Chapter Three

1. God’s commandment to the prophet. 2–3. The prophet’s execution of the commandment. 4–5. Symbolic significance of the prophet’s actions.

Hosea 3:1. And the Lord said to me: Go again, love a woman loved by another man, an adulteress, just as the Lord loves the sons of Israel, while they turn to other gods and love raisins of wine. Through a new symbolic action the prophet proclaims God’s forgiveness of the sinful people. “And the Lord said to me: Go again, and love a woman beloved by an affectionate husband, but an adulteress”. The meaning of the commandment received by the prophet is understood differently. Many exegetes (Hengstenberg, Keil, Scholz) see in verse 1 a reference to the prophet’s second marriage with another woman unknown by name. At the same time it is supposed that Gomer either died or was divorced. But the majority of commentators understand by the woman whom the prophet is commanded to love the wife named in chapter I, Gomer. This understanding is based on the following reasons: a) If the woman of whom the prophet speaks were different from Gomer, the prophet would have given more definite information about her, as he did in Hos 1:3. b) True, the word ischah, woman in Hos 3:1 does not have the article, which causes doubt in relating this word to a person mentioned earlier and known to the reader; but the example of such omission of the article by the prophet Hosea is encountered repeatedly (compare Hos 5:11 acharej zav “according to the ordinance” Hos 4:11 ikkah lev, seize the heart; with the words zav and lev one would expect the article here). c) From the context it is evident that through symbolic action the prophet wants to point to the unchanging love of God for Israel, despite Israel’s betrayal and unfaithfulness. This idea will be expressed only if under the wife in verse 1 we understand Gomer, who betrayed the prophet and yet is loved by him. d) Of the woman it is said that she is loved by an affectionate husband, Hebrew achubath rea, properly loved by a friend (Slavonic “loving evil,” because the Septuagint instead of rea read ra – wickedness). In this place rea can denote a lover or husband (compare Jer 3:1; Song 5:16). Since of the woman, loved by rea, it is noted that she “commits adultery” (and not prostitution), it seems, under rea, whose faithfulness is violated, we must understand the husband. Thus a wife is loved by a husband. At the same time the prophet is also commanded to love the woman. Assuredly, the prophet could not have been commanded to appropriate another’s wife and violate the sanctity of another’s marriage. Therefore it is necessary to conclude that the prophet is commanded to love his own wife, that is, that under the wife in Hos 3:1 is meant the wife mentioned in chapter 1, Gomer. The meaning of the commandment “love a woman” is not entirely clear. But this commandment cannot be understood in the sense of a commandment to enter into marriage, as the term lakach eschschah (take a wife) is usually used in the Old Testament to denote the conclusion of a marital union. Besides, the idea of the prophet’s second marriage is excluded by the fact that there is no mention of either Gomer’s death or divorce from her. In view of what has been said, in the commandment to love a woman one should see only an indication “of a new episode from the history of the prophet’s marriage with Gomer” (Brodovich). We must suppose that Gomer not only violated her marital union with the prophet but completely left him in order with greater freedom to indulge her evil inclination. Now the prophet receives a commandment “to love her again”, that is, to find her, once more declare his love to her and “renew the signs of love” (Kurtz, Nowack, Ruzemont, Brodovich). – “They love raisin cakes” asihischej anavim, Slavonic: “variances with currants,” πέμματα μετά σταιριδος, pastry with raisins: probably these cakes were offered as sacrifices to idols and used for sacrificial meals.

Hosea 3:2. And I bought her for myself for fifteen pieces of silver and a homer of barley and a half homer of barley. Hosea 3:3. And I said to her: “Many days you shall remain for me; you shall not play the harlot, nor shall you be with another man; so also I will be for you. In verses 2 and 3 is reported the prophet’s execution of God’s commandment. It is not entirely clear what exactly was done by the prophet. The Hebrew vaekreha (Russian “and he bought”), translated by commentators differently (Abenezra – “became acquainted”, Umbreit, Hitzig, Nowack – “bought”, Keil, Scholz – “acquired”, Kurtz – “made a contract”) is best, together with the Septuagint, understood in the sense of hired (έμισθωσάμην), made a contract. Apparently, before renewing marital relations with Gomer, the prophet assigned her, as it were, a penance with the purpose of correcting her and strengthening her in virtue: namely, for a certain time Gomer was to refrain from all sexual relations. At the same time the prophet gave his wife means of subsistence, but very meager means (to strengthen in her the thought of the necessity of humility), namely barley, from which the worst bread was made, and a small sum of money (according to the Greek and Slavonic texts also “a little wine”). These means were given to the wife herself, and not to her parents or to her lover as a ransom, as some commentators suppose (Scholz, Knabenbauer, Ewald, Nowack): the existence among the Hebrews of a custom of buying wives from parents or relatives cannot be proven, and the supposition that the prophet negotiated with his wife’s lover is unnatural. “Nor shall I have intercourse with you”, that is, the prophet will be in the same relations with his wife as she ought to be with other men, – in other words, will not have sexual relations with her.

