Hosea 4 - 9

Hosea — Steve Gregg

Next in this series

Hosea 10 - 14

00:00

Hosea 4 - 9

HoseaSteve Gregg

Hosea 4-9 explores the themes of adultery, idolatry, and the consequences of abandoning God. Steve Gregg analyzes the historical context and highlights the role of the priestly leaders in leading the people astray. He emphasizes the importance of true knowledge of God rather than mere religious activity. Gregg also draws parallels between the spiritual unfaithfulness of the Israelites and the need for genuine repentance in seeking God's mercy. The passage envisions both the temporal consequences of their actions and the ultimate judgment that awaits them.

Transcript

Hosea chapters 1 through 3 were the historical information about Hosea and his wife, her adultery, and his taking her back, actually buying her back, out of slavery. I said that the three chapters that make up that historical prologue in some ways provide a foreglimpse of the structure of the whole book. Because as there are three chapters in the prologue, there are three parts of the book.

And each chapter in the prologue I think corresponds to one of the parts of the book. The first chapter corresponding to the whole prologue itself. The second chapter corresponding to the second part of the book, which is what we now come to, chapters 4 through 13.

And I pointed out that both of those chapters begin with the bringing of charges. In chapter 2, verse 2, it says, bring charges against your mother. Bring charges.

In chapter 4 it begins, hear the word of the Lord, you children of Israel, for the Lord brings a charge against the inhabitants of the land. And so as we saw the charge that Hosea had against his wife, the adulteress, in chapter 2, we now hear the charge that God has against his wife, Israel. Now I don't mean to say that in chapter 2 we had exclusively a reference to Hosea's charges against his wife.

But the statements in Hosea 2, at least at the beginning there, could apply to Hosea and God. Hosea toward his wife and God toward his. But now we come to a place where Hosea is not even in the picture.

It's just God talking about Israel, the problems he has with his wife. And so we have these several chapters, about ten chapters, that are taken up with the controversy that God has, the legal case he has against his wife because of Israel's adultery. Now, right off he complains in verse 1, There is no truth or mercy or knowledge of God in the land.

This is his first complaint. They don't know God and they don't even care about truth or mercy. They're merciless and they're dishonest.

And this is due to the fact that they don't know God. Now, it was said earlier that a time would come, in chapter 3, verse 20, that the people, through the institution of the new covenant that God would bring, would know the Lord. But the present situation in Israel, in Hosea's day, is that they don't know God.

And you can see how many times he makes reference to this. Notice, in chapter 4, verse 1, we notice it says there is no knowledge of God in the land. In verse 6 of chapter 4, it says, My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

Because they have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priests for me. So this lack of knowledge of God is what destroys them. In chapter 5, verse 4, he says, They do not direct their deeds toward turning to their God, for the spirit of harlotry is in their midst, and they do not know the Lord.

Again, stating that the knowledge of God is absent from them. I skipped over one, chapter 4, verse 14. At the end of verse 14, it says, Therefore the people who do not understand will fall or will be trampled.

Some translations say will come to ruin. But it's talking about the people who lack understanding, who don't know God, will be ruined by it. They will perish for lack of knowledge.

In chapter 6, verse 3, he says, Let us know, let us pursue the knowledge of the Lord. He urges his people to acquaint themselves with God and seek to know God. Because for lack of that knowledge of God, they are destroyed.

In chapter 6, verse 6, he says, For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. So what he's saying there is that without the knowledge of God, no amount of religious activity will count for anything. God considers that if you put sacrifices and burnt offerings on one side of the scale, they cannot outweigh or even equal the weight of the knowledge of God on the other side.

So the knowledge of God is far more important to you than religiousness. And then in chapter 8, verse 2, he points out that the Israelites nonetheless deny that they lack the knowledge of God. They cry, we know you, my God, we know you.

Which they don't. And so the whole point of this book is to show what happens to people when they have departed from the knowledge of God. It's not as if they've never had access to that knowledge.

Like the Gentiles who had never heard the laws of God, never had any revelation from God. The Jews had a tremendous amount of revelation given to them, but they had turned from the knowledge of God. And so he complains right off.

They lack the knowledge of God, and when you lack the knowledge of God, then there's nothing else to keep them living ethically or morally. When you don't know the character of God, you don't know the judgments of God, you don't know the laws of God, there's really no standard that you can really anchor yourself to, to keep your behavior decent. And so it starts out by complaining that they have no knowledge of God, and goes on to show what has happened because they have no knowledge of God.

