Hosea 1 - 3

Hosea — Steve Gregg

Next in this series

Hosea 4 - 9

00:00

Hosea 1 - 3

HoseaSteve Gregg

Exploring the book of Hosea, Steve Gregg provides insights into the compassionate message of the prophet. Gregg reflects on the marital status of Hosea and highlights the significance of his actions in delivering God's message. He discusses the historical prologue in the first three chapters, shedding light on the context of Israel's harlotry and the consequences they faced. Gregg also draws parallels to the New Testament, emphasizing the transformative power of the new covenant and the inclusion of both Jews and Gentiles as God's children.

Transcript

Okay, this morning we're going to be studying the book of Hosea. This should take about two of our sessions to cover. It has fourteen chapters, quite a large number of chapters, but not too many pages.

The chapters are not extremely long. And it is one of those minor prophets like Amos, which carries a message to the northern kingdom of Israel before its fall. Hosea arose about the latter time of Amos' ministry.

They were contemporary for a little while. Their ministries overlapped. Hosea was a little later and lasted a little longer.

Hosea also, unlike Amos, prophesied against Judah as well. It is assumed, although we're not told that this is so, it is assumed that Hosea was a native of the northern kingdom. Unlike Amos, Amos was a native of the southern kingdom and went to the northern kingdom to prophesy.

It's not really known for sure where Hosea hailed from, but most scholars would agree that he is from the northern kingdom, prophesied to the northern kingdom. Which may account for his greater degree of tenderness and gentleness in dealing with the fallen nation of Israel than Amos exhibited. Amos was very straightforward and severe in just about everything he said.

Whereas Hosea is stressing the love and the kindness of God and the mercy and the forgiveness of God. Perhaps this is because Hosea is addressing his own people and Amos had crossed national borders to give a message to people that were not his own people. I don't know.

We know that Jonah was contemporary with Amos and Hosea, at least a certain period of time, during the reign of Jeroboam II. These three prophets, Jonah, Hosea and Amos, are the only prophets in our Bible, that is the only writing prophets who left books for our Bible, who were distinctly sent to the northern kingdom. Although, as I said, Hosea also has some things to say to Jerusalem and to Judea, or Judah, the southern kingdom.

The book of Hosea is characterized by an interesting story about the man himself. We find that in the prophets, some of them are asked to act out their messages. They're not just to give a sermon, they're supposed to live a sermon.

And there were times when even the major prophets had to do this. Jeremiah was required to wear an ox yoke over his neck for a while. Isaiah was told to walk around naked with his buttocks exposed for three years.

Ezekiel did all kinds of strange things that were to enact the messages that he had. And we find other cases of this, but among the minor prophets, principally Hosea is notable for having had to live out his message. The way in which he was required to do it had to do with his marital status.

The marital status of the prophets is very frequently an issue. Isaiah had a wife who bore him some children whose names were symbolic. And the names of Isaiah's children carry a message, part of his message.

The same is true of Hosea. He had a wife who bore him some children, and the meaning of their names is also symbolically part of his message. Jeremiah was told specifically not to marry.

Ezekiel was married, and his wife died, and he was told not to mourn for her, because her death was a symbol of the seed of Jerusalem and the downfall of that God's wife. And so we can see that the wives of the prophets often figure into their prophecies in one way or another. Probably none so much, however, as Hosea's wife, Goma.

This is the only prophet whose wife is named for us, that is, her name is given, Goma. And she is not a good woman. We presume that Ezekiel's wife and Isaiah's wife were good.

I mean, Isaiah's wife was a prophetess, we're told. But Hosea's wife was a prostitute. And he apparently knew that she would be a prostitute even before he married her.

God told her to marry her, and in the very command, he called her a woman of harlotry, or a woman of adultery, an adulterous woman. And he was told to marry an adulterous woman. Now, whether she was already an adulteress before he married her, some people, for instance, say that she may have been a temple prostitute in one of the pagan temples in Israel, and he was told to take her, or whether she was a virtuous young virgin when he married her, we don't know.

But it's quite clear that she became a woman of adultery. And so whether the statement, take yourself a wife of harlotry, means she's already a harlot before he takes her, or that she's a wife who becomes a harlot, has never been really determined by scholars. There seems to be debate over it, and it's not really important for us to resolve that question.

The important thing is that he marries a wife who proves to be adulteress. This adultery results in a separation between him and his wife. But he is told later on in chapter 3 to take her back.

And his showing mercy again to his unfaithful wife is seen as a symbol of God showing mercy again to Israel, who has been an unfaithful wife to him. God married Israel, and many of the prophets have brought this out. Ezekiel 16 brings this out, that God married Israel.

Jeremiah chapters 1 and 2 talk about this. Isaiah chapter 50 talks about this. It's not uncommon at all for the prophets to use the imagery of Israel being God's wife.

Hosea, however, actually acts out this message. He takes a wife who represents Israel. His wife commits adultery, as Israel committed spiritual adultery against God in worshipping other gods.

Hosea takes her back, as God promises to take his people back. And those are the three basic ideas of the book. God took a wife, she committed adultery, thus bringing about estrangement and alienation, and he will restore.

Now, Amos had been telling the people before Hosea that God was going to judge Israel. Hosea echoes that. But Hosea emphasizes more that even though God judges Israel and puts her away, it grieves him to do so.

He still loves her, he still pines over the loss of his wife, and he wishes that she would come back, and ultimately he will restore her. So Hosea has more of a message of compassion, love, mercy, and restoration than Amos does, although Amos also, at the very end of the book of Amos, gives a bright prophecy of the Messianic age. So does Hosea, so do all the prophets, actually.

But Hosea emphasizes this more. Now, the book of Hosea can be broken into three parts of very unequal length. The first part is chapters one through three.

This would be the historical prologue to the book, a little bit like the first two chapters of Job. The majority of Job is taken up with discussion and debate, philosophizing, but it begins with a prologue, with two chapters telling some historical information about what happened to Job. So also with Hosea, the bulk of the book is prophesied in discussion.

But the first three chapters give us a historical background, and it has to do with Hosea's own marriage. In chapter one, he marries the woman, and she bears him three children. In chapter two, an oracle is spoken against her.

In chapter three, he restores her. So the first three chapters give this whole historical account, and then we have nothing more in the whole book of Hosea concerning Hosea's marriage. It's all contained in the first three chapters.

So that's the historical prologue. Then, in chapters four through 13, these are the prophecies of doom on Israel and also on Judah, mostly on Israel. We could call this God's controversy with his people, where, like Amos and like other prophets, Hosea names some of their sins that have offended God and tells what God is going to do about it.

This is the lengthiest portion. The third section is the last chapter, chapter 14, which stands quite naturally as a unit, because it changes its tone right off. It talks about restoration.

God's gracious pardon of his adulterous wife, Israel. Now, none of the commentaries I've ever read on this subject have ever pointed this out, but as I was studying it last night, it seemed to me like a further observation could be made about its structure. Now, realize, of course, the chapter divisions are somewhat arbitrary, but not entirely.

Even though the chapter divisions were not inspired, they were based upon clear changes in mood or in subject matter in most cases. And it's interesting that the historical prologue has three chapters. Each of those chapters, I think, corresponds to one of these three parts of the book.

If you'll notice, chapter one is a historical prologue to the first three chapters, in a sense, just as the first three chapters are historical prologues to the rest of the book. Chapter one gives most of the historical information upon which the other two chapters are based. So there's a sense in which chapter one stands in relation to the first three chapters in the same way that the first three chapters stand in relationship to the whole book.

