BIG IDEA:
THE INEXPLICABLE LOVE OF GOD PERSISTS IN RECOVERING HIS PEOPLE INTO COVENANT RELATIONSHIP
INTRODUCTION:
Gary Smith: This short narrative describes God’s plans for restoring the relationship between Hosea and his wife (3:1–3) and between himself and his people (3:4–5). In contrast to chapter 1, which is a third-person account about Hosea’s family, this story is told in the first-person singular. The unnamed “woman” in 3:1–3 is most likely Gomer, and the restoration mentioned here happens after chapter 1. These events are a symbolic lesson to Hosea’s audience that God’s marvelous love will surely bring about a restoration of his covenant relationship with his people. . .
God loved his people when they were few in number (Deut. 7:7–8), and he graciously gave them the land of Israel in spite of their stubbornness (9:4–6). His acts of love were regulated by his choices (7:7), his promises (7:8; 9:5), and his faithfulness to his covenant (7:9). God did not base his love on Israel’s goodness or acceptance of a few religious ceremonies. Rather, it was a spontaneous force that has no justification or rationale; it is an inexplicable mystery whereby God relates his grace, compassion, and commitment to people. First John 4:16 simply summarizes this point by saying that “God is love.”
God’s love is seen in the way he acts toward people. In this case he does not deal with Israel based on justice, but on the basis of undeserved love. His love is not blind, however; he knows when his people do not love him, and he makes every attempt to restore the love relationship between himself and his people. One method in the process of restoration is for people to humble themselves, confess their sins, and seek God’s face for forgiveness (2 Chron. 7:14). God can also draw his people back to himself through chastening (Amos 4:6–13) or severe punishment (Ezek. 5–7). In Hosea, God encourages restoration by removing those stumbling blocks (evil kings and priests) that have caused his people not to love him with all their heart.
The final way in which God’s love will be demonstrated is through the granting of the nation’s great messianic hopes and dreams (Hos. 3:5). The king from the line of David will reign in the last days (2 Sam. 7), and God will pour out his covenant blessings with abundance. This picture adds to the wonderful eschatological picture already presented in Hos. 1:10–11 and 2:16–23.
Grace Emmerson: Whereas the first symbolic action [chap. 1] represented Israel’s unfaithfulness, this second symbolic act represents the persistence of Yahweh’s love in the face of rejection. . . Whereas the symbolic acts of ch. 1 signified the ultimate rupture of the covenant relationship (1:9), the present chapter offers the prospect of a return to the LORD and to his goodness.
Trent Butler: In spite of much scholarly debate on the relationships between chapter 1 and chapter 3, the best solution is to see God calling on his prophet to restore his marriage to an unfaithful wife. Gomer must be brought back into the prophet’s house even though she was loved by Hosea’s neighbor or companion (NIV another). Hosea must accept back into his arms his adulterous wife. Only in this way could the prophet demonstrate how the LORD loves the Israelites. Israel must see that their sins were as rotten in God’s eyes as Gomer’s adultery was in Hosea’s. In fact, Israel’s spiritual adultery with other gods was worse than Gomer’s physical adultery.
H. D. Beeby: I have already said that I consider ch. 3 continuous with ch. 1. This effectively rules out the theory that the happenings of 3:1–3 are to be identified with ch. 1 and that this is the original marriage as Hosea once told it. Yet the question remains open as to whether the woman of ch. 3 is Gomer or a second harlot. Certainty is impossible, but I assume the woman to be Gomer, because in the parallel marriage of God and Israel remains the continuing factor. The introduction into Hosea’s story of a second female makes little sense.
David Thompson: IN THE END, GOD WILL GO GET HIS IDOLATROUS, IMMORAL AND WAYWARD FAMILY AND BRING THEM BACK TO A RIGHT RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM BECAUSE HE LOVES THEM.
One of the things that we clearly see from this text is that even though we don’t deserve God’s love and even though we cannot earn God’s love and even though we do not merit God’s love, when we are in a covenant relationship with God, He loves us anyway.
Duane Garrett: GOMER’S RESTORATION (3:1–5)
- Yahweh’s Command (3:1)
- Hosea’s Response (3:2–3)
- Explanation: Punishment and Reversal (3:4–5)
Allen Guenther:
I. Love Breaks Deadlocks, 3:1-3
3:1 Go, Remarry Your Ex
3:2-3 Taking the Initiative
II. What Else Shall We Expect? 3:4-5
3:4 Restoring Trust Takes Time
3:5 The Result Is Worth It All
I. (:1-2) SHOCKING PERSISTENCE OF GOD’S LOVE
H. D. Beeby: What is quite certain in 3:1 is that the same Hebrew root for “love” is used four times. This is the earliest reference in the OT to the love of God; moreover, the love that is called for from Hosea is a reflection of the love God has for Israel. In fact God’s love dominates the chapter.
