HOSEA hō zā’ ə (הﯴשֵׁ֥עַ; LXX ̔Ωσῆε, salvation). The name of the first book in the list of the minor prophets, preceding Amos, though not chronologically. The Heb. name is identical with that of Hoshea (732/1-723/22 b.c.), the last king of Israel (2 Kings 17:1) and the original form of the name of Joshua (Num 13:16; Deut 32:44).

Outline

1. Historical background. The activity of the prophet Hosea took place in the 8th cent. b.c. (Hos 1:1) at a time when Israel, and to a lesser extent Judah, were experiencing an upsurge of material prosperity reminiscent of the golden age of the early monarchy. The principal reasons for this economic resurgence were political in nature, and resulted from the decline of Syria, under Benhadad III (c. 796-770 b.c.) as a serious military threat to the N kingdom. According to the Zakir stele, Benhadad III, who had previously brought considerable pressure to bear upon Jehoash of Israel (798-782/81 b.c.), formed a military alliance to attack Zakir of Hamath, a political opportunist from Lu’ash, who had seized control of the entire kingdom of Hamath-Lu’ash. The stele, which was found in 1907 in Afis, twenty-five m. SW of Aleppo, commemorated the way in which Zakir and his allies defeated the coalition led by Benhadad III at Hazrak, the Assyrian Hatarikka (Zech 9:1). This victory marked the effective end of the dominance in Syria of the Aramean dynasty of Damascus, and it was not long after this reverse that Damascus was itself placed under the control of Jeroboam II (2 Kings 14:28). The territory of the N kingdom was thus in effect extended to Hamath, whereas to the S and E the limits of Israel and Judah came close to those obtained in the days of David and Solomon. During this period, Assyria was also showing signs of becoming a political threat to Syria and Palestine, although its military prowess under Tiglath-pileser III (745-727 b.c.) was still a rather remote prospect when Jeroboam II succeeded to sole rule in Israel.

Once the necessity for maintaining a standing army in Israel had been removed, the nation was able to devote itself to more peaceful pursuits. As a result, there occurred a remarkable revival in the areas of trade, commerce, culture, and economic life in Israel, a situation that brought about similar benefits for Judah also. The acquisition of Damascus meant that Israel was once again able to control the ancient caravan trading routes, and this stimulated the growth of a mercantile class that quickly became prosperous, and shared with the nobility the wealth of the kingdom. This situation caused a marked change in the character of the Israelites, for the newly won degree of prosperity was accompanied by a demand for those luxury items that previously were restricted to the ruling classes. Wealthy merchants began to build houses similar to those occupied by the nobility, and they imported various commodities from Egypt and the Orient to decorate them. The skills of Phoen. workmen were in great demand in this connection, particularly where work in ivory was being executed. Numerous ivory inlays, the earliest of which went back to the time of Ahab (874/3-853 b.c.), have been found during excavations at the hill of Samaria (modern Sebastiyeh), occuring mostly in the form of small panels in relief. The remains of a bed decorated with ivory inlays (cf. Amos 6:4) have also been recovered, with such items as ivory lions, palmettes, lilies, and winged human figures, executed in the typical Phoen. style.

The rise of the wealthy mercantile class accentuated the widening social and economic gap between rich and poor in the northern kingdom. The peasant farmers and artisans fell increasingly under the avaricious designs of the wealthy, who began to use every possible means of depriving them of their land holdings, and in other areas made demands on their skills and productivity that were beyond their abilities. Stark testimony to the wanton and luxurious desires of the upper classes has been furnished by the famous Samaritan ostraca from the reign of Jeroboam II, discovered in 1910 just W of the site of the royal palace. When the fragments of these sixty-three potsherds were deciphered, they were found to have consisted originally of administrative documents relating to shipments of wine and oil to Samaria. The references in these sherds to “pure clarified wine” and “refined oil” suggest the demand for luxury items by the social elite of Samaria, and amply justified the prophetic rebukes concerning wanton living in Israel (Amos 3:15; 1 Kings 22:39, et al.).

