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.

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.

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.

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.

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.