A. (:1a) The Command to Hosea to Love Gomer Despite Adultery – God’s Persistent Love Overcomes Spiritual Adultery
“Then the LORD said to me,
‘Go again, love a woman who is loved by her husband, yet an adulteress,’”
Picture of buying slave out of market place – cf. redemption.
Need to reflect on the amazing love that God has for His people; loyal love;
How can people say in light of this that God has completely cast away His people the Jewish nation because of their apostasy? Replaced by the church when it comes to OT promises? This book of Hosea is A powerful refutation and support of the dispensational position
Jeremy Thomas: The original Hebrew says this, “Go again, love a woman continually loved by a friend,” and the friend is Hosea and this uncovers a tremendous revelation of the love of Hosea for Gomer and by parallel God’s love for believers. The words loved by a friend are in the participial form and the participial form in the Hebrew means continuous action. They show you that Hosea was one of the greatest husbands ever to walk the planet. Because despite what has happened in the marriage, despite the fact she’s gone negative volition to him and exchanged him for other men, Hosea still loves her. This is why he was one of the most phenomenal men of history. If you want an expert on marriage it’s Hosea. He’s constantly loving his wife even though she’s not responding to him. She was constantly being loved, it’s very strong in the Hebrew that though they were physically separated Hosea loved her the whole time she was committing adultery. And the adulteress there is also in the participial form, constant action. So you have two participles and they’re put together with a tremendous conjunction of contrast between the two. On one hand that woman is constantly committing adultery after adultery after adultery and Hosea is loving her, loving her, loving her and now though they’ve been apart for years he’s to go finally and retrieve her, bring her back to himself. Hosea is going to illustrate the boundless love of God for his people Israel.
Lloyd Ogilvie: Now try to imagine the consternation and utter astonishment Hosea must have felt when Yahweh commanded, “Go again, love this woman.” The very idea sent shock waves through the prophet’s heart. On the personal level, it meant vulnerability to be hurt again; on a religious level it meant the reversal of his justified condemnation of one who had become an anathema of all he believed as a prophet of Israel. How could Hosea do it?
Duane Garrett: We still have to ask, however, why Hosea describes Gomer in anonymous terms, not to defend our conclusion that this woman is Gomer but as a simple matter of exegesis. The answer seems to be that she has forfeited her identity through her adultery. She can no longer claim the title “wife of Hosea” just as Israel can no longer claim the title “people of God.” Israel in apostasy is not Israel. By analogy adultery does not enhance a person’s identity; it destroys it. . .
The command “love a woman,” in contrast to “take a wife” (1:2), implies that the woman he is to love already is his wife. She has forfeited her right to his love, but he is to give it anyway, just as Yahweh will again show love to Israel. Also, the phrase “loved by another” does not mean that some other man is in love with her; it simply means that she has had sexual encounters with other men.
David Allen Hubbard: Apparently her promiscuity has focused at this point on one person, called in verse 1 by the Hebrew word usually translated ‘friend’ (rēa‘; cf. Song 5:16, ‘lover’; Jer. 3:1, ‘paramours’; Jer. 3:20, ‘husband’).
Derek Kidner: It had been no isolated lapse but a desertion which added a continuing insult to the injury. The love that was asked of him would be heroic – but that was the point, for it was to be God’s love in miniature.
B. (:1b) The Analogy Relating to God and Israel — Man’s Faithlessness Cannot Exterminate the Persistent Love of God
“even as the LORD loves the sons of Israel,
though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes.”
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Raisin cakes were associated with some religious rituals (cf. Jer 7:18; 44:19), so the syncretism of Israel is reiterated.
J. Andrew Dearman: The context of Hos. 3:1 implies idolatry, as if such cakes illustrate the turning to other deities opposed by the prophet. There is scattered evidence for baked goods as religious symbols, which would support this interpretation for Hos. 3:1. For example, Jeremiah’s critique of his contemporaries includes reference to baked goods of a certain type (shape?) intended to honor the goddess known as the Queen of Heaven. Some interpreters have also suggested that the cakes were understood in the culture of the day to be an aphrodisiac.
