BIG IDEA:
THE FUTURE MESSIANIC RESTORATION OF ETHNIC ISRAEL WILL BE GLORIOUS AND PERMANENT
INTRODUCTION:
H. Ronald Vandermey: Between verses 9 and 10 lie volumes of Jewish history that fulfill the judgment of Jezreel. To the anguished cry of the ages God will in that day answer: “I have surely heard Ephraim grieving, ‘Thou hast chastised me . . . bring me back that I may be restored, for Thou art the LORD my God’” (Jer. 31:18). Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Hosea is permitted to give his countrymen an outline of the events of that restoration, which he terms “the day of Jezreel.” Six specific blessings may be seen in these three verses:
- national increase (v. 10a),
- spiritual awakening (v. 10b),
- national reunion (v. 11a),
- Messianic leadership (v. 11b),
- victory over foes (v. 11c),
- and a complete restoration of the covenant relationship (2:1).
James Mays: In contrast to the judgment and rejection foretold by the names of Hosea’s children in 1.2–9, this oracle speaks of a future when Israel’s population shall become too numerous to be counted, their relationship to God be reconstituted, the divided north and south reunite, establish one leader over them, go up from the land – all on the day of Jezreel. The description unfolds in the style of rhythmic narration, telling about the events of time quite different from the present; it evokes a picture which faith can contemplate and anticipate in the terrible contrasts of the present. . . The salvation promised in the oracle presupposes an Israel in desperate circumstances. The people are reduced in number; the covenant is abrogated; Israel and Judah are divided, without a leader, and denied the security and blessing of the promised land. All of these features correspond to elements in Hosea’s conception of Yahweh’s judgment on Israel; because with Israel’s increase they sinned the more, their growth shall cease (4.10; 9.12, 16; 14.1); Yahweh has abrogated the covenant (1.9; 8.1); the hostility between Judah and Israel is the cause of divine wrath (5.8–14); the blessing of the land will be denied them (2.9, 12; 4.3). The events of salvation follow the time of wrath. This picture of hope then offers no easy escape, but rather lifts up the eyes of those who will believe to behold the meaning and purpose of the judgment they suffer.
David Allan Hubbard: The tone changes: (1) Yahweh, whose commands dominated the signs in 1:2–9, is no longer the speaker; Hosea’s prophetic voice becomes prominent; and (2) the theme turns positive, with salvation not judgment as the intended message. In the book’s basic structure announcements of judgment and promises of hope alternate. Here the rhythm is set for the rest of the book, even though the impersonal language, devoid of the ‘I wills’ of 2:14–23; 11:9; 14:4–5, distinguishes this speech from other words of salvation in Hosea.
Allen Guenther: Hosea 1:10-11 assures us that the purposes of God remain intact. God is not hamstrung by the unfaithfulness of his people. He can take even a non-people and recreate Israel from its scattered remnants. It is a people’s sin that triggers judgment. Cause and effect in this process are readily understood. But what motivates such promises as those found in verses 10-11? Nothing of merit within a people is sufficient cause for an act of restoration. The only possible and sufficient cause lies in the character of this Deity: God is gracious. The sharp side-by-side presentation of judgment speech and salvation oracle poignantly emphasize God’s grace as the wellspring of restoration.
Grace Emmerson: The ancient promise given to the patriarchs (e.g., Gen 32:12) is restated, and the symbolic names of judgment become symbols of hope. The expression “the living God” marks the contrast between Yahweh and the lifeless idols of Canaanite religion (cf. 8:5). Jezreel (“God sows”) becomes a shout of triumph as Israel, to continue the agricultural metaphor, “sprouts up” from the land (cf. 2:23). The schism which divided north from south at the time of Solomon’s death will be healed by the appointment of one leader. There is no compelling reason to deny to Hosea himself this far-sighted hope of reconciliation. The hostility between north and south which continually tore apart the people of God was alien to prophetic aspirations. The emphasis here on a leader appointed by popular acclamation (1:11) is explicable in view of the many violent seizures of the throne by palace revolution in Hosea’s time.
