The first chapter presents the prophet with his ministry “in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam the son of Joash, king of Israel” (vs. 1). He was therefore a contemporary of Isaiah, who prophesied during the same kings, save that in the case of Hosea only do we hear of the then reigning king of Israel, of whom, rather than Judah, our prophet treats. For the word of Jehovah to him takes into account the condition of Israel as a whole, and particularly uses the dismal condition of Ephraim for the moral good of Judah. This is true of the whole book, which is remarkable for its occupation simply with the Jew, without noticing (as do other prophets) the Gentiles either for judgment or for blessing.
Light Furnished by the New Testament
Hosea is, one might say, exclusively devoted to the ancient people of God, with a very slight but remarkable exception in the first chapter; but even it is couched in terms so enigmatical (and this, I believe, with divine intention for a special end), that many have failed to discern the truth contemplated in consequence of not using the light supplied in the New Testament. But there cannot be a more striking example than this very instance affords of the all-importance of using one part of scripture, not to correct indeed—this were impossible and irreverent—but better to understand another. In order to profit by the fuller revelation of the mind of God, we do well to read the earlier communications in the strongest light vouchsafed to us.
It is one mind conveyed by one Spirit; and God can give us grace by dependence on Himself to guard us, as far as is consistent with our moral condition, from that narrowness to which we are all too prone—making certain portions of scripture our favorites, so as to interfere with due heed to the rest of the word. Those who indulge in these thoughts cannot be expected to understand the word of God, and, in what they make their one-sided study, are apt to fall into singular and sometimes fatal mistakes. The most precious truths of God, if they are used in an exclusive way, may by the enemy be turned to the support of serious error. Thus there would be danger if there were, for instance, the systematic limiting of the mind to the resurrection or heavenly side of divine truth. Or again, take prophecy; and how withering to the soul when that part of scripture practically becomes a monopoly? Take the church—for it does not matter what—and in it there is no security one whit more. The reason is simple; the secret of power, blessing, security, and communion is found, not in resurrection or heaven, not in prophecy nor in the church, nor in any other conceivable branch of truth, but in Christ, who alone gives the whole truth. Consequently, we see that what we all know to be a doctrine and a necessary principle in God’s revelation is true also as applied to every detail of practical experience.
His Interest in Israel Viewed as a Whole;
Hence the Book Is Less Intelligible to a Gentile Mind
In this case, then, the date of Hosea indicates his interest in Israel, and the work that God assigned him in reference to the twelve-tribed nationality of His people, when the ruin of Israel was at hand, and that of Judah was ere long to follow. Brief as his handling of his subject is, there is a remarkable completeness in the prophecy; and the moral element is as prominent in the second part as the dispensational is in the first. The parenthesis of Gentile empire is quite omitted throughout. He is filled with the afflictions and the guilt of Israel as a whole, and, more than any other of the twelve shorter prophets, breaks forth into passionate and renewed grief over the people. The book accordingly abounds, as none other does so much, in the most abrupt transitions, which therefore make the style of Hosea singularly difficult in some respects, and, it may be added too, far more so to us just because of its intensely Jewish character. Not being Jews, we do not come under their character of relationship; but those who are to be called as Jews by and by will understand it well. They, having that position, and being thus called (though through the sense of the deepest sins on their part, at the same time knowing the yearnings of the Spirit of God over them), will enter into, as I believe they will profit by, that which to us presents difficulty because we are not in the same position.
Marriage With One Whose Unfaithfulness Represented That of Israel to Jehovah
The first chapter mainly consists of symbolic action, which represents the course of God’s purposes. “The beginning of the word of Jehovah by Hosea. And Jehovah said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from Jehovah” (vs. 2). Nothing can be more evident than this declared object. The prophet is commanded to do that which was necessarily most painful in itself, and suggestive of what he as a man of God must have felt to be humbling as well as repulsive. But such was the attitude of Israel to their God, and Jehovah would make the prophet and those who heeded the prophecy to understand in measure what He must feel as to His people. “So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son. And Jehovah said unto him, Call his name Jezreel; for yet a little while, and I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu, and will cause to cease the kingdom of the house of Israel. And it shall come to pass at that day, that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel” (vss. 3-5). This was the first great blow.
