development of this cycle (4:1–6:3).
7. Wolff proposes that a larger transmission complex (4:1–11:11) originates with the summons for Israel to “Hear the word of the Lord” in 4:1 and concludes with the formula of divine utterance, “Declares the Lord!” in 11:11 (Hosea, xxx, 40–41, 65–69, 196–97, 202–3).
8. The repetition of this form in 5:1, along with the thematic repetition of condemning Israel and her leaders for incessant covenant violation, suggests that these two panels are parallel.
9. Scholars have long noted the literary unevenness inherent in the complexes of Hosea’s oracles in chapters 4–14 (e.g., Wolff, Hosea, 74–76). Hosea 4:1–19 includes a compositional interweaving of individual oracles: (1) vv. 1–3; (2) vv. 4–10; (3) vv. 11–14; (4) vv. 15–16; (4) vv. 17–19. The same procedure occurs in 5:1–15, which seems to contain messages originally delivered as separate oracles: (1) vv. 1–2; (2) vv. 3–4; (3) vv. 5–7; (4) vv. 8–9; (5) v. 10; (6) vv. 11–12; (7) vv. 13–15. The identification of individual oracles within these larger units is informed primarily by changes in addressees, such as Israel and Ephraim or Judah, and by changes in prophetic speech types or forms and themes. Davies, however, opposes the practice of dividing these larger complexes into numerous individual oracles. He is convinced that Hosea’s abrupt changes in style and addressees in the course of his prophetic speeches is due to his taking “on the role of an advocatus Dei” (Graham I. Davies, Hosea, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992], 136).
10. J. Lindblom discusses the primary form and transmission of the prophetic oracles (Prophecy in Ancient Israel [Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962; reprint, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1963], 148–65, 242–45). Wolff presents similar divisions (Hosea, 74–75).
11. For a detailed development of the covenant lawsuit form employed here in 4:1–3 see 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), 32–34; Douglas K. Stuart, “Hosea,” in Hosea–Jonah, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), 73–74; J. Carl Laney, “The Role of the Prophets in God’s Case against Israel,” Bibliotheca Sacra 138 (October–December 1981): 322; and Richard V. Bergren, The Prophets and the Law (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974).
12. It is apparent that this text discusses the people’s complete disobedience to the Mosaic Covenant, as can be seen from Hosea’s description of apostasy. Neilsen writes that the lack of אֶמֶת (“faithfulness”) signifies that the people were no longer living in unconditional dependence on the Lord, which is at the heart of the covenantal relationship. This rebelliousness is underlined by the fact that one of the gifts given at the time of the formation of the covenant (depicted in 2:20 [Heb., v. 22] as an engagement ceremony) is אַמוּנָה. That the Mosaic Covenant underlies Hosea’s theme becomes more obvious because of חֶסֶד, which both here and in Hosea 2:19 designates “covenant faithfulness,” and דַּעַת אַוֹּהִים, “the knowledge of the Lord” (4:2; cf. 2:20), which means acceptance of His moral requirements (Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge, 33).
13. For detailed studies on חֶסֶד see N. Glueck, Hesed in the Bible, trans. Alfred Gottschalls (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1967); Katharine D. Sakenfeld, The Meaning of Hesed in the Hebrew Bible: A New Inquiry, Harvard Semitic Monographs (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978), 169–213; and H. J. Stoebe, “חֶסֶד, hesed, kindness,” in Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Ernst Jenni and Claus Westermann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997), 2:449–64. The terms אֶמֶת (“faithfulness” or “truthfulness”) and חֶסֶד (“lovingkindness or covenant faithfulness”) often occur in word pairs (e.g., Exod. 34:6; 2 Sam. 15:20). The word אֶמֶת emphasizes the quality of “faithfulness” that the Israelites were to demonstrate toward the Lord and toward each other (Sakenfeld, Hesed in the Hebrew Bible, 177–78, 183–85; and Stoebe, “חֶסֶד, hesed, kindness,” 450).