Perhaps the most insidious influence of the day came from pagan religious sources. Since the time of Joshua, the life of the Israelites had been tainted by the corruptions of Canaanite worship. Archeological discoveries in N Syria at Ras Shamra (Ugarit) have supplied much information about the religion of the Canaanites, who had occupied Pal. from an early period (Gen 12:6). This seductive cult, which was by far the most degenerate morally in the entire ancient Near E, gained a foothold in Israelite religious life prior to the Judges period, being incorporated by processes of religious syncretism into the Heb. cultus, and by the time of Amos and Hosea it had become the worship of the masses.

The principal deities venerated by the Canaanites and Phoenicians were the fertility god Baal (a term meaning “lord,” “master” or “husband”), who was the mythical off-spring of the supreme deity El and his consort Asherat, and the goddess Anat, sometimes known to the Israelites as Ashtoreth or Asherah. Baal and Anat functioned as fertility deities in the cult, which was notorious for its emphasis upon fecundity. Both deities were often worshiped under the form of bulls and cows, so that when Jeroboam I set up two golden calves, one at Bethel and the other at Dan (1 Kings 12:28), he was actually encouraging the people to indulge in the fertility religion of Canaan.

The cultic ceremonies were observed several times each year, marked by ritual prostitution, acts of violence, drunkenness, and indulgence in pagan forms of worship at the “high places,” or shrines. The widespread prevalence of cultic prostitution is evident from the fact that in the time of Jeremiah, a cent. after the mission of Hosea to Israel, prostitution flourished in the Temple precincts of Jerusalem (2 Kings 23:7).

2. Unity and problems of integrity. The unity of the prophecy is closely bound up with the nature of the sources dealing with the marriage of Hosea. The first primary source (Hos 1:1-11) contained a third person account of the marriage of the prophet, whereas the second (3:1-5) comprised a short selection of material written in the first person along the same lines. The first source described how Hosea was ordered to marry a harlot, Gomer, who later bore three children, whereas the second source narrated Hosea’s declaration that God had commanded him to love a woman cherished by her paramour, and described the way in which he purchased and disciplined this adulteress.

These two sources comprise a single unit of biographical and autobiographical material, linked by a sermon to Israel in the second ch. (2:1-23). This organic unity of narrative is characterized by the fact that the first three chs. used the figure of the marriage relationship to describe the bond between God and Israel, and the behavior of the latter within this situation in terms of the adultery of the wife. Some scholars have held that the account of the marriage in ch. 3 is a parallel though variant description of the way in which Gomer came to be the wife of Hosea, and that historically it antecedes what was described in the first chapter. If this is so, it becomes hard to account for the absence of the mention of Gomer’s children, who played such a prominent part in the narrative. The period of isolation in Hosea 3:3, indicating that the prophet abstained from sexual relations with Gomer, would appear to contradict the facts of Hosea 1:3, which suggest that the first child was born within a year of the marriage. Consequently it seems more logical to integrate the contents of ch. 3 with the events of the first two chs., the second of which could only have been written after the birth of the third child.

Some scholars have suggested that ch. 3 referred to events that occurred before the marriage, whereas ch. 1 furnished a record of the marriage and its outcome. Such a view endeavors to place Gomer in a better light by supposing that the infidelity from which Hosea ransomed his wife was not actually misbehavior toward the prophet himself. In the unlikely event that ch. 3 actually preceded ch. 1, the fact is that Gomer was unfaithful after her marriage to Hosea (2:2); also implied by an absence of direct claim by Hosea to paternity in connection with the second and third children.

Varying somewhat from the foregoing are the views of other scholars that Gomer had become a temple prostitute by the time that she was reclaimed (3:2), or that a distinction ought to be made between Gomer and the harlot of ch. 3, the latter presumably being a cultic prostitute. Such theories fail to satisfy a straightforward reading of the text, which shows clearly that Gomer was a prostitute both before and after her marriage to Hosea. It is hardly possible to maintain that chs. 1 and 3 refer to two different women because of the difficulties surrounding the idea that, after Israel had rejected her espoused deity, He went in search of another bride. If the prophetic analogy regarding Israel is to be truly valid, the wife of one chapter must be identified with the wife of the other.

