BIG IDEA:
COMPASSION AND MERCY TRIUMPH OVER JUDGMENT AS GOD CALLS HIS PRODIGAL NATION TO RETURN HOME DESPITE DESERVING EXTINCTION
INTRODUCTION:
H. D. Beeby: First, I have assumed that the chapter must be accorded some priority. It is the clearest statement of Hosea’s central theme and as such provides a clue to the interpretation of the rest of the book. It also gives a convenient summary of the book’s message. Second, I am confident that here we penetrate deeper into the heart and mind of God than anywhere else in the OT. Read aright (a most difficult task) and supplemented perhaps by Isa. 52:13; 53:12, this chapter takes us as near to the Father as it is possible to get without the direct leading of the incarnate Son. Like the Isaiah passage it announces what is the central biblical message of judgment/mercy, bondage/Exodus, destruction/construction, chaos/recreation, death/life, cross/resurrection, to name but some of the most prominent ways in which its central message may be expressed. It is the message of descent from greatness followed by an ascent to comparable or even greater greatness. This dominant scriptural motif has been called the “U” pattern because of the descent and ascent. The Hosea and Isaiah passages both exemplify it and at the same time point to the NT where the model is everywhere, but nowhere more perfectly presented than in Phil. 2:5–11. There Jesus (like the suffering servant) is hymned as descending, suffering, dying, and then rising to glory.
Derek Kidner: This chapter is one of the boldest in the Old Testament – indeed in the whole Bible – in exposing to us the mind and heart of God in human terms.
Duane Garrett: This chapter contains an oracle from Yahweh on the apostasy of Israel that draws heavily on two components of Israel’s sacred history, Israel’s exodus and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The first strophe, vv. 1–5, focuses on the exodus and ends with the warning that God will undo the exodus and send Israel to a new Egypt, Assyria, and into servitude to a new Pharaoh, the Assyrian king. The second strophe, vv. 6–12, concerns the possibility that Israel will become like the cities of the plain, that is, eternally annihilated. Yahweh recoils from this and promises a new exodus.
John Goldingay: [This section] opens by recalling the beginning of the relationship between Yahweh and Israel, notes the contrasting way Israel has subsequently behaved, and declares Yahweh’s resolve to attend to its wrongdoing. Amid these elements, it is distinctive for its metaphor of the father-son relationship between Yahweh and Israel, for its account of the tension within Yahweh over whether to punish or forgive, and for its vision of people returning to follow Yahweh.
David Allan Hubbard: God is the chief speaker of verses 1–11 as he has been through most of chapters 4 – 11. Yet only in verses 8–9 does he address the people directly. The account of his gracious treatment of them in their past history (vv. 1, 3–4), the accusations of sin (vv. 2, 7), the announcements of judgment (vv. 5–7), and the promise of future salvation (vv. 10–11) – these treat Israel in the third person.
James Mays: Yahweh’s self-disclosure through the speech of Hosea reaches an unusual level of intensity and power in this chapter. Anthropomorphism is Hosea’s stock-in-trade, but the portrayal of Yahweh as a father caring for a son achieves an explicit tenderness and detail unmatched in the Old Testament. Yet that portrayal is followed by a soliloquy of God which comes to a climax in the surprising disavowal, ‘I am God, not man . . .’ Like a human father Yahweh loves his son Israel, but that love can and will bring salvation out of sin only because it is God who loves. The emotion and commitment of love is introduced as the basis and power of Yahweh’s way with Israel; and a theme of revelation appears which finds its climax finally in the New Testament. In the oracle Yahweh surveys the entire life story of Israel as the son of God; and, as the story unfolds, the history of Israel becomes an astonishing witness to the very life of Yahweh himself.
Lloyd Ogilvie: Outline
- The Loneliness of Vulnerable Love (11:1–7)
- The Glory of God’s Grace (11:8–9)
- The Norm of the Future (11:10–11)
The deepest level of loneliness is the anguish of unrelatedness, the disturbing realization of separation and estrangement. It is the pathos of longing to love a person and having your love resisted or rejected. . .
We often hear about God’s grandeur and glory, His majesty and might. Don’t miss His loneliness. It is one of His greatest attributes. True love is inseparably linked to vulnerability. When God created us to receive His love and to love Him, He became vulnerable to our rejection.
It is awesome to contemplate. Almighty God, lonely. Lonely for the rapture of our reconciliation with Him. The intimacy for which we were created—His heart and our heart made one again. He is lonely for those who pretend He does not exist, those who deny their family likeness with independence and pride, and those who say they belong to Him but resist trusting Him completely. You and I.
