Introduction

In Russian and Slavic Bibles, after the book of the prophet Daniel, and in Hebrew after the book of Ezekiel, come the books of the Twelve Minor Prophets. In antiquity all these books formed one, which among the Hebrews was called schaejasar (Aram. trejasar, treisar), and among the Greeks δωδεκαπιρόφητον. The earliest attestation that the books of the minor prophets were joined into one can be found in Jesus son of Sirach (Sir 49:10). This attestation then finds confirmation in Josephus Flavius, who counts only 22 books in the Hebrew canon (Against Apion I, 8) and in the church fathers Melito of Sardis (Eusebius, Church History IV, 26), Athanasius the Great (39 Paschal Letter), Cyril of Jerusalem (Lecture IV, 35), Gregory the Theologian (33 verses) and others, who employ the term δωδεκαπιρόφητον in defining the number of Old Testament canonical books at only 12. The motives for joining 12 prophetic books into one are unknown, since the reasoning proposed by Blessed Theodoret (Preface to the Commentary on the Minor Prophets) and Rabbi Kimchi (Commentary in psalms, preface) and accepted by some modern authors (Hoonacker), that the books were joined due to their small volume, to prevent their loss, cannot be considered well-founded.

While forming one book, the writings of the Twelve Prophets occupied different places in the codices of the Bible: according to Melito, they were placed after the books of the great prophets, according to Origen and Epiphanius before this book, as they are now in the received text of the Septuagint. Similarly, the order of individual works in the collection of minor prophets changed. In Hebrew Bible the order accepted in our texts was preserved, while in the Septuagint the books were arranged differently, namely: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. What motives underlay the indicated distribution of the books of the minor prophets, one cannot say with certainty; apparently there was no firm principle, but partly they were guided by a chronological principle, and partly took into account the volume of the books. Therefore the books of the post-exilic prophets were placed at the end of the entire collection, while from the pre-exilic books the larger in volume book of Hosea was placed before the book of Amos, although Amos was Hosea’s predecessor in prophetic ministry.

The literature devoted to the interpretation of the books of the minor prophets is extremely extensive. Among church fathers, the books of the minor prophets were interpreted by Blessed Theodoret, St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Ephrem of Syria, Blessed Jerome and Blessed Theophylact. Among works composed in modern times, the most important are the following: Hitzig, Die kleinen Propheten (4th edn. 1881); Keil, Die kl. Proph. (3rd edn. 1888); Knabenbauer, Comment. in prophetas minores. 1866. Nowack, Die kl. Proph uberzetzt und erklart, 1904, Marti, Dodekapropheton erklart 1904. Hoonacker Les douze petits prophetes. 1908. In Russian literature, the interpretation of the minor prophets is devoted to the works of Palladius, Bishop of Sarapul (1872 onwards). Ruzemont, A Brief Explanation of the 12 Minor Prophets 1880 and I. Smirnov (1873 onwards).

The Prophet Hosea (Greek ᾿Ωσηέ, Hebrew Hoschea, from jascha to save, to help, means salvation, savior, helper), according to the testimony of his book, was the son of a certain Beeri. Regarding the prophet’s life, it can be considered reliably known only that he was a native of the ten-tribe kingdom and in that same kingdom conducted his prophetic ministry. This is witnessed by: 1) the thorough familiarity with the internal state of the Israeli kingdom that appears throughout the book of Hosea (Hos 4:1-2); 2) his exclusive mention of the cities of that kingdom (Samaria Hos 7:1; Gilead Hos 6:8; Shechem Hos 6:9; Gilgal Hos 4:15; Bethel or Beth-Aven Hos 4:15). 3) The peculiarities of the prophet’s speech, or Aramaisms characteristic of the language of the inhabitants of the Northern Kingdom (Hos 11:4 Ochil instead of aachil; Hos 13:15 japrija instead of japreh; Hos 13:10 ehi instead of asseh).

If chapters I-III of the book of Hosea are understood in the sense of a description of actual events from the prophet’s life (which, however, is not indisputable), then from these chapters it follows that Hosea had a wife and children, but was unhappy in his family life, for his wife was unfaithful to him.

