BIG IDEA:
ISRAEL’S CORRUPTION AS PICTURED IN HOSEA’S MARRIAGE TO THE PROSTITUTE AND HER CHILDREN OF HARLOTRY PROVIDES THE BACKDROP FOR GOD’S AMAZING UNCONDITIONAL LOVE
INTRODUCTION:
David Thompson: GOD DEMANDS HIS PROPHET MARRY AN IMMORAL HARLOT AND HAVE CHILDREN BY THE HARLOT TO ILLUSTRATE HOW CORRUPT AND IMMORAL HIS OWN FAMILY HAS BECOME IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO HIM; AND YET IN THE END GOD WILL BLESS HIS FAMILY BECAUSE HE LOVES HIS FAMILY.
Trent Butler: God charged his prophet to enact a drastic prophetic act through his own family. He married a prostitute, representing Israel’s unfaithfulness, and named three children unthinkable names to symbolize the place of judgment, the reason for judgment, and the result of judgment. But God pointed to a future where faithfulness and a love relationship would be restored in Hosea’s family and in God’s relation to Israel.
Gary Smith: By setting Israel’s sinful behavior in the framework of the vile behavior of a prostitute, Hosea reminds his audience both of the seriousness of sin (it destroys a mutual trusting relationship) and the amazing greatness of God’s love.
David Allan Hubbard: To grasp the overall message of this first section, we must catch the significance of its literary structure. These three chapters are a two-part story (1:2–9; 3:1–5) wrapped around a three-part oracle (1:10 – 2:1; 2:2–13; 2:14–23). This structure produces a literary unit that can be described by the scheme A B1 BB1 A1, where A (1:2–9) is the story, whose point is judgment and A1 (3:1–5) is the story whose point is hope, while B (2:2–13) is the oracle whose announcement is judgment, and the B1 (1:10 – 2:1; 2:14–23) are the oracles whose proclamation is hope.
The envelope or inclusio formed by the two-part story with which the section opens and closes is not only a graceful literary device but an important theological pointer. This structure – in which Gomer’s waywardness is described before Israel’s sin is denounced, and Yahweh’s restoration of Israel to full covenant privileges is promised before Hosea is commanded to demonstrate that restoration – packages the gist of the section: Gomer’s betrayal of Hosea may foreshadow Israel’s defection from Yahweh, but no human act of forgiveness can take priority over divine forbearance. When it comes to the exercise of grace God is mentor to us all.
Lloyd Ogilvie: Over the years, as I have preached or taught the Book of Hosea, I have found that it is crucial early on to personalize the dilemma of God in dealing with Israel’s unfaithfulness by talking about the cross in the heart of God. There was a cross of judgment and forgiveness in God’s heart before there was a cross on Calvary. Golgatha revealed God as both the just and the justifier (Rom. 3:26).
This becomes very real when we consider honestly God’s problem with each of us. He cannot wink at our sin that separates us from Him or our sins that express our rebellion. At the same time, He must find a way to confront us and heal us. The astounding realization is that He persistently chooses to be our God regardless of what we’ve done or been. Amazing love, indeed. But love that we can never take for granted.
First main section of the book: (1:1 – 3:5) ISRAEL’S INFIDELITY ILLUSTRATED BY MARRIAGE OF FAITHFUL PROPHET AND ADULTEROUS WIFE
Symbolic Narrative – rest of book is series of addresses to the people
H. D. Beebe: [He argues for keeping 1:2 – 2:1 together as a cohesive unity because:] hope always keeps breaking through. Dire warnings and promised destruction are followed by promises of restoration; fatal sicknesses carry hints of healing; chaos points to new creation; and despair points to hope. The sentence of death is rarely the last word, and the black cap so often donned becomes almost a sign of reprieve.
J. Andrew Dearman: When read together, chs. 1–3 have a basic theme: God’s judgment in the historical process will come against a faithless Israel, sometime after which God will initiate a period of restoration. Hosea’s marriage and children are rendered through literary devices to illustrate the theme, and the texts are thoroughly shaped with that goal in mind.6 Indeed, each chapter—at least in English versification—gives a rendering of the same basic theme, moving from judgment to restoration.
(:1) HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
A. Communication of the Word of God via the Prophet Hosea
“The word of the Lord which came to Hosea the son of Beeri,”
H. D. Beebe: The word of the LORD “comes” to Hosea in time, in history, but it is timeless in its application (it “endures forever”). It is a word for all seasons and for all sorts and conditions of people.