I. (:1-7) SPURNED GRACE RESULTS IN BONDAGE AND DESTRUCTION —
5 ACTION-RESPONSE SEQUENCES CONTRASTING ISRAEL AND HER GOD
Allen Guenther: vv. 1-7 – Five action-response sequences contrast Israel and her God. Hosea develops these contrasts in a succession of family and travel scenes and in two scenes of war. The central sequence makes the transition from the family to war (11:4-5b). . . God’s initiative is rebuffed by Israel (11:1-4). Later, Israel’s initiatives are rebuffed or negated b God (11:5c-7). . . The passage moves from accusation (11:1-4) to judgment (11:5-7). The transition (11:4-5b) links this text as a unified whole.
A. Rejected Love
(:1) Action – God’s Loving Initiative
“When Israel was a youth I loved him,
And out of Egypt I called My son.”
Biblehub: When Israel was a child — This phrase refers to the early stages of the nation of Israel, particularly during the time of the patriarchs and the Exodus. The imagery of Israel as a child highlights the nation’s infancy and dependence on God. In biblical context, this period includes the covenant with Abraham and the formative experiences of the Israelites in Egypt. The metaphor of a child is used to emphasize innocence and the nurturing relationship God had with Israel.
H. D. Beeby: Israel’s history begins with election, an election out of bondage because of God’s love. Historically Israel’s beginning was with the Exodus, which like every specific event had long roots in the past; but theologically the beginning was in love and in election. Israel would have had no existence without God’s love and God’s choosing. But this was no “love-child,” where the “love” only accounts for the origin of the child; Israel’s whole existence—present and future as well as past—depended on God’s continuing love and the perpetual election expressed in Covenant. The chosen people live forever only with the patient, long-suffering love of God. The whole prophecy bears witness to this truth.
Duane Garrett: The metaphor of Israel as God’s son is distinct from the earlier terminology (Hos 1:10) in which the text describes the people as Yahweh’s children but describes the corporate nation, with its culture and institutions, as Yahweh’s adulterous wife. Here the corporate nation is Yahweh’s son. Wolff argues that the metaphor of “son” implies that Yahweh raised up and educated Israel.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Matthew 2:15 cites Hosea 11:1 as “fulfilled” in Jesus. How can this be, if the allusion in Hosea to the exodus is retrospective and not a prediction? The answer is that in the gospel of Matthew the life of Jesus recapitulates the history of Israel in many ways. For example, paralleling the movement from bondage to Sinai, Jesus comes out of Egypt (Mt 2), goes through the waters (of baptism; Mt 3), is tempted in the desert (forty days and nights; Mt 4), and then goes to a mountain to speak of the law (Mt 5–7). He is the true and ideal Israel. The prophet recognized that the exodus offered patterns: it was a symbol of exile (8:13; 9:3) as well as a type for future hope (11:10–11; cf. Isa 11:11–16; 51:9–11; Jer 23:7–8; Mic 7:15). Matthew sees patterns in God’s liberating initiative at the exodus, too; as God redeemed his people from Egypt long ago, he now was accomplishing a more glorious redemption through Jesus, the greater Son (C. Keener, Matthew [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999], 106–9; cf. Garrett, 220–22).
J. Andrew Dearman: Matthew seeks to show that eschatological and messianic aspects of Israelite history are revealed in God’s Son Jesus and that this is in accord with Scripture and God’s prior activity in and through his corporate son Israel.
- (:2) Response – Israel’s Idolatrous Response
“The more they called them,
The more they went from them;
They kept sacrificing to the Baals
And burning incense to idols.”
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Those who called could be the prophets. God repeatedly sent the prophets to charge “them”—that is, his people—but Israel turned its back and “went away from them” (Keil, 137; McComiskey, 184). This interpretation agrees with other passages that deal with the role of the prophets in the history of the nation (6:5; 9:8; 12:10, 13)
Biblehub: But the more I called Israel — This phrase highlights God’s persistent and loving call to His people, Israel. Despite their repeated disobedience, God continually reached out to them through prophets and His law. This reflects God’s enduring patience and desire for a relationship with His chosen people. The calling of Israel can be seen throughout the Old Testament, where God repeatedly invites them to return to Him, as seen in passages like Isaiah 65:2 and Jeremiah 7:13. This calling is a testament to God’s covenantal faithfulness, despite Israel’s unfaithfulness.
H. D. Beeby: The rebellion is emphasized by contrasting it with God’s love and election. God says “come,” and like Jonah they go. Not only do they separate themselves from him, but they answer to the call of the Baals and the idols. Theirs is not only a policy of avoidance; it is a positive policy of attachment to the gods of the land. Here there is the hint of a principle. Not only does nature abhor a vacuum; the same is true of supernature. To separate from God is automatically to be separated to idols. The atheist is an impossibility. All people are people of faith, and all that is in question is the object of faith.
J. Andrew Dearman: YHWH’s calling of Israel in vv. 1–2 was not simply a one-time event, even though it is founded on the historical redemption from Egypt. The term also characterizes an ongoing relationship between Deity and people, not simply the moment of choosing and acquisition. YHWH continued to call, i.e., to claim and to instruct, Israel. . .
