Biblical Studies

The Meaning of “Cult Prostitutes” (קדשה) in Hosea 4:14

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

Already (chs.1-4) we have seen that Hosea is quite accustomed to using the verb זָנָה (to prostitute) and the noun זֹנָה (prostitute). But here in 4:14 Hosea employs the word קדשה. If this word refers to some sort of religious or cultic prostitute, as many commentators think (e.g., Wolff, Garrett, Stuart, Dearman), then 4:14 would contain one of the most explicit references to cultic prostitution in the entire book. As such, the use of קדשה in 4:14 is a rather significant exegetical issue for the interpreter. It may provide him or her with significant information about the religious backdrop into which Hosea presents his accusations throughout the book. Therefore, it is the goal of this paper to present a brief study of קדשה.

Etymologically, קָדֵשׁ is related to קָדַשׁ (“to be holy”) and likely carries the idea of sacredness. Hence many present the gloss, “sacred prostitute,” “temple prostitute,” or “cult prostitute.” Wolff (88) notes parallel words in other ANE languages (e.g. Ugarit—qdsm; the Syrian goddess qades who was involved in sexual activity) that relate to some form of cultic prostitution. In other words, קדשה (feminine) would be a female prostitute that had some sort of relationship with the cult. In terms of Biblical usage, in Gen 38:21 Judah asked, “Where is the קדשה?” to which the men of the city replied, “No קדשה has been here” (v.22) But interestingly, according to Gen 38:15, קדשה appears to be used interchangeably with זֹנָה (Dearman, 166). Both the feminine and the masculine form occur in Deut 23:17. Deut 23:17 forbids any Israelite from being a קדשה(feminine) or a קדש(masculine). In 1 Kings 14:23, the inhabitants of Judah, under the reign of Rehoboam, built for themselves idolatrous places of worship. And also, the narrator notes, קדש were in the land. This collection of קדש along with idolatrous practices is noteworthy. In 1 Kings 15:12, Asa, king of Judah, did what was right by putting away the קדשים and removing the idols. With close proximity to idols, this reference may indicate a religious tone to קדשים. 1 Kings 22:47 mentions how Jehoshaphat eliminated any קדש who remained from his father Asa’s reign. In 2 Kings 23, Josiah executed reforms, purging idolatrous activity from Judah’s worship. This included removing קדשים who were in the house of YHWH. The relationship of קדש to religious reform and the fact that the author describes them as those “who were in the house of YHWH” suggests religious connotations if not denotations. Finally, in Hosea 4:14, קדשה is parallel to הַזֹּנ֣וֹת (participle; “those who prostitute”). This observation taken by itself could suggest the terms are meant to be understood as nearly synonymous. But also significant is v.13’s various references to idolatrous religious practices. Note especially עַל־כֵּ֗ן (“therefore,” v.13), which connects these idolatrous practices to the daughters’ prostituting (זָנָה), the same prostituting parallel to קדשה in v.14.

Therefore, in light of this evidence, it is best to conclude that קדשה refers to a female cult prostitute of some kind. Based on the etymological relationship between קָדֵשׁ and קָדַשׁ, קדשה seems to refer to some sort of priestess (Miller, 503). And based on its Biblical usage, it has clear sexual denotations and rather likely religious connotations if not denotations.

“I desire hesed, not sacrifice”: What is the theological connection between Hosea 6:6 and similar OT statements?

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

In 6:6, YHWH says, חסד חפצתי ולא־זבח (lit. “I desire hesed and not sacrifice”). We find similar sentiments throughout the OT. Given the abundant occurrence of this theme, the interpreter and Biblical theologian do well to investigate this theme. In particular, we will examine the theological connection between these other Old Testament texts and Hosea 6:6. In so doing, we will arrive at a more holistic and Biblically-theologically informed position regarding Hosea’s statement, חסד חפצתי ולא־זבח.