Trent Butler: The word of the LORD appears 438 times in the Hebrew Bible from Genesis 15:1 to Malachi 1:1. This is a distinctive of biblical religion: God constantly lets his people know his message. The problem lies in a people who refuse to accept and obey his message.
Allen Guenther: Dabar may also imply affair, matter, business, thing, as in the matter (dabar) concerning Uriah (1 Kings 15:5). Hence, while God is communicating with Hosea by means of words, he is not conveying speeches to be regurgitated. God is disclosing his intentions, his business with Israel. In the process of receiving the word of the Lord, the prophet becomes a member of the heavenly council, to whom God reveals his secret plans (Amos 3:7; cf. Jer. 23:18). Therefore, when Hosea interacts with God or offers a prophecy from his own lips, that word is to be regarded as coming from the counsel of the Lord; it consists of the purposes of God as fully as if he had quoted a first-person speech form Almighty.
Why are these books called Minor Prophets? Brevity … not importance (cf. Is, Jer, Ez)
Order in the Hebrew bible:
- Prophets of the Assyrian Period (Hosea to Nahum) – pre-exilic
- Prophets of the Babylonian Captivity (Habakkuk and Zephaniah)
- Prophets of the Persian Period (after exile – Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi)
Name = Hoshea = “salvation” – same meaning as that of Joshua and Jesus
Prophet to the Northern kingdom of Israel and native of that area (Jonah = only other
writing prophet from the North) – 755–710 BC – long ministry (sometimes called Ephraim)
- contemporaries: Amos (just before Hosea), Micah and Isaiah
- ministry included the reigns of Uziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah in Judah
- he has been called the Jeremiah of Israel – intensely sensitive and emotional right before the fall of the northern kingdom to Assyria
Meyer Gruber: Standard English translations of the Bible (from KJV through NJPS), which reserve the form Hosea for the prophet named in Hos. 1–2 and the Book that includes Hos. 2:1, employ the form Hoshea to represent all the other 4 biblical Hosheas.
David Thompson: We don’t know much about Hosea. Some have said they think he was a baker because he knew how to make bread (Hosea 7:4). Some say they think he was a farmer because he knew about sowing and plowing and harvesting crops (Hosea 8:7; 10:13).
Some say they think he was a priest because there are references in the book to the priests (Hos. 4:4; 4:9; 5:1; 6:9). Some think he was the son of one of the prophets or some professional prophet who had attended a prophet’s school (Hos. 1:2; 4:5; 9:7-8). The truth is we just can’t say for sure.
We do know that his father’s name was Beeri (Hosea 1:1). Now we do not know if there is any connection but according to Genesis 26:34, Esau married a woman named Judith, who was the daughter of a Hittite named Beeri. It is hard to know if there is an ethnic connection. But one thing we do know is that you do not have to come from some big name Christian family to be greatly used by God. Hosea didn’t.
James Limburg: Behind these sayings is also a person of unusual sensitivity. Because of his own heart-wrenching experiences with his family, Hosea is able to describe the anguish in the heart of God like no other prophet. Abraham Heschel said, “Amos dwells on what God has done . . . Hosea dwells on what God has felt for Israel” (The Prophets, p. 60). The anguish of God over a faithless people is like that of a husband over a wife who is ungrateful and unfaithful (2:8, 13). The pain in the heart of God is like the pain in the heart of a parent who has invested decades in child rearing only to have that child turn out to be a rebel (11:1–4).
B. Contemporary Kings of Judah and Israel
- Kings of Judah
“during the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz and Hezekiah,
kings of Judah,”
Derek Kidner: It had been at first a time of growing affluence, thanks to the brief respite which these little kingdoms found themselves enjoying while their strongest neighbours happened, for once, to be preoccupied and weak. Damascus, their most recent scourge, had been crippled by Assyria in 802; and then Assyria itself, that grim Mesopotamian war-machine, had begun to falter under threats from without and disunity within.
But with Israel’s wealth had come increasing decadence; and then, halfway through the century, their world began to crumble. At home, the two strong kings, Jeroboam II of Israel and his contemporary, Uzziah of Judah, were at or near the end of their long reigns, while in the distance Assyria had roused itself to a new pitch of terrifying strength and militancy. It was soon to march on Palestine. Within a generation the kingdom of Israel would be extinct.
It was to this generation that Hosea was sent to preach repentance.
- Kings of Israel
“and during the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash,
king of Israel.”