So, to put it another way, the first section of the book, which is chapters one through three, can be seen to correspond to chapter one, in the sense that both are historical prologues to the sections that they introduce. I hope that's not confusing, and maybe less so after I finish out this observation. The second chapter, which of course is still in the historical prologue, but the second chapter seems to correspond to the second part of the book, namely chapters four through thirteen, which is God's controversy against Israel.

Chapter two, the second chapter of the prologue, seems to correspond in subject matter and in nature to the second section of the book, chapters four through thirteen. Interestingly, chapter two begins, well, in verse two anyway, chapter two, verse two begins, "...bring charges against your mother, for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband." Now, here, Hosea is speaking against his wife, Gomer, and he says, "...bring charges against her." Notice chapter four, which begins the second section of the book. Look at chapter four, verse one.

"...Hear the word of the Lord, you children of Israel, for the Lord brings a charge against the inhabitants of the land." Whereas chapter two, Hosea brings charges against his wife, in chapter four, God brings charges against the people of the land, which simply seems to confirm what I suggested, that chapter two is God's controversy, or Hosea's controversy against his wife, just as chapters four through thirteen are God's controversy against Israel. And then the third chapter, which is very short, only five verses long, describes Hosea's restoration of his wife, and even closes with a reference to the Messianic age. That is true of the last section of the book of Hosea also, chapter fourteen.

It talks about God's restoration of Israel and of the Messianic age. So, as I said, you could pretty much break the book down into three easily identifiable sections. The historical prologue, which in a way corresponds to chapter one.

The controversy of God against his people in chapters four through thirteen, which sort of corresponds in subject matter to chapter two. And the third section, which corresponds to chapter three, is the restoration and mercy and pardon that is promised. So, the historical prologue that we will now look at in Hosea is in a sense an outline of the whole book.

It is as though it is taken up again beginning in chapter four, the controversy is then expanded from Hosea's wife to apply it to Israel. Now, one thing I want to point out, several things that will help you in understanding the book. Hosea has certain code names he uses in addressing entities, and they are repeatable, they are repeated, so that if you don't know what they mean, it might be confusing.

Now, one that you should be familiar with is the name Ephraim. Ephraim, of course, was one of the ten tribes of the northern kingdom, but it was the chief of the ten tribes of the northern kingdom, it was the largest. And therefore, sometimes the northern kingdom itself is simply called Ephraim.

We are more familiar with it being called Israel. The name it was usually called by was Israel, but sometimes the prophets, and especially Hosea, speaks of that kingdom as Ephraim. And so, when you encounter the name Ephraim, realize you are simply finding another name for Israel, or sometimes he calls the nation Jacob, but he means the northern kingdom.

And whenever he says Ephraim, he is meaning in distinction from the southern kingdom of Judah, which he also addresses at times. So one of the names you need to be aware of that he uses quite a bit is Ephraim, and when he does, he means the northern kingdom. Another name that occurs a couple of times is Beth-Avon.

In chapter 4, verse 15, it says, Though you, Israel, play the harlot, let not Judah offend. Do not come up to Gilgal, nor go up to Beth-Avon. Beth-Avon is a derogatory nickname for Bethel.

Bethel is where the golden calf was, and where the center of golden calf worship was. And Bethel means, of course, house of God. Beth-Avon means house of wickedness.

So rather than referring to this place where the golden calf was as the house of God, which is what the name Bethel suggests, the prophet prefers to call it Beth-Avon, the house of wickedness. Some translators translate it as the house of nothingness, rather than the house of God. Bethel, which had been the place where Jacob had first met God, and entered into covenant with God, where the covenant was first stated verbally to Jacob, the man Jacob, now whose descendants had corrupted it, ceased to be the house of God, it was now the house of nothingness, or the house of wickedness, and thus Hosea calls it that in chapter 4 and verse 15.

Also again in chapter 5, verse 8, blow the ram's horn in Gibeah, the trumpet in Ramah, cry aloud as Beth-Avon. Again, Bethel is intended. So that's another name that Hosea uses.

Another one that you'll encounter a couple of times, at least in the King James, I think, in the New King James, although I've noticed the NIV removes it, just because they translate it instead. But in chapter 5 and verse 13, chapter 5, verse 13, it says, When Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judah saw his wound, then Ephraim went to Assyria, and sent to King Jerob. King Jerob is not a proper name of any king in Assyria.

But it is used twice in Hosea. It's used there and also in chapter 10, verse 6. Chapter 10, verse 6, he says, The idols shall also be carried to Assyria as a present for King Jerob. King Jerob, Jerob actually means striving or contention.

And it's used as a symbolic name for Assyria. And the reason why this name is given to the king of Assyria is not exactly clear. It might be because God was offended that Israel was going to the king of Assyria for help, and saw it as part of Israel striving against God, or contending against God.

This man that they went to instead of God was a symbol of their striving against God, or their contention against Him. That's possibly a reason why he's referred to as King Striving. Or, on the other hand, it may have something to do with the character of the king of Assyria himself, that he was a warlike king, and liked to pick a fight, and strove with other nations a great deal.

It's not entirely clear. It may be ironic, because the Israelites turned to the king of Assyria for assistance, but he will only contend with them, or strive with them. He won't be a help to them.

He will ultimately bring strife and contention and war upon them. Whatever the reason, we find the name. And I just thought I'd alert you to it, because King Jerob is not a proper name of any of the kings of Assyria, or anyone else in the Bible.

It is simply a symbolic name that Hosea uses. So those are some of the things you'll find in his language. Apart from those observations, we need to make no other introductory remarks.

We don't know much about the man's personal history, except his marriage and his children. And so we'll go right into the historical prologue in the first three chapters right now. The word of the Lord that came to Hosea, the son of Beri, in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, the kings of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king of Israel.

Now, the reason he mentions the kings of Judah and of Israel is because he's got a message to both of those nations, and he wants to set his prophecies in the proper chronological perspective from the viewpoint of both sides. The kings of Judah that he names are exactly the same kings that are named in the beginning of Isaiah, as the kings during whose reign Isaiah prophesied. So we can see that Hosea's ministry was exactly contemporary with that of Isaiah, spanning the reigns of the same four kings.

But, of course, there was a difference in location. Isaiah was in Jerusalem. Hosea was in the northern kingdom.

But those are the kings in Judah during his reign. And then the days of Jeroboam, who in this case is Jeroboam II, quite clearly. Not Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, who was the first Jeroboam, but Jeroboam, the son of Joash, who was the second Jeroboam.

And the same king who reigned in Israel when Amos and Jonah were prophesying that. So it's interesting that he only mentions Jeroboam because since his prophecies extended into the reign of Hezekiah in the southern kingdom, it actually went beyond the reign of Jeroboam in the northern kingdom. But he only mentions Jeroboam.

Apparently the majority of his prophecies affected the reign of Jeroboam or Prophet at that time. Now, when the Lord began to speak by Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, Go take yourself a wife of Harlotry and children of Harlotry, for the land has committed great Harlotry by departing from the Lord. So he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son.

Then the Lord said to him, Call his name Jezreel, for in a little while I will avenge the bloodshed of Jezreel on the house of Jehu and bring an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel. It shall come to pass in that day that I will break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel. And she conceived again and bore a daughter.

Then God said to him, Call her name Loruhamma, for I will no longer have mercy on the house of Israel, but I will utterly take them away. Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah and will save them by the Lord their God and will not save them by the bow nor by sword or battle, by horses or horsemen. Now when she had weaned Loruhamma, she conceived and bore a son.