I. NATIONAL INCREASE — RESTORATION FROM SMALL REMNANT TO GREAT NUMBERS
“Yet the number of the sons of Israel will be like the sand of the sea,
which cannot be measured or numbered”
Robin Routledge: indicates a measureless amount (e.g. Gen. 41:49; Josh. 11:4; Judg. 7:12; 1 Sam. 13:5; 1 Kgs 4:29). In particular, when linked with the number of Israelites, it recalls God’s promises to the patriarchs about the future size of the nation (Gen. 22:17; 32:12; cf. Isa. 10:22; Jer. 33:22). The expression here is most similar to the promise to Jacob: ‘I . . . will make your descendants like the sand of the sea, which cannot be counted’ (Gen. 32:12). This suggests a further link with the Jacob narrative, and points to the future revival of the nation’s fortunes. Despite their present unfaithfulness, and in the face of its current historical improbability, they will become what God intended them to be.
Duane Garrett: Having stated that Israel has forfeited their status as the people of God, the text turns around without warning or transition and reaffirms the ancient covenant promise to Abraham (Gen 22:17). To recall this promise is to reaffirm their status as God’s people. It is pointless to resist Hosea’s style as incongruous or his text as in need of repair. The sin of the people and the faithfulness of God are two realities he simply treats as equally true. The affirmation that they would become as numerous as the sand on the seashore was almost laughable in Hosea’s day. Wolff observes that in 738 b.c., according to 2 Kgs 15:19–20, Israel had about sixty thousand free landholders and that the nation was puny compared to the expanding Assyrian Empire. Only faith in God could foresee a reversal of this reality.
II. NATIONAL ACCEPTANCE — RESTORATION FROM REJECTION TO ADOPTION AS SONS
“And in the place where it is said to them, you are not My people,
It will be said to them, You are the sons of the living God”
Robin Routledge: The expression living God frequently occurs in contexts which emphasize the reality of Israel’s God: acting on behalf of his people (Josh. 3:10), challenging those who underestimate his power (1 Sam. 17:36; 2 Kgs 19:4, 16) or contrasting him with other gods (Jer. 10:10; cf. Dan. 6:20, 26). The term may also point to God as the one who brings life to his people (Mays 1969: 32; Garrett 1997: 72).
III. NATIONAL UNITY — RESTORATION FROM SCATTERING AND DIVISION TO GATHERING TOGETHER AND UNITY
“And the sons of Judah and the sons of Israel will be gathered together”
Gary Smith: The second promise relates to the unification of Judah and Israel (1:11). This rejuvenated people will be made up of two peoples who will join themselves together as one united nation, thus ending the suspicion and hatred that extended back to the original division of the nations by Jeroboam I (1 Kings 12) and even earlier (2 Sam. 2:3–11; 5:1–5).
IV. NATIONAL SUBMISSION TO MESSIANIC LEADERSHIP — RESTORATION FROM THE LEADERSHIP OF MULTIPLE PAGAN KINGS TO THE LEADERSHIP OF THE ONE GOOD SHEPHERD
“And they will appoint for themselves one leader”
Allen Guenther: Just as David drew together the North and South and welded them into one great nation under God, so the fourth promise marks their reunion under the new Davidic ruler (Hos. 3:5). While the term for head does not commonly refer to kings, it represents a king in Psalm 18:43 and Job 29:25, and probably here.
John Goldingay: “Head” is most often a familial term, but in this context it may denote a head priest (“chief priest” is more literally “head priest”). While the head priest needs to be an Aaronide, as the king needs to be a Davidide, in neither case is there a rule about (for instance) primogeniture. So within the relevant parameters the two peoples can appoint a head who will lead them when they “go up” to a festival “from the country,” the entire country: they will now go together to Jerusalem, even if the people continue to use sanctuaries such as Beth-el and Beer-sheba on other occasions. The implicit assurance to Ephraimites that they will be able to revert to their commitment to Jerusalem carries an implicit insistence that they must do so. “Collect” with the reinforcing adverb “together” also constrains Judahites from thinking that they can write off Ephraim. Neither nation is complete without the other. It is together that they are the people of Yahweh. The vision of Judah and Ephraim coming together appears in the vision of a Judahite prophet in Ezek. 37:15–23 (cf. 48:1–35; also Isa. 11:12–13; Jer. 3:6–18; 31:27–34) as well as in the message of this Ephraimite prophet. The people of God are one.
Duane Garrett: Hosea believes the division of the twelve tribes into two nations to be fundamentally perverse. Israel and Judah are one people and should be one nation. This, along with his conviction that the house of David must lead the people, accounts for this expansion on the previous mention of Judah in the Lo-Ruhamah oracle. Curiously, Hosea says that the united nation will appoint a leader rather than that God would give them a leader. This should not be taken to mean that democracy will replace divine authority; rather, it stresses unanimous spirit of the redeemed people. The old conflict between the house of David and the kings of Israel will end. The reunification of the nation under one leader, specifically the Davidic messiah, was to become a major element of the prophetic hope. Ezekiel, in particular, would develop it (Ezek 37:18–25).