Jeroboam II was the king in Israel
Historical Background: 2 Kings 14-20; 2 Chron. 26-32
Had reason to be intense and emotional – this was Israel’s last call to repentance; they
were already too far gone and too corrupt; judgment was coming
Religious and cultural conditions during reign of Jeroboam II
Political peace; material prosperity – but moral and religious corruption; after Jeroboam
II, kingdom became chaotic – short reigns of a succession of kings ended by coups and assassinations
Reign of Tiglathpileser III – king of Assyria 745-727 BC
David Thompson: Actually even though Hosea’s life spanned more than one Israelite king, he only mentions one Israelite king (Jeroboam) and four Judean kings.
This actually seems odd because Hosea is ministering to Israel and yet he only mentions one king from Israel, Jeroboam, but he mentions four kings from Judah–Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. He completely eliminates Israel’s kings (Zechariah, Shallum, Menahem, Pekahiah, Pekah and Hoshea) (II Kings 15). Most believe the reason for this is because Jeroboam was the last good king and those who came after him were worthless kings who led Israel into idolatry and immorality.
Duane Garrett: Why did Hosea neglect to mention the rest of the kings of Israel? The reason appears to be twofold.
- First, he regarded Jeroboam II as the last king of Israel with any shred of legitimacy. Those after him were a pack of assassins and ambitious climbers who had no right to the title “king.” Hosea’s assessment of the kings of Israel appears in texts like 7:1–7.
- Second, he hoped for better things from Judah. At times he criticized the south as heavily as the north (5:5, 12), but he also prayed that they not follow Israel’s lead (4:15). Most importantly, he looked for salvation and reunification in the line of David (3:5).
I. (:2-3) SIGNIFICANT MARRIAGE WITH SYMBOLIC MEANING
“When the LORD first spoke through Hosea, the LORD said to Hosea,”
A. (:2) Shocking Command
- Issuing the Command — Highlighting Israel’s Corruption and Apostasy – Enter into an Immoral Relationship
a. Hook Up with a Wife of Harlotry
“Go, take to yourself a wife of harlotry,”
Different views:
1) actually marry a prostitute – but nothing seems wrong in the early stages of birth of
first son; this would be very strange – would not picture the condition of a redeemed
people who subsequently would commit spiritual adultery; question whether the next
two children are really his … you can see the decline in the relationship
2) symbolic only; an allegory – does not give the power to the illustration; details of
the narrative read like a literal story
3) Gomer chaste initially – but God foretelling what her character and actions would be;
David Thompson: Frankly after carefully examining this issue in the Hebrew text and in the Greek Septuagint Greek text, I agree with Gary Smith, a professor of Hebrew, who has written a commentary on this book, who concludes Hosea was commanded to go and marry a woman who was paid money for sexual favors both before Hosea married her and after he married her (Hos. 2:5) (Hosea, p. 46). As he says, “the plain meaning of these words cannot be easily escaped.”
Lloyd Ogilvie: The simplest solution to this question and the various alternatives we have cited is to take the text of Hosea as it stands. God told Hosea to take a wife of harlotry, to marry a woman who was involved in some form of prostitution and after marriage returned to her former lifestyle. It is certainly tempting to read into the text that she was a cult prostitute, even though a strong case cannot be proven from the text itself.
Alternate Interpretation:
G. Campbell Morgan: The statement distinctly calls here a woman of whoredom, but it does not tell us that she was that at the time. It certainly does mean that God knew the possibilities in the heart of Gomer, and that presently they would be manifested in her conduct, and knowing, He commanded Hosea to marry her, knowing also what his experience would do for him in his prophetic work. When Hosea married Gomer, she was not openly a sinning woman, and the children antedated her infidelity. The earlier life of the prophet was in all likelihood one of joy and happiness.
H. D. Beeby: Many attempts have been made to justify God’s strange command, to preserve God’s moral reputation and to make things a little easier and more presentable for Hosea. . . Incomprehensible and unpalatable as it sounds, this is the one marriage that was made in heaven. God commands Hosea to marry the harlot because God’s word requires it and his will demands it.
Duane Garrett: We must not think of her as a prostitute in modern terms—a call girl or streetwalker—but should think of her more as an immoral girl who depended on gifts from her lovers.
Allen Guenther: Gomer brought no children with her into the marriage. The instructions and description which follow identify the children as born after the marriage.