Then God said, Call his name Loahmi, for you are not my people and I will not be your God. Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, You are not my people, there it shall be said to them, You are the sons of the living God.

Then the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together and appoint for themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel. Say to your brethren, My people, and to your sisters, Your mercy is shown. Okay, that includes the first verse of chapter 2 because that really is a paragraph division here.

Okay, what has happened here? God tells him, first of all, to go and take a wife who would be adulterous. And in all likelihood, her harlotry, mentioned here in verse 2 of chapter 1, is future, not a reference to her present state. The reason I say that is because the children of harlotry that are mentioned are certainly future.

Hosea is told to take a wife, and he is already told what the result will be. It will turn out that she will be a wife who commits adultery. It will turn out that she will bear children from her adultery.

And it says, for the land has committed harlotry by the power of the Lord. So right off, the Lord gives him the meaning of the symbolism. Now, God requires this man to actually get married to a woman that's going to bring misery to him, which shows how costly it can be to be called to be a prophet and to have to live off the message that God calls you to.

But, you know, it might seem strange that God would call a man into a life that would be miserable in terms of his marriage and everything because God has had to experience that, and there's a sense in which we enter into deeper fellowship with God when we fellowship with him in his sufferings. I remember my first marriage was this way. My first wife was adulteress, and I determined I wouldn't divorce her.

Eventually she left, as I'm sure you know the story. I've told it, alluded to it before anyway. Yet before she left, I had no idea that our marriage would ever break up as far as I knew we'd be married for life.

And yet it was a miserable kind of a marriage, obviously. There was no faithfulness in it on her side. And, you know, I could never trust her out of my sight with other people.

And I know how difficult it can be to be married to a wife of harlotry like Hosea. And I remember thinking at the time, Lord, why would you require this? I mean, what is the reason that you put me in a marriage like this? Now, of course, someone could argue that I shouldn't have married her, and it wasn't God who did it. That might be correct.

I'm not sure. I did pray, certainly, beforehand, and the prophet was leading me into it, but that's a different issue. I don't really care to speculate.

It's fruitless to try to decide whether I was right or wrong in getting married. I thought I was doing the Lord's will at the time. But at any rate, I knew that after having married her, it was the Lord's will for me to remain faithful.

And I thought, God, why would you take a person in the ministry like I am and put him in such an adverse domestic situation, especially in view of the fact that elders and leaders in the church are supposed to have model families. And I asked the Lord about that, and I felt that he reminded me of Hosea at that time and told me that sometimes it's the only way that we can really draw near to him is for us to suffer in some of the ways he has. God has suffered reproach because of having an adulterous wife, Israel, and also since the time of Israel, even the church, the Bride of Christ, has not been all that pure.

And so there's a sense in which those who suffer in this way can enter into the sufferings of Christ with him, can experience the same thing he goes through. Paul said that he wished to know Christ in the power of his resurrection and in the fellowship or the companionship of his suffering. This is in Philippians 3.10. And Hosea was called to fellowship with God, in the fellowship of God's suffering.

And this would bring him into a more intimate place with God. It would break his own heart as God's heart was broken. It would make him a gentler, more God-like individual.

And so God told him right off, you're going to marry this woman, but she's going to be a harlot. She's going to bear illegitimate children too, children of harlotry. However, the first child was apparently his own, it would seem.

It says that he took Gomer and she conceived and bore him a son. The fact that she bore him a son suggests that he was the father of the first child. Notice the other children.

It doesn't say who the father was. In verse 6, she conceived again and bore a daughter, but it doesn't say by whom she conceived or who she bore the daughter for. Also in verse 8, now when she had weaned Luluhamma, she conceived and bore a son.

The second two children, the father is not named. But the children are named, and their names seem to indicate they're illegitimate. Luluhamma, the name of the daughter in verse 6, the name literally means no mercy.

And particularly, Luluhammi, the son born in verse 8 or verse 9, the name Luluhammi means not my people or no kin of mine. Now imagine a man naming a child that, no kin of mine. It's as though Hosea is told to acknowledge that this son is not his son.

This son is not his child and neither is Luluhamma. Certainly a man cannot fail to have mercy on his own daughter. But this girl would not receive mercy because she was not his daughter.

Now this does not imply that Hosea did not remain a good father to these children or didn't care for them or whatever. We're talking about the symbolism of their birth and of their naming. As far as we know, Hosea remained their father and probably raised them.

And as they were being raised, their names were known among the people of their town. And their names were a message. And the message is this.

Well, we'll not talk about the second two first. Let's talk about Jezreel first. The first name is Jezreel.

Now this is probably Hosea's own legitimate child because she bore him that child. And he says, name him Jezreel for a little while. I will avenge the bloodshed of Jezreel on the house of Jehu.

Now Jehu was the one whom God appointed. Remember he was anointed by one of the prophets who was sent by Elisha. Jehu was a military general in the northern kingdom.

And he was anointed by a prophet and told his mission was to wipe out the house of Ahab. Now Ahab had been dead already, but Jezebel was still alive, living in Jezreel. And apparently her household, the offspring of Ahab, were still living in Jezreel.

And Jehu got the armies on his side and he went to Jezreel. He had Jezebel thrown from the upper window and she was killed. And he slew all the seed of Ahab there.

Now that was the right thing for him to do. That's what God called him to do. However, we remember that Jehu got a little overzealous about this.

He started killing other people who were just friends of Ahab. In other words, he ceased to act strictly as an agent of God's judgment and began to act for political expediency to do what other kings would do to establish their reign. And he became bloodthirsty and shed innocent blood.

And he even killed... remember certain people were coming up from Jerusalem to see the king in the north. They didn't know he'd been killed. And Jehu slew them too.

So Jehu turned Jezreel into a bloodbath beyond measure. He did execute the judgment of God against the house of Ahab, as he was supposed to do. But the bloodshed of Jezreel was not all justly shed.

It was innocent blood in some cases. So the house of Jehu, God pronounced a curse on it too. Now, there was a blessing on it, because he zealously carried out the judgment against Ahab's household.

Jehu was told that his children would sit on the throne to the fourth generation. Jeroboam II was the fourth generation. And he was ruling at the time that Hosea prophesied.

And so Hosea said it's now time for judgment to come on the house of Jehu also, which would mean Jeroboam, the present ruler. Of course, Jehu was dead by the time Hosea lived, but his offspring Jeroboam was reigning, and this was time for judgment to come upon that house, that bloody house. He said, bring an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel.

So the fall of Jeroboam and of the house of Jehu was simply a precursor of the greater fall of the entire kingdom, which would happen, of course, some generations later. So there's a short-term judgment anticipated. Naming his son Jezreel calls to mind, calls to remembrance, that bloody and unjust thing that was done there by the ancestor of Jeroboam and becomes the springboard for this message that Jeroboam is going to fall.

And not only that, but eventually the whole kingdom of Israel is going to fall because Jeroboam is not an isolated case, nor Jehu. Every king in Israel has been just as wicked. Yes? Is the fall of Jehu's house a retreat to answer the fall of Israel? Yes, he's talking here in verse 4 about avenging the bloodshed of Jezreel on the house of Jehu.

That means the house of Jehu is going to be punished. Now, the house of Jehu means Jeroboam II, because Jehu was long dead. Jeroboam was four generations later, but Jeroboam was the king at this time.