Just as Gomer committed treachery against her spouse, so Israel violated its sonship through similar activities. Thus, whether it is treachery against marriage and covenant or rebellion against rescue and adoption, Israel is a serial offender against YHWH.
John Goldingay: As Yahweh continues to speak of Israel and Egypt (v. 2), he moves to speaking of both in the plural. The problem with the Ephraimites is that in more recent times they have been calling to the Egyptians for help (cf. 7:11), notwithstanding the fact that long ago the Israelites had escaped from the Egyptians! Further, despite the fact that Yahweh summoned them as his servant, they now serve other masters and look to them for blessing.
Allen Guenther: The second half of verse two clarifies the identity of those whose counsel they have been following. The baals and the idols characterize Israel’s way of life. The child has accepted other masters (ba’al means lord, master, husband) and the dolls (idols) created by them. Historically, Israel turned to idols before Moses descended mt. Sinai (Exod. 32-34; esp. 32:8). Even before they arrived at the Land of Promise, they had turned to sacrifice to Baal of Peor and other gods (Num. 25). What a fickle people!
B. Rejected Healing
- (:3a) Action – God’s Nurturing Care
“Yet it is I who taught Ephraim to walk,
I took them in My arms;”
Allen Guenther: A second form of rebellion roots in ignorance and ingratitude (Hos. 11:3). The forty years in the wilderness were special times of God’s care. . . The murmurings and discontent which fill the pages of Exodus and Numbers stand as evidence of this ignorance and forgetfulness.
Gary Smith: Verse 2 emphasizes how quickly the nation fell into apostasy. But like a loving parent, God did not immediately give up on his son. In the midst of this rebellion, he taught him how to walk by holding his hands so that he would not fall or go astray (11:3). This verse may refer to how God showed the people where to walk in the desert or to his guidance through the giving of covenant instructions in the Torah. Although God was not given credit for it, he also healed his son—a possible allusion to his intervention at places like Marah in Exodus 15:26 (see also Hos. 14:5).
- (:3b) Response – Israel’s Spiritual Blindness
“But they did not know that I healed them.”
M. Daniel Carroll R.: He “healed” them, perhaps an allusion to sociopolitical protection, material provision, or spiritual forgiveness (Kakkanattu, 54–57). Sadly, Israel refused to acknowledge (once again the key verb yd ʿ) Yahweh’s care.
J. Andrew Dearman: The tasks of instruction and nurture are described metaphorically as divine healing (rāpāʾ). This is one of five uses of the term in Hosea (5:13; 6:1; 7:1; 14:4 [MT 5]). In the first two instances, the physical aspect of healing is primary. In the third and fourth, YHWH’s intended healing seems to apply to the alienated state of relations between himself and Israel. This usage is in view here in 11:3. The shift of names from Israel in v. 1 to Ephraim in v. 3 may have the benefit of a play between ʾeprayim and rāpāʾ. The two names for the people are used synonymously in vv. 1–3, but Ephraim allows for a memorable connection with the term for healing. Hearers, furthermore, may discern yet another reflection/allusion of the exodus and wandering narrative in this reference. In Exod. 15:26 YHWH declares that if Israel heeds his instructions, none of the afflicting diseases of Egypt will be put on them, for “I, YHWH, am your healer.”
David Allan Hubbard: The last clause of verse 3 indicates how intransigent Israel had become. They consistently misconstrued God’s intent to treat them in tender ways that would mend their hurts and thus display his love.
C. Rejected Training
- (:4) Action – God’s Loving Training
“I led them with cords of a man, with bonds of love,
And I became to them as one who lifts the yoke from their jaws;
And I bent down and fed them.”
J. Andrew Dearman: There are three reasons finally that favor the MT and the resulting animal husbandry imagery.
- The first is the limited parallels with 30:28, which refers to “a harness on the jaws of the people” (ʿal lĕḥāyê ʿammîm), and Hos. 10:11, where Ephraim is referred to as a trained heifer.
- The second reason is the awkward parallel between YHWH and those who lift (mĕrîmê, Hiphil pl. participle) an infant, if the imagery is parental. One would expect a parallel in the singular, perhaps even a reference to a father or mother embracing an infant, and the imagery of embracing to the jaws/face is not otherwise attested in Hebrew. Given the animal husbandry imagery (yoke), the comparison with those who care for an animal is more straightforward.
- The third reason follows from the first two: cords and bonds are also better understood as devices for animals, even when used metaphorically for people.
In summary, v. 4 completes the portrayal of YHWH’s love and calling of Israel begun in 11:1, along with the subsequent sketch of filial failure against the background of divine guidance and care. The training metaphor serves the purpose of defining Israel as prepared from an early stage in the household to serve YHWH faithfully. The portrait underscores the personal, parental commitment of YHWH to them and thus the depth of their familial betrayal. YHWH’s portrayal of the people continues on in what follows, but the subject matter for the moment turns to the impending consequences of Israel’s failure.