Some scholars have explained the infidelity of Gomer by supposing that she was a temple prostitute before her marriage. Despite numerous OT references to ritual prostitution, little is known about the women who functioned as hierodules in the Baal fertility cults. There is insufficient evidence for the view that they were ever respected as a class in Israel, or that Gomer had been some kind of sacred or devoted person at a local shrine. By contrast, certain writers have reconstructed events to the point where they could refute the assertion of the text that Gomer was a harlot, and others, following medieval Jewish tradition, held that her bad reputation was due to her being an inhabitant of debauched Israel. Another view thought of “harlot” in Hosea 1:2 as used proleptically, so that Gomer was actually pure, or thought to be so, when Hosea married her. Whether this is true or not, the term “wife of whoredoms” implies unchaste behavior before or after marriage, and the description of her as an adulteress in ch. 3 cannot possibly be proleptic. For those who have balked at the idea of a moral deity commanding His servant to marry a harlot, it should be noted that it was equally reprehensible among the Semites for a man to take back an adulterous wife.

Some older scholars, such as Volz and Marti, denied to Hosea certain sections of the book containing promises of blessing and salvation (i.e. 11:8-11; 14:2-9). Other secondary interpolations that have been entertained include some of the passages mentioning the southern kingdom. Yet Bentzen and Eissfeldt have shown that, in the undoubtedly genuine portions of the book (chs. 1-3) there is mention of salvation following punishment, thereby modifying the effect of the foregoing views. There seems no adequate reason for denying to Hosea any portion of the prophecy, and the mention of Judah seems quite logical since the prophet regarded the northern kingdom as a usurpation (8:4; cf. 3:5). No doubt this standpoint led him to date his utterances in terms of the southern regime.

3. Authorship. Little is known of Hosea himself. He was the only northern prophet whose writings have survived, but his actual birthplace in Israel remains unknown, as does his occupation in life. It has been suggested that he worked as a baker (7:4ff.), or a farmer. Certainly his grasp of history and religion and the elegance of his language virtually preclude a peasant origin. Some clue as to his birthplace has been sought in the description of Gomer as the “daughter of Diblaim,” taking the latter as a reference to a location in Gilead. This, however, is doubtful for lack of evidence. Estimates of the length of Hosea’s ministry vary. Since Hosea 1:4 was spoken before the fall of Jehu’s dynasty, Hosea must have been preaching prior to the death of Jeroboam II in 753 b.c. Thus his marriage and the birth of his first child evidently anteceded this event also. Hosea was an ardent patriot and a warm humanitarian, whose love for his people shone through each of his prophetic oracles. Unlike Amos, he never once referred to foreign nations except in terms of their relationship to Israel.

4. Date. The work of Hosea occurred in the last generation of the history of the northern kingdom. According to the superscription in Hosea 1:1, the chronology was related to both the northern and southern kingdoms, in the reigns of Jeroboam II (782/1-753 b.c.) and Uzziah (767-740/39 b.c.), Jotham (740/39-732/31 b.c.), Ahaz (732/31-716/15 b.c.), and Hezekiah (716/15-687/86 b.c.). It has been suggested that the v. in question may, in part or whole, comprise a Judaistic editorial revision, since the mention of Judean kings took precedence over that of Jeroboam II. This need not necessarily be the case, however, for such an arrangement could well imply that Hosea regarded the Davidic line as alone legitimate. If this was so, the superscription prob. originated with the prophet himself. The reference in Hosea 1:4 indicates a date prior to the death of Jeroboam II for the start of the ministry, as noted above, and if the allusion to Assyria (8:9) is to the tribute paid to Tiglath-pileser III by Menahem about 739 b.c., this would indicate that the ministry of Hosea was well established by 743 b.c. Its continuation beyond the death of Jeroboam II in 753 b.c. is assured if the reference in Hosea 5:8-6:6 is to the Syro-Ephraimite conflict of 735-734 b.c. Furthermore, the mention of relations with Egypt (7:11; 9:6; 12:2) would point to the political activity of Hosea, the last king of Israel, who ruled for a decade prior to the fall of Samaria in 722 b.c. The ministry of Hosea could thus be placed between 753 b.c. and about 723 b.c. Just what happened to Hosea after this time is unknown, but from the Judean content of the superscription, it is reasonable to assume that the oracles of this prophet were known in the southern kingdom. Possibly Hosea spent his declining days in Judah, though there is no real evidence for this view.