H. Ronald Vandermey: Like the woman Gomer, Israel had not returned that love, but had instead devoted herself to other gods and to “raisin cakes.” Raisin cakes, sweetmeats made of pressed grapes, were symbolic of Israel’s rebellion against the simplicity of her faith. Raisin cakes were an integral part of the ceremony in many Canaanite cultic festivals, including the ritual that honored the “queen of heaven” (Jer. 7:18; 44:19). Truly, the exchange of God’s way for the allurements of pagan customs grieved the heart of the Almighty in Hosea’s day, just as it did when the church of the Middle Ages submerged the truth of the gospel under a multitude of pagan doctrines. (Especially note the similarity of the cult of Mary to the ancient “queen of heaven” concept.)
David Thompson: How many times have we sold out our commitment to God for raisin cakes? Dr. S. Lewis Johnson said there is “hardly any one of us who could not look at our lives right now and find a half a dozen things which would classify as raisin cakes” (Hosea 3:1-5, p. 10).
We sell out for trivial and frivolous things that in eternity will mean nothing. Some people go after money, fame, pleasure or sports. Many will sell out worship for a birthday party. We don’t get too many to even come to Sunday night services. What is the reason, or what is the raisin cake?
Scripture asks the question, what shall a man exchange for his soul? Suppose you literally went after the world and got it. What actually would you have? Absolutely nothing! Because when a soul leaves this world it will immediately realize I sold out my life for raisin cakes.
C. (:2) The Execution of the Command – God Will Pay Whatever Price Is Necessary to Maintain His Persistent Love
“So I bought her for myself
for fifteen shekels of silver and a homer and a half of barley.”
Trent Butler: The amount Hosea paid for Gomer raises some problems. A shekel was a measure of weight equal perhaps to four-tenths of an ounce or 11.5 grams. A homer was about six bushels or 220 liters of grain, while a lethek was apparently one-half of a homer. This price was not excessive. A slave cost thirty shekels (Exod. 21:32). The bride price when Deuteronomy was written was fifty shekels (Deut. 22:29). Hosea may have had to scrape the money together. Perhaps unable to secure enough cash, he had to include payment-in-kind with grain. The important thing was the prophet’s attitude in this transaction. He obeyed God without question.
J. Andrew Dearman: A cancelling of her indebtedness appears to be the point, whatever the combined silver equivalent of Hosea’s purchase. One cannot tell from such a brief description, however, if what Hosea did was to purchase Gomer herself or to pay in full a debt she owed that had otherwise constricted her activities. Readers would do well not to forget the parallel with Gomer’s initial acquisition by Hosea. It would have required gifts on his part to her family in order to facilitate his taking of her in marriage.
Allen Guenther: Has she sold herself into slavery because she was no longer sufficiently attractive to her lovers? Possibly. In that case, however, to refer to her as beloved by another (singular) and practicing adultery would be inappropriate. The strongest possibility is that she has become a kept woman. If so, she is neither formally a slave, nor is she any longer practicing prostitution. Her lover provides for her keep – her bed and board – in exchange for sexual favors.
The verb buy (karah) reinforces the idea that Hosea is purchasing the rights to her sexual favors. She is not a wife, and yet she could become his wife, if he so chose. After Hosea has purchased the rights to her sexual activity, he immediately serves notice that she will not be asked to serve in the role she has come to love – neither for Hosea nor for any other man (3:3). . .
This platonic relationship works an emotional hardship on both, but especially on Hosea; he is waiting for Gomer to have a change of heart. Meanwhile, his acts toward her spring from purest love. Such love waits for the spouse’s inner renewal, for a rekindling of the deep bonds of affection they once experienced. It refuses to place demands on the other for personal gratification. The marriage bond is fully restored only when love produces repentance and love in return.
II. (:3-4) SANCTIFICATION PROCESS OF GOD’S LOVE
A. (:3) The Mutual Commitment to Sex Deprivation Commanded by Hosea –
The Sanctification Process Requires Commitment over Time
“Then I said to her, ‘You shall stay with me for many days.
You shall not play the harlot, nor shall you have a man;
so I will also be toward you.’”