In 1 Sam 15 Saul directly disobeyed God by saving the good livestock among the spoils of war rather than destroying everything as God had commanded. Saul defended himself by claiming that they were spared for the purpose of sacrificing them to YHWH. But Samuel responded that God has greater delight in obedience than sacrifices (1 Sam 15:22-23). In Ps 40:6-8 the Psalmist cries that God has not required sacrifices; but his (the Psalmist’s) desire is to obey God’s will. In Ps 50 God declares that He has not prescribed sacrifices as if He were in need. Therefore, He commands, cease making sacrifices the end and make the goal actual obedience. According to Ps 51:16-17, the sacrifice that God truly desires is a broken spirit, or in Prov 21:3, righteousness and justice (cf. Mic 6:6-8). It is not sacrifice ex opere operato that pleases God, for “the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to YHWH” (Prov 15:8;). When abused, even those things that God prescribed have become the very thing God detests (Isa 11:11-17; 66:3; Amos 5:21-25). To abstain from sacrifice but seek YHWH earnestly and reverently is better than to make offerings foolishly (Ecc 5:1; cf. Isa 66:2). In Jer 7:21-23, God even states He did not command Israel’s ancestors concerning sacrifices (when in fact He did) in order to emphasize that His ultimate desire in redeeming Israel from Egypt was obedience and relationship.

In sum, when God states, חסד חפצתי ולא־זבח, God is not condemning sacrifice as if He is somehow self-conflicting, for God Himself demanded sacrifices. Rather, He condemns the abuse of such prescribed worship, which then is no true worship at all. [1] Worshiping God apart from sincere reverence (cf. וְדַ֥עַת אֱלֹהִ֖ים) and allowing such reverence to pervade one’s lifestyle is worthless and totally misses what God truly desires (חָפַ֖צְתִּי). No sacrifice or burnt offering can substitute a sincere pursuit of God, both genuinely knowing Him (וְדַ֥עַת אֱלֹהִ֖ים) and its corresponding obedience (חֶסֶד).[2] The sacrifices and offerings were never an end in and of themselves. God’s desire was for relationship with His people—a relationship initiated by God with means provided by God. The sacrifices were a provision towards that end. They made provision for God to dwell amidst a sinful people. Therefore, to make these sacrifices the end in themselves was to short-circuit their entire purpose and fail to achieve God’s true desire.

[1] As Calvin (231) says, we could paraphrase this, “Mercy pleases me more than sacrifice, and the knowledge of God pleases me more than burnt-offerings” (emphasis added). He says, “When the Prophet says that sacrifice does not please God, he speaks, no doubt, comparatively; for God does not positively repudiate sacrifices enjoined in his own law; but he prefers faith [וְדַ֥עַת אֱלֹהִ֖ים] and love [חֶסֶד] to them… It then appears that God is not inconsistent with himself, as though he rejected sacrifices which he himself had appointed; but that he condemns the preposterous abuse of them, in which hypocrites gloried.”

[2] Interestingly, this passage combines what Jesus would later argue are the two greatest commandments—love of God (וְדַ֥עַת אֱלֹהִ֖ים) and love of man (חֶסֶד).

What does YHWH mean in Hosea 1:2 when he says that Hosea should marry a “wife of prostitution”?

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

In Hosea 1:2, a unique construction appears. Hosea is told to take as his wife a אשתזנונים, a woman of [something related to sexual immorality]. Commentators are divided over the meaning of this phrase; and various interpretations are provided. Some suggest a prostitute, more specifically, a cult prostitute; others suggest an immoral woman; still others suggest a woman with tendencies towards adultery; and the list goes on. This issue is no small debate but is vital in interpreting the rest of the book. One might rightly say that one’s interpretation of אשתזנונים sets an interpretive agenda for the rest of the book. This is because Hosea’s marriage to this woman is the central speech-act of which the book is exposition.

אשת זנונים form a construct chain in which זנונים attributes certain qualities toאשת. In other words, this is a woman characterized by זנונים. Lexically, the meaning of this phrase is somewhat vague. For example, the LXX translates זנונים as πορνείας (a rather generic term for sexual immorality). HALOT describes זנונים as fornication, or the status and practice of the זוֹנָה (prostitute; cf. זֹנָה). However, noting that commentators are divided, HALOT also mentions the possibility of an inclination to fornication. But despite lexical ambiguity, two rather noteworthy uses of זנונים occur in Gen 28:24 (cf. 38:15), where Judah mistakes Tamar for a prostitute (cf. Gen 38:15), and Nah 3:4, which seems to refer to a prostitute with its mention of charms. Likewise, within the book itself, in Hosea 2:4, זנונים seems to refer to items a prostitute would wear. And, 2:7 may even list items given to a prostitute as compensation (Garrett, 51). Nonetheless, Garrett notes that a word like זֹנָה, which clearly means prostitutes, could have been used if a reference to a prostitute was in fact intended (51). He also warns against making a sharp division between an “occupational” prostitute and a generally immoral woman. Contrary to our contemporary culture in which a woman may be immoral without receiving pay, in the ANE culture of Israel, an immoral woman likely made her living by such immoral practices (51). But, nonetheless, Garrett favors prostitute, and argues that no valid evidence exists for a woman with immoral tendencies (48). Also, adulterous inclination is entirely absent from the book’s message; so, it is further unlikely (Wolff, 13). Based on supposed ANE evidence, Wolff argues that אשתזנונים refers to any woman who had taken part in the initiatory Canaanite sexual fertility rite in Baal worship. Consequently, אשתזנונים would refer to an average Israelite woman (14). According to Stuart, אשתזנונים cannot refer to a soliciting prostitute, for that would require זוֹנָה. זנונים, on the other hand, refers to a trait, not a profession (26). Based on Hos 4:12 and 5:4, and the supposition that actual sexual immorality is absent in the book, Stuart concludes that זנונים refers to inclination to spiritual/religious adultery (26-27).