Their behavior is totally corrupt. Verse 2, by swearing and lying, killing and stealing, and committing adultery, they break all restraint with bloodshed after bloodshed. And therefore the land will mourn, and everyone who dwells there will waste away with the beasts of the field and the birds of the air, even the fish of the sea will be taken away.

Now let no man contend or reprove another. And at this point he's speaking to the priests, it becomes clear in verse 6, but in verse 4 he apparently is speaking to the priests. Now let no man contend or reprove another, for your people are like those who contend with the priests.

Therefore you shall stumble in the day, the prophet also shall stumble with you in the night, and I will destroy your mother. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge, because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being priests for me. Because you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.

As I said, this is apparently spoken to the priests, he says they should have preserved the law of God, it was the priest's duty to teach the law of God and preserve the knowledge of God among the people, but they, the priests themselves, have forgotten the law of God, and have rejected the knowledge of God. Therefore, the people that they should have instructed are also ignorant. And so the whole doom of the nation that will come upon them is really to be laid at the door of the priest.

Now what is meant in verse 4 is not that clear, it says let no man contend or reprove another, for your people are like those who contend with the priests. But apparently this means that the priest should not contend or reprove or bring charges against the people, as though it's the people who are causing the problems, the priest has to lay the blame at his own door. Those who, the priest is in no better condition than the ones who contend with the priest.

As the people could bring a contention and charges against the priest, as easily as the priest could against the people. The priest really is the one who is to blame, because he has not taught the word of God. The churches today, of course, are very sad in America, that our culture is so corrupt, and there's a lot said denouncing the sins of our nation, and the rampant immorality and drug abuse and abortion, and all the things that are threatening our security and our society.

And while the church is denouncing all these things, the church has to pay attention to the fact that it's caused these things. The society we live in was a much better society, much more secure society, a more decent society, when the church was healthier and more virulent. When the church had more life, when the church was setting a standard, when it was respectable, and had a voice that people wanted to pay attention to.

But because the church has neglected the law of the Lord, and has forsaken the knowledge of God, therefore the people have. The church is the priest. We are a kingdom of priests.

And the church is the priest to the nation. And we can't just blame the nations for the sins that are going on. We have to lay it at the door of the church.

Because at one time, when the church was holier, the nation was more decent and ethical and moral. But when the church becomes corrupt, then of course the people that are to be instructed in the ways of God by the church are ignorant and become corrupt. So we see all these same crimes.

Now, I think it's ironic that pastors today, for the most part, see the decline in popularity of the church and the respect that the church has. And they see that in many churches, many denominations, the attendance is dwindling really badly. And they're desperate to try to somehow regain respectability and to regain their congregations.

And to do so, what they're doing in many cases is turning to psychology and philosophy and politics, getting involved in social issues and causes, trying to make the church seem relevant, doing everything except teaching the Word of God. Now, I'm not saying no church has taught the Word of God. Of course, there are churches that do.

I'm talking about the state of the church in general in our country. The Word of God is rarely taught. And I know this is true because in my travels, people are continually telling me they wish there were some Bible teachers among the pastors in their town.

Because they'd love to join a church where the Bible is taught, but all the pastors give neat little sermons that talk about issues and causes and philosophy and psychology and everything else but the Bible. And it's ironic because the pastors usually don't teach the Bible because they figure that people won't find it relevant and that they'll lose their congregations. But they're losing their congregations because they're not teaching the Word of God.

The Word of God has perished from the priest in a way. The knowledge of God is not remembered. And the law of the Lord has been forgotten by those who are supposed to be teaching it.

And therefore, the church loses it, and therefore the nation loses it, and therefore everything goes bad for everybody. And it's the fault of the leaders who ought to have been teaching the Word of God. It's interesting and ironic that the churches that finally do break down and start teaching the Word of God, usually everyone leaves the other churches in town to come to that one.

I mean, there's a famine in the land for hearing the words of the Lord, like Amos said in Amos 8, verse 11. And people run from sea to sea and from city to city looking for the Word of the Lord. That's practically the way it is today.

And I find that, well, of course my experience is limited, but in the Jesus moment when I first started going to Calvary Chapel, it was an unusual church in that they just had Bible teaching every day. And people came from all different towns and all different churches in many different countries to Calvary Chapel to hear Bible teaching. And it just shows that, here, the Bible is right close at hand.