J. Andrew Dearman: In context, therefore, the sense would be: “You shall refrain from sexual activities outside our marriage, and I also will refrain from intimate relations with you” (cf. NRSV). This rendering assumes a carryover (indicated by gam) of the negative particles from the previous clauses. Another possibility, however, is to see the last phrase simply as an affirmation that Hosea alone will live with her (so NIV: “And I will live with you”). In 3:4 comes a list of things that Israel will be forced to do without in the (near?) future. Since Gomer represents Israel, 3:4 lends contextual support for the view that a period of sexual abstinence and moral purification is indicated for her in 3:3. Hosea’s abstinence is a continuation of the prophetic symbolic act initiated with his marriage. As the following verse indicates, Israel shall live for some time without the normal sociopolitical and religious institutions for a state. This is a period of its purification, a road to be taken along the way to restoration.
H. D. Beeby: Hosea now orders a form of house arrest which will keep her out of temptation’s way. Virtue will have to be forced upon her. No sexual relationships will be permitted her, not even with Hosea. If she is to be denied intimacy, then he will share with her in the deprivation. Their relationship must be mutual, because this is deprivation with a purpose, the purpose mentioned at 2:7. The two husbands (Hosea/God) are each seeking a change of heart in their beloved. . .
The shell of marriage is there indeed but not the essence, which is love along with its physical manifestation. The form awaits the content, and that in turn awaits the loving response of the woman. The kept woman must first become a loving bride.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: The purpose is to chasten Gomer, but with the ultimate purpose of stabilizing the household and renewing their relationship, even as God promised he would do with Israel.
Duane Garrett: The goal of Hosea is the resumption of the covenant relationship between Yahweh and Israel. If Gomer only lives in the home of Hosea as something of a guest (or a prisoner) and never enjoys the full status of wife (which includes sexual relations), then the covenant between Hosea and Gomer is never truly mended. The verse should be translated, “And I said to her, ‘Many days you shall remain with me, and you shall neither prostitute yourself nor be with any man, and then I shall be yours.”
James Mays: Just as Yahweh will bar the way to Israel’s trysting with the gods of Canaan (2.6), Hosea keeps the woman apart from every man – and waits. ‘Many days’, an indefinite period, however long, he waits for the act that alone can complete the symbolism, the return of his love by the woman. He will not go in to her because more than anything he wants her to come to him. The pathos and power of God’s love is embodied in these strange tactics (cf. 2.7, 14f.) – a love that imprisons to set free, destroys false love for the sake of true, punishes in order to redeem.
B. (:4) The Analogy Relating to God and Israel’s Deprivation –
The Sanctification Process Purifies Us from Unholy Dependencies
Syncretistic nature of Israel’s approach to governance and religion is represented here in this picture of deprivation on multiple fronts. There are three couplets with the first item in each couplet related to God’s revealed order (though still corrupted by His unfaithful people) and the second item related to some idolatrous aspect of national and religious life.
- Deprivation Relating to Political Governance and Military Dependency = Syncretistic Monarchical Leadership
“For the sons of Israel will remain for many days
without king or prince,”
J. Andrew Dearman: The lack of a king or prince means military defeat for Israel (and perhaps exile) and the transfer of political sovereignty to someone else.
- Deprivation Relating to Religious Worship = Syncretistic Aids to Approaching God
“without sacrifice or sacred pillar,”
J. Andrew Dearman: Standing stones are unacceptably syncretistic according to Deuteronomy (7:5; 12:3; 16:22). They were employed by the Canaanite population of the land and should be destroyed rather than adopted in the worship of YHWH. That Deuteronomy has such a polemic against them strongly suggests that they were popular also in certain Israelite circles. Indeed, their employment in Israel is assumed in Hos. 10:1–2, where there is a polemic against the multiplication of altars and standing stones as examples of guilt before the Lord. They are, moreover, associated with the ancestral period in a more neutral way, particularly with Jacob. He erected a standing stone at an evening stopover where God had revealed himself, renaming the place Bethel (Gen. 28:10–22). The function of the pillar is not made clear; it might represent the ladder, the connection that Jacob had seen between heaven and earth, or commemorate a theophany (pedestal for an invisible deity?), or represent Jacob on holy ground while he is away. He also set up a pillar at the grave of Rachel (Gen. 35:20) and to commemorate an agreement with his father-in-law (Gen. 31:45–6), both of which may have had a different function from the stone erected at Bethel. Moses erected twelve stones as part of the covenant ratification procedure at Mt. Sinai (Exod. 24:3–8). Joshua erected a memorial stone as part of a covenant renewal ceremony at Shechem (Josh. 24:22–27). There is no suggestion in the Genesis account that Jacob’s act at Bethel (or that of Moses and Joshua) is unacceptable. Nevertheless, as with developments in any number of religious practices, standing stones became a snare in the cult of YHWH. The general expression in 3:4 does not indicate whether the pillars in question were part of the (baalized?) Yahwistic cult or represented other deities.