In conclusion, in order for Gomer’s adultery to serve as an intelligible metaphor, her adultery would have to be sexual (not merely spiritual) and committed against Hosea. Stuart’s interpretation convolutes the metaphor (would this even be a metaphor in this case?) Further, Hosea’s ability/qualification to speak on behalf of God is based on their actual shared experience of an unfaithful wife. Wolff rightly takes the hints to cultic background, something more than mere “non-religious” sexual immorality, in Hosea seriously. However, his overly specific interpretation seems at best possible. And, to read such meanings into אשתזנונים is to stretch the language beyond its capacity; it seems that something ought to be preserved about the vague nature of אשתזנונים. I also heed Garrett’s warning about reading contemporary distinctions between a soliciting, “professional” prostitute and an immoral woman into this exegetical discussion. Therefore, I conclude that אשתזנונים refers to a prostitute/immoral woman, and, in specific application to the book of Hosea, may likely have cultic implications. This tentative and somewhat open interpretation has implications for the rest of the book. One should be careful not to force the rest of the book into a particular mold based on a specific interpretation of אשתזנונים in 1:2. It is key to find a balance within the “hermeneutical spiral” that allows the entire book to inform the meaning of אשתזנונים while allowing אשתזנונים to inform the rest of the book. During the process of our spiral’s narrowing, we should write our conclusions with pencil, not pen, and with eraser in hand.

What does Hosea mean by the expression “arise from the land” in Hosea 2:2 (English 1:11)?

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

After naming his third child “Not My People,” Hosea introduces an oracle of eschatological hope. The patriarchal promise of numerous descendants will be fulfilled and the kingdom united under one ruler. However, one particularly difficult aspect of this oracle is the phrase וְעָל֣וּ מִן־הָאָ֑רֶץ. Determining the meaning of this phrase is not only important for understanding the meaning of this oracle, but also for developing a full view of the book’s entire prophetic hope.

Lexically, עָלָה has a wide semantic range (cf. CHALOT and BDB). Yet, as McComiskey notes, the common denominator among all of its potential connotations and nuances is the concept of ascending (30). Stuart suggests that ועלו מן־הארץ likely carries a dual connotation—return from exile and resurrection. He argues that the future situation of Israel appeals to this interpretation—in exile, not God’s people, and in desperate need of absolute rejuvenation (39). Thus, according to Stuart, אֶרֶץ has a dual referent—the land of exile and the land of their grave (39). However, Garrett argues that for Hosea to refer to foreign land as אֶרֶץ would be unprecedented in the OT and therefore unlikely. Rather, Garrett (73) and McComiskey (30) suggest that here עָלָה carries the idea of vegetation springing up (עָלָה) from the ground (מן־הארץ). McComiskey notes several other texts that seem to demonstrate a similar use of עָלָה (e.g., Gen 41:5, 22; Deut 19:22 [23]; Isa 55:13). Particularly noteworthy is another use of עָלָה in Hosea—Hos 10:8—which refers to thorns and thistles growing up. This interpretation of ועלו מן־הארץ in 2:2 is linked to and supported by the literal meaning of Jezreel, “God sows” (cf. a similar meaning in 2:24-25). Therefore, in this interpretation, Jezreel is not geographical here, but figurative, and connotes the repopulation anticipated earlier in this verse (McComiskey, 30; Garrett, 73), thus fitting the context quite nicely. Nonetheless, Garrett (73) still believes ועלו מן־הארץ may also carry resurrection connotations (cf. Ezek 37). Finally, Wolff, although not rejecting the vegetation motif, argues that ועלו מן־הארץ primarily means “take possession of the land,” specifically the promised land. He argues this based on a similar understanding of עלה מן־הארץ in Ex 1:10 (but this translation seems unlikely; cf. English translations) and the context of 2:2 which refers to a united kingdom, presumably within the land (28).