Lloyd Ogilvie: Whether the image is graciously lifting a burden from a beast of burden and guiding its movements with gentle care or tenderly lifting a child in an embrace of love, the impact of this verse is the same. Yahweh gave Ephraim compassionate attention and provision. And as He reflected on the past, the heart of God was stirred with loneliness.
Trent Butler: Change the image. Make God a rancher caring for farm animals. With a love beyond any feeling the animals have, God cared for his people. God used cords of human kindness. God did not force humans into obedience through divine sovereignty and power. Instead, he entered our world and placed human ropes on us to lead us as a farmer leads work animals to their task. These ropes were thus ties of love. God did not simply make work animals out of his people. God is like a farmer who knows the yoke has been too tightly attached to an animal’s head or mouth, so he adjusts the yoke to make the animal more comfortable. When it says God bent down, it means he treated them gently. He provided everything the animals needed.
Duane Garrett: The term “jaws” here implies that farmers needed to adjust some kind of bit or harness device that either went into the animal’s mouth or around its jaws. Hence the line describes an adjustment of the yoke and an easing of the burden, not a complete removal of the yoke. The point is not liberation from all duties but liberation from the harsh conditions Israel experienced in Egypt.
The last line of this verse, “and bent down to feed them,” probably could be better translated “and gently I would give to him his food.” Either way the point is that Yahweh fed Israel throughout the exodus, a fact that is well documented in the Pentateuch. The alert reader will recall how Israel complained about the lack of variety in the diet of manna, and in particular remember the episode at Kibroth Hattaavah, in which there was a plague after the people gluttonously consumed quail (Num 11).
Biblehub: I led them with cords of kindness — This phrase reflects God’s gentle guidance and care for Israel, akin to a shepherd leading sheep. The “cords of kindness” symbolize God’s loving and patient approach, contrasting with the harshness often experienced under human leadership. In biblical context, this imagery recalls God’s deliverance of Israel from Egypt, where He led them with compassion and provided for their needs (Exodus 15:13). The cords signify not bondage but a tender connection, emphasizing God’s desire for a relationship based on love rather than coercion.
with ropes of love — The “ropes of love” further illustrate the depth of God’s affection and commitment to His people. Unlike physical ropes that bind, these ropes are metaphorical, representing the bonds of love that draw Israel closer to God. This imagery can be connected to the covenant relationship God established with Israel, where love and faithfulness were central themes (Deuteronomy 7:7-8). The ropes of love also prefigure the New Testament revelation of God’s love through Jesus Christ, who draws humanity to Himself through sacrificial love (John 12:32).
I lifted the yoke from their necks — This phrase signifies liberation and relief from oppression. Historically, the yoke is a symbol of servitude and burden, often used to describe Israel’s slavery in Egypt (Leviticus 26:13). God’s action of lifting the yoke indicates His role as a redeemer who frees His people from bondage. This act of deliverance is a type of Christ’s work, who offers rest and freedom from the yoke of sin (Matthew 11:28-30). The lifting of the yoke also points to God’s ongoing care and provision, ensuring that His people are not overwhelmed by life’s burdens.
and bent down to feed them — Here, God’s humility and provision are highlighted. The image of God bending down to feed His people conveys intimacy and personal care, much like a parent nurturing a child. This reflects God’s sustenance provided during the wilderness journey, where He supplied manna and quail (Exodus 16). The act of feeding is not only physical but also spiritual, as God nourishes His people with His word and presence. This anticipates the ultimate provision through Jesus, the Bread of Life, who offers spiritual nourishment and eternal life (John 6:35).
Derek Kidner: Every detail of this pampering drives home the extraordinary graciousness that Israel has experienced, far beyond anything that she had any right to expect, or any prospect of receiving at the hands of her new masters.
- (:5ab) Response – Israel’s Persistent Bondage
“They will not return to the land of Egypt;
But Assyria– he will be their king,”
Trent Butler: Israel sought treaties with Egypt to avoid serving Assyria or being destroyed by the Assyrian army. God’s plan was different. He proclaimed that the return to Egypt would not happen. Rather, Assyria would rule Israel. God explained his reason for pronouncing this sentence on Israel. Israel had refused to repent. Here Hosea speaks explicitly of repenting, but it is the purpose behind much of the preaching of the prophets.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: There is a wordplay on the verb šûb: Israel will “return” to Egypt, because it has refused to “return” to God (5:4; 7:10, 16). This sin of rebellion means that the nation’s cities will be destroyed. Whatever the political and military plans might have been, they will not succeed (v.6; cf. 10:6).
Duane Garrett: The meaning is that the exodus will be undone and Israel will return to its former condition of slavery but that this time the captivity will not be in Egypt but in Assyria.