The development of Hosea’s prophetic ministry seems closely related to the process by which his work arrived at its extant form. Accordingly it should be noted that the symbolic names given to the three children of Gomer over a period of some six years parallel the same themes of inescapable doom (2:2-13) and the oracles in chs. 4-13. Any estimate of the date and compilatory processes of the prophecy should consider the view that chs. 4-14 may have circulated separately from chs. 1-3 for some time, and also the theory that the message of hope for Israel seems inconsistent with the tenets of Hosea, belonging more properly to the exilic period. Although it is true that the contents of chs. 4-14 concerned the depravity of cultic Baalism and the moral and spiritual failures of Israel, it is hard to see how the basic message of Hosea, with its powerful marital allegory as a foundation, could have been proclaimed in the absence of chs. 1-3. By the time the contents of chs. 4-14 were in writing, the material in the first three chs. would form a necessary prerequisite to the prophecy as a whole. Although it is just possible that chs. 4-14 circulated independently for a period of time, it would certainly have terminated within the lifetime of Hosea himself, since Heb. tradition does not know of the prophecy as anything other than a unity. With regard to Hosea’s hopeful outlook for the nation, it should be noted that a distinct element of hope formed a consistent part of 8th cent. b.c. prophetic teaching, and there is no evidence for any assertion that would deny such aspirations to Hosea. Indeed, it could well be argued that the prophet’s own experience of divine mercy, in which love triumphed over judgment, suggested a similar prospect for the nation.

The question of alleged Judaistic editorial activity also affects the matter of dating. Whereas it is possible to suppose that Judean scribes modified the text of the prophecy, which undoubtedly contains many corruptions, it is hard to see how this could have been done in the lifetime of Hosea himself, particularly since no “school” was associated with him (so far as is known) nor would it even have been thought necessary to make alterations after 722 b.c., since the apostasy of the northern kingdom (and by contrast the implied fidelity of Judah) was no longer a current issue. Furthermore, only about four references to Judah are at all commendatory, and the rest are critical of the southern kingdom, and thus could hardly have been the work of Judean scribes anxious to glorify their own people at the expense of Israel (cf. Hos 6:11; 8:14; 12:2). There is nothing in the material relating to Judah that would necessitate an exilic date for the prophecy, much less a final recension of postexilic provenance. The present state of the evidence gives firm support to the traditional view that the prophecy was the work of one individual who ministered to the house of Israel (3:5) in the 8th cent. b.c., and in whose lifetime the book was compiled and edited.

5. Place of origin and destination. The oracles clearly originated in the northern kingdom against the background of material prosperity and social and spiritual corruption characteristic of the time of Jeroboam II. Although their primary destination was the territory of the northern tribes, the concern of the prophet was with the nation as a whole. In this respect, the inclusion of Judean kings in the superscription made the scope of the utterances clear. No doubt the written prophecy was well-known in Judah at the time when Hosea died, and may even have been used in subsequent days of political and religious turmoil.

6. Occasion and purpose. The apostasy of Israel and her enslavement to pagan Canaanite traditions in open neglect of the provisions of the Sinai covenant, evoked from Hosea a strong plea for repentance and spiritual renewal. The social corruption and moral decay of the northern tribes had made them ripe for destruction, and the purpose of the prophet was to reveal the love of God for the sinful and apostate nation. Taking the appropriate symbol, namely the marriage relationship, he sought to show Israel how she had become a faithless wife by the standards of the covenant, committing spiritual adultery and repudiating her association with her divine spouse. Such behavior, if unaltered by acts of repentance, contrition, and renewal, could only issue in a period of seclusion and punishment for the nation, after which divine mercy would again be manifested. Whereas Amos had denounced the social inequalities of his day and the exploitation of the lower classes, Hosea was primarily concerned with the political, religious, and moral evils of the nation. The political vacillation toward Assyria that took place under Menahem, and the interest in Egypt shown by Hoshea, were a source of complaint on the part of the prophet (5:13; 7:11; 12:1), who rebuked Israel for turning everywhere for help except to God. Hosea’s great affection for his people was an epitome of the divine love for Israel, and the marital experiences of the prophet furnished the immediate occasion for his fervent, challenging prophecies, which were given force and urgency by the use of symbolic names for Gomer’s children. The first of these, Jezreel (1:4), implied that God would punish the dynasty of Jehu for the bloodshed of Jezreel (cf. 2 Kings 10:12-28). The second, Lo-ruhamah (Hos 1:6), meant “unpitied,” and signified a withholding of divine compassion from Israel, and the third, Lo-ammi (1:9 KJV), meaning “no people of mine,” brought the promise of divine rejection to an assured climax. For an ardent patriot such as Hosea the situation demanded immediate action if the house of Israel was to be spared the horror of divine punishment by exile.