14. In his analysis of what the “knowledge of God” entails Wharton shows that it is not just an intellectual assent but refers instead to the very heart of the covenant relationship that Israel was to sustain with the Lord (James A. Wharton, “Hosea 4:1–3, ” Interpretation 32 [1978]: 78–83). See also J. L. McKenzie, “Knowledge of God in Hosea,” Journal of Biblical Literature 74 (1955): 22–27; Herbert B. Huffmon, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew YADA,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 181 (February 1966): 31–37; and idem, “A Further Note on the Treaty Background of Hebrew YADA,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 184 (December 1966): 36–38.
15. J. D. Marshall describes the Decalogue as a covenant between the Lord and Israel that explicated His hesed-oriented relationship with the Israelites and delineated His expectations for their relationship and responsibilities to Him and others (J. W. Marshall, “Decalogue,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch, ed. David Baker and T. Desmond Alexander [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003], 171–82).
16. Mays, Hosea, 63.
17. The priests were leading the people in presenting pious confessions and numerous sacrifices to the Lord, but the sacrifices were rejected because He required obedience to the Law rather than sacrifices (Hos. 6:6; cf. 1 Sam. 15:22–23).
18. Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart point out that Hosea did not cite the five commandments verbatim, but summarized them each by a single term. Hosea “mentions five of the commandments in a one word summary fashion, as an effective [rhetorical] method of communicating to the Israelites that they had broken all ten of Yahweh’s commandments” (How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth, 2nd ed. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993], 171).
19. Irony is apparent here. The Lord would withhold rain, which Israel attributed to the Canaanite fertility gods, and bring about a drought that would destroy both life and land (cf. Deut. 11:8–17; 28:12, 20–24; Jer. 3:3; 14:22; Hag. 1:11; 2:17).
20. Mays suggests that “the co-ordination of prosperity and growth with the proliferation of sin is a favorite theme of Hosea’s (cf. 8:11; 10:1)” (Hosea, 70).
21. This rendering assumes that the first word of verse 11 (זָנוּת, “harlotry”) in the Masoretic text is to be taken with the infinitive that concludes verse 10. A new judgment speech begins in verse 11 with וְיַיִן (“wine”).
22. On the title “Cloud Rider” for the Lord see Moshe Weinfeld, “ ‘Rider of the Clouds’ and ‘Gatherer of the Clouds,’ ” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies 5 (1973): 421–26.
23. Jack R. Lundbom has identified an inclusio that delimits the structure of Hosea 4:11–14 (“Poetic Structure and Prophetic Rhetoric in Hosea,” Vetus Testamentum 29 [1979]: 300–308). Verse 11 reads, “Old and new wine take away the understanding of My people,” and verse 14 reads, “A people without understanding will come to ruin” (author’s translation). Given over to drunkenness and immorality, Israel would experience destruction, death, and deportation!
24. Andersen and Freedman point out that Israel’s sinful ignorance was “willful, not accidental, and hence culpable” (Hosea, 321).
25. Beth-aven, literally “house of wickedness,” is a polemical reference to Bethel, which means “house of God.” Bethel, about twelve miles north of Jerusalem, was named by Jacob who had an encounter with God in that location (Gen. 28:10–22). Bethel had long stood as Israel’s southern center of Baal worship, first established when Jeroboam I placed a calf-idol there (1 Kings 12:28–33). Gilgal was east of Jericho (Josh. 4:19) and had been a site of idolatry since the early days of the Judges (Judg. 3:19).
26. The same sins of drunkenness, idolatry, and harlotry that opened the preceding judgment oracle in 4:11–12 conclude this judgment oracle. The use of the name “Ephraim” to represent the northern kingdom of Israel and her apostate leaders throughout this entire section of condemnation (4:1–19) may have drawn attention to the Lord’s closing the doors of their state shrine at Bethel where kingship had begun (9:15) (Mays, Hosea, 77–78).
27. This unit includes seven individual oracles (5:1–2; vv. 3–4; vv. 5–7; vv. 8–9; v. 10; vv. 11–12; vv. 13–15).
28. Mays, Hosea, 79. As noted previously, many of Hosea’s judgment oracles, especially in chapters 4–14, seem to have originated as independent oracles. However, possibly the alternating of oracles of accusation and judgment in these longer units of judgment speeches were intended as a rhetorical device by Hosea to drive home his message of judgment.