David Allan Hubbard: Yahweh’s case against the wayward son (vv. 1–4) has issued in a guilty verdict. Now the sentence is to be pronounced:
- invasion (v. 6),
- exile (v. 5),
- and burdensome captivity (v. 7).
D. Retribution for Stubborn Rebellion
- (:5c) Action – Israel’s Stubborn Rebellion
“Because they refused to return to Me.”
- (:6) Response – God’s Demolishing Judgment
“And the sword will whirl against their cities,
And will demolish their gate bars
And consume them because of their counsels.”
Biblehub: it will destroy the bars of their gates — The “bars of their gates” symbolize security and protection. In ancient cities, gates were crucial for defense, and their destruction signifies complete vulnerability and defeat. This imagery underscores the totality of the judgment that would leave the cities defenseless against their enemies. The destruction of gates is a common motif in biblical narratives of conquest, as seen in the fall of Jerusalem in 2 Kings 25:10. It also serves as a metaphor for the removal of divine protection due to Israel’s covenant unfaithfulness.
and consume them in their own plans –This phrase highlights the self-destructive nature of Israel’s actions. Their plans, likely referring to political alliances and idolatrous practices, would lead to their downfall. This reflects the biblical principle that turning away from God leads to ruin, as seen in Proverbs 14:12, which states that there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death. The consumption by their own plans suggests that their strategies, rather than providing safety, would result in their destruction, emphasizing the futility of relying on human wisdom over divine guidance.
H. D. Beeby: The sword shall rage and consume and devour because of Israel’s rebellion, which is deliberate and intended (vv. 5c, 7a); the yoke is to be fixed permanently, never to be lifted (v. 7c).
Trent Butler: As in chapter 10, battle imagery is used to describe God’s judgment on his people. This has been prepared for by the previous mention of the king of Assyria. Here the imagery is taken to its final stage—the battle that finishes off the nation of Israel. God’s love for his people finally turns to tough love that brings judgment, even though it is a love that lets him describe himself in terms of a loving, caring Father and in terms of a human farmer tending to his animals. Israel will have no more reason to boast of its wisdom, religion, politics, or political maneuvering. All plans will fail. Assyria will destroy Israel’s political system.
David Allan Hubbard: “their counsels” — Israel’s wrong choices, to which diviners may have made their contribution (cf. on 4:11–12), were part of a persistent pattern of apostasy.
E. Refusal to Exalt God
- (:7ab) Action – Israel’s Confirmed Depravity
“So My people are bent on turning from Me.
Though they call them to the One on high,”
M. Daniel Carroll R.: The last half of the verse is difficult but should be interpreted as consonant with the first part; therefore, it is best to take the meaning to be that even if the people do call to Yahweh, the “Most High” (for this meaning of ʿal, see comment on 7:16), he will not come to their aid. It is too late to cry out; with their hardened heart any such plea will probably be hypocritical anyway (cf. 6:1–3). Judgment is well deserved and inescapable.
H. Ronald Vandermey: Do the people repent in the face of such an ominous prediction? The Lord answers this is His lament in verse 7, “So My people are bent on turning from Me.” The frustration experienced by the Lord and His true prophets in attempting to call Israel back may be summed up in that word bent (Hebrew, tala’), which means “impaled, addicted to, hung.” Truly, the nation was impaled on the hook of sin, and none was wiling to exalt the Lord.
Biblehub: Though they call to the Most High — This phrase suggests a superficial or insincere appeal to God. Despite their rebellion, the Israelites still engaged in religious rituals and called upon God, perhaps in times of distress. This reflects a common theme in the Old Testament where the people of Israel would turn to God in desperation but not in genuine repentance (Isaiah 29:13). The term “Most High” emphasizes God’s supreme authority and sovereignty, a title that denotes His power over all creation (Genesis 14:18-20).
Robin Routledge: Because the people are firmly attached to ways that lead them away from Yahweh, their future has become uncertain. Mĕšûbâ is derived from šûb, continuing the prophet’s play on the term: the people refuse to repent (šûb) and instead embrace apostasy (mĕšûbâ).
- (:7c) Response – God’s Recognition of Apostasy
“None at all exalts Him.”
Lloyd Ogilvie: We exalt God when we praise Him. Praise is our response to God in the dialogue we call prayer. Our praises act like a thermostat opening our minds and hearts to the Spirit of God. They are our way of telling God that we love Him. And He is pleased. But when we squander our endowed ability to exalt Him on ourselves in pride or on false gods, He is lonely. It is like being a parent who taught his child to talk, but the adult child refuses to talk to him. Or, a lover whose beloved persists in a petulant silence. . .
