John Mark Hicks

Israel’s spiritual adulteries and lack of faithfulness to Yahweh as their God has led to their destruction. Through an abundance of metaphors (stripped and humiliated before the nations, killed by thirst in the wilderness, devoured by wild beasts, etc.), Israel’s future is shaped by their disloyalty to Yahweh and their religious syncretism. They loved the gifts instead of the Giver, and they credited another with the gifts. Consequently, their path will lead to destruction and loss.

AI Summary:

The group discussed the biblical text from Hosea 2, focusing on God’s relationship with Israel as a metaphorical marriage. They explored how Israel’s idolatry and covenant breaking led to severe consequences, including the loss of blessings and the threat of divine abandonment. The discussion highlighted the harshness of the text, emphasizing the negative consequences of breaking covenant with God, while also noting that God’s ultimate intent is to heal and restore the relationship. The group considered the metaphorical language used in the text, such as wilderness and forest, to describe the consequences of Israel’s actions. They also touched on the idea that sometimes people need to experience the negative consequences of their actions to realize the need for change. The conversation ended with a brief mention of returning to the text next week to explore God’s love and the possibility of reconciliation.

Original Blog:

Modern sensibilities are understandably offended by the language in this section. Many see justification for domestic violence, an abusive patriarchy, and the dehumanization of women. Read as an isolated poem about marriage, it does lend itself to such characterizations. But read through the lens of common militaristic and political conventions in imperial pronouncements and covenants among known Assyrian documents (especially given the date of Hosea), the gendered metaphors and analogies are not affirmed but used to describe political and military actions and consequences. Hosea 2 is about political and national realities (with some religious syncretism in play as well). I recommend reading Bo H. Lim & Daniel Castelo, Hosea in the Two Horizon Old Testament Commentary series for a fuller discussion. I will not attempt to explore this complex (and disturbing) use of sexual and gendered metaphors in this blog.

The language, in my view, is not really about Gomer and the children. It does not describe what Hosea does to Gomer or his children except, perhaps, a divorce. Rather, they are parables or conventional metaphors for political and religious betrayal. The language is about God’s relation to Israel, the northern kingdom, and particularly the city of Samaria (which is named repeatedly in the book—7:1; 8:5-6; 10:5; 13:16). The city of Samaria and her children are engaged in political and religious treachery. The sexual metaphor is not the point but directs us to the real politik of Hosea’s time. How will Israel live in the shadow of the Assyrian empire? How will it keep faith with Yahweh as its King? What does its betrayal mean, and what are its consequences? How will the Assyrians treat Israel when they conquer them?

Hosea 2:2 moves from the narrative of 1:2-2:1 into a poetic address to the nation couched in the pleadings of Hosea’s children. Hosea calls upon the children to beg their mother to resist her adulteries and return to faithfulness. In this way Yahweh, the God of Israel, addresses Israel through the prophet Hosea. The poem is the word of God as this section ends with the line, “says Yahweh” (Hosea 2:13). So, “I” in this section is not Hosea, but Yahweh. The metaphor of marital fidelity and the role of the children illuminate the relationship between Yahweh and Israel.

The covenant has been broken, and Israel (the northern kingdom) is no longer the people of God (“lo-ammi,” not my people). God, though no longer a covenantal partner (“I am not her husband”), still addresses Israel. The intent of the message is both warning and appeal; it is both judgment and hope (particularly in Hosea 2:14-23). It is an appeal to return as the pleading is not a divorce procedure but a plea for renewal of the relationship, that is, for Israel to return. Even though divorced (whether legally or metaphorically, “I am not her husband”), God still pleads for Israel to give up her adulteries. God is grieved by the consequences that follow from Israel’s covenant-breaking.