The brief information derived from the book of Hosea itself is supplemented by the traditions reported in ancient writers (Ephrem the Syrian, Dorotheus) that Hosea was from the city of Beelmoth or Beleemon in the tribe of Issachar, that he died in Babylon, and was buried in upper Galilee. The reliability of these traditions is as difficult to defend as it is to uphold the supposition of Duhm (Duhm, Theologie der Propheten 1875, p. 130) that Hosea belonged to the priestly class: familiarity with the past history of Israel, a lofty view of sacrifices, mention of God’s law and other features noted by Duhm in the book are found in the book of the prophet even without the supposition that he belonged to the priests.

The time of Hosea’s prophetic activity cannot be determined with precision. From the inscription of the book it follows that the prophet conducted his ministry during the period of the Judahite kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah (791–698). If we interpret the inscription to mean that Hosea began his activity only in the second half of Uzziah’s reign and concluded it already in the beginning of Hezekiah’s reign, still the time of the prophet’s ministry must be determined as a period of 59–63 years. (26–28 of Uzziah, 16 of Jotham, 2 Sam 15:33 of Ahaz 2 Sam 16:2 and 1–3 of Hezekiah). Such considerable duration of the prophet’s activity raises doubts in some scholars about the accuracy of the inscription. The ground for this doubt is found also in the fact that among the kings of Israel, for the entire period of the prophet’s ministry, only one, Jeroboam II, is named, who was a contemporary of only Uzziah. From this not without reason the conclusion is drawn (by almost all Western authors, and among Russians by Yavorsky) that the inscription in the book of Hosea is corrupted and that the time of the prophet’s ministry should be determined only on the basis of the indications found in the content of the book itself. According to these indications, the prophet began his ministry at the end of the reign of Jeroboam II (787–746). By Hos 1:4 the house of Jehu is only just threatened with falling; the latter happened after Jeroboam’s death, under his son Zechariah. The prosperity of the kingdom presupposed in chapters I-III (Hos 2:7) corresponds exactly to the time of Jeroboam. The indications of the subsequent chapters of the book concerning times of anarchy, when princes and judges fell (Hos 7:7) about wavering between friendship with Egypt and alliance with Assyria (Hos 7:11) correspond already to the time of Jeroboam’s successors. The end of the prophet’s ministry is determined by the following data: 1) The prophet everywhere presupposes the existence of the ten-tribe kingdom and speaks of its destruction (722 B.C.) as future; 2) in the book there are no indications of the war that took place with the Judahite kingdom. The Israeli king Pekah and the Syrian Rezin (735); 3) In Hos 6:8; Hos 12:12 Gilead is still called a city of Ephraim, whereas the region of Gilead was ravaged by Tiglath-Pileser already in 734 B.C. Thus, on the basis of the book’s indications, the time of the prophet’s ministry can be limited to the period from 750 to 735 B.C.

The prophet Hosea had to conduct his ministry under difficult circumstances. The country was experiencing a grave political situation. Jeroboam II expanded the boundaries of the Israeli kingdom from Hamath to the Dead Sea (2 Sam 14:25-28) and gave it power and strength, which it had not had since the days of David and Solomon. But immediately after Jeroboam’s death a rapid decline of the kingdom began. The last representative of the house of Jehu, Zechariah, on the sixth month of his reign fell victim to a conspiracy of Shallum (2 Sam 15:8 and 9). A month later Shallum was killed by Menahem. Menahem was able to hold the throne only with outside help. He received this help from the Assyrian king Pul, paying him a large tribute. The son and successor of Menahem, Pekahiah, after two years of his reign was murdered by Pekah (2 Sam 15:26). Pekah in his turn was deposed and killed by Hoshea (2 Sam 15:30). Thus, after Jeroboam’s death, anarchy was established in the ten-tribe kingdom, the throne passed from one usurper to another, the Assyrians interfered in the country’s internal affairs, soon putting an end to the northern kingdom. The country was also experiencing grave conditions with respect to religious and moral matters. The country was dominated by the worship of calves introduced by Jeroboam I for political reasons, the centers of which were sanctuaries in Bethel and Dan. Representing Jehovah in the image of a calf, the people began to equate Jehovah with pagan deities and, mixing him with the Baals, ascribed to Jehovah the name Baal (Hos 2:16). The unlawful worship of calves in itself became thus a step toward the transition from the religion of Jehovah to pagan worship. This apostasy from Jehovah was reflected in the moral state of the people. Among the people there disappeared fear of both the holiness of the law and the holiness of God. There was neither truth nor kindness; oath-breaking, murder, deceit, theft, adultery (Hos 4:1-2) spread throughout the country, penetrated all levels of society. Priests engaged in robbery and plunder (Hos 4:8), princes “were hot for wickedness, like a heated oven,” the people wallowed in depravity (Hos 4:13-14).