Every pastor has it on his shelf. Every pastor usually pulls it out as part of his preparation for his sermons. But as far as teaching people the Word of God and preserving the knowledge of God and the knowledge of the Scripture, which they should be doing, they're doing other things in many cases, which they think will make the church seem more relevant and attractive, but actually are causing the church to die and lose its impact and lose the respect of the world.

And so also it was with the priest in Hosea's time. He says in verse 7, "...the more they increase, the more they sinned against me." That is, the more God blessed them, the more they turned and gave the credit to the other gods. "...I will change their glory into shame.

They eat up the sin of my people. They set their heart on their iniquity, and it shall be like people, like priests." That is, what's going to happen to the people will also happen to the priests because the priest is equally guilty. "...So I will punish them for their ways and reward them for their deeds.

And they shall eat and not have enough, and they shall commit harlotry, but not increase. They have ceased obeying the Lord. Harlotry, wine, and new wine enslave the heart." Now, enslave the heart is what the new King James says.

The King James says, take away the heart, perhaps meaning take it into captivity. And that's why the new King James translators choose to translate it enslave. Other translations I've consulted use expressions like, numb the heart, or the Jerusalem Bible, for instance, says, addle the wits, or confuse the mind.

The idea seems to be that when a person resorts to intoxication or getting high, whether it's on drugs or wine or whatever, that it does something to their consciousness. It's obviously consciousness-altering. And it takes away the heart, or it addles the wits.

What it really does is it takes away moral judgment from a person. It deprives them of their ability to discern between right and wrong, which is what is so obviously demonic about drunkenness and drug abuse, is that it actually dislodges a person's thinking processes from his normal moral sense. We see this suggested also in Leviticus 10, when Nadab and Abihu were killed because they offered strange fire before the Lord.

The rebuke that came to Aaron after this, in Leviticus 10, verse 9, God said to the priests, Do not drink wine or intoxicating drink when you, I'm sorry, you nor your sons with you when you go into the tabernacle of meeting. Apparently Nadab and Abihu had been drinking. Therefore God says, don't drink when you go in there.

Lest you die, it shall be a statute forever that you may distinguish, verse 10, between holy and unholy and between unclean and clean. In other words, you get intoxicated and you can't tell the difference between what's holy and unholy. That was apparently the problem with Nadab and Abihu.

They didn't figure there was any difference between strange fire or holy fire. So they just took the fire, whatever they wanted. They were apparently intoxicated and it took away their moral sense.

And they couldn't distinguish between clean and unclean or holy and unholy. That is also suggested in Proverbs chapter 31 by the mother of King Lemuel, giving him counsel. In Proverbs 31, 4, Lemuel's mother says, It is not for kings, O Lemuel, it is not for kings to drink wine, nor for princes intoxicating drink, lest they drink and forget the law and pervert justice of all the afflicted.

So she suggests that drinking will cause you to forget God's ways, forget his laws, pervert justice, you'll lose moral sense, in other words. In the New Testament, we're told that elders need to be men who are not given to wine. And deacons, men who are not given to much wine.

Apparently deacons are allowed to have a little more wine than elders are. I mean, the deacons are not supposed to be given to much wine, but the elders are not to be given to wine, period. And that's because, of course, they have to make moral decisions.

They are spiritual leaders and they need to avoid befuddling their minds. It says here, Harlotry, wine and new wine enslave the heart. Now, harlotry here, it's not always easy in Hosea to tell whether harlotry means literal adultery, as it sometimes clearly does.

Or whether it means in some context, idolatry, which is a spiritual harlotry. We know that that's the whole idea of Hosea, that these people are harlots, like Hosea's wife was a harlot. But their harlotry is in the form of worshipping idols.

So sometimes God speaks of the harlotry, and it's not all that clear what he means. He means idolatry or adultery. Now, if in 4.11 he means natural adultery, then he's saying that sexual passion also tends to addle the wits and sort of take you out of your right mind, just like wine does.

People can be intoxicated with lust, or they would say with love, but actually with passion and lust. And so it could be saying that by people surrendering themselves to immorality and to drunkenness, that's how they've lost their knowledge of God and his law. It's taken away their heart.