Praying prayers of praise without ceasing is our cumulative friendship with God. It saves us from exalting ourselves, others, our culture, or an impersonal fate. All of life becomes a conversation with a Friend who wants to give us His best in all of life. Moment by moment, we check in with the Lord to thank Him and to receive His direction. We become life affirmers who believe that it is not the number of breaths we breathe but the number of breath-taking experiences each day offers. Open to life’s serendipities, we pray, “Alright, Lord, what are You going to do with this problem or potential? I believe You work all things together for good and Your glory. Now what’s next on Your agenda for me in this?” This quality of prayer keeps us open channels for what the Lord wants to accomplish in every situation. Instead of being thrown by changes, we can throw ourselves into making changes according to His guidance. Authentic communion with God comes from this consistent companionship with God. Ambrose of Milan said, “No duty is more urgent than that of returning thanks.” Praise opens us to further blessings and more praise. Andrew Murray knew this, “To be thankful for what we have received, and for what my Lord has prepared, is the surest way to receive more.” Sin is ingratitude. Refusing to exalt the Lord follows. John Henry Jowett was on target: “Every virtue divorced from thankfulness is maimed and limps along the road.” But when we exalt the Lord, we are liberated from false pride and from imperious self-control. A thankful heart is the parent of authentic exaltation. We can enjoy our talents, the people around us, the opportunities that come our way, and the wonder of life much as we do the natural world, knowing that we did nothing to earn or deserve any of them.
II. (:8-9) HOLY COMPASSION MITIGATES GOD’S WRATH
A. (:8a) Divine Consternation
“How can I give you up, O Ephraim?
How can I surrender you, O Israel?
How can I make you like Admah?
How can I treat you like Zeboiim?”
Duane Garrett: Abruptly, Yahweh enters what can only be described as distraught self-questioning. Like a father who is at wit’s end over what to do with a wayward child, Yahweh is here at a loss as he tries to resolve his compassion for Israel and the punishment demanded by their sin. . .
Zeboiim and Admah, together with Bela, were the other cities of the plain in addition to the more famous Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 14:2). That is, these cities represent the depravity that God annihilated in the destruction that is recounted in Genesis 19 and is recalled in Deut 29:23. One may fairly ask why the text mentioned the relatively obscure Zeboiim and Admah as opposed to the more famous Sodom and Gomorrah (contrast Isa 1:9–10; 3:9; 13:19; Jer 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Lam 4:6; Ezek 16:46–56; Amos 4:11; Zeph 2:9). Answering that question, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that Hosea is at times deliberately obscure, elusive, and demanding of his reader. Certainly many of the problems in reading Hosea cannot be dismissed as scribal errors or even as obscurities that result from it being written in a northern dialect. This book is highly elliptical and allusive, and in this case it requires the reader to recognize the allusion to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah by mentioning their far less famous sister cities.
H. D. Beeby: The theme that the mercy of God will always triumph over his severity is in a sense a return to the mood of vv. 1–4. On the other hand, it is quite unexpected, and in the light of vv. 5–7 it comes with the shock that any great reversal produces. Perhaps the startling nature of the affirmation is deliberately underlined by the change to direct address, as four times in v. 8 the father speaks to the son after only speaking of him in vv. 1–7.
Trent Butler: In his love God debates with himself about how he should deal with his lying people. . .
God faced a crisis point. He had to decide. Would he set himself up as the final judge and execute his people, or would he execute his plan of salvation? Would justice triumph in the divine nature, or would love? Here we see the depth of divine love as God himself struggles to avoid bowing to the overwhelming evidence and sentencing his people to death. Hosea pictures God arguing with himself. How could he possibly surrender his people to another nation that worshipped another god? How could he reduce them to the fate of being mere footnotes in history like Sodom and Gomorrah’s satellite cities, Admah and Zeboiim (Deut. 29:23)?
Listen to the Father agonize over his beloved children: I raised you as a child. I taught you to walk. I put everything I have into you. I delivered you out of Egypt. I gave you the land. I gave you political power. I trusted you to be instruments of my salvation for the world. Oh Israel, what will I do with you? I ought to punish you. You deserve the death sentence. You have refused to answer my call to love and repentance. Instead you have answered Assyria’s call to captivity. But how can I let you go? Compassionate feelings arise within me. My heart is changed!
J. Andrew Dearman: In formal terms v. 8 is a soliloquy. Hearers and readers are invited to listen to a presentation. In metaphorical terms, YHWH is an anguished parent, asking profound questions of himself, with the future of his people at stake. YHWH has historical experience in handing out punishment to the disobedient, but the matter of deserved punishment is overwhelmed by commitment to restoring the repeatedly offending child, whom we might call a “prodigal son.”
David Allan Hubbard: Hand over (cf. Gen. 14:20, where El Elyon is praised for turning over the enemies into Abram’s hand) and give up (cf. 1 Kgs 14:16, where God promises to give Israel up for the sins of Jeroboam) have a long history in political-military transactions. They mean giving an enemy full right to do whatever the enemy pleases: slaughter, exile, enslave, sell into slavery.