Division of the book and general content. The book of Hosea presents not a collection of separate speeches of the prophet, but a digest of them, a condensed exposition of what the prophet preached during his ministry. This exposition, as in other biblical books, does not have a strictly systematic character. Usually the book of Hosea is divided into two parts: the first includes chapters I-III, and the second chapters IV-XIV. The first part encompasses the beginning of the prophet’s ministry, that is, speeches from the time of Jeroboam II, and the second contains an exposition of the prophet’s reproaching and consoling speeches from a later period of his ministry. Both parts of the book of Hosea are, meanwhile, permeated with one idea, around which all the prophet’s speeches revolve. Corresponding to the state of the people contemporary to the prophet, the book of Hosea has a reproaching character. The starting point of preaching for the prophet is the idea of the marital union of the people of Israel with Jehovah. From the perspective of this idea, the prophet examines both the present of the people and its future. The image of the marital union constantly appears before the prophet, and he uses it both in the symbolic action with which his preaching began, and in subsequent speeches. Jehovah, having established a covenant with the people in love, remained faithful to this covenant. Jehovah’s love for his people never dimmed. He brought Israel out of Egypt (Hos 2:1), gave him the law (Hos 8:12), saved him from enemies (Hos 7:13), raised up prophets for him (Hos 11:2), poured abundant mercies upon him (Hos 12:9). But Israel broke the marital union with Jehovah, became an adulteress and harlot, like Gomer (I-III). Already at the first time after the establishment of the covenant with Jehovah, Israel went to Baal-Peor (Hos 9:10). Later he completely forgot his Creator (Hos 8:14), became attached to idols (Hos 4:17), began to offer incense to the Baals (Hos 2:15), set up altars (Hos 8:2) and perished through Baal. (Hos 13:1). “Exceedingly the land commits prostitution, departing from the Lord” (Hos 1:2). The forgetting of Jehovah and the worship of Baal is the first great sin of Israel. But this sin became the source and cause of other transgressions, which the prophet denounces in his speeches. Connected with the deviation from Jehovah stands first of all the second sin of Israel – departure from the house of David; the people set up kings for themselves (Hos 8:4) or, if they were given to them by God, they were given in anger (Hos 13:9-11). Then, as a consequence of Israel’s ungodly disposition, came the kingdom’s false policy, seeking friendship with foreigners. Wishing to escape God’s punishment through the help of foreigners (Hos 5:13), striving, contrary to its proper calling, to play a role among the nations (Hos 7:8), Israel began to make alliances with Egypt and Assyria, and this making of alliances was accompanied by “empty and false words and oaths” (Hos 12:2). – “And Ephraim became,” the prophet says, “like a foolish dove without understanding, calling on Egypt, going to Assyria” (Hos 7:11). And so the results of this policy: “Ephraim is mixed with the peoples... Strangers devour his strength, and he does not know it, gray hairs are scattered upon him, and he does not know” (Hos 7:8-9). Finally, deviation from Jehovah led the people to extreme moral decline (Hos 4:1-2) “there is no truth, nor kindness, nor knowledge of God in the land; swearing and breaking faith, killing and stealing and committing adultery abound” and bloodshed follows bloodshed. By denouncing the people’s apostasy, the prophet at the same time delineates for it an ideal toward which it ought to strive. Israel must be a faithful wife to Jehovah and not remember the name of the Baals (Hos 2:16-17). It must seek the Lord its God and David, its king (Hos 3:5). It must know (jadah) the Lord, for knowledge of God in God’s eyes has greater value than entire burnt offerings, because the Lord says: “I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings” (Hos 6:6). The Hebrew verb jadah – to know – conveys the idea of such knowledge as is based on the closest, immediate union with what is known and therefore is used to denote marital relations. When the prophet puts forward knowledge of God as an ideal for the people, he means not the acquisition of theoretical knowledge about God, but precisely the achievement of the closest fellowship with God, unity in love. The absence of knowledge of God, that is, love for God, was the cause of the people’s moral transgressions; the achievement of knowledge of God will be for them the source of new, pure life. The means for the return of the people to the goal of their election, according to the thought of the prophet Hosea, will be punishment. Like his older contemporary Amos, Hosea speaks with decisiveness about the inevitability of punishment for the Israeli kingdom. This punishment the prophet represents under the image of the people’s return to Egypt (Hos 8:13). The prophet proclaims the coming destruction of the kingdom, deportation into captivity and scattering of the people (Hos 11:1), decrease in its numbers (Hos 9:11), destruction of the royal house (Hos 10:7) destruction of sanctuaries (Hos 10:8) and the coming of a series of heavy calamities (Hos 13:7-6). Amid these calamities, according to Amos, Hosea proclaims the people’s remaining without God’s revelation (Hos 3:4), as well as the loss of sacrifices and altars (Hos 3:4). In general, according to the prophet’s thought, in order to fulfill its purpose, to be cleansed, to live, the people must die, and only by a creative, divine act can it be raised to life. The prophet foresees that time when the Lord will return his people from the land of captivity (Hos 1:11), will raise him from death, and he will live before his face (Hos 6:2), when even the power of death and the dominion of Hades are abolished (Hos 13:14). After this the goal will be realized that was had in view at the calling of Israel. In the new society, – among the new Israel – chaste, like a virgin (Hos 2:19 aras – “to betroth” is used of betrothal to a virgin), numerous, like the sand of the sea, as a result of the joining of those who were not previously the people of God (Hos 1:10), – the marital union with the Lord will be restored in all its purity and depth (Hos 2:16 and following). The foundation of this new covenant on God’s part will be righteousness, judgment, kindness and mercy (Hos 2:19), and on the part of the people, knowledge of the Lord, that is, union with God in love. This restoration of the marital union of the people with the Lord in purity will be accompanied by the restoration of complete harmony in nature, that peace which was once broken by human sin (Hos 2:17-22).