It's taken away their good sense. If idolatry is here meant, then he's suggesting that the worshipping of idols and the worshipping of demons can take away the heart, just like intoxication can. I think it's interesting that those who practice occult practices, especially meditation, occult forms of meditation, often get the same revelations that people who take hallucinogenic drugs get.

The people who, when drugs became less popular among the hippies because they were trying to be dangerous and most of them got into occultism or alcoholism, one or the other, those that got into the occult often said that they got the same kind of revelations in meditation that they got on LSD, namely the sense that all is one and they're part of the universe and so forth, and this whole monistic, hinduistic worldview, which is demonic. It's a deception. That all is bliss, we are all God.

Those are the things that people get revealed to them when they're on drugs and also they get it from pagan worship, which is what occult meditation is. These things deceive a person. A person who surrenders his good sense to the worship of pagan gods through occult means or through alcohol or through drugs is pretty much not keeping his heart with all diligence, as Proverbs says to do.

Proverbs 4, 23 says, Keep your heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life. And it's quite obvious it's necessary to keep your heart, and you're not keeping your heart if you're involved in these things that take away the heart or enslave the heart. Verse 12, My people ask counsel from their wooden idols, probably therefore idolatry may be a reference to their idolatry in this context, and their staff informs them.

Their staff is their wizard's wand, their diviner's rod. They were apparently using some kind of divination to get guidance. So they ask counsel of these wooden idols and they get information from their magic wands for the spirit of harlotry has caused them to stray, and they have played the harlot against their God.

Now there's mention of a spirit of harlotry. Sometimes when the Bible speaks of a spirit of something or another, it's not clear whether it's actually talking about a demonic spirit or whether the word spirit just means the essence of a thing. There's times like when Paul says God has not given us a spirit of fear.

Well, does he mean a demon of fear? Or does he mean fear itself, a spiritual condition of fear? It's not always clear. So also here it's not clear whether a spirit of harlotry is actually a demonic spirit that induces one into spiritual adultery, spiritual harlotry, or whether it's just a condition of harlotry. It's not always clear because the word spirit is used sometimes figuratively.

But some would argue that there's actually a demonic spirit that leads people into some of this kind of behavior. And I guess you couldn't really disprove it from the Scriptures because Paul said those who worship idols worship demons. In 1 Corinthians 10.20, Paul says that.

The sacrifice of the heathen offer they offer to demons and not to God. So it may well be that idolatry brings a person right under the control of the spirit of harlotry or spirit of idolatry, which is manifest not only in spiritual but also in physical immorality, at least in the pagan religions. They offer sacrifices on the mountaintops and burn incense on the hills under oaks, poplars, and terabins because their state is good.

Therefore, your daughters commit harlotry and your brides commit adultery. Now, their adultery and harlotry appears to be the literal sexual immorality because he goes on to say, I will not punish your daughters when they commit harlotry nor your brides when they commit adultery. For the men themselves go apart with harlots and offer sacrifices with a ritual harlot.

Therefore, people who do not understand will be trampled. What he seems to be saying is that harlotry is a spiritual state which begins with being unfaithful to God. But once a person has made that compromise, they come under the state of harlotry, it takes away their heart, and they become immoral in other ways as well.

The standards for righteousness are removed when you're unfaithful to God. There's no reason to be faithful to your husband or keep yourself pure at all. So he points out that these people have not only been idolatrous harlots, but they've also gone into... Well, their daughters are committing harlotry and their brides are committing adultery.

But he says he's not going to punish them for that because they're not being any worse than the husbands. God doesn't have a double standard. The Jews did, often.

If a man and a woman were taken in adultery, usually the woman would get stoned and somehow the man would escape, although the Bible calls for stoning of both of them. Yet here God says, listen, you guys seem to be going unpunished. For you're taking up with temple prostitutes.

So why should I punish your wives when they take up with other men? Or your daughters when they take up with men? So God's basically saying, your wives and daughters, though they're bringing disgrace to you, they don't deserve punishment any more than you do. You're bringing disgrace on yourself and on me. Though you, Israel, play the harlot, verse 15, let not Judah offend her, as a warning is given to Judah.

He's already said that Judah is not yet going to be punished. He said that back in... where? Well, back there, wait. It was chapter 1, in verse 7. He mentioned that even though Israel was coming up for judgment, Judah was not yet right.

However, Judah is warned not to be too uncareful, too reckless. Israel's played the harlot, but Judah hasn't. But a warning is given, do not let Judah offend.