Hosea 3:4. For the sons of Israel shall remain many days without a king and without a prince and without a sacrifice, without an altar, without an ephod and teraphim. In verse 4 is given an explanation of the prophet’s symbolic action. Like Gomer, Israel in captivity will be deprived of civil government and the worship of Jehovah. At the same time she will reject idols with disgust. “Without pillar”. Hebrew mazzebah from nazab to set up, – means properly a stone, a statue, a stone memorial. Such pillars were used by pagans in honor of Baal (Exod 23:24; 2 Sam 3:2), and by the Hebrews were dedicated to Jehovah (Gen 28:18). By the law of Moses mazzeboth, in view of their use by the Canaanites, were forbidden (Exod 23:24; Lev 26:1; Deut 7:5 and others). But nevertheless they were widely distributed both in the Israeli people and in the Judahite Kingdom (1 Sam 14:23; 2 Sam 17:10 and others). “Ephod and teraphim” Slavonic “neither priesthood, nor manifestation”: ephod – the high priest’s upper garment, on which was placed the breastplate with Urim and Thummim; teraphim – human-like idols, depicting household gods. Teraphim were considered gods-oracles, to which the people turned for prediction of the future (Ezek 21:26; Zech 10:2; compare Judg 17:1). The Septuagint understood the Hebrew teraphim as referring to the Urim and Thummim and therefore translated the word as δήξοι, Slavonic “manifestation”.

Hosea 3:5. Afterward the sons of Israel shall return and seek the Lord their God and David their king, and they shall fear the Lord and His goodness in the latter days. The prophet speaks of the consequences of Israel’s punishment. As the apostasy from Jehovah was accompanied by Israel’s estrangement from the house of David, so also the turning to Jehovah will be accompanied by reunion with David. The words “in the latter days”, denoting in prophetic speeches usually the Messianic time (Isa 2:2; Ezek 38:8; Jer 30:24 and others), show that by David the prophet means not the royal dynasty of David, but the great descendant of David – the Messiah. Slavonic: “they will wonder about the Lord” εκστήσονται, means: they will stand in awe, tremble before the Lord. Chapters I-III contain a description of the prophet’s symbolic action. Was this symbolic action actually carried out? On this question there are three opinions in the exegetical literature. Some commentators accept the prophet’s account as a literary device, a parable or allegory for expressing a certain truth; others consider chapters I-III to be a description of what the prophet experienced only in spirit, in spiritual contemplation or vision; still others, finally, believe that the prophet is recounting actual external facts, a symbolic action that was performed. The first understanding (allegorical) is defended by the most well-known exegetes of Rosenmüller, Hitzig, Wünsche, Hoonacker; among Russians by Smirnov; the second (visionary) was expressed by Blessed Jerome, then was shared by the entire Origenian school, Jewish commentators and in modern times was upheld by Hengstenberg and Keil; the third (realistic) understanding of chapters I-III in antiquity had as its defenders St. Cyril, Blessed Theodoret, and in modern times – Kurtz, Schegg, Nowack, Cheyne and others, Russian commentators – Bishop Palladius, Brodovich and Yavorsky. The visionary understanding of the chapters in question of the book of Hosea at the present time has no defenders and can be rejected without hesitation. For the inner experience by the prophet of his figurative account, one cannot point to any purpose, and the very process of this experience is incomprehensible. It is more difficult to make a choice from the two remaining understandings of chapters I-III – the allegorical and the realistic – since each of them can find in the prophet’s brief narrative more or less firm grounds for itself. In favor of the realistic interpretation, accepted in our literature (Brodovich, Yavorsky), are usually adduced the following principal grounds: 1) the prophet nowhere indicates that he is communicating a parable, but a narrative of actual events; Hos 3:1; Hos 3:1-3 receive a satisfactory meaning only when interpreted in the literal sense. 2) If we admit that the narrative of chapters I-III represents a parable, but that in reality the prophet was either not married at all, or was happy in marriage, then the prophet’s narrative about himself, not corresponding to reality well known to his listeners, should have produced on them a strange impression and aroused only bewilderment. 3) In favor of the literal interpretation one can point also to the fact that the name of the main character – Gomer – cannot be interpreted in an allegorical sense: if chapters I-III represented a parable or generally a fictional narrative, it would be natural to expect that the main character bears a name symbolic in character – a name obviously corresponding in its meaning to the purpose of the narrative. In turn, the allegorists can not without sufficient grounds put forward the following in favor of their interpretation: 1) The form of the narrative itself does not speak to the fact that what is described in chapters I-III was actually performed by the prophet, as it is undoubted that not all symbolic actions were performed (compare Jer 25:15). 2) In interpreting chapter I in the sense of a narrative of a historical fact, the psychological performance of God’s commandment by the prophet is incomprehensible: it is strange to suppose that in contracting marriage the prophet was to be guided by foreknowledge that a certain woman would be an adulteress and would have illegitimate children. 3) In the allegorical understanding of chapters I-III the discrepancy of some features with actual life cannot cause bewilderment, as in a parable or allegory deviations from reality are entirely possible. 4) If we recognize chapters I-III as a parable, then the prophet’s preaching will present something unified; if, however, we see in the chapters under consideration an indication of an actual fact of the prophet’s life, then his preaching will be broken into a series of separate moments, divided by a considerable interval of time, that is, will lose its unity and force of impression. Given the brevity of the prophet Hosea’s narrative and the disputability of many individual expressions in chapters I-III, it is difficult to decidedly prefer one of the interpretations given. But whether we interpret chapters I-III in an allegorical sense, or consider them a description of actual facts from the prophet’s life, the general meaning of the prophet’s denunciations and predictions is clear, and it remains unchanged under both interpretations.