- Deprivation Relating to Divination and Guidance = Syncretistic Methods to Discern the Divine Will and Gain His Favor
“and without ephod or household idols.”
H. D. Beeby: Thus Israel is to be deprived in the secular and spiritual areas of life, and to be robbed of assurance about both past and future.
Allen Guenther: Together, ephod and teraphim represent guidance in everyday affairs of life. In exile, these means of searching for direction will be removed until Israel again longs for God and seeks for him in acceptable ways.
H. Ronald Vandermey: Whereas the ephod was a proper means of asking about the future, the household idols (Hebrew, teraphim) were a means of divination of an entirely pagan origin (see Ezek. 21:21; Zech. 10:2). As was the case with their ecclesiastical privileges, Israel had ignored the divinely appointed means of divination and had sought out that which was forbidden by God.
J. Andrew Dearman: The phrase ephod and teraphim suggests that the two implements go together. They are, furthermore, to be associated with divination or cultic means of ascertaining the will of the deity. In the Israelite cult, an ephod was part of a garment or a pouch that could be carried by cultic functionaries seeking to discern the will of the Lord (1 Sam. 23:6). The high priest wore an ephod to carry out his sacred tasks. It is associated with inscribed stones and the Urim and Thummim (Exod. 28:1–43; cf. 1 Sam. 2:28). Teraphim are implements, perhaps statues or another type of representative figure, associated with “divination” (qesem; 1 Sam. 15:23; Ezek. 21:21; Zech. 10:2). They too can be a part of priestly paraphernalia and are mentioned together with an ephod at a shrine in the hill country of Ephraim (Judg. 17:5; 18:14–20). Teraphim are part of the corrupt cultic paraphernalia in the Jerusalem temple that Josiah later removed (2 Kgs. 23:24). It is their role in concert with the ephod that Hosea has in mind.
Duane Garrett: By metonymy absence of ephod and sacrifice implies absence of priests and temple worship. Although most of the items on this list are not intrinsically evil, probably all are to be understood as corrupted through participation in idolatry.
John Goldingay: Hosea is portraying “a society in disorder,” one “deprived of everything crucial for meaningful political-religious survival.”
III. (:5) SALVATION PURPOSE OF GOD’S LOVE
H. D. Beeby: The days of waiting will end, and then the reason for the waiting and the nature of the waiting will become clearer. The word “afterward” in v. 5, therefore, introduces a great turning point, for here is the longed for climax. That climax centers on three verbs: “return,” “seek,” “come in fear.” It is the climax of Israel’s response and corresponds in part to 1:11 and to the last phrase of 2:23.
A. Return
“Afterward the sons of Israel will return”
James Mays: ‘Afterwards’! In this one adverb is the sign that in the history which Yahweh makes there is hope. When his action fills and determines time, then time becomes pregnant with the birth of a new day and a new life. The deprivation of judgment opens the way to a second beginning. This ‘afterwards’ is a pivotal point in Hosea’s ‘eschatology’ toward which the punishment of God always moves – the time of return (2.7), of the answer (2.15), of the ‘my husband’ (2.16), of the true confession (2.23). The turning point comes when the wife/people move toward Yahweh; their act is the wonderful event of the new time. And yet, it is not so much a matter of their working out their salvation, as accepting as grace the inexorable refusal of Yahweh to let them do aught else but move toward him. They would not seek him, if he had not already found them; their act is really an expression of his action.
Trent Butler: God’s probationary period for Israel has a purpose: it will lead Israel to return and seek the LORD. The word return points in several directions.
- It can mean turn away from idols and to God.
- It can mean repent from sin and serve God.
- It can mean return from exile and live in the homeland again.
The prophet hints at all these meanings.
Duane Garrett: In this text Israel plays the part of the prodigal son. She returns in fear and yet is received in love. By analogy the destitute Gomer might have viewed her purchase by Hosea with terror. Would he now extract revenge on her as his slave? But Yahweh had commanded Hosea to love her, and Hosea gave her dignity, a new start, and an opportunity to regain her status as the prophet’s wife. Israel is to “return to” and “seek” (two words that connote repentance) Yahweh. In fear they call on him to restore the blessing they have squandered.