So what's being predicted is that the house of Jehu, namely Jeroboam, the dynasty that Jehu had established, is going to be destroyed. And that is really only the destruction of one dynasty. The northern kingdom had several dynasties before and after this, but it's saying that as this is going to happen to this dynasty, so is it eventually going to happen to the whole kingdom, it says.

I will bring to an end the kingdom of the house of Israel. Judging the house of Jehu doesn't mean that Jehu himself is still alive, any more than when the prophets speak of bringing judgment on the house of David. David was long dead when those prophets spoke, but it meant whoever was the current king, the current descendant of David at the time in Jerusalem.

So also the house of Jehu refers to the representative of his dynasty at that time on the throne. Now, the name Jezreel literally means God sows, or Jehovah sows. That is not particularly important to understanding this part of the prophecy, but the name Jezreel comes up again later in the book in a connection where it is a play on the word God sows.

But we'll wait and discuss that at the time. So the first child apparently is a legitimate child and is named Jezreel to speak of the fact that there will be judgment on the northern kingdom. The second child is a daughter.

Strong indications are given that she is not Hosea's own, because remember God had said in verse 2 that this woman would bear children of harlotry. Well, two children were born who apparently were of harlotry, of her immorality. One of them was Lo-Ruhamah, a daughter.

It means no mercy, and he says, because I will no longer have mercy on the house of Israel, and I will utterly take them away. Yet I will have mercy on the house of Judah. Now, he's saying essentially Judah is not yet quite ripe for judgment as the northern kingdom is.

The northern kingdom is very near to being destroyed, and this by the Assyrians, of course. But the southern kingdom was not ready, therefore the Assyrians would not destroy Judah. And he makes reference to something that we know more about from the historical books when he says in verse 7 here, Yet I will have mercy on Judah, and I will save him by the Lord their God, and will not save them by the bow, or by the sword, or by battle, but by horsemen, nor by horses or horses.

Now, what is he talking about there? Anyone think of a historical thing that that might be referring to? When the Assyrians destroyed the northern kingdom, which is predicted in verse 6, the Assyrians then went down to Judah, wiped out a whole bunch of the cities of Judah, and then came against Jerusalem. And they camped against it. But Jerusalem was not quite ripe for judgment, as the prophet here says.

And God spared Judah because Hezekiah the king prayed, and they were spared, but not by battle, not by bow, not by horses or horsemen, or by sword. They were saved by an angel of the Lord going out and smiting the Assyrians outside. This is 2 Kings 19.35, it records this.

And that's what Hosea is referring to. He's not specific, but he says that God will save them without warfare, implied against the same enemy that will destroy Israel, the northern kingdom. So at this point he just mentions in passing Judah is not quite ripe.

Now, later on he has things to say against Judah. He does speak against Judah, but he simply says at this point that when Israel falls, Judah won't fall immediately, but God will spare them at this time. Judah did not fall during the Assyrian period, as did Israel.

Judah later fell during the Babylonian period. Now, the third child is again a son, and apparently also illegitimate. And so his name is called Lo-Ami, which means no kin of mine, or literally not my people.

And he says, for you are not my people, and I will not be your God. Now, I sometimes make an issue of this maybe more than you need to hear it, and that's because of my background and the things I've seen and heard from Christians. I always want to react to them.

Maybe if you haven't seen and heard the same things I have, then you might feel like I'm overreacting. But I have very frequently encountered the dispensational attitude toward Israel, that Israel, the people of Israel today, are God's chosen people, never mind that they don't believe in God, most of them. And the ones who do, most of them don't believe in Jesus.

Never mind that they're just as much in rebellion against Jesus Christ and his kingdom and his church as they ever were in the days of the Apostle Paul. Never mind any of those things. They're God's people anyway.

Because God had them as his people one time, they must be his people for all time and unconditionally. That is the view of many Christians today. And based on this view comes certain kinds of foreign policy, which is not necessarily all that righteous in some cases, and in many cases it certainly isn't Christian, supporting Israel in certain wars that they're involved in right now, for no other reason but that we think they're God's chosen people.

Well, are they God's chosen people today? Well, Hosea, of course, at this point is not necessarily addressing Israel today, but he's addressing Israel in his own day. Now, they had been God's chosen people, there's no question about it. They were descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

But what does he say about them? God says, you are not my people. And the name Lo-Ami, the name of this boy, represents this message. God has disowned them because of their unbelief and their apostasy.

You are not my people, I will not be your God. That's the message that accompanies the birth of this child. Just as this child was illegitimate, and the previous one too, so the Jews who are not worshippers of Jehovah, and today who are not obedient to Jesus Christ, are not God's people.

They're illegitimate children, as it were. Now, of course, that sounds like a very anti-Semitic remark, but it only really applies to the Jews who are unbelievers. The same could be said in the sense of Gentiles who are unbelievers.

We're not making a racial statement, we're simply saying that if people don't believe in Jesus Christ, and yet profess to be God's people, they're making a false claim. Because if they are not in obedience to Jesus Christ, or to God, and of course today, ever since Jesus came, it would be impossible to be obedient to God and disobedient to Jesus, because Jesus said, he that receives me, receives the Father's sentence. He that rejects me, rejects my Father's sentence.

It's always been such that if the Jews reject God, God rejects them. And ever since the coming of Jesus, the rejection of Jesus is the same thing as the rejection of God. And so, the Jews who don't believe in Jesus are simply not God's people.

If they claim to be God's people, or think of themselves as God's children, then they really are making an illegitimate claim, just like this child appeared to be Hosea's son, he was born by Hosea's wife, in Hosea's home, probably was raised in his house, but wasn't really his child. Did not have Hosea's blood in his veins, didn't have Hosea's nature. He was a totally different breed.

And so, Jesus said to the Jews of his own time, who were also apostates, they said, we have one Father, even God. We're not born of fornication. Remember that? That's in, what, John chapter 8? I'll turn to the verse number there.

Because God spoke of certain Israelites being born of fornication, like Hosea's children were. And the Jews resented the fact that they thought Jesus was implying that they were born of fornication. Let's see here.

John 8, verse 39. And following, they answered and said to him, Abraham is our father. Jesus said to them, if you were Abraham's children, you would do the works of Abraham.

But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I've heard from God. Abraham did not do this. You do the deeds of your father, in implying that your father is someone other than Abraham.

Then they said, we were not born of fornication. We have one Father, God. Now, Jesus implied they weren't children of Abraham, and they didn't quite understand what he meant.

He meant that they didn't belong to the spiritual seed of Abraham, because those who are of that seed do the same works as Abraham. The spiritual seed of Abraham is the church, as Paul tells us in Galatians chapter 3. And what Jesus is saying to the Jews of his day is, you're not in that seed, because you don't do what Abraham does. You don't have his faith.

Therefore, you don't really rightly have any claim to be the children of Abraham. Well, they didn't understand that, and they thought he was questioning the legitimacy of their Jewish birth, by saying they weren't children of Abraham, and they knew they could trace their genealogy back to him. So they said, we're not born of fornication.

What, are you accusing us of being children of polytheism? That's exactly what he was saying. And they claimed, we have God for our father. Then, of course, Jesus had to correct that.

Verse 42, he said, if God were your father, you would love me. But then down to verse 44, he says, you are of your father the devil. You have the outward appearance of being God's children, because you're in Israel, but you really have a different nature than God's children have.

You are born out of a period of Israel's harlotry, and compromise with demons, with idols, with the devil himself. And so you are like children of harlotry, he's saying to them. And they understood it as such and said, we're not.