In conclusion, given the various meanings, עָלָה could have (note its wide semantic range), context must serve as the deciding factor. Therefore, a proper interpretation of this clause must take seriously its relationship to the following כִּי clause and provide a satisfactory explanation. The vegetation metaphor interpretation seems to do this best, i.e., because great is the day of “God sows,” God will sprout up his vegetation [implied: which He has sowed] in the land. Resurrection motifs do not satisfy this relationship to the כִּי clause. Garrett’s observation that אֶרֶץ nowhere else refers to foreign land seems to eliminate the return from exile view. The vegetation metaphor interpretation is therefore preferred.

Tracing the Theme of “Egypt” in Hosea

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

Egypt is mentioned 13 times in the book of Hosea (2:17 [2:15]; 7:11, 16; 8:13; 9:3, 6; 11:1, 5, 11; 12:1, 10 [9], 14 [13]; 13:4), significantly more than any other prophetic book (Stuart, 17). This speaks to the importance of this theme within the book. Therefore, the interpreter does well to understand Hosea’s broader theology of Egypt while engaging particular “Egypt” references and allusions throughout the book.

In 2:17, YHWH speaks of a renewal of His relationship with Israel compared with their relationship at the glorious time of the Exodus. In 7:11 Hosea speaks of Israel’s leadership’s senseless, habitual behavior of fluttering between two foreign allies, Egypt and Assyria (see 2 Kgs 15:29; 16:5; 17:3-6) (McComiskey, 111). A handful of verses later, in 7:16, Hosea uses the previous time of Israel’s captivity in Egypt to depict her future captivity (presumably in Assyria; cf. 11:11). Hosea makes a similar redemptive-historical connection in 8:13, where he speaks of Israel “returning to Egypt.” He uses Israel’s captivity in Egypt as a prophetic paradigm (cf. Deut 28:68) for understanding her future captivity. Hosea does this again in 9:3, except this time he parallels Assyria—the actual location of Israel’s future exile—with Egypt—the redemptive-historical type. 9:6 depicts a reversal of salvation history. Israelites will flee to Egypt to escape destruction; but, instead of finding refuge, they will find their graves. In 11:1 Hosea recalls the days of Israel’s “youth” during which he was led out of Egypt in the Exodus. In 11:5 God reveals to the readers what they have come to suspect. Israel would not actually go to exile in Egypt (type), but in Assyria (antitype). Nonetheless, by equating Assyria with Egypt in 11:11, Hosea anticipates the return from Assyria as a new Exodus. Like one who tries to control the wind (Garrett, 235), Israel tries to control her fate by making treaties with Assyria and Egypt in 12:1 (2 Kgs 17:1-6). 12:10 associates YHWH with the events of the Exodus. YHWH is still the God of the Exodus (McComiskey, 206). 12:14 alludes to God’s use of Moses, a prophet, to lead the people out of Egypt. Finally, in 13:4 God again describes Himself as the God of the Exodus. It was in the Egyptian wilderness that God revealed Himself to Moses. It was in God’s saving acts in Egypt that He initially made Himself known to Israel.

After surveying this data, a few conclusions can be made. Note, Assyria is mentioned 9 times in the book. But, interestingly, all but three of these incidences occur parallel to Egypt (Stuart, 17). What this suggests, along with the use of “Egypt” throughout the book, is that Egypt serves as a metonymy for foreign captivity, namely in Assyria. Hosea is likely building on such usage of Egypt as found in Deut 28:68. In other words, Egypt can have a negative function, to serve as a model of Israel’s future captivity in Assyria. Nonetheless, in God’s past dealings with his people in Egypt, captivity led to redemption. Hence, Egypt also serves a positive function in Hosea, to reflect upon God’s saving activity in the Exodus. For Hosea, Egypt also signifies a pivotal moment in YHWH’s relationship with Israel. YHWH is the God “from Egypt.” It was there that He first revealed Himself to Israel. This moment in Israel’s history is painted as the epitome of YHWH’s relationship with Israel. In summary, Hosea uses Egypt as a redemptive-historical paradigm for God’s dealing with and relationship to Israel. For Hosea, history does not simply repeat itself. Redemptive history serves as the interpretive key for understanding God’s future dealings with His people.