7. Canonicity. The Book of Hosea stands first in the canonical list of the twelve minor prophets, an arrangement that had obtained as early as Ben Sira (Eccles 49:10 [12]), if not earlier. Although a variant order of the first six books occurs in some LXX MSS, Hosea always claimed priority, perhaps because of its length. In Baba Bathra 14b, Rabbi Johanan was cited as placing Hosea chronologically before Amos, a position that most scholars would reject, although absolute certainty on the point is lacking. The book itself was named after its attributive author, which in the Gr. and Lat. VSS appeared as Osee.

8. Textual considerations. The text of the prophecy presents the interpreter with great difficulties, since it is prob. more corrupt than that of any other OT work. Why this should be the case is not clear, though it may possibly have arisen from the widespread usage of the prophecy in the southern kingdom during the late 8th and early 7th centuries b.c. Many textual problems, however, arise from such accidents of scribal activity as the transposition of consonants, the occasional confusion of similar consonants, and an incorrect division of the letters forming words. Others may have been occasioned by the peculiarities of N Israelite dialect as misunderstood and miscopied by Judean scribes. There are often marked variations in tr. when scholars resort to textual emendation in an attempt to restore the Heb. where the VSS have proved inadequate for such purposes.

The LXX is often of great help in recovering the original, even though it was apparently made from a Heb. text that had close ties with that preserved by the Massoretes; this was also true of the Syr. VS. From the differences in the vocalizing of the Heb. it seems clear that the MSS used by the LXX trs. did not contain certain consonants in the MT used as vowel letters (matres lectionis), particularly waw and yodh. There appear to be places where the LXX has preserved superior readings (Hos 2:20; 5:15; 8:10; 10:10), as well as some additional phrases (2:4; 8:13 and 13:13). Noteworthy difficulties in the MT are, among others: Hosea 4:18; 5:2; 7:16; 8:10; 9:13; 11:7; 12:9. The complexity of the textual problem in the prophecy may be one reason why scholars have differed so widely in their approach to passages such as Hosea 11:1ff. In general, the style of the prophetic oracles of Hosea is brief and concise, and has marked emotional overtones evident in the sensitive, pleading quality of the utterances.

9. Content. The prophecy may be summarized as follows:

1:1—3:5 Using his marriage as an illustration, Hosea depicts the relations of Israel with her God.

4:1—8:14 Denunciation of Israelite pride, immorality, and idolatry.

9:1—10:15 The certainty of doom for the northern kingdom.

11:1-11 A parenthetical utterance relating to God’s mercy and love.

11:12—13:16 The rebellion and apostasy of Israel will issue in destruction.

14:1-9 Future blessings will overtake a penitent nation.

10. Theology. There is little doubt that the Heb. term חֶ֫סֶד֮, H2876, (6:1) crystallizes the message of Hosea. This comprehensive word is difficult to render adequately by means of a single term, and trs. such as “zeal,” “piety,” “mercy” and “loving-kindness” hardly do justice to the meaning of the expression. It can be said to embody the idea of true love in the light of some specific relationship, and has special emotional and spiritual content. The distinctive contribution of Hosea to OT theology was his recognition that reciprocity on the part of Israel was an important feature of the relationship between God and His people. Whereas Amos had stressed that the sin of Israel lay in failure to meet God’s demand for righteousness, Hosea proclaimed that the real iniquity of the nation commenced with the breaking of a covenant or agreement that by nature needed to be upheld by both parties involved.