Jehu and Jezreel
Israel was to be smitten in the house of Jehu, the avenger of the blood guiltiness that had been brought in by the idolatrous Jezebel. Jehu was a rough man, vain and ambitious, suited notwithstanding to deal in his rude fashion with that which had dishonored Jehovah—a man far enough outside the current of the feelings of the Spirit of God, but nonetheless employed in an external way to deal with the evident and open evil of Ahab’s house and Israel.
Nevertheless this, as it had no root in God, so it had no strength to maintain itself against other evils. Hence, although it suited the policy of Jehu to deal with certain gross idolatries, the political-religious evil that characterized the kingdom of Israel seemed necessary to sustain him against the house of David. Consequently, as he had no conscience as to the sin of Jeroboam, this was judged of Jehovah in due time. God smote not only Jehu’s house, but Israel. The kingdom was to pass, though it might linger for a little while afterward; but it was smitten of God. This is what is represented by Jezreel. God would scatter in due time. The Assyrian broke the power of Israel in the valley of Jezreel (afterward called Esdraelon), a scene of covetousness and blood from first to last.
Lo-Ruhamah and Lo-Ammi
Then again, we find a daughter appears, whose name was to be called Lo-ruhamah, a name which expresses the absence of pity towards the people. No more mercy was to be shown. Thus the failure of the kingdom of Israel, which soon followed after the dealing with Jehu’s house, was not then complete. There would be still more judgment from God for He says, “I will no more have mercy upon the house of Israel” (vs. 6). Jezreel was but the beginning of the judgments of God. “I will utterly take them away” (vs. 6). It was not therefore the collapse of the kingdom of Jehu only, but Israel as a whole was to be swept from the land, never more to be restored as a separate polity. “But,” says He in the very same breath, “I will have mercy upon the house of Judah, and will save them by Jehovah their God, and will not save them by bow, nor by sword, nor by battle, by horses, nor by horsemen” (vs. 7). The Assyrian was allowed to destroy the kingdom of Israel but was himself checked by divine power when he hoped to carry off Judah.
Thus, there was a lengthening of the tranquility for Judah. They, at least for the time, exhibited fidelity to Jehovah in their measure. Afterward another child is born—a son; and “then said God, Call his name Lo-ammi: for ye are not My people, and I will not be your God” (vs. 9). It was no longer therefore simply a case of breaking up Israel completely, but Judah now comes into judgment. As long as the royal tribe stood, there was still a nucleus round which all the people might be gathered. As long as the house of David was true in any measure with Judah attached yet far from being true, God could (morally speaking) yet work recovery, or at any rate, He could make them, as it were, swell out into a great people.
But now, on the proved faithlessness of the innermost circle, God represents the solemn crisis by the birth of the son called Lo-ammi. Yet there is no notice of the Babylonish conqueror. The prophet abruptly passes by the captivity of Judah, and at once goes forward to the glorious reversal of all the sentences of woe. It is the reunion of all the tribes, but not the scanty return under Zerubbabel. A greater is here, even Messiah. Undoubtedly, He is chosen, given and appointed to them by God; but it was important also to show that they will yield willing and active subjection. Gathered together, Israel and Judah shall make (or appoint) themselves one head, and shall come (or go) up out of the land: not Babylon or Assyria, or even the earth at large, I think, but rather an expression of their union religiously in the same solemn assemblies and feasts, as we have already seen them one people under one head. It was accomplished neither after the captivity nor when Christ came, but strikingly the reverse. It remains to be fulfilled when He comes to reign over the earth. “For,” then indeed, “great [shall be] the day of Jezreel” (vs. 11). God shall sow His people in His land, not scatter them out of it. It is the day not of humiliation but of manifested glory. “Yet,” says He in His very sentence of judgment on Judah, “the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it shall be said unto them, Ye [are] not my people, [there] it shall be said unto them, [Ye are] the sons of the living God” (vs. 10).