B. (:8b) Divine Compassion
“My heart is turned over within Me,
All My compassions are kindled.”
Biblehub: My heart is turned within Me — This phrase reveals the emotional depth of God’s relationship with Israel. The turning of God’s heart indicates a profound internal struggle between His justice and mercy. It reflects the divine pathos, showing that God’s decisions are not detached or unemotional but deeply personal and compassionate.
David Allan Hubbard: My heart speaks of the anguish of God’s choice (cf. heart at 4:11); as he faces the momentous decision, his thoughts and feelings have been ‘turning over’ (recoils) within him (cf. the distressed thoughts of ravaged Jerusalem, Lam. 1:20; the same root hpk was used for the overthrow of the wicked cities; cf. Gen. 19:25, 29; Deut. 29:23), but, even more important, he reveals that ‘my sense of compassion (cf. Isa. 57:18; Zech. 1:13; the root nḥm suggests a desire to comfort and console) has been growing exceedingly (see on yaḥad at v. 7) warm’ (cf. for Heb. kmr the pictures of Joseph’s warm feelings at the sight of Benjamin, Gen. 43:30; the prostitute’s yearning for the welfare of her baby, 1 Kgs 3:26; and the starving people’s feverish skin in Lam. 5:10).
Gary Smith: Although we may understand some aspects of God’s just punishment of sin, we are much less able to comprehend the depths and extension of divine love and forgiveness to unworthy people. Holiness and compassion do not excuse seemingly irrational actions by God; they only reveal how the dynamics of the divine plan exceed the limitations of human rationality. The Holy One is so different, yet so compassionate.
C. (:9) Divine Commitment to Forbearance
“I will not execute My fierce anger;
I will not destroy Ephraim again.
For I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst,
And I will not come in wrath.”
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Reiterates Yahweh’s refusal to utterly destroy (šḥt) his people (v.9; cf. 13:9). His anger, though fierce (cf. 8:5), will not be given full reign. His is not the wrath of a human, who might seek revenge out of an extreme sense of betrayal. No, Yahweh is God. Judgment is not about exacting retribution; its ultimate aims are purification and restoration. The juxtaposition of vv.8–9 exemplifies the symbiotic connection between divine love and holiness, a theme that runs throughout the Scriptures and culminates in the cross of Christ.
Biblehub: For I am God and not man — This phrase emphasizes the divine nature of God’s actions, which are not bound by human limitations or emotions. Unlike humans, who may act impulsively or vindictively, God’s decisions are rooted in His perfect wisdom and justice. This distinction is crucial in understanding the nature of divine mercy, as seen in Numbers 23:19, which states, “God is not human, that he should lie, not a human being, that he should change his mind.”
John Goldingay: Yahweh is God and not a human person. It’s natural for human beings not only to get justifiably angry at being treated faithlessly by offspring, spouse, or ally, but also to act on that anger. Yahweh is not bound by this logic. To sharpen the point, he is the sacred one. “Sacred” or “holy” is intrinsically a metaphysical term, not a moral one. It designates God as belonging to a different category of being, as a supernatural being. But other gods could be sacred or holy in this sense without their being inclined to faithfulness or mercy. The implication of Yahweh’s asserting his sacredness is to introduce a moral or characterological aspect to the definition of sacredness/holiness, as it applies to Yahweh over against other alleged supernatural or divine beings. It is as the sacred one that Yahweh does not allow the necessity of punishment to overwhelm the necessity of being consistent to his own faithfulness in relationship or commitment; ḥesed is the word Yahweh could have used in this context. At this moment he does not intend to allow the necessity of punishment to overwhelm the necessity of faithfulness. As the section will go on to make clear, that decision is not final; it is subject to being rescinded if it continues to receive no positive response.
David Allan Hubbard: The Holy One in your midst is a remarkable summation of God’s transcendence and immanence. As the Holy One he has all the power, glory and awesomeness that Isaiah sensed at his commissioning (Isa. 6:3) and that Jerusalem’s citizens were to celebrate at the return from exile (Isa. 40:25). Yet that Incomparable One is present and at work among his rebellious people, disclosing to them his innermost feelings, pledging his compassion (v. 8) despite their disloyalty (v. 7). And he defines his otherness, his divine uniqueness, not in terms of power, wisdom, or sovereignty but in terms of love – constant, sure, steadfast.
Derek Kidner: Suddenly the fearful mechanisms of moral cause and political effect, of national guilt and judgment, of betrayal and estrangement, are interrupted by this passionate intervention, purely from disinterested love. No matter that the Lord may now seem wholly swayed by impulse and emotion: we are nearer a true knowledge of Him in such terms than in the bloodless definitions of theological philosophy. Elsewhere Scripture takes ample care of what such definitions seek to safeguard, but it never takes the warmth out of love, the fire out of anger or the audacity out of grace.