For Hosea the essence of this covenant was חֶ֫סֶד֮, H2876, which was characteristic of the relationship forged at Sinai between God and Israel. On that solemn occasion the nation had made a voluntary pact with God that involved her surrender, loyalty, and obedience to His will. The result was that Israel became God’s son (11:1; cf. Exod 4:22) by adoption and divine grace. It was the primary duty of Hosea to recall the wayward and indifferent Israel to her obligations entered into at Sinai. Although the prophet was aware that divine love and grace had provided the initiative for the covenant, he also realized the importance of emphasizing the free cooperative acceptance of that spiritual relationship by the Chosen People. For this reason he stressed that Israel was actually God’s bride (Hos 2:7, 16, 19) and used the marriage metaphor with telling effect to demonstrate the nature of the association between the bride and her divine Lover. His own marital experience furnished dramatic illustration of the situation which had overtaken the nation of Israel. He had been ordered by God to marry a harlot (who would later continue in her old ways), to have children by her, and to give them symbolic names typifying divine displeasure with Israel. After this woman had consorted with her paramours he was told to ransom her, and with patient love and tenderness to readmit her to his home, there to await in penitence and grief the time of restoration to full favor. For those who had eyes to see, this was a clear illustration of wanton, apostate Israel in its historic relationship with God, and showed the enduring fidelity of the Almighty. Because of the way Israel had become tainted by the corruption of idolatry, immorality, and materialism, God was compelled to leave the nation to her own devices until she gave clear proof that she no longer coveted the old idolatrous ways of life. The discipline to be imposed as a means of bringing this to pass was actually an indication of divine love and concern, since it would help to awaken in the Israelites an awareness of true spiritual values. The stern, forbidding picture of retribution presented by Amos was absent from Hosea, being replaced by an image of God as a kindly, loving father who is concerned for the welfare of his family, or as a sympathetic farmer who attends continually to the welfare of his livestock (11:3, 4).

The expression of repentance (6:1-4) has been treated by scholars either as a genuine emotional experience, in which the nation desired forgiveness in the recognition that she was sinful, or as a shallow declaration on the part of a people who felt that the Covenant association automatically guaranteed them an assured future under divine protection without any particular reciprocity on their part. The prophet made it clear that true repentance was a hard-wrought experience involving the mind and will as well as the emotions (cf. 14:2). For him the chief difficulty encountered in the historic relationship between God and Israel was the fact that the nation had no real intellectual awareness of the moral and ethical qualities of her God, and the way in which the Sinai covenant made these binding on the Chosen People. To a large extent, the latter had been beguiled by the corrupt ethos of the Phoenician-Canaanite religious tradition, which by nature was entirely remote from the advanced ethical characteristics of the God of Sinai, and which saw no incongruity between religious observances and a morally corrupt way of life. Nonetheless, the fact that the spirituality of the Sinai agreement had been ignored for generations did not mean that it was no longer valid, and Hosea taught that the coming divine judgment upon sin would be the result of the disruption of the ancient Covenant relationship, rather than constituting an arbitrary divine act. Out of this experience could still come hope for the nation, for divine grace would intervene to rescue Israel from bondage and open the way for a restoration of the Covenant and an outpouring of blessing on the nation.

Bibliography W. R. Harper, Hosea ICC (1905); W. O. E. Oesterley and T. H. Robinson, An Introduction to the Books of the Old Testament (1935), 345-354; H. S. Nyberg, Studien zum Hoseabuch (1935); H. G. May, “An Interpretation of the Names of Hosea’s Children,” JBL, IV (1936), 285-291; A. D. Tushingham, “A Reconsideration of Hosea 1-3,” JNES, XII (1953), 150-59; N. H. Snaith, Mercy and Sacrifice (1953); H. H. Rowley, “The Marriage of Hosea,” BJRL, XXXIX (1956), 200-233; G. Oestborn, Yahweh and Baal: Studies in the Book of Hosea (1956); G. A. F. Knight, Hosea (1960); E. J. Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (1960), 267-270; R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the OT (1969), 859-873.