Hosea 1

Vine imagery throughout the Bible

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 10:1, Hosea refers to Israel as a vine. In so doing, he finds himself amidst a substantial company of Biblical authors. Vine and vineyard imagery plays a significant role throughout the canon and across redemptive-history. As such, it is a rather important topic within the discipline of Biblical theology. Therefore, interpreters do well to investigate this Biblical theme in greater depth. An understanding of the canonical use of this theme will certainly inform the interpreter’s understanding of its specific use in Hosea 10:1.

Given this theme’s prolific Biblical use (see Gen 9:20; 49:11-12, 22; Ex 22:5; 23:11; Lev 19:10; Deut 20:6; 23:24; 24:21; 28:30, 39; 32:32-33; Jdg 9:13; 1 Kgs 4:25; 21:1-16; 2 Kgs 18:31; Ps 52:8; 78:47; 80:8-11; Prov 24:30-34; 31:16; Song of Sol 1:6; 2:13, 15; 6:11; 7:8, 12; 8:11-12; Isa 3:14; 5:1-7; 16:8-10; 27:2-4; 36:16; Jer. 2:21; 5:10, 17; 6:9; 11:16; 12:10; 31:5; 32:15; Ezek. 17:5-6; Hos 2:12; 10:1; Am 4:9; 5:17; 9:14; Mic 1:6; 4:4; Zeph 1:13; Zech 3:10; Mt 20:1-11; 21:33-43; 26:29; Mk 12:1; 14:25; Lk 20:9; 22:18; Jn 15; Rom 11:16-24; Rev 14:18-20), for sake of brevity, attention will be given to those texts that are particularly significant to the development of this theme and its use Hosea 10:1, i.e., those that use the vine as something like a metaphor for the people of God. Probably the most prominent case of this sort of use of vineyard imagery in the OT occurs in Isaiah 5:1-7. In Isaiah 5:1-7, Israel is depicted as a vineyard God has planted. Instead of yielding good grapes (e.g., justice, righteousness), it yields a bad harvest (e.g., bloodshed, injustice). Therefore, God determines to destroy His vineyard. Such a description may be rooted in the Pentateuch, specifically Deut 32:32-33, which describes Israel’s future, depraved behavior in terms of vile fruit of the vine. Psalm 80:8-11 refers to God’s work of planting and establishing His vineyard (i.e., Israel; cf. “You brought a vine out of Egypt,” v.8; see also Ezek 17:5-6). In Isaiah 27:2-4 YHWH foretells of His “eschatological vineyard.” He will be intimately involved in caring for and protecting this vineyard. In Jeremiah 2:21, although YHWH planted Israel as a choice vine, she has somehow managed to do the unnatural thing of becoming a wild vine. When YHWH punishes Israel in 5:10, He declares that those branches which are to be broken off (i.e., punished; cf. Rom 11) are not His (i.e., not truly His people). But, by implication, a remnant of branches will be preserved.YHWH, who planted this olive tree, will also be its destroyer (Jer 11:17). In Hosea 10:1, Israel is described as a vine that uses its fruit to increase its practice of idolatry. In Matthew 21:33-46, Mark 12:1-12, and Luke 20:9-18 Jesus told a parable against the Pharisees who here served as an antitype of sorts for historical Israel’s response to God. Jesus describes His Father as the master of a vineyard, Israel (or more specifically in Matthew, the kingdom) as the vineyard, and the vineyard’s tenants as Israelites. To this vineyard the master sent many servants (i.e., the prophets) and finally His own Son (i.e., Jesus)—all are rejected or killed. Jesus then concludes that God will respond in judgment by taking His vineyard away from unbelieving Israel and giving it to a people (i.e., the Church) who will provide Him a harvest. In John 15:1-11 Jesus describes His Father as the vinedresser and then himself as the vine. Jesus—the true Israel—fulfills Israel’s role as YHWH’s vine. Finally, in Romans 11:16-24 Paul depicts the people of God across redemptive history as an olive vine. He states that in this new age in redemptive history God’s people have undergone a transformation of sorts—the unbelieving natural branches (i.e., Jews) having been broken off from the vine, while unnatural branches (e.g., gentiles) have been grafted in it.

In sum, the vineyard serves as a wonderfully descriptive picture of the people of God across redemptive history. The imagery implies a vinedresser, God the Father, who plants, nurtures, and protects His vineyard. This metaphor, therefore, speaks of God’s people as a people established and sustained by God’s grace and initiative. It is His vineyard, His work. And as a vineyard, His people are depicted as extremely valuable to Him. This imagery also wonderfully incorporates God’s concern that His people produce “fruit,” i.e., behaviors attitudes, and dispositions that reflect their true nature as the people of God. Finally, this imagery lends itself to Paul’s use of the concept of “grafting,” which he uses to describe the expansion and transformation of God’s people as the New Covenant community.

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.

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.