Biblical Studies

Does Hosea 3 describe Gomer or a second woman?

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.

Foundational to anyone’s interpretation of the book of Hosea at large is his or her understanding of the relationship between Gomer in ch. 1 and the unnamed woman in ch. 3. Namely, are these women the same women; or are they distinct? Interrelated with this question is an additional question of whether or not chs. 1 and 3 are sequential or parallel accounts of the same event. In the case of the latter, the women are necessarily identical. If sequential, chs. 1-3 may depict either two distinct women or two events surrounding the same woman, Gomer. Wading through these issues is of particular importance in that they set the stage for the rest of the book’s message.

We will handle this exegetical issue in three stages. (1) Questions of literary unity. Based on his view that chs. 1-3 are not an original literary unit, Wolff (59) argues that this entire debate is “foreign to the text.” He supposes that ch. 3 was written prior to the composition of ch. 1, and, therefore, should not be compared with ch. 1 in an effort towards a historical reconstruction of Hosea’s life. Rather than being compared to ch. 1, ch. 3 should be interpreted as thematically related to ch. 2 with which ch. 3 is in continuation and for which it serves as a conclusion. Ch. 3 “functions as the prophet’s personal seal upon the foregoing series of threats and promises” [in ch. 2] (59). Against this stance, Garrett notes that no manuscript evidence supports such compositional skepticism (46). Either way, the text should be treated in its current form. And even if one concedes to Wolff’s proposal, questions about the historical relationship between these events and women—historical realities foundational to the book’s interpretation—still remain.

(2) The relationship between the events of ch. 1 and 3—sequential or parallel? Various reasons exist to support the conclusion that ch. 3 depicts an event distant from and sequential to ch. 1. For example, Mays notes, in ch. 1 “the prophet was told to go take a wife, but here he is ordered to go love a wife, as though to imply that what was required was his personal commitment within a relationship already established” (56). Similarly, Freedman: “The discipline enforced in 3:3 is not the training of a bride, but the subjection and purgation of a fallen wife” (293). Conclusive is ch. 3’s calling this woman an adulteress. Presumably, Hosea would not marry another man’s wife! Therefore, this must be a “remarriage” to Hosea’s wife, an event unknown to and therefore distinct from ch. 1 (Garrett, 99). עוֹד (again), despite what verb it modifies, likely indicates that the events of ch. 3 follow those of ch. 1. And, finally, understanding ch. 3 as subsequent and referring to the same woman of ch. 1 fits well with the message of Hosea. Gomer would mirror Hosea’s message of sin, punishment, and restoration.

(3) The relationship between the two women. Stuart presents a skeptical and indecisive stance towards these biographical questions of Hosea’s life. He rightly concludes that such questions are beyond the text’s intent, which relates to the communication of theological truths (11-12). Nonetheless, he argues that the two women are distinct based on his view of Gomer’s promiscuity—spiritual adultery—versus the woman’s in ch. 3—actual adultery (64). Against this, one could argue that the context of ch. 1-3 implies that Gomer is meant in both accounts. The mention of adultery implies that this woman is Hosea’s immoral wife; and Gomer meets both of these qualifications: she is the only (1) immoral woman and (2) wife of Hosea mentioned in the book. As Garret says, “Hosea probably felt no need to give his audience the name of this woman precisely because the reader already knows who she is” (98). Additionally, no matter what verb עוֹד modifies, it suggests continuity, presumably with the events and woman of chapter 1 (Freedman, 293). However, if עוֹד modifies אֱֽהַב, then Gomer is almost necessarily in view. Finally, if the woman in ch. 3 is Gomer, Hosea’s actions would more exactly depict God’s message of restoration.

Therefore, for the reasons argued above, this author concludes that chs. 1-3 depict sequential events regarding Hosea’s marriage and “remarriage” to the same woman, Gomer. This interpretation is most significant in terms of its relationship to the message of Hosea. Hosea’s dealings with Gomer vividly and movingly mirror God’s redemptive relationship with Israel.

What is the referent of the “priest” in Hosea 4?