But they were, in the same sense that Hosea said that the Jews were in his day. And as such, they were not God's kin. They are not God's people.

They are not the children of God. If you look at Romans chapter 6, no, chapter 9. Romans chapter 9, verse 8. You know, of course, Romans 9 is the beginning of several chapters long discussion about Israel's status to date. And in chapter 9, verse 8 of Romans, it says, that is, those who are the children of the flesh, meaning Abraham's children of the flesh, these are not the children of God.

But the children of the promise are counted as a seed. So he's saying, contrary to common beliefs, the children of the flesh from Abraham, namely the Jewish race, are not the children of God. At least not by virtue of simply being children of the flesh.

If they happen to be believers in Christ, they are. But that's totally unrelated to them being related to Abraham, because those of us who are unrelated to Abraham are also children of God. So what he's saying is that national descent from Israel, citizenship or having the bloodlines of national or natural Israel, is not anything that guarantees that people will be really God's people.

Now, these names, No Mercy and Not My People, come up in the remainder of this chapter and in chapter 2 in a prophecy about what God will do in claiming people who are not his people to be his people. Now, the language of chapter 1, verses 10 and 11 sounds like a restoration of the natural Israel, but I believe that we can compare several scriptures together to see this as a picture of the church. In chapter 1, verse 10, it says, Yet 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 in the place where it was said to them, You are not my people, which is what lo amimim, there it shall be said to them, You are the sons of the living God. Then the children of Judah and children of Israel shall be gathered together and appoint for themselves one head, and they shall come up out of the land, for great will be the day of Jezreel. It says, Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be numbered.

Is this talking about natural Israel or spiritual Israel? Well, it's going back to the promise that was made to Abraham, of course. Abraham was told that his children would be like the sand of the seashore, which cannot be numbered. And yet the New Testament tells us that the true seed of Abraham, to whom this applies, this great innumerable multitude, is not the natural seed, but the spiritual seed.

In Galatians 3, verse 16, Paul says, Unto Abraham and to his seed were the promises made. And he does not say to seeds as of many, but to thy seed, which is Christ. And then later in the same chapter, he points out that if you are Christ, that if you are in him, if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.

Verse 29, Galatians 3, 29. So the promises concerning the innumerable multitudes descended from Abraham apply to Christ and those who are in Christ who are the heirs according to the promise. The promises pertain to them.

Now, that seems to be the case anyway in this passage. He says the children of Israel, meaning the spiritual Israel, not the natural Israel. And remember, the natural Israel provided the germ community for the spiritual Israel.

The remnants of the natural Israel were the first to enter the spiritual Israel. The first members of the church, by far, tens of thousands of them. The first fruits of the church were all Jewish, part of the believing remnant of Israel.

But then, of course, we Gentiles have simply been grafted into that. We've just become part of that. The true Israel of God was the church on the day of Pentecost, the 3,000 Jews who were believers, as opposed to all the other Jews who weren't.

After that, many thousands more were added, and then eventually a few Gentiles began to trickle in. But what they became part of was this Israel, this spiritual Israel. They became proselytes, as it were, to the true Israel.

And now it happens that the trickle of Gentiles has changed into a great flood of Gentiles so that the Gentiles happen to outnumber the Jews, but it's still the same group, it's still the same entity, it's still the spiritual Israel. It's still the same olive tree, even though some natural branches have been broken off and some unnatural branches, Gentiles have been grafted in, it's still the same tree. This is the Israel of God.

So the Israel, the fulfillment of verse 10 is in the church, the Israel of God. Even though God will destroy natural Israel and disown them, he says, yet the true Israel will still be a multitude, innumerable multitude. And he says at the end of verse 10, In the place where it was said to them, You are not my people, there it shall be said to them, You are the sons of the living God.

Now, it sounds like he's just saying that those Jews in Hosea's day who were said to be not his people will be replaced someday by Jews that God will say, You are my people, you are my sons. But that's not what it's saying. What it's actually saying is that the Jews who at this time became not his people will be replaced with Gentiles who will become sons of the living God.

Those in the place where it was said to them, You are not my people, that is, people who were once not God's people, the Gentiles, will become children of God. Now, how dare I say that? Because Paul says that. He quotes this verse in Romans 9, beginning in verse 22 through 26.

Romans 9, 22 through 26. What if God, wanting to show his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? By the way, Hosea 8.8 refers to the Jews of his day as vessels in whom is no pleasure. The unbelieving Jews were the vessels of wrath, the vessels that God had no pleasure in.

Hosea 8.8 uses that expression speaking of them. Paul says, God endured for a long time with great patience these vessels of wrath so that he might make known, verse 23, the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy. Now, there are two kinds of vessels, those that are vessels of wrath and those that are vessels of mercy.

The natural Israel who rejects the Messiah are vessels of wrath. The ones who receive the Messiah are part of the true Israel, the vessels of mercy, who he has prepared beforehand for glory. Look at verse 24.

Even us, the church, whom he has called not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles. So the vessels of mercy started out with Jewish remnant, but also now includes Gentiles in this vessel. And then look at verses 25 and 26.

As he says in Hosea, I will call them my people who were not my people, and her beloved who was not beloved. And it shall come to pass in the place where it was said to them, you are not my people, there they will be called the sons of the living God. He quotes two different verses from Hosea here.

The first one he quotes is from Hosea 2, verse 23. And the second one he quotes is from Hosea 1, which we've just read. Hosea 1.10. He mixes them together.

But both of them talk about people who were not God's people later being called God's people. How is Paul using it? Of Gentiles. He's stressing the fact that God was going to include Gentiles among the vessels of mercy as well.

And he quotes Hosea to that effect to prove it. So even though Hosea's words may sound like he's saying to the same Jews who were not his people now, that they would later be called his people, Paul understands this passage in Hosea 1.10 to be talking about Gentiles who were not God's people in the Old Testament times becoming God's people under the new covenant in the new Israel. So that's what Hosea 1.10 and 11 are talking about.

Now what about verse 11 in this context? Hosea 1.11. Then the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together and appoint for themselves one head. Now, I don't know about you, but this reminds me very much of Ephesians 2.15. Israel and Judah are spoken of separately here, but probably because ever since the Babylonian captivity, all the Jews have been Judah with a few representatives of the other tribes. But for the most part, that's why we use the word Jews of them.

Jew comes from the word Judah. Remember, the northern kingdom was destroyed permanently. The southern kingdom of Judah, which was predominantly the tribe of Judah, went into captivity but came back.

And when Jesus came, it was only those people were left, really. I mean, there were some stragglers from the other tribes, but it was mainly the tribe of Judah that was represented. And still is, by the surviving Jews.

And that's why we call them Jews, because they're named after the tribe of Judah. So in mentioning Judah, he may refer to those who are what we call now Jews. In mentioning Israel, he's already used that term in verse 10 to speak of the spiritual Israel, which includes Gentiles.

So when he says Israel and Judah will be together, he may well be speaking of the joining of Jews and Gentiles under one head. He says they shall appoint for themselves one head. Now, many would see this as a prediction of the two kingdoms.

The northern and southern will be restored under the Messiah during the millennium. But as I understand it, this is referring to what Paul is referring to in Ephesians chapter 2, verse 15. In Ephesians 2, Paul is talking about how God has taken Jews and Gentiles and put them together in the church, and he puts it in this way.