Mysterious Intimation of the Call of the Gentiles
Observe the remarkable change here. It is the scripture already referred to as the mysterious intimation of the call of the Gentiles in pure grace. This, though distinctly taught in Romans 9, surprises many readers. The reason is because we are apt to regard all as an antithesis in a merely human or limited fashion. If any man of God on the face of the earth had had the writing of the sentence left to himself, had there not been the full power of God which is meant by inspiration in its true and proper sense, it seems quite inconceivable that this sentence could ever have been written. Who would have said it—let him be supposed the best of men—if he loved Israel as a good Jew? Least of all surely Hosea, whose heart was all on fire for the people, both in horror on account of their wickedness and in yearning after their blessedness. But for that reason, he of himself would have said, not “Ye are not my people,” (vs. 9) but Ye shall be made my faithful people. No, this is not what God says, but something quite different. The strong bias so natural even to a good man would have rendered it out of the question to speak as Hosea does. We find it hard to take in, even when written plainly before our eyes, the distinct teaching of God, conveying as it does an unexpected form of thought and an altogether new subject. The Spirit inspired him and can teach us.
Sovereign Grace Acts Where All Was a Ruin in Israel
This, as hinted before, is the scripture which the Apostle Paul employs in Romans 9, as is well known. There he is vindicating, as is plain, the sovereign call of God—the only resource for man where all is ruined. How beautifully this fits in with our prophet is evident. The ruin of Israel was already there; the ruin of Judah was impending. All was doomed. What then can man fall back on? If the people of God on the earth turned out only a mass of ruins on one side or another, what was there to look to? Nothing and none but God, not His law, but His sovereign grace. Accordingly, this is exactly what does come in; as indeed the sovereignty of God must always be the help and sustainment and joy of a soul that is thoroughly beaten out of itself when its evil is truly judged before God. But it often takes a long while to break a man down to that point. Hence it is that many feel difficulties about it, unless perhaps on their deathbed. Then at least, if anywhere, man is true. God is true always; but man (I am speaking now only of such as are born of God) then parts company with those visions, or rather fitful shadows, which had disordered and misled him during the activities of life. Then indeed he realizes what he is as well as what God is. Accordingly, if he lose all confidence in himself in every possible way, it is only to enjoy a confidence, never so well known before, in God Himself.
We Must Leave Room for Man’s Responsibility and for God’s Promises
This is precisely what we find here in the reasonings of the Apostle Paul. It is naturally offensive to the pride of man’s heart, and more particularly to a Jew’s. For, had they not received magnificent promises from God? It was a great difficulty to them, and it sounds very natural and formidable, how it was possible that the promises of God should—I may not say fail, but—seem to fail. But this came from looking simply at themselves with the promises of God. We must remember that the Bible does not contain merely the promises—it largely consists, and particularly the Old Testament, of a divine history of the responsibility of man. We must leave room for both, so as not to let the responsibility of man overthrow the promises of God; but, on the other hand, not to neutralize the responsibility of the one because of the promises of the other.
The tendency of all men is to become what people call either Armenians or Calvinists; and a hard thing it is to hold the balance of truth without wavering to either side. There is nothing, however, too hard for the Lord; and the Word of God is the unfailing preservative from either one or the other. I am perfectly persuaded—spite of partisans who think only their own views, or free-thinkers who have no difficulty in allowing that both are there—that neither Arminianism nor Calvinism is in the Bible, and that they are both thoroughly wrong without even the smallest justification. The fact is that the tendency to either is deeply seated in unrenewed minds—that is, the same man may be an Armenian at one time and a Calvinist at another; and it is likely that, if he has been a violent Armenian one day, he may become a violent Calvinist tomorrow. But the roots of both lie in man and in his one-sidedness. The truth of God is in His Word as the revelation of Christ by the Spirit, and nowhere else.