29. The Masoretic text of 5:2a reads “and rebels have made deep the slaughter.” This is loosely rendered in the New American Standard Bible by the clause, “The revolters have gone deep in depravity.” However, some emend the text to read, “a pit dug deep at Shittim.” If this proposed emendation is acceptable, it provides a balanced parallel in this artfully crafted series of three parallels. See Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002) 351; Stuart, Hosea, 88; and Wolff, Hosea, 94.
30. Wolff proposes that Hosea was the first to speak of the prophetic office as that of a “watchman,” later followed by Jeremiah (6:17) and Ezekiel (3:17; 33:2, 6–7) (Hosea, 157–58). Hosea declared himself “Ephraim’s watchman,” and as such he was sounding the alarm of Ephraim’s coming judgment (ibid.).
31. Wolff suggests that Gibeah, Ramah, and Beth-aven were worship centers with pagan temples located at these sites (ibid., 98–99).
32. Verse 10 represents a self-contained judgment oracle against Judah that is woven together with two other oracles that pronounce judgment against both Ephraim and Judah in verses 11–12 and 13. A number of scholars relate these events to the history of the Syrian-Ephraimite war and the subsequent invasions by Assyria who took control of Syria, Israel, and Judah (Mays, Hosea, 86–87; Gary V. Smith, Hosea, Amos, Micah, NIV Application Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001], 82; Stuart, Hosea, 101; and Wolff, Hosea, 111–12). See also Albrecht Alt, “Ein Krieg und seine Folgen in prophetischer Beleuchtung,” in Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ed. Martin Noth [Munich: Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1953], 2:163–87). Sakenfeld maintains that the aggressive policies that Israel and Judah were exhibiting toward each other were a transgression of the covenant theme—they were in direct violation of the Lord’s suzerainty treaty, which assumed that vassals would not engage in hostilities against each other (Hesed in the Hebrew Bible, 185).
33. There is no valid reason for following Mays’s proposal that 5:15 is a transition verse that stands apart from 5:10–14 and 6:1–3 (Hosea, 92). It is better to view verse 15a as concluding the Lord’s judgment speech, and verse 15b as a promise of future restoration following the horrific judgment to come. This is supported by the shift in speaker from the Lord in 5:8–15 to Israel in 6:1–3. Stuart notes that “the verse provides a carefully constructed transition from the judgment pronouncement in 5:8–14 to the invitation to repentance in 6:1–3 (Hosea–Jonah, 106). McComiskey likewise suggests that even though the context does not provide enough data “to determine whether this restoration [in v. 15b] refers to the return after the Exile or an eschatological restoration, in all probability it refers to the restoration of the people of God under the Messiah ([cf.] Hos. 3:5)” (Thomas Edward McComiskey, “Hosea,” in The Minor Prophets: An Exegetical and Expository Commentary, ed. Thomas Edward McComiskey [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992], 1:86).
34. Wolff classifies 6:1–3 as a “penitential song” (Hosea, 108–10) and suggests that it was sung by the priests as an invitation for the people to repent “during these very times of danger” (ibid., 116–17). Mays identifies 6:1–3 as a liturgical song of lament and penitence composed and sung by either the priests or the people in response to the prophesied destruction (Hosea, 87, 93–94). David A. Hubbard classifies 6:1–3 as a “song of feeble penitence” sung by the priests to urge the people to return to the Lord (Hosea: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1989], 126). He suggests that the people’s lack of genuine contrition is reflected in the Lord’s response in 6:4–6, in which He denounced Ephraim’s and Judah’s lack of true covenant loyalty and resumed His pronouncements of judgment (ibid., 126–27). Also Mays proposes that 6:4–6 records the Lord’s “dismayed lament over the transitory covenant loyalty of Israel and Judah,” thereby disclosing the nature of Israel’s repentance as expressed in the song of 6:1–3 (Hosea, 96–97; see also Sakenfeld, Hesed in the Hebrew Bible, 184). For a more detailed treatment of interpretations of 6:1–3 proposed by various scholars see Davies, Hosea, 149–51.