Ephesians 2, verse 15 says, "...having abolished in his flesh the enmity or hostility, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, to create in himself," that is, in Christ, "...one new man," that is, one man who has only one head, "...from two, thus making peace." He takes the two, Jew and Gentile, puts them together into one man or one body, namely, under one head. And verse 16 says, "...that he might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross." So, this reference in Hosea 1, 11, to Judah and Israel, I think spiritual Israel has already been implied in verse 10, and that would include Gentiles, in fact, predominantly Gentiles. So, Jews and Gentiles together come under one head, in one body.

That's in the church. That's the mystery that Paul said wasn't clearly understood in the Old Testament, but it was certainly predicted. And there it is.

So, Hosea, the closing verses of Hosea 1, talk about the church. It speaks of God disowning natural Israel for their apostasy and choosing vessels of mercy among those who were not previously his people, who now become the children of God. Now, from this historical information, the birth of these three children, we get a prophetic oracle of contention.

Now, it seems to be Hosea contending against his wife. And most of what can be said can be understood that way, but of course we understand that it has a further application and further meaning of God contending with his wife, Israel. So, he says in chapter 2, verse 2, "...bring charges against your mother, for she is not my wife, nor am I her husband.

Let her put away her harlotries from her sight, and her adulteries from between her breasts, lest I strip her naked and expose her as in the day she was born." This refers to the same thing that Ezekiel talks about in chapter 16. He has an extended parable about how God found this naked baby, uncared for, and then he cleaned her up, dressed her nicely, fed her well. She grew up and went out and committed adultery.

Well, he says, "...I'll strip her naked and expose her as in the day she was born." Reminds us of the fact that when God found Israel, she was like, unclothed, exposed to the elements, vulnerable, weak, helpless. And he says that if she doesn't stop committing adultery, I'm going to restore her to that same original state. "...and make her a wilderness, and set her like a dry land, and slay her with thirst.

I will not have mercy on her children, for they are children of harlotry, for their mother has slayed the harlot." Now, that is true, of course, of Hosea's children, but it's also true of God's children. He speaks of them, the Jews, of a certain time, of them in a certain spiritual state, of being children of harlotry. And as I said, John 8, 41, the Jews seem to think Jesus is accusing them of being that.

"...their mother has slayed the harlot. She who conceived them has done shamefully, for she said, I will go after my lovers, who gave me my bread and my water, my wool and my linen and my oil and my drink." In other words, she gives the lovers, these other gods that she worships, credit for her prosperity, when it was really God who gave her her prosperity. So, he's offended that she not only commits adultery, but she goes and thanks the other gods for the things that God has blessed her with.

"...therefore, behold, I will hedge up your way with thorns and wall her in, so she cannot find her paths. She will chase her lovers, but not overtake them. Yes, she will seek them, but will not find them.

Then she will say, I will go and return to my first husband, for then it was better for me than now. For she did not know that I gave her grain, new wine and oil, and multiplied her silver and gold, which they prepared for Baal." That is, they gave these things as offerings to Baal, not knowing it was God who had given them those things. "...therefore, I will return and take away my grain in its time and my new wine in its season, and will take back my wool and my linen given to cover her nakedness.

Now I will uncover her lewdness in the sight of her lovers, and no one shall deliver her from my hand. I will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, her Sabbaths, all her appointed feasts. And I will destroy her vines and her fig trees, of which she said, these are my rewards that my lovers have given me.

So I will make them a forest, and the beasts of the field shall eat them. I will punish her for the days of the Baals, to which she burned incense. She decked herself with her earrings and jewelry and went after her lovers.

Then she forgot me, says the Lord." Now one of the things God says he's going to do ultimately is, in verse 6, hedge her up, wall her in, so that she is separated from her lovers, so she might pursue them and not find them. Hedging her in means that God is going to intervene to bring about separation between her and those sins or the temptations that she has. And he says, "...so that she will return to him." In verse 7, "...then she'll seek her first husband again, and she'll say, it was better for me then." Bill Gothard, whose seminars I've never attended, but I know much of what he teaches by second hand, has talked about something, I think he calls it, if what I've been told correctly represents his thinking, he talks about praying a hedge of thorns around someone.

If you're concerned about your children or someone who is facing temptation and you're afraid that they may fall, that you can pray a hedge of thorns around them, which will keep the enemy from getting at them, basically protect them, like Job was hedged about. Remember the devil complained that God had put a hedge around Job and that he couldn't get to him. And I believe that the scripture that is used to support this notion is Hosea 2.6, I will hedge up your way with thorns.

I believe that God puts a hedge around people and I believe there may indeed be legitimacy in praying that God will do so. But I don't think that's what Hosea is talking about here. I don't think this is the same kind of picture that we have in Job chapter 1, of Job being hedged about.

The hedge around Job was a blessing to him and a protection from invasion by the enemy. In this case, the hedge is to affect the one hedged in. It doesn't keep enemies out.

It keeps the one inside from pursuing those that are the enemies of God, really. And what it seems to mean is that I'm going to strew her path with thorns and make her way narrow, like a narrow way that there's walls and she's restricted to a narrow and constricted path. And it will be a hard path, a thorny path.

And he's basically saying he's going to bring hardship on her in her idolatry so that she will no longer be attracted to idolatry. And she'll say, it was better for me before, and she'll return to God. I think that's basically the meaning of the hedging of thorns here in this particular context.

And he speaks of the fact that they have given credit to Baal and to the other gods for the blessings that God has given them, therefore he's going to take those blessings away. Now, it's interesting because in Romans 11, 29, part of that discussion about God's dealing with Israel today, it mentions the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance, which is usually understood to mean that God, having chosen Israel, will never repent or recall or remove his gifts from them. And yet here he specifically says that the gifts he gave them, he's going to take away from them.

Now, what does Paul mean in Romans 11, 29 which is the gifts and the calling of God are without repentance? That's not entirely clear, but I think what it means is that God's call is still open. He hasn't stopped calling. His gifts are still available to them if they will turn to him.

And I think in the context of Romans 11, that's what's saying, that God hasn't revoked the offer to them. His calling of them and his gifts toward them are still available to them if they'll meet the conditions. But it doesn't mean that his calling them as his people is something that never changes regardless of their spiritual state.

Here he makes it very clear he takes away his gifts once they have been given, if they are abused, because she's forgotten the Lord. Now, verse 14, Therefore, behold, I will allure her and bring her into the wilderness and speak comfort to her. I will give her her vineyards from there and the valley of Achor as a door of hope.

She shall sing there as in the days of her youth and in the day that she came up out of the land of Egypt. In other words, I'm going to woo her again, all over again, just as I did when I brought her out of Egypt in the early days of our courtship. He says, I'm going to woo her all over again.

But this will be in the wilderness. This will be in a thorny way. He's going to woo her through affliction and hardship.

In verse 15, he says, The valley of Achor will be a door of hope. Achor means misfortune. And therefore, what he's saying is that by bringing them into this valley of misfortune, through these hardships that he's going to bring his judgments upon them, they will be chasings and they will be a doorway into a new hope.

It will bring about a change of heart for some. And so, even though it's unfortunate or it's a bad deal, it looks like, yet it's a hopeful situation. Misfortune carries hope with it, because we can turn, when we're spurred on by our misfortunes and the discomforts of it, we can turn to God and there is hope.

And he suggests that this will be the case with some of them. And I believe this is talking about, again, the remnants. And I think we have here a reference to the church, because he says, And it shall be in that day, says the Lord, that you will call me my husband and no longer call me my master.