“Otherwise” (NIV), as Hosea continues in verse 3, “I will strip her naked.” Here are the consequences. The stripping metaphor is a common one for the conquest of a city. Its meaning is to leave the city with nothing, to spoil it and remove all its wealth and power. Instead of a flourishing city (or nation), Samaria (or Israel) will be like a wilderness where lack of water will kill her. The language is about the nation; it is not about Gomer as if Hosea will strip her, humiliate her, and dehumanize her. Rather, the power and wealth of the nation will be stripped so that Israel becomes powerless and impoverished before imperial Assyria.

The destruction of the city includes its inhabitants (the city’s children) because they “are the children of adultery.” It is a mistake to hear this as “but the children of innocent; they didn’t do anything.” Rather, the convention is that the “children” of a city/nation are complicit in its adulteries (sin or covenant betrayal). The children here are not innocent but participants in covenant-breaking. The mother (Samaria) conceived them and nurtured them in that covenant-breaking. The unfaithfulness of the mother produces the unfaithfulness of her children. Consequently, the children suffer along with the mother, or—to apply the metaphor—the inhabitants of Samaria follow the lead of their political leaders and thus suffer the fate of the city together. Again, this is not about Gomer and her children, but an analogy to make the point about the city and her inhabitants.

The self-address at the end of Hosea 2:5 identifies Samaria’s (Israel) motivation. She ascribes her prosperity during the reign of Jeroboam II to her “lovers.” Who are these “lovers”? They are probably both political and religious, perhaps political alliances to secure the nation’s international position rather than trusting in God and religious syncretism with the Baal cult in the land (present in the northern kingdom at least since the reign of Ahab and Jezebel). Israel sought the support of lovers other than her husband, Yahweh. The items listed (food, clothing, and festivity [oil and drink) may be related to the Baal cult but are probably the basic needs of a family, which the husband is expected to provide (cf. Exodus 21:10).

Ultimately, however this “path” is filled with thornbushes and block roads. Israel cannot survive this way. She will chase her lovers and seek their support, but they will fail her. She will not find what seeks. This roadblock will, one would think, cause her to return to the one who did provide. Yahweh did “good” (“better off” in the NRSV) to Israel. Why not return to Yahweh’s goodness?

This introduces the theme of “return” which is quite common in the Minor Prophets. It appears here for the first time among them. This is the constant appeal by the prophets to the people, “return.” Here, however, though contemplated, Israel does not return. They may recognize it would be better with Yahweh, but they can’t bring themselves to disconnect with the “lovers.” Consequently, they fail to recognize that it is Yahweh who gave them all that they sought from the “lovers.”

“Therefore,” Yahweh says, “I will take away my grain . . . and my new wine . . . my wool and my linen.” Just when Israel is about the enjoy their food, wine, and luxurious clothing, they will lose it all. Israel will lie exposed in her nakedness as the land is devastated by invading armies and many of the people are removed (exiled). No one will save her. Baal will not, nor will any political alliances save her from the Assyrian onslaught.

Everything in Israel will cease, including her festive days intended to celebrate Yahweh. Though Israel continued to worship Yahweh (new moon festivals and sabbaths, for example), she did not resist her “lovers.” As a result, God stops her celebrations and ruins her vines and fig trees because Israel attributed her prosperity to her lovers rather than to Yahweh. She burned incense to Baal and sought lovers in her prosperity (rings and jewelry). She “forgot” Yahweh.

The picture drawn in Hosea 2:11-13 is terrifying. The consequences of Israel’s sin is devastating. It is a total loss. All her prosperity disappears, and the nation itself will disappear. The cities that once flourished will become like a wilderness, and “wild animals will” devour the people (children).

Israel made its choice. They chose “lovers” over Yahweh, even though it was Yahweh who had blessed them with prosperity. They credited the lovers and sought power and prosperity from the lovers. But this pursuit has imploded. Their disloyalty has led to their destruction. Israel will go into exile under the imperial oppression of the Assyrian Empire.

This entry was posted on January 21, 2026 at 8:11 pm and is filed under Biblical Texts. Tagged: Assyria, Gomer, Hosea, Hosea 2, Hosea 2:2-13, Israel. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.