National Election in the Absolute and Exclusive Sense Set Aside in Romans 9
So it will be observed in Romans 9 how completely the Apostle sets aside the Jewish misuse of the promises of God. By a chain of the most convincing facts and testimonies of the Old Testament urged in this wonderful chapter, he compels the Jew to abandon the flattering conceit of national election, used absolutely and exclusively as was his wont; for really it is a conceit of himself after all. If they hold to the exclusive pretensions of Israel as simply deriving from Abraham in the line of flesh (which was their point), in that case they must accept others to be their companions; for Abraham had more sons than Isaac, and Isaac had another son than Jacob. The ground of flesh therefore is utterly indefensible. A mere lineal descent would have let in the Ishmaelites, for instance; and of them the Jew would not hear. If he pleaded that Ishmael sprang from Hagar, a slave, be it so; but what of Edom, born of the same mother as well as father, of Isaac and Rebecca, twin brother of Jacob himself? Consequently, the ground taken was palpably unsound and untenable. We must therefore fall back upon the sole resource for man’s evil and ruin—God’s sovereignty and gracious call. This was so much the more in point, because there was a time, even in the early history of the chosen people, when nothing less than God could have preserved it and given a ray of hope. It was not the Ishmaelites, not the Edomites, not the Gentiles, but Israel, who made the calf of gold. Had God dealt with them according to what they had been there to Him, must there not have been utter and immediate destruction? It is referred to now because of the moral principles connected with the citation of Hosea in Romans 9; and indeed all these truths appear to me to run together in the mind of the Spirit of God. If therefore we would understand the prophecy, we must follow and receive that which may seem discursively pursued in the New Testament, but which really was before the inspiring Spirit here too.
In a Day of Ruin Prophecy Shines Out
Consequently, we have in the prophet what was true morally from the beginning of their sad history. It was now verging towards the bitter end of Israel, with Judah’s ruin in full view. The very fact of prophets being raised up proved that the end was approaching; for prophecy only comes in with departure from God. There is no such form of revelation as prophecy when things run smooth and fair; nor is it then, morally speaking, required. What we have in days of comparative fidelity is the setting forth of privilege and duty; but when the privilege is despised and the duty not done, when God’s people are in evident guilt, and judgment must follow, prophecy comes to tell of God’s judging the evil, but with mercy and yet better blessing to the obedient remnant. This is true in principle even of the garden of Eden. God did not speak of the Seed of the woman till Adam was fallen; and so, when Israel had transgressed like Adam, prophecy shines out. If the ruin were before Moses’ eyes, as indeed it was, prophecy was vouchsafed to the lawgiver himself, as we see conspicuously in the end of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, not to speak of the wondrous burst through Balaam’s mouth in the close of Numbers. Afterward, when God had brought in every new form of blessing to kings raised up in grace to sustain the people, yet the ruin was only more decided. Prophecy too assumes a more comprehensive, systematic, and complete shape. A whole host of prophets, one might say, appears at this time; mighty prophetic utterances warned the people when outwardly things seemed strong, but all was over before God, who therefore caused the alarm to be sounded with a remarkable and persistent urgency. The trumpet, as it were, was blown for Jehovah all over the land; and thus Hosea, as we know, was the contemporary of Amos, Micah, Isaiah, and perhaps other prophets at this time. There had been one even earlier still, as we may see if we compare the history. There was a peculiar reason for not putting the earliest first in order, which I hope to explain when I arrive at his book.
There Also Is the Occasion for Divine Grace
Already, then, the ruin was such that God’s sovereignty was the only sure ground which could be taken. Hence we have seen that the Apostle Paul uses this to point out not merely the resource of grace for Israel, but that on Israel’s failure it was perfectly open to God to go out to the Gentiles. For this is what Paul quotes the passage for in Romans 9:23-2423And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, 24Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Romans 9:23‑24): “That He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath called, not of the Jews only.” From the moment God falls back on His own sovereignty the ground is as open for a Gentile as for a Jew. God is not sovereign if He may not choose whom He pleases. If He is sovereign, then it is but natural that His sovereignty should display itself where it would be most conspicuous.
The call of the Gentiles furnishes this occasion; for if they were worst, as they certainly were utterly degraded, for this very reason they were most fit objects for the exercise of the divine sovereignty in grace. “Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? As he saith also in Osee, I will call them My people, which were not My people, and her beloved which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not My people, there shall they be called the children of the living God” (Rom. 9:24-2624Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? 25As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. 26And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. (Romans 9:24‑26)). It is evident that verse 25 the Apostle interprets of the future call of Israel, the reinstatement of the people of God on a better footing than ever in sovereign grace; but he also applies verse 26 to the Gentiles.