35. C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, “Hosea,” in The Twelve Minor Prophets, trans. James Martin, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 10 (reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1989), 94. McComiskey likewise assigns this “clarion call for the people to repent” to the prophet Hosea (“Hosea,” 88–89). Others who hold the same view are Andersen and Freedman, Hosea, 327–30, 417–25; Stuart, Hosea–Jonah, 107; Gary V. Smith, “Hosea,” in The Prophets as Preachers: An Introduction to the Hebrew Prophets (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994), 79–80; and Duane A. Garrett, Hosea, Joel, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1997), 156, 158, 270.
36. Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Hosea,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, Old Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1986; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook Communications Ministries, 1996), 1393.
37. Chisholm has observed that both of these collections of judgment speeches (6:4–7:16 and 8:1–14) open with a reference (6:7; 8:1) to Israel’s unfaithfulness to the Lord’s covenant (Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Interpreting the Minor Prophets [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1990], 34).
38. The suggestion by Mays and others that this judgment speech should be divided into two separate units (vv. 4–6 and vv. 7–11) is difficult to support. Mays identifies 6:7–7:2 as a distinct oracle of judgment which he entitles “A Geography of Treachery” (Hosea, 99). See also Elizabeth Achtemeier, “Hosea,” in Minor Prophets I, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996), 53–54.
39. Mays represents many who believe that the divine sayings in 6:4–11a serve as a direct response to the song of penitence in 6:1–3 (Hosea, 93–94; see also Wolff, Hosea, 116–17; Hubbard, Hosea, 126–27; Sakenfeld, Hesed in the Hebrew Bible, 184; and Achtemeier, “Hosea,” 50–51). Davies rejects this view, noting that it “involves either a very forced interpretation of vv. 1–3 or an unwarrantably speculative reconstruction of events that intervened between v. 3 and v. 4” (Hosea, 150). The view taken by the present author is that verse 4 marks the beginning of a new cycle of judgment-salvation speeches, and does not constitute a direct response by the Lord to the exhortation to repentance in the preceding unit (vv. 1–3). Chisholm has noted that the Lord’s case (רִיב) against Israel for breach of covenant introduced in 4:1 is expanded in this judgment speech (6:4–11a) (“Hosea,” 1393).
40. Some English versions (KJV, NASB) conclude 6:11 with the clause about God’s restoring His people. Other English versions (NET, NIV, RSV, TEV) connect that clause with 7:1. The parallelism formed between this line and 7:1a favors the latter rendering.
41. Adapted from Gordon H. Johnston, “The Delimitation of the Individual Prophetic Speech Units in Hosea 4–11” (unpublished paper, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1998), 13–14. As has been noted throughout this study, this highly stylistic practice of embedding and blending various prophetic speech forms into larger literary complexes of prophetic judgment speeches is typical of the Book of Hosea. Johnston suggests that many of these individual prophetic oracles are structured to serve as “stanzas” that complete the previous oracle to which they are connected (ibid., 14).
42. For insights into Hosea’s use of and meanings behind “baking images” see Paul M. Shalom, “The Image of the Oven and the Cake in Hosea VII 4–10, ” Vetus Testamentum 18 (1968): 114–20.
43. Claus Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech, trans. Hugh Clayton White (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967; reprint, Louisville: Westminster/Knox, 1991), 190.
44. Garrett proposes that this text, which is delivered in the form of a divine lamentation, forms an inclusio that corresponds with the divine frustration introduced in 6:4–6. The passage closes off the larger unit of 6:1–7:16 by focusing on the pride and apostasy of Israel, who had both spurned the Lord’s benevolence and refused to return to Him. As a consequence of their deep-seated rebellion and deceptive repentance the Lord announced judgment on Israel’s princes and people (Garrett, Hosea, Joel, 172).
45. The word “rejected” in verses 3 and 5 translate the same Hebrew word זָנַח, thereby signaling irony (Robert B. Chisholm Jr., “Wordplay in the Eighth-Century Prophets,” Bibliotheca Sacra 144 [January–March 1987]: 45). Israel’s idolatrous “rejection” of the Lord for a golden calf would lead to His “throwing out” (“rejection”) of Israel’s golden calf. Interestingly the Hebrew word זָנַח, “reject” or “throw out,” is similar to זָנָה, “to commit fornication,” “to be a harlot.”