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 the final line of 4:4, Hosea specifies that God’s accusation is specifically directed against כֹּהֵן. However, what is the identity of this כֹּהֵן? Who is the referent? The purpose of this brief paper is to investigate this exegetical issue. Its importance is seen by the fact that the entire section of 4:4-10 is an accusation against כֹּהֵן. Hence, the details of 4:4-10 relate to the identity of this כֹּהֵן, and vice versa.

Three primary positions exist. (1) Many understand כֹּהֵן (singular) to be a “collective singular” referring to the priesthood (e.g., Garrett, Stuart). (2) Others understand Hosea to be addressing a specific priest. For example, Wolff represents this position: “The כהן addressed here is probably a high official of an important sanctuary” (77). And (3), several commentators understand כֹּהֵן (singular) to refer to a specific priest; but, nonetheless, understand this priest to be representative of the priesthood at large. For example, Dearman understands vv.4-6 as a direct address to a specific priest. Yet, since “in the context there will be further critique of priests [plural] and the priesthood…the singular address and the individual here may be representative in nature” (157). Several factors are involved in this exegetical issue. (1) Grammatically. Wolff, argues that “כֹּהֵן never has a collective meaning in the vocative” (77). If this is true, this observation would rule out a collective use in 4:4. (2) The use of both singular and plural references. Throughout 4:4-10, the priest is referred to with both singular and plural references. The variance occurs between both verbs and nominal forms. Garrett interprets the plural verbs in 4:7 as clarifying or assuming a collective singular use in 4:4-6 (118). Explaining how a singular use of כֹּהֵן could refer to the priesthood at large (collective singular) is much easier than explaining a 3rd person plural as referring to an individual priest. Wolff, however, evades this predicament by seeing a shift in reference from a singular priest in vv.4-6 to priests (plural) in v.7 (80). But, noteworthy is the fact that Hosea uses a 3rd person, singular pronominal suffix on נַפְשֹֽׁו amidst and with 3rd person, plural verbs. This is likely a collective singular with the plural subjects of these verbs as its antecedent. This particular incident may shed light on the broader use of singulars in 4:4-10 referring to כֹּהֵן, i.e., collective use. However, de Regt notes that in Hosea “a brief change in grammatical person…frequently marks the beginning or end of a paragraph” (250). If this is true, determining whether the actual referent is individual or collective may be difficult to determine by merely usingperson alone. However, de Regt’s conclusion would mean that a shift in person does not mean a shift in referent (250), which some (e.g., Dearman, Wolff) propose. (3) Personal details. As Wolff notes, the mention of personal details such as the punishment of mother and sons favors a specific referent for כֹּהֵן (77). However, mother and children were already used metaphorically in chs. 1-3 to refer to Israel institutionally and the Israelites specifically. Further, even Wolff admits that these threats are “obscure” (80). (4) A parallel with נָבִיא in 4:5. Some commentators (e.g., Stuart, 77) understand this as a referent to the prophetic office (collective singular). Therefore, the parallel priest is also seen as collective. But this interpretation could be challenged. (5) A parallel with Amos 7:10-17. Many commentators recognize a parallel with Amos 7:10 in which Amos rebukes a specific priest, Amaziah. Similarly, Amos also threatened both children and wife (Wolff, 78). Depending on how exactly this parallel should is meant to be understood (if it is meant to be understood at all), one could argue that Hosea also has a specific priest in view (e.g., Wolff, 77). (6) The accusation. One might argue that such a devastating consequence, i.e., lack of knowledge among the entire people (4:6), is beyond the scope of one particular priest’s failure. If true, כֹּהֵן would need to be understood as either collective or representative.

In conclusion, I favor understanding the referent as either collective or representative, but more likely collective. The national (widespread) consequences of the failure of the כֹּהֵן seem incompatible with a specific referent. And the 3rd person plurals along with the seeming collective singular pronominal suffix on נַפְשֹֽׁו lean towards a collective or representative use. I prefer a collective referent over a representative one because Hosea is speaking of a widespread problem; and the details he provides do not seem to require that a specific referent be in view.

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.