David Allen Hubbard: Where return and seek occur together, they reinforce each other – to return with the full desire for fellowship with God on his terms (cf. 7:10). In the present context, where the returning and seeking follow a time of intense political and spiritual deprivation, return may carry with it not only the idea of repentance but of return home from exile.
B. Seek
“and seek the LORD their God
and David their king;”
Trent Butler: “Seek the LORD” can refer to
- seeking the Lord’s direction (2 Sam. 21:1)
- or to praying for his favor ( 8:21–22)
- or to trusting and obeying the Lord ( 28:5).
God’s probation means the people of Israel will confine their seeking to one God. Returning in repentance to him, they will worship him alone.
Duane Garrett: The prophecy that they would seek “David their king” is messianic. The phrase does not mean simply that the Israelites would again submit to the Davidic monarchy and so undo Jeroboam’s rebellion. Had that been the point, we would expect the text to say that they would return to the “house of David.” Instead we see “David their king” set alongside of Yahweh as the one to whom the people return in pious fear. This “David” cannot be the historical king, who was long dead, but is the messianic king for whom he is a figure. As D. A. Hubbard states, returning to David implies the reunion of the two kingdoms (1:11), an end to dynastic chaos (8:4), and an end to seeking protection through alliances with pagan states (7:11). Unity and security can come to Israel only when they seek God and his Christ. . .
The eschatological fulfillment of all this is in the “last days.” This phrase is better translated “at the end of the days.” The “end” (’aḥărît) is the time of fulfillment, when the final outcome of God’s program is realized. The word creates a distance between the age of fulfillment and the age of the prophet himself and is often associated with hope. It implies that the people of God must live in expectation of redemption and vindication.
Allen Guenther: To seek God means to approach him in worship, to passionately long for his presence in one’s life, and to live out his righteousness (cf. Matt. 6:33).
C. Come in Fear
“and they will come trembling to the LORD and to His goodness
in the last days.”
Trent Butler: Such return to God will be an emotional affair. Israel will come trembling—with trepidation, dread, and fear. They knew they did not deserve to approach his presence. They were fully aware of their repeated sins that deserved punishment. Still, they will return to God seeking grace and hope. And they will find his blessings in the last days.
J. Andrew Dearman: The final clause of 3:5 indicates that Israel will tremble or be in awe (pāḥad) before the Lord. It is difficult to find a precise equivalent in English to a verb that runs the gamut from “fear” to “be awestruck,” and can be used to describe both the positive and negative aspects of such feelings. One aid in interpretation comes in the addition of and his goodness (ṭôb). Israel will present themselves to the Lord and his goodness, which suggests at least a positive apprehension on Israel’s part of God’s disposition toward them. Jeremiah 33:9 offers some parallels in perspective and vocabulary. Speaking of joy and praise that Jerusalem’s future restoration will bring to the Lord among the nations, the prophet states that they “will be in awe (pāḥad) and tremble (rāgaz) concerning all the goodness (ṭôb) and all the peace that I am doing for her.” . . .
Hosea’s call to the people to return to YHWH is based on his conviction that YHWH’s forgiveness and goodness work in tandem, and that YHWH has defined for the people what is good in accord with his integrity.
Robin Routledge: The positive nature of the return is further indicated by the reference to Yahweh’s blessings (tûb). This refers to the abundance of Yahweh’s provision (e.g. Jer. 2:7). In Jeremiah 31:12 the term is linked with ‘the grain, the new wine and the olive oil’, the very things forfeited by Israel because of the people’s failure to recognize their true source (Hos. 2:8). In the coming days, those blessings will be restored. The term may also refer to God’s own character (cf. Exod. 33:19; Pss 25:7; 145:7), and so may point beyond the restoration of material blessings to the renewal of all aspects of the covenant relationship between Yahweh and his people.
Allen Guenther: The end result is deep reverence for God and a willingness to receive his goodness as his bounties. The history of Israel’s unfaithfulness has centered in their forgetting the Lord, claiming his promises as unchangeable, and even crediting his gifts to Baal. When Israel repents, they will reencounter God in all his majesty. Their casual attitudes will melt away in awe before his presence. When they receive goodness from the Lord, they will accept it with gratitude as gift.
These restorative events shall occur in the latter days. That term is typically prophetic and refers elsewhere to the period of restoration (Deut. 4:30, RSV; Isa. 2:2). In the end, the Lord achieves his original design, in spite of the waywardness of his people.