Actually, in the Hebrew, my husband is Ishi, and my master is Baal-li, my Baal. The word Baal means master. Now, what he's saying here is that the Jews at this time have so confused Baal with God that they don't know the difference.

They call Jehovah Baal. You can understand that, because even when the Jews came out of Israel, they confused the golden calf with Jehovah. And apparently, when the knowledge of Jehovah is lacking and the law of God is not known by people, they just begin to think all gods are alike.

So they worship Baal and figure they're worshipping Jehovah at the same time. There are people who say, Well, you know, how do we know that the Muslims aren't really saved? I mean, don't they believe in one God? Maybe the God they believe in is the same as ours, too. Aren't all gods alike? Don't the Mormons believe in Jesus, too? Well, then why do we say that they're different than us? It's not the case that all Jesuses are alike, or all gods are alike.

The heathen have their own notions of God. But people who are unaware of God's self-revelation in the Bible often just assume, Well, all notions of God are about the like, all about the same. And that seems to have been the state of things here.

There's been so much syncretism in the religion of the Jews that they've mixed in Baal worship with Jehovah worship. They still thought they were worshipping Jehovah, but they called him Baal, and they figured that, well, if they called him My Baal, they were really talking to God. He says, You're not going to do that anymore.

Time's going to come when you're going to talk to me right. You're going to call me My husband, not Baal. Verse 17, For I will take from her mouth the names of the Baals.

I won't let her speak those names anymore. And they shall be remembered by their name no more. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field and with the birds of the air and with the creaking things of the ground.

Bow and sword of battle will I shatter from the earth to make them lie down safely. I will betroth you to me forever. Yes, I will betroth you to me in righteousness and justice and loving kindness and mercy.

I will betroth you to me in faithfulness, and you shall know the Lord. It shall come to pass in that day that I will answer, says the Lord. I will answer the heavens, and they shall answer the earth.

And the earth shall answer with grain and with wine, new wine and with oil. And they shall answer Jezreel. Now, Jezreel means God sows.

And so it's talking about God is going to sow his people in the earth. He says, I will sow her for myself in the earth, and I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy. Then I will say to those who were not my people, you are my people, and they shall say, you are my God.

Now, this whole section, verse 18 through 23, is talking about the new covenant. He starts off by saying, I will make a covenant for them. Well, the only covenant he's made since Hosea's time is the covenant that Jesus called the new covenant.

And he says it's a covenant with the beast, the field, and the birds of the air, and so forth. And perhaps that reminds us of the fact that this covenant is a covenant of peace between the various kinds of animals, at least figuratively speaking. Remember in Isaiah 11 and Isaiah 65, he talks about the wolf and the lamb lying down together and the ox and the bear and so forth.

I said when we created those passages that I believe the unclean animals mentioned there represent the Gentiles and the clean animals, the Jews. The ox is a clean animal. The bear is an unclean.

The lamb is a clean animal. The wolf is an unclean animal. And not only that, but the unclean animals named are also animals that are threatening and harmful to the sheep.

And that I believe the Jews, God's flock, as they are called in so many passages in the prophets, are represented by the lamb, the kid, the bull. And that the Gentiles who have always menaced them, the unclean Gentiles who have always been enemies of the Jews, are represented by the wolf and the bear and the lion and the leopard. And as I understand it, this is a prophecy of these lying down together in peace under the new covenant.

And that sounds similar to this. I will make a covenant for them with the beast of the field, with the birds of the air, with the creeping things of the ground, most of which were unclean like the Gentiles. Then he says at the end of verse 18, Bull and sword of Babel will I shatter from the earth and make them lie down safely.

Sounds very much like Isaiah chapter 2 and Micah chapter 4, which is talking about the Messianic age, the present age. It talks about they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nations shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

Those Messianic prophecies of Isaiah and Micah talk about the cessation of war and the end of weapons of war. That is talking about the present time, but it's not talking about an end of literal war. It's talking about those who are in this covenant.

They forswear violence. They put away their weapons. They are no longer warring, and God keeps them secure.

They look to God for their security rather than to weapons of war. And that's what it says. For I will shatter them from the earth to make them lie down safely.

Then he talks about I will betroth you to me forever. This eternal betrothal, this eternal covenant, is with the church, with its people. And he says, and you shall know the Lord.

Now, verse 20, where it says you shall know the Lord, is in contrast to what is said most of the time about the Jews in the book of Hosea. In fact, you'll find that the knowledge of the Lord is a major theme of Hosea, and he frequently complains that the people don't know God. But he says the time will come when they will know the Lord.

Well, doesn't that remind you of another passage about the new covenant? Jeremiah 31, verses 31 through 33, where he says I will make a new covenant. He says I'll write my words on their hearts and my ways in their inward parts. And he says, and they won't have to say one to another, know the Lord, because they will all know me, from the greatest even to the least of them, says the Lord.

The new covenant will be characterized by people knowing the Lord. And that is what is said to take place here. So we know we're talking about the new covenant, and the age in which we now live.

He talks about restoration of the grain and the wine and the oil and so forth, that he's taken away. And then in verse 23 he says, then I will sow her for myself in the earth. Jesus told a parable of a man who sowed good seed in his field, and an enemy came and sowed tears.

When he interpreted the parable, he said the good seed is the children of the kingdom, that is, Jesus' own disciples. The field is the world. So Jesus is talking about the sowing of God's children in the church in the world.

And that's what's being said here. I will sow her for myself in the earth, like seed is sown. And I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy, and then I will say to those who were not my people, you are my people.

Now there can be no question, there can be no question at all, but that the New Testament writers understood this passage as being about the church. Not only because Paul quotes it in Romans 9, as we saw, he quotes it in Romans 9, 25, I believe it is, but also Peter alludes to it in no uncertain terms. In 1 Peter 2, verses 9 and 10, 1 Peter 2, verses 9 and 10, he's writing to Gentile churches principally in Asia.

In Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, these were largely Gentile churches. And so he's writing to people who are not Jewish by birth. But he says in 1 Peter 2, verses 9 and 10, you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a special people, a peculiar people.

These are all terms that were used in Israel in the Old Testament, now he applies them to the church. That you may proclaim the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Notice verse 10, who once were not a people, but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

Notice the two things, you were not a people, you had not obtained mercy. Remember, lo ruahama, lo ami, no mercy and not my people. And yet he says those who had not obtained mercy will obtain mercy.

Those who were not my people shall be called the people of the living God. Peter is making a very clear reference to this passage. They were once, the Gentiles were once not a people, but are now the people of God.

Once had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. We are newcomers to God. The Jews have been God's people, at least Israel in the Old Testament were God's people for many centuries, but the Gentiles came along later.

They were once not his people and had not historically obtained mercy from God, but now in the church that has changed. And so that is what Peter is referring to. He is referring to Hosea 2.23 where he says, and I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy.

And I will say to those who were not my people, you are my people. And they shall say, you are my God. So very obviously the way that these two chapters of Hosea are used by Paul and by Peter in the New Testament make it clear that these are the prophecies that have to do with blessing and restoration are fulfilled in the church.

They are not fulfilled in some future millennium or something else. They are applied to the church by the apostles. Now there is a very short chapter, chapter 3 we need to cover before we take our break.

It says, and I said that this I think corresponds in the structure of the book with the final section of the book, which is chapter 14, the chapter about restoration and about the messianic age. It says, Then the Lord said to me, Go again, love a woman who is loved by a lover, or who has been defiled and slept with a lover, and is committing adultery, just like the love of the Lord for the children of Israel, who look to other gods and love the raisin cakes. The raisin cakes were among the things that they ate at the pagan feast.