From what has been said it is evident that the prophet Hosea in his speeches appears as a preacher of love for God; in the absence of this love (knowledge of God) he sees the cause of the people’s sins, and in the return to it he points out the true source of life. The depth of feeling, the ardent love for his people are the distinguishing characteristics of the prophet Hosea’s own person. By these qualities the prophet Hosea can be brought close to the New Testament apostle of love, John the Theologian, and his book to the epistles of the beloved disciple of Christ.

In exposition the book of Hosea is distinguished by an abundance of images borrowed from the realm of nature (Compare Hos 2:21 and others), and by rapid transitions from one thought to another, – from denunciation to threat, from threat to promise. In the prophet’s language are found rare words and forms (Hos 4:18 ahavu hevu; Hos 5:13 nahah; Hos 6:10 Schaarurijah and others), as well as deviations from usual construction and spelling (Hos 5:2). In general, the book of Hosea in both content and language represents one of the most difficult books of the Old Testament to understand. The Hebrew text of the book can be considered preserved in sufficient purity, with the deviations of translations from the original, except for a few places (Hos 6:5), being explained by the errors and liberties of the translators.

Literature. Besides the noted general works on the books of the Minor Prophets, the book of Hosea is treated in a series of special monographs. Among them the important ones are – the foreign Wunsche, Der Prophet Hosea. 1868; Nowack, Der Prophet Hosea. 1880; Scholz, Commentar zum Buche Pr. Hosea 1882; Valeton, Amos und Hosea. 1898; Russian – Smirnov, St. Prophet Hosea and Joel; Yavorsky, Symbolic Actions of the Prophet Hosea (1903) and especially Professor I. A. Brodovich, Book of the Prophet Hosea. Introduction and Exegesis. K. 1903. Professor Brodovich’s monograph is a learned commentary on the book of Hosea, compiled on the basis of study of extensive literature.