“Sons” a Characteristic Title of the Called Gentiles
Thus all is here set out in the most orderly method. “Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles” (Rom. 9:2424Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Romans 9:24)). “And it shall come to pass [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye [are] not My people, there shall they be called the sons of the living God” (Rom. 9:2626And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God. (Romans 9:26)). Consequently, sonship is far more characteristic of the call of the Gentile than of the Jew. Thus in the change (not a little one, as I was going to say, but very great indeed), in the avoidance of the expression “people” and the employment of “sons,” God with the most admirable propriety, intimates by His prophet that when He was going to work in grace He would work worthily of His name. He would bring Gentiles not merely into the place of Israel, but into a better standing. Granted that they were the vilest of the vile: even so grace could and would raise them into the nearest relationship to God Himself. Then they should be not a mere substitute for Israel, but “the sons of the living God” (vs. 10)—a title never given in its full force to any but the Gentiles who are now being called.
In a vague and general sense, as compared with distant Gentiles, Israel is called son, child, firstborn; but this merely as a nation, whereas “sons” is individual. The expression, “In the place....Ye are the ... sons of the living God” (vs. 10) in the latter part of verse 10, is what has been already spoken of as the dim allusion to the call of the Gentiles, but it is so dim that many persons swamp it all together, making it bear on Israel. It might have been viewed as referring to Israel if God had said, “Then they shall be Ammi.” He does not, however, say this, but “sons of the living God” (vs. 10).
Paul’s Use of Hosea Compared With Peter’s
Such is the point of the Apostle Paul; and what confirms this as the true interpretation is, that Peter also quotes from our prophet, and indeed was writing to a remnant of Jews only, as the Apostle Paul was writing in his own proper place to Gentiles. Peter, however, though he does quote Hosea, omits the words, “They shall be called the sons of the living God.” See 1 Peter 2:1010Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. (1 Peter 2:10): “Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.” For his object he quotes from chapter 2, not from chapter 1.
This strikingly falls in with what has been already observed, that the first chapter shows not merely the restoration of Israel (perfectly true as this is, and therefore in no way to be combated), but in a mysterious way room left by God for the bringing in of the Gentiles too. By the form of the allusion, which might very easily be overlooked, He proves His perfect knowledge beforehand, and makes a communication to us of the call of the Gentiles in their own proper distinctive relationship as sons of the living God, and not merely His people.
Hence it is that Peter, writing to Christian Jews, only gives the latter. Although they had lost their place of people of God through idolatry—and certainly the rejection of the Messiah did not mend matters, but rather confirmed the righteous sentence of God, that the little remnant which had come back were as bad as their fathers, or even worse, for they certainly perpetrated a greater crime in the rejection of their own Messiah—yet grace is come in, and they who have received the Messiah rejected but glorified, “are now the people of God.” (1 Pet. 2:1010Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. (1 Peter 2:10)). But he does not go farther, because he simply takes them up as persons who had by grace entered in faith into the privileges of Israel before Israel. They had received the Messiah; they were the remnant of that people. They who were not a people had become now a people; they who had not obtained mercy have now obtained mercy. But Paul, writing to the Gentiles, avails himself in a most appropriate way of what Peter passes by—not of Hosea 2:2323And I will sow her unto me in the earth; and I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy; and I will say to them which were not my people, Thou art my people; and they shall say, Thou art my God. (Hosea 2:23), but of Hosea 1:1010Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, Ye are the sons of the living God. (Hosea 1:10), which intimates the call of Gentiles in yet greater depth of mercy. At the same time, he takes care to show that the Jew will require the very same ground of sovereign grace to bring him in by and by as we have for coming in now.
“Brethren,” “Sisters,” and “Your Mother”
The prophet, it is well to observe, appears to point out Israel’s future restoration immediately after in a slightly different phraseology, which I think ought to be noticed. “Then,” he says (that is, when God has brought in the Gentiles; as we have seen), “Then shall the children of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land” (vs. 11). Their restoration to the land is made evident here, their being joined—not only Judah, but even reprobate Ephraim—into Israel as a whole. “For great shall be the day of Jezreel” (vs. 11). The very name of Jezreel, which was before a term of reproach and initiatory judgment, is now turned by the grace of God into a title of infinite mercy, when they shall be indeed the seed of God, not for scattering only but for the rich harvest of blessing that is to characterize the millennial day. Such is the first chapter.