Do not come up to Gilgal, nor go to Beth-Avon, which is Bethel, nor swear an oath, saying, the Lord lives, or as the Lord lives. For Israel is stubborn, like a stubborn calf. Now the Lord will let them forage like a lamb in the open country.

The NIV takes this verse a little differently and reads it that Israel is a stubborn heifer. Then it says, how then can the Lord pasture them like lambs in the meadow? Given a slightly different meaning. Meaning that God would like to treat them like sheep and pasture them in a wide place and give them a nice meadow to eat in.

But they're not submissive like sheep, they're stubborn like young calves. And therefore he can't do that. That is the way the NIV translators understand verse 16.

However, the New King James follow more the idea that because they're stubborn like a calf, God's going to send them out to pasture. Let them go, send them out of the land and be spread abroad. Ephraim is joined to idols, let him alone.

Apparently still speaking to Judah. He says don't let Judah follow the example of Ephraim. He says just leave them alone Judah.

Don't go to Bethel, don't go to Gilgal, don't copy them. Their drink is rebellion. They commit harlotry continually.

For rulers do we love dishonor. The end of verse 18 is very difficult textually. It's a very corrupt text and different translators render it differently.

The King James does something really strange with it, don't they? Who's got the King James there? The end of verse 18. Yeah, what in the world does that mean? The rulers with shame do love, give ye. That's what the King James says.

I never would have understood that in the King James. New King James says her rulers dearly love dishonor. But I've also read some other translations and they all take it in different ways.

It's a problem with knowing what the actual original text said. There's some textual corruption there. Anyway, verse 19, the wind has wrapped her up in its wings and they shall be ashamed because of their sacrifices.

Chapter 5, hear this, O priest, take heed, O house of Israel, give ear, O house of the King, for yours is the judgment, that is the judgment that is going to come on you, leaders, because you have been a snare to Mizpah and a net spread on Tabor. The revolters are deeply involved in slaughter, though I rebuke them all. I know Ephraim, even though Ephraim doesn't know him.

They don't have the knowledge of God, but he has the knowledge of them. I know Ephraim, and Israel is not hidden from me. For now, O Ephraim, you commit harlotry.

Israel is defiled. They do not direct their deeds toward turning to their God. For the spirit of harlotry is in their midst, and they do not know the Lord.

It may be implied that there's actually a demonic spirit among them that keeps them from turning to God, and that is due to the fact that they don't know the Lord. The pride of Israel testifies to his face. Therefore, Israel and Ephraim stumble in their iniquity.

Judah also stumbles with them. Now, even though Judah's not ripe for judgment, Judah's not got a clean bill of health here. Judah also is tending toward idolatry at times.

With their flocks and herds, they shall go to seek the Lord, but they will not find him. He has withdrawn himself from them. They have dealt treacherously with the Lord, for they have begotten pagan children.

Now a new moon shall devour them and their heritage. This last line of verse 7 is difficult. It might mean that their new moons that they keep, which are an offense to God because they're offering sacrifices in the new moons to idols, that it'll be because of those that they'll be devoured, they'll be judged.

Other interpreters believe that it should be translated, A month shall devour them. Some manuscripts apparently render it that way, and that would mean that it'll only take a month to destroy them. It won't take long.

Their judgment will be swift. But the meaning of that phrase is somewhat unclear. It says they've begotten pagan children.

Now, they're Jewish people, but their children are pagan, which makes it clear that God really judges not on the basis of their physical descent, but on the basis of their spiritual character. If they're Jewish, but they live like pagans, he calls them pagans. He doesn't call them Jews.

Verse 8, blow the ram's horn and give you the trumpet and rhema. Cry aloud at Beth-Avon, which is Bethel. Look behind you, O Benjamin.

Ephraim shall be desolate in the day of rebuke. Among the tribes of Israel I make known what is sure. The princes of Judah are like those who remove a landmark, possibly meaning that the boundaries of decency and morals have been moved by them.

A landmark is that which marks the territories of one person's property from another. And this is figurative. They're like those who move a landmark.

Probably they've changed the standards. I will pour out my wrath on them like water. Ephraim is oppressed and broken in judgment because they willingly walked by precepts, or human precepts, probably referring to the fact that Jeroboam, the first Jeroboam, had commanded them to worship the golden calves in Bethel and dance.

These people willingly have followed. And it's a human precept rather than the precepts of God. God had told them to worship at Jerusalem and so forth, but at the temple.