James Mays: The marriage is an act of obedience to Yahweh’s command undertaken to dramatize the divine indictment of Israel. Hosea is to display the predicament of Yahweh in his covenant with Israel by wedding a harlotrous woman!
b. Have Children of Harlotry
“and have children of harlotry;”
James Mays: That the children are harlotrous has nothing to do with their own character; nothing is made of them except their naming. Rather they are harlotrous because of their mother. Coming from her womb which has been devoted to the cult of Baal, they are religiously the offspring of harlotry. See ‘sons of harlotry’ in 2.4 as a designation of Israelites and the contextual description of their mother, Israel.
- Justifying the Shocking Command
a. Due to Harlotry
“for the land commits flagrant harlotry,”
Picture of shame and disgrace; an ugly image
How important is faithfulness in your marriage?
b. Due to Apostasy
“forsaking the LORD.”
B. (:3) Swift Consummation
- Beginning of Their Marriage
“So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim,”
David Thompson: Now verse 3 opens with a Hebrew word that says, “so he went.” The Hebrew word means he went walking on a journey to where he would find a harlot (Ibid., p. 224). Wherever he was when God told him to do this was not the place where you would find this woman. He would have to go to a place where harlots typically were. Perhaps he had to go to a brothel or perhaps, as some have suggested, he had to go to an idolatrous temple known for idolatry and immorality.
Robin Routledge: Some have tried to attach symbolism to the names Gomer and Diblaim, but that seems unlikely. If they were symbolic, we would expect their significance to be explained, as is the case with the names of Gomer’s children. It has also been suggested that Diblaim might be a reference to Gomer’s home town, Diblathaim, in Moab (cf. Jer. 48:22). This too seems unlikely. It is better to take these simply as the names of the figures involved.
- Beginning of Their Family
“and she conceived and bore him a son.”
Duane Garrett: The report of their births should not be passed over as a sad but merely incidental prologue to the actual prophecy; in a real sense, they are the prophecy, and everything else is just exposition.
II. (:4-9) SIGNIFICANT CHILDREN WITH SYMBOLIC MEANING
A. (:4-5) Reality of the Judgment — Son = Jezreel – “God will scatter” –
- (:4) Ending the Kingdom of Israel
“And the LORD said to him, ‘Name him Jezreel;
for yet a little while,
and I will punish the house of Jehu for the bloodshed of Jezreel,
and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel.’”
Discipline and exile (2 Kings 9:7 – 10:28)
Look at the security we have as the church – nothing can separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus
“put an end” (:4) – exile of Israel to Assyria in 722 B.C.
Duane Garrett: [“Jezreel”] means “May God sow” and thus associates God with the productivity of the land. In this it addresses the fertility cults that figure so heavily in the background of the Book of Hosea. For the prophet no doubt the name contrasts Yahweh, the true giver of life, with the false fertility god Baal. We thus have in this name associations of both death by violence and of a prayer to God, the giver of bountiful harvests.
David Thompson: Now Jezreel is a very important geographical place in Israel (I Kings 18:45-46). This city served as a winter capital for Israel’s kings. But it is clear from these verses that God had one moment in mind in Jezreel’s history which he refers to as “the bloodshed of Jezreel.”
King Jeroboam represented the last strong king and good king in a dynasty started by Jehu (841- 814 B.C.). In the valley of Jezreel, Jehu, King of Israel (841-814 B.C.), was ordered by God to destroy the house of Ahab (II Kings 9:7). Jehu won a great victory totally destroying Israel’s idolatrous enemies.
Jehu ordered Queen Jezebel’s servants to kill her by throwing her out the window. Then Jehu had Ahab’s 30 sons killed and their heads brought to him in Jezreel (II Kings 9-10). This was all good.
But Jehu killed King Ahaziah of Judah and 42 of his relatives, which was evil (II Kings 9:27-28; 10:12-14). By doing this, Jehu demonstrated a great disloyalty to God by shedding that innocent blood.
Now God warned his people by naming this son Jezreel that the same kind of thing would happen to them. They were disloyal to God and they were pursuing the same kinds of things of immoral idolatry like Ahab and Jezebel.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: The monarchy of Hosea’s day will suffer the same fate as that suffered by the house of Ahab and others. It will be eliminated violently by divine judgment.
J. Andrew Dearman: According to 1:4, God will bring (lit. “visit” or “inspect”) the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu. Modern translations often render the Hebrew phrase pāqad ʿal here and in similar texts as “punish” because the action conveyed in the Lord’s visitation is understood to be judgment. This is not wrong, but the rendering misses an important nuance. God’s judgment in the coming historical process is the bringing of a negative effect on the ruling house, based on prior failures related to that dynasty.