John Schultz: The words “they will appoint one leader” can, therefore, only be understood as an acceptance by the Jews of Jesus Christ as their Messiah. The way in which this will occur is stated prophetically by Zechariah: “They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.” The Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary observes: “Though appointed by the Father (Ps 2:6), Christ is in another sense appointed as their Head by His people, when they accept and embrace Him as such.”
V. NATIONAL GLORY — RESTORATION FROM SHAME AND DISGRACE TO BLESSING AND GLORY
“And they will go up from the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel”
Lloyd Ogilvie: Andersen and Freedman propose that come up out of the land could mean raised from death, since land can be used as a term for the underworld. They say, “Recognizing Hosea’s capacity for using language with more than one level of meaning, we suggest that the statement, ‘And they shall come up from the land’ has two senses, one historical (the Exodus), one eschatological (resurrection). . . . The emphasis on Yahweh as the living God thus continues.”
James Mays: The riddle in the picture lies in the sentence ‘they shall go up from the land’. In Hosea ‘the land’ is consistently the territory of Canaan, the good earth given to Israel by Yahweh (cf. 2.21f.; 4.3), and could hardly denote a place of exile from which Israel shall return, as in Ezek. 37.21ff. The locution might mean ‘grow up’ as plants and be a play on the name ‘Jezreel’; in the time when ‘God sows’ Israel into the land again (as in 2.23) they will grow up like flourishing plants (note 14.5ff.) and fill the land (so most recently Rudolph in KAT). Or the ‘ālā min-hā’ āreṣ could mean ‘gain ascendancy over the lanď. In this context the last is the more likely. The picture is military in flavour, and such a construction leads directly to the final triumphant shout: ‘Yea, great is the day of Jezreel!’
David Allan Hubbard: Harder to discern is the precise meaning of and they shall go up from the land (v. 11).
- First, we can read land to mean Assyria, the place of captivity and understand the passage to picture a return from exile there. The word land (Heb. ’āreṣ) in the singular without a modifying noun, however, is not used in the Old Testament for a foreign nation. Land, in our context, almost inevitably means the ‘promised land’, given by God as Israel’s home, so long as her covenant loyalty remained strong.
- Second, we can read the clause they shall go up (Heb. ‘lh) from as an idiom for military conquest, meaning ‘they shall take possession of’, as some scholars have done on the basis of Exodus 1:10.12 But that reading of Exodus 1:10 has not gained strong support.
- Third, we can understand ‘the land’ as the Underworld, the realm of the dead (cf. Gen. 2:6; Job 10:21, 22; Ps. 139:15; Isa. 44:23) and interpret the passage as a reference to Israel’s resurrection from the death of captivity and judgment (cf. Ezek. 37:1–14, where the description of the revival of Israel’s bones is followed immediately by a prophetic sign that promises the reunion of the two kingdoms under David the king, vv. 15–28). Andersen (p. 209) blends this interpretation (which he finds compatible with Hos. 5:8 – 6:6) with a picture of return from exile and finds such a reading in line with ‘Hosea’s capacity for using language with more than one level of meaning’.
- Fourth, ‘go up’ has been translated ‘spring up’ (cf. Deut. 29:23 [Heb. v. 22], for this sense of the Heb. ‘lh), like an abundant crop bursting forth from the land. On this reading the clause in verse 11 reaches back to the mention of Israel’s immeasurable size (v. 10) and looks forward to God’s bountiful sowing – a time hinted in the mention of Jezreel and made explicit in the ‘I will sow him for myself in the land’ of 2:23.
As different as each of these interpretations is from the others, all of them convey the same general sense: the glory of the united people, kindled in their splendid past, will blaze even brighter when the judgment is over and the full work of God’s restoration is underway. The climactic character of that restoration is celebrated in the exclamation with which verse 11 closes, ‘How great is the day, O Jezreel.’
Allen Guenther: Or could this promise be referring to the reconquest of surrounding nations and the reestablishment of the larger Davidic empire? That empire included Edom, Moab, Ammon, Amalek, Syria, and part of Philistia (2 Sam. 8).
M. Daniel Carroll R.: In sum, the greatness of the “day of Jezreel” will be the glories of the time of national renewal. In accordance with the ancient promises, Israel will increase in number in the land, enjoy once again its relationship with God, live under the rule of a future Davidic king, and flourish by Yahweh’s hand.