But they willingly exchanged God's rules for man's rules. And that's what Jesus said the Jews in his day had done. They taught for doctrines the traditions of men, he said.

And that's always an offense to God when people mix up his words with human words or simply reject his words for human words. Therefore I will be to Ephraim like a moth and to the house of Judah like rottenness. Rot and moths slowly eat away at substance, but they do a thorough job.

They totally ruin it, but it takes a while. He's saying that God's judgment on them is gradual. It's coming gradually like a moth eating a garment or a rot or rust or something, rotting away something.

When Ephraim saw his sickness and Judah his wound, then Ephraim went to Assyria and sent to King Jerob. Yet he cannot cure you nor heal you of your wound. For I will be like a lion to Ephraim and like a young lion to the house of Judah.

I even I will tear them and go away and I will take them away and no one will rescue them. I will return again to my place until they acknowledge their offense. Then they will seek my face in affliction and will diligently seek me.

Now, when Ephraim saw his sickness, of course sickness in the prophets usually refers to national calamity or sometimes moral sickness. But often it has to do with the fact that they've been smitten and they're wounded by God's judgment. And he's saying when Ephraim began to sense the judgment of God on them, probably when nations began to come against him, they sought help not from God but from other nations like Assyria.

We know that there's at least a couple of the kings of Israel that paid tribute to the king of Assyria to keep them safe, to protect them. And so that's what's being referred to. He's saying that instead of turning to God who wounded them, they turned to someone else, to man, to a political nation.

But he says, he, that is Assyria, cannot cure you at the end of verse 13, nor can he heal you of your wound. Now, he says God is going to be like a lion, he's going to rip them and leave them wounded and bloody. And he's not going to come back to them until they turn to him with their whole hearts.

This is perhaps a little bit like Hosea leaving his wife until she's ready to return. But anyway, he does say at the end of verse 15, then they will seek my face in their affliction and will diligently seek me. Then chapter 6 says, come and let us return to the Lord, for he is torn, but he will heal us.

He is stricken, but he will bind us up. After two days he will revive us, and on the third day he will raise us up, that we may dwell in his sight. Let us know, let us pursue the knowledge of the Lord.

His going forth is established as the morning. He will come to us like the rain, like the latter and the former rain to the earth. Now, verses 1-3 sounds like repentance on the part of the people.

And there's two ways of looking at this passage. There are basically two schools of thought on Hosea 6 verses 1-3. Some believe that it's actually referring to a genuine call to repentance on the part of some.

Because of the warnings of chapter 5, some really do turn to the Lord. As it says in verse 15 of chapter 5, they will seek my face in their affliction, they will diligently seek me. And in view of this, some of the people really are responding in a genuine and sincere way to return to the Lord.

And to seek restoration from him. The other view on this takes it in connection with verse 4, which we didn't read. Which says, O Ephraim, what shall I do to you? O Judah, what shall I do to you? For your faithfulness is like a morning cloud, and like the early dew it goes away.

Just like the dew on the grass vanishes as soon as the sun comes up. So their loyalty, their love for God, their professed faithfulness is transient. It leaves quickly.

They have momentary conversions or repentances, but then they don't stick with it. It vanishes. And so some understand in view of verse 4 that verses 1-3 are a shallow kind of repentance.

Just a pretense at turning to the Lord. And God responds and says, listen, I can see right through that. All these great words are going to just vanish like the dew off the grass.

Now, I don't know which way it's to be understood, but it's very clear that the words spoken in chapter 6, verses 1-3, are the kinds of words they ought to speak sincerely. And it may be that that's what is suggested here. That Hosea himself, and maybe the righteous remnants among the Jews, are making this appeal to the nation.

To make a genuine repentance. Now, he says that God has torn, in verse 1, taking up the figure of what he said in verse 14 of the previous chapter. He would be like a lion and tear them.

Like a lion tears them. Well, God has torn, but he will heal us. This is in contrast to what is said in chapter 5, verse 13, that the Assyrians can't cure you, and he can't heal you of your wounds.

Only God, in other words, can heal them. So, taking up images from verses 13-15 of how God has torn them, but he alone can heal them. He has stricken, but he will bind us up.

It says, after two days he will revive us. And on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live in his sight. This has been a temptation for commentators to see this as a reference to the resurrection of Christ, somehow.