Derek Kidner: There is a paradox over Jehu. Here he is a man of blood, storing up disaster for his dynasty and realm; but in 2 Kings 10:30 he has ‘done well’ in carrying out against the house of Ahab ‘all that was in (God’s) heart’. The reason is not far to seek; it lies in Jehu himself, a standing example of a human scourge. As God’s executioner he left nothing undone, and it was in that capacity that he collected his reward: the promise of the throne to four generations of his sons. The Old Testament has several instances of this kind of servant, of whom Sennacherib, whom God calls ‘the rod of my anger’ (‘But he does not so intend, and his mind does not so think’, Is. 10:7), and Nebuchadnezzar ‘my servant’ (Je. 27:6) are prime examples. And they were paid their wages – paid in spoil and conquest, described in exactly these terms of ‘wages’ in Ezekiel 29:18-20; but paid also with the due requital of their pride and cruelty.
So it was with Jehu – with the difference that he knew of his commission from the Lord. But there was no difference of spirit or method. The events of 2 Kings 10 are a welter of trickery, butchery and hypocrisy, in which the only trace of a religious motive is fanaticism – and even this is suspect in view of Jehu’s charade of sacrificing to Baal (2 Ki. 10:25). Self-interest and bloodlust were his dominant springs of conduct, and it was this that made ‘the blood of Jezreel’ an accusing stain.
James Limburg: At Jezreel, Jehu had killed the kings of Israel and Judah. There Jezebel had died a cruel death. It was at Jezreel that Jehu displayed the heads of the seven sons of Ahab; he had also engineered the mass extermination of Baal worshipers there (II Kings 9–10). Thus the name of the beautiful city and valley was forever linked with violence and mass murder. To name a child “Jezreel” might be like naming a child today “Auschwitz” or “Hiroshima.” An announcement of punishment indicates the ominous significance of the name: “and I will put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel.”
- (:5) Eradicating the Military Power of Israel
“And it will come about on that day,
that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel.”
At city of Jezreel – Jehu slaughtered house of Ahab; scene of much bloodshed
Trent Butler: A quick verse summarizes God’s plan. On the day he chooses, he will shatter the bow of Israel in the Valley of Jezreel. The bow represents the nation’s military power. Such power was focused in the king of Israel. God planned to bring an end to Israel’s army and its monarchy. This began when the last king of the Jehu dynasty—King Zechariah—met his death at the hand of Shallum. The Septuagint, the oldest Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, locates this in the Valley of Jezreel (2 Kgs. 15:10). The completion also came in the Jezreel Valley when Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria defeated Israel’s army and took the territory of the valley (2 Kgs. 15:29).
B. (:6-7) Reaction to the Judgment — Daughter = Lo-ruhamah – “not pitied” –
- (:6) Compassion Ends for Northern Kingdom
“Then she conceived again and gave birth to a daughter.
And the LORD said to him, ‘Name her Lo-ruhamah,
for I will no longer have compassion on the house of Israel,
that I should ever forgive them.’”
No more compassion and forgiveness.
How important for us that “the Lord’s lovingkindnesses indeed never cease, for His compassions never fail. They are new every morning; Great is Your faithfulness”
(Lam 3:22-23)
Derek Kidner: The first child had been Hosea’s own: his wife ‘bore him a son’ (3). The second and third are not said to have been his: the ‘him’ of verse 3 is missing in verses 6 and 8. So the joy of fatherhood was deeply clouded, and the children were living proofs of the invasion of the marriage.
Duane Garrett: [Regarding translation problems with the last phrase in the verse]
We are thus left with the astonishing possibility that the text means exactly what it says: “I will completely forgive them.” How is it possible that Hosea (speaking for God) could in the same breath say, “I will no longer show love to the house of Israel” and “I shall completely forgive them”? It is jolting, but it is not unusual for an author who routinely sets assertions about God’s terrible wrath directly and without transition beside statements of his absolute love.
Allen Guenther: The name Lo-ruhamah carries two distinct, yet related connotations. The full consequences of covenant disloyalty are about to come crashing down on the Northern kingdom, the house of Israel. Lo-ruhamah implies that the covenant curses are descending on Israel in all their fury to drag the nation off into exile [Covenant, p 379].