He is speaking disdainfully of, you know, they have left God for raisin cakes. Are raisin cakes that alluring that a person threw off his salvation for them? I mean, Esau sold his birthright for a bowl of pottage. These people sell their God for raisin cakes.

But he says to Hosea, Go again and love this woman again, the one who is the adulteress. He doesn't mention her as his wife at that point, but it is obviously talking about her, the one who has gone to other lovers and born illegitimate children. Go back and love her again.

Take her back, just like God loves Israel, he says. So I bought her for myself for fifteen shekels of silver and one and a half omers of barley. Now, we had never been told prior to this that Homer had ever, excuse me, Homer, Homer's omers of barley there, that Gomer, his wife, had ever left him or been put away.

It is assumed. We are only told about her bearing children. And then we read of the prophecy in chapter two that she is not my wife, I am her husband.

Nor am I her husband, excuse me. Well, now we can see that she has been separated. She's been estranged from Hosea.

He's going to take her back. During that period of estrangement, she committed adultery, and apparently she became so debased that she eventually ended up a slave because he had to buy her back for a price. She may have had to sell herself into slavery to some pimp or something to make a living.

But this is showing how debased Israel becomes when they depart from God. They think they're going after a more glamorous lifestyle of fulfillment, you know, with other lovers, but they end up in bondage, and they need to be bought back. Just like God had to pay a price to get the spiritual Israel to himself, the price of the blood of Jesus.

So, Hosea pays a price for her. He buys her back from slavery, apparently. Now, notice the price he pays is 15 shekels of silver.

According to Exodus 21-32, the normal price of a slave that was gored and had to be paid for was 30 shekels or 30 pieces of silver. He buys her back at half price. Now, this may suggest that she was not considered to be worth as much as even a normal slave.

She was sold at half price as damaged goods. She was just so destroyed from her lifestyle of sexual immorality and promiscuity that she wasn't worth much. And so he was able to pick her up on the slave market at half price.

And so he says he bought her for that price. In verse 3 it says, And I said to her, You shall stay with me many days, and you shall not play the harlot, nor shall you have a man. Thus will I also be toward you.

Now, it's not clear whether this means that she'll be his wife from now on and won't take any other men, or whether it means that for the time being, having bought her back, they're not going to immediately resume sexual relations. Perhaps because of her defilement, he wants her to go through a period of purification or something first. He says, You'll stay with me, but you won't have a man.

And I'll do the same for you. In other words, I'll abstain also, if that's what he's saying. If he's saying, You and I will both remain sexually absent for a period of time, many days, which would apparently be a period for her to undergo the ceremonial purification for her harlotry and so forth.

Now, this corresponds to something also, a period during which God was not having relations with his people. And it says so in verse 4, For the children of Israel shall abide many days without king or prince, without sacrifice or sacred pillar, without ephod or teraphim. Afterward, the children of Israel shall return, seek the Lord their God and David their king, and fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.

Now, it says they will go many days without a king or a prince or without sacrifice or sacred pillar. This, I would understand to represent the time from the destruction of the Northern Kingdom until the coming of Christ. The premillennialists, I think, would understand it differently.

They would possibly think of the many days without sacrifice as the church age. But they believe that sacrifice will be restored in the millennium in a new temple. And therefore, they would say that verse 5 tells us of latter days return to God on the part of the Jews and serving David.

David is just a name substituted for the Messiah, since the Jews in the Old Testament didn't know what the Messiah's real name would be, but they knew he'd be descended from David. They just called him David sometimes. Jeremiah called the Messiah David in Jeremiah 30, in verse 9. And Ezekiel called the Messiah David in Ezekiel 34, 24.

So, other prophets have used this name to signal the Messiah. But the two views of these last two verses are these. The premillennial position would be, I think, that verse 4 speaks of a lengthy period of time, the church age, during which Israel would be without a temple, without sacrifices, without a king.

That's the church age today. They are still in that state. But after that, that is at the end of the age, just prior to the coming of Christ and going on into the millennial period after Jesus comes back, they will return, seek the Lord and serve David or serve Jesus, their king, and fear the Lord and his goodness in the latter days.

Now, the reference to the latter days, of course, would confirm to many that it's talking about the end of the age, because that's how many times Christians have understood the term the latter days. I think wrongly, but that's a popular way of understanding that term. I see it this way, that he's speaking of the destruction that's going to come upon Israel, and they'll be without a kingdom and without God, and they won't be worshippers of God for those days, just like Hosea and his wife apparently were going to abstain from relations with each other for many days before they resumed relations as husband and wife.

So, there would be a period of time that God would abstain from relations with Israel and would resume them again at the time that they would come to serve Jesus, the Messiah. I believe that he resumed his relations with Israel when John the Baptist came and began to prophesy and call Israel to repentance again, and that many turned to Christ. I mean, they were a minority, true, it was a remnant, but they did, and that's the remnant that is talked about here.

The children of Israel here are the remnant, and they return, and they worship God, and they worship Jesus, and they are the church, and that that is what's talked about. And the latter days can either mean the last age, namely the church age, and sometimes there's a number of commentators who believe that the church age is what is meant by the last days, the whole church age. In fact, I taught that for a long time, because in the New Testament, it appears to be so at first glance.

Peter, when he talked about the day of Pentecost fulfilling Joel's prophecy, said, in the last days I will pour out my spirit on all flesh. He said this is it. The writer of Hebrews said, God, who at sundry times in diverse manners spake in times past to our fathers and servants and prophets, in these last days has spoken to us by his Son.

John said a little to him, we know that it is the last hour, because many antichrists have come. It says in 1 Peter chapter 1 that Jesus was ordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you. Paul speaks about us as the people upon whom the end of the ages has come.

Those kinds of expressions are used in the New Testament, which suggests that the end of the age, or the last days, or the latter times, or the last hour, was seen as present in the days of the apostles. On the basis of that, many have understood this to mean that the church age, which began at that time, is the last days, and that we are still in the last days, and have been for 2,000 years. I understood it that way for a long time, and just from my studies since then, when I've come to change my view, I think it means the last days of the Jewish dispensation, the last days of the Old Covenant economy.

The Old Covenant economy was in force for 2,000 years, in one form or another, since the time of Abraham. And that economy came to an end in 70 AD, and the days in which the apostles lived were the last days of that particular system. And therefore it's quite correct to speak of their time as the latter days.

It seems to me now very strange to think of a whole 2,000 year period as the last days. It seems more like the last centuries, not last days. But to speak of the last few years, from the time of Christ to 70 AD, as the last days, would make sense.

It's less than one century. It's the closing small portion of the era of the Old Covenant. And that's what I think is meant most of the time in the Bible, by the latter days.

Now, sometimes the term may be more generic. It might mean the last days of this or that particular thing in a given context. The last days of Edom, or the last days of Babylon, or the last days of something else.

Also, it is possible that in some of the writings of Paul, the term last days may apply to the last days of the world. That is, as we normally think of it, the end of the world. Some of the sayings of Paul about the last days in Timothy strike me as possibly having that meaning.

But I can't be certain, and I'm not dogmatic about it. But for the most part, I believe the normal use of the term last days or latter days in the New Testament, and many times they're quoting from the Old Testament when they use that term, they're referring to the last days of the Jewish dispensation, which ended in 70 AD. So that's what is being discussed there in chapter 3. Let's take our break.