Or of our resurrection. Since it mentions, on the third day he will raise us up, it's been suggested by some that perhaps in Christ, rising on the third day, there is the rising of the, or the restoration of the nation, as it were. The hope and the healing of the nation is in the resurrection of Christ.

So that in his rising on the third day, they have risen, as it were. Actually, the Bible says we have risen with Christ, and seated with him in heavenly places. So there's a sense in which it could possibly be understood that way.

On the third day he will raise us up. That is, on the third day when Jesus rose, on the third day, so did we with him, or in him. Others have understood this to be just a reference to the resurrection of the church on the last day.

And they've tried to make out some kind of a system where a day equals a thousand years. Of course, 1 Peter 3, 8 says a day to the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day. So they say, well look, it says after two days he will raise us up, and on the third day he'll, you know, after two days he'll revive us.

And so they say, well the church age has been two thousand years, that means after that he's going to raise us up. The resurrection, the second coming of Jesus, is going to be in the year 2000. I've heard people argue from this verse that way, you know, predict the church age is predicted to be two thousand years long, and so forth.

In all likelihood, neither of those thoughts are in the mind of the prophet. Probably two days or three days just means two or three days, namely a short time. And that's what the people are saying, if we'll turn to God, he'll restore us shortly.

Two or three days, maybe. You know, it's not very long for now, we won't have to suffer for long if we'll just turn to God. He's torn us, we're suffering now.

We're dead, as it were. But if we'll turn back to him, he'll raise us up again. In two or three days.

Simply meaning in a short time. That's the probable meaning of it, although it may have some more mystical reference to the resurrection of Christ. A lot of commentators have sought to see that in there.

And so he urges them to pursue after the knowledge of God. And yet, of course, whether sincere or not, in this appeal, verse four, God makes it very clear that they don't really pursue after God tenaciously. They don't persist.

They have, they voice their loyalty and their faithfulness to God, but it's really like a morning cloud that only lasts for the morning, and disappears by noon. The sun, it burns off. The fog, it burns off by noon.

Or the dew on the grass, it goes away and evaporates quickly. So their faithfulness is like that. Later on, he makes a statement that they will be like that.

Apparently, like their faithfulness, they will be like the morning cloud and vanish away too. I don't remember exactly what that reference is, but it's later. Later on we'll see it.

Oh, it's in Hosea 13.3. Speaking of them perishing shortly, he says, Therefore they shall be like the morning cloud and like the early dew that passes away. In other words, they are not going to last long. Just like their faithfulness was that way.

Their good words were hollow or shallow, or they at least didn't persist in them. Verse five says, Therefore I have hewn them by the prophets. The word hewn is a reference to splitting wood with an axe.

So he split them like with an axe by the prophets. And I have slain them by the words of my mouth. And your judgments are like light that goes forth.

For I desire mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. Now he complained at the very outset in chapter four, verse one, there was no mercy. No truth and no mercy and no knowledge of God in the land.

So he mentions mercy and knowledge of God again here. That's what he's looking for. He's not looking for their sacrifices.

He's not looking for their ritual obedience. He's looking for them to obey him and know him and show mercy to others. Remember, that's what Samuel said, something like that, to Saul in 1 Samuel 15, 22.

He said, Has the Lord as much delight in sacrifices and burnt offerings as in hearing the words of the Lord, or as in obeying the words of the Lord? He says, Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. So even though God commanded sacrifice in the Old Testament, there were things that were really more important to him than that, like knowing God, like obeying him. Now Jesus quoted Hosea 6, 6 twice, once in Matthew chapter 9, verse 13, and also in Matthew chapter 12, verse 7. In both cases, the Jews of his time were being critical of his or perhaps his disciples' neglect of ritual cleanness.

The Pharisees were nuts about being ritually clean. They'd wash themselves several times a day, special kinds of washing through a special ceremony. They'd remain totally aloof from anything unclean, even Gentiles or sinners.

And Jesus simply didn't pay any attention to their ritual cleanness that they were so fond of. And once they criticized him for eating with tax collectors and sinners, he wasn't remaining aloof like they were. He was polluting himself in the presence of wicked people in Matthew chapter 9. And he told them in Matthew 9, 13, Go and learn what this means.

I will have mercy and not sacrifice. And then later in chapter 12, they complained because Jesus and his disciples were eating without washing their hands properly. Or no, that wasn't the case.