So the very thought of abandoning the people He has lived amongst (‘in your midst’, 9), to an extinction like that of the cities of the plain, stirs God to strong revulsion. But how does this fit in with what in fact transpired? For Ephraim/Israel (the northern kingdom) fell in 722 BC and was deported to Assyria.
Lloyd Ogilvie: God is not vindictive. He is righteous in His judgments, remedial in His punishments, and indefatigable in His forgiving grace. His purpose and plan is for reconciliation. He would use the course of historical events of the Assyrian invasion, He would utilize the exile, He would persist in love for His people even in the exile, and He will bring His people back to the land.
All because God is the Holy One and not restricted by the quid pro quo of human nature. Wolff comments on this reference to the glory of God’s grace as the Holy One.
“The motive clause states that God proves Himself to be God and the Holy One in Israel in that He, unlike men, is independent of His partner’s actions. Remaining completely sovereign over His own actions, He is not compelled to react. . . . It is important to note that the concept of Yahweh’s holiness, appearing only once in Hosea, provides the foundation not for His judging will but for His saving will, to which He had committed Himself from the very beginning of Israel’s saving history.”
Robin Routledge: The portrayal of Yahweh as a father or husband, and even of one struggling with his emotions, may give us insights into his character, but he is not bound by those analogies and remains beyond any anthropomorphic representation of him. Here that freedom includes Yahweh’s capacity to show mercy as well as to judge (cf. Exod. 34:6–7). This may be evident, too, in the title Holy One, which is particularly prominent in the book of Isaiah. ‘Holy’ in the Old Testament describes the essential character of Yahweh (cf. Routledge 2008a: 105–106) and points to what sets him apart from humanity. It may be linked with judgment, but, as the ‘Holy One’, Yahweh also offers salvation and redemption (e.g. Isa. 10:20; 12:1; 43:3, 14; 48:17; 54:5). Here, too, Yahweh is among his people, in their midst. This emphasizes his commitment to them and his unwillingness to allow them to come to ultimate harm. Sin makes judgment inevitable. However, consistent with the character of a holy God, judgment is intended to discipline, not destroy, and beyond it lies the promise of restoration.
III. (:10-11) FUTURE RESTORATION — THE LORD SUMMONS HIS PEOPLE BACK AND SETTLES THEM IN THE PROMISED LAND
A. (:10a) Future Submission
“They will walk after the LORD,”
B. (:10b-11a) Future Summons
“He will roar like a lion; Indeed He will roar,
And His sons will come trembling from the west.
11 They will come trembling like birds from Egypt,
And like doves from the land of Assyria;”
Trent Butler: So here God decides judgment cannot be his final word for his people. Love echoes a call across the nations to God’s sinful, punished people. The call coming from God, the king of heaven, resembles that of a lion, the king of beasts. Earthly people cannot ignore the heavenly roar. The people hear and respond. They follow the LORD rather than walking away as in Hosea 11:2. They return, and God has a home ready for them.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: In 5:14–15 the divine lion devoured the people in judgment (cf. 13:8). With that judgment over, Yahweh roars in regal power, and the nation will respond. Israel, once described as a silly dove that flitted to and fro between Egypt and Assyria, will come from their dispersion (7:11; cf. 9:3). The One who punished and sent them away will settle them in peace to begin life anew with him.
Duane Garrett: This text envisages a general return of the people, not only from Egypt and Assyria but also from the west, the regions around the Mediterranean.
David Thompson: It is interesting that God specifically begins by saying that His people will come from the west because the United States happens to be geographically located to the west of the land of Israel. Many Jews who have lived in the United States will stream back to the Promised Land.
John Goldingay: The tremblers will come from the sea, which in this context implies coming from Egypt; a diplomatic journey to Egypt would be as likely made by sea as by land (Isa. 30:6 hints at the reason).
The next line (v. 11) makes explicit that Egypt is where the tremblers come from, and their returning all atremble will be a sign that they have given up their illicit diplomatic venture. Yahweh thus finally achieves his goal of delivering Israel from Egypt. They will equally give up diplomatic missions to Assyria and come back (implicitly trembling) from there too. There will be a neat reversal of Yahweh’s earlier threats. He had threatened to stop them living in his land and have them live in Egypt and Assyria because that was where they looked to (9:3). Now they will come back from there with their tails between their legs. In a further colon that turns the line into a tricolon, Yahweh adds that he will let them live in their own homes.
C. (:11b) Future Settling
“’And I will settle them in their houses,’ declares the LORD.”
Biblehub: declares the LORD — The declaration by the LORD underscores the certainty and authority of the promise. It emphasizes that the restoration and settlement are acts of divine will, not human effort. This assurance is rooted in God’s unchanging nature and His commitment to His people. The phrase reinforces the prophetic nature of the message, affirming that what God has spoken will surely come to pass. It also connects to the broader biblical narrative of God’s sovereignty and His plan for redemption throughout history.