Second, the root rhm appears in fifth-century Jewish Aramaic marriage contracts from Egypt in connection with the rights of inheritance. The noun there appears to refer to the one designated principal heir. To say that a person is Lo-ruhamah is to call her “Disinherited.” Since Israel was promised the land as a gift, when God calls his offspring, Lo-ruhamah, he indicates thereby that they will not continue to possess the Lord’s property. The two life settings of the language of compassion and inheritance, then, converge to point toward Israel’s destiny as an exiled people. . .
Translation: Name her Not-pitied (Lo-ruhamah), because I will not longer continue to love (raham) the house of Israel, though I will forgive them. The house of Judah, however, I will love (raham), and I will rescue them by means of Yahweh their God.
James Mays: It is the nation (house) of Israel which is left without compassion before their God. The announcement of God’s verdict in the interpretation implies that till now Israel has lived in the compassion of God; his feeling for them in the covenant bond has endured all their follies and failures. But now that fatherly indulgence is to be withdrawn. Cf. the similar statement in 2.4, and the reversal of the name in 2.23.
John Schultz: It is good to pause and imagine what the emotions of Hosea must have been when he learned that the wife he had married had become pregnant by another man and what his feelings were toward the child that was not his. And then when God told him to analyze his feelings because those were the sentiments God felt toward the people He loved. What a horrible way of entering into an intimate fellowship with God, or sharing in the sufferings of Christ! Even in a relationship of human beings, such sentiments are rarely shared, and never on such a level. In a way Hosea knew God more intimately than Moses of whom the Scripture states that God spoke to him “face to face.” Hosea learned to know God in the most private of all relationships, and he probably wished he had not.
- (:7) Compassion Extended to Southern Kingdom
“But I will have compassion on the house of Judah
and deliver them by the LORD their God,
and will not deliver them by bow, sword, battle, horses, or horsemen.”
Trent Butler: God’s nature contains both the holiness that destroys all sin and the love that forgives his people and renews his covenant with them.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: (The first two refer to foot soldiers, the last two to chariots.) The salvation of Yahweh, in other words, will not come by warfare. Even as judgment will come by his direct intervention, so will future blessings.
Gary Smith: This child’s name reveals that God will end his tender feelings of deep affection (like a mother’s deep affection for the fruit of her womb) that are foundational to his covenant relationship with his people. The loving feeling between kinfolk will be missing; God will not pity or care what happens to them. This name represents a dramatic reversal of Israel’s self-understanding (they thought they were the children of God) and will be a severe blow to their confidence in God’s unfailing commitment to love his people. They will no longer be rescued when they are in trouble, for God’s compassionate mercy will no longer be extended to them.
C. (:8-9) Result of the Judgment — Son = Lo-ammi – “not my people” – “not my kin”
“When she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived and gave birth to a son. And the LORD said, ‘Name him Lo-ammi,
for you are not My people and I am not your God.’”
Hosea realizes that this child was not his; God has rejected Israel;
Think of the privilege of being the people of God – do we take this for granted?
John MacArthur: The phrase gives the breaking of the covenant, a kind of divorce formula in contrast to the covenant or marriage formula.
Rom. 9:25-26 – quoted by Paul in NT
James Limburg: There is a terrifying progression in the sequence of these names. The first announced a future when Israel would have to live without a king, the second a future without God’s compassion, and the third a future without God (cf. Jeremias).
Trent Butler: This child preached a sermon to Israel with every step he took. Israel was an illegitimate child of God, just as Not My People was an illegitimate child of Hosea.
J. Andrew Dearman: The two names, Lo-ammi and Lo-ehyeh, both cancel a previous relationship. This is their symmetry. On the one hand, Israel is no longer God’s people, as had been proclaimed in the Sinai/Horeb covenant, predicated on Israel’s response to redemption from Egypt: “If you will keep my covenant (bĕrîtî), then you will be my special possession … kingdom of priests … holy nation” (Exod. 19:5–6). On the other hand, God had promised to be with Moses in responding to the cries of his people, instructing Moses to tell the people that I AM had sent him to them (Exod. 3:14). The verbal form ʾehyeh, “I am,” is a pun on the personal name of God, YHWH, revealed to Moses at the burning bush. As a result of Israel’s disobedience God was no longer “I AM” for them. The Hebrew lōʾ-ʾehyeh, Not I AM, cancels the significance of the covenant name YHWH, rendering it null and void with respect to Israel. We might put the reversal language in the context of another polarity, that of presence and absence. Whereas YHWH signified his presence with Moses and the Israelites in the revealing of his name, the change to Not I AM represents his absence from Israel.