In that particular case, it was not washing their hands. It was that they were breaking up the heads of grain in their hands on the Sabbath, which was considered to be a breaking of the ritual Sabbath. And they complained to Jesus about that.

And he said, if you had gone and learned what that means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless. He quotes Hosea 6, 6 twice. In both cases, what he's trying to show is that Jesus' priorities were different than theirs.

And God's were the same as Jesus' not the same as theirs. Jesus was showing mercy. Jesus was more concerned about reaching the heathen than remaining aloof from them.

He was more concerned about the disciples eating when they were hungry than he was concerned about them keeping the Sabbath. The rituals of sacrifice and cleanness and Sabbath keeping and festival keeping, all those ritual things were nowhere near as important to God, as simply showing mercy and living in mercy toward people. And Jesus was essentially saying, I and my disciples are following after mercy.

You, Pharisees, are following after sacrifice and ritual. But don't you know what it means when Hosea says God will have mercy rather than sacrifice? He prefers that above the other. And what Jesus is saying is that God has already shown that his priorities are different than those of the Pharisees.

And also Hosea is saying that God's priorities are different than those of his own Jews in his own days. Verse 7, But like men they transgressed the covenant. There they dealt treacherously with me.

Gilead is a city of evil doers and is defiled with blood. As bands of robbers lie in wait for a man, so the company of priests murder on the way to Shechem. Even the priests themselves are murderers and wicked like the rest because they don't know the law of God.

Surely they commit lewdness, which probably refers to sexual immorality. I have seen a horrible thing in the house of Israel. There is the harlotry of Ephraim.

Israel is defiled. Also, O Judah, a harvest is appointed for you. Okay, so most of this is spoken against Ephraim and Israel.

But he says, Also, Judah, don't think that you're going to get away without a harvest also. There's something you're going to have to reap. Now, I didn't read the last line of verse 11, which says, When I return the captives of my people.

And the reason I didn't is because some scholars believe that it actually belongs to the next chapter. That you should put a period after there's a harvest for you, O Judah, period. And then, instead of reading, When I return the captives of my people, you should read, When I would return the captivity of my people.

And add that to verse 1 of chapter 7, which is, When I would have healed Israel. So that, essentially, adding the last line of verse 11, of chapter 6, to the first line of chapter 7, verse 1, and rephrasing that last line of chapter 6 a little bit differently, it would read like this. When I would return the captivity of my people.

When I would have healed Israel. Then, the iniquity of Ephraim was uncovered. In other words, God was disposed to heal them and return their captivity.

He wants to. When he would have done it, they gave him no excuse to do it. They gave him no warrant to show mercy to them.

He wanted to show mercy, but their wickedness was uncovered. It was plain. It's not even secreted.

And the wickedness of Samaria, for they have committed fraud. The thief comes in. A band of robbers takes spoil outside.

Now their own deeds have surrounded them. They are before my face. Now, their own deeds have surrounded them, suggests that they're going to be surrounded, as by an army, by the fruits of their own work.

Many times the Bible teaches that the judgment of sinners is essentially just what their own deeds result in. A lot of times God doesn't have to make any special actions to bring judgment, because sin brings its own consequences, in many cases. You sin, you're going to make enemies.

You do the things God tells you not to do, and you're going to find out he had a good reason for telling you that, because those kinds of actions bring negative repercussions on those who indulge in them. So they're going to be surrounded by their own deeds, surrounded as if it were by an army. Now, he talks about how they kill their own kings.

And this is true. Well, it was true of seven of the kings of Israel. Of the 19 kings that the Northern Kingdom had, seven of them were assassinated.

Four of them were assassinated within a 20-year period. There were four kings assassinated. And there were two of them assassinated within seven months, shortly before this time.

So there was a sort of a... It could be said to be a characteristic of the people of Israel that they killed their own king. And that's what he's talking about here. He's talking about how the people will deceive the king.

They'll have treason against the king. There'll be a political intrigue and conspiracy against the king. They'll make him drunk, and they'll kill him.

And that's what he's talking about in verse 3 and following. He says, Now, this is all, of course, very figurative and makes it a little hard to understand. But the burning of the fire in the oven... Of course, a fire in an oven is not visible while it's burning.

It's a hidden fire. It's there, and it's making everything hot, but it's hidden. It's not like a bonfire or a fire in a fireplace.

It's a fire out of view. It's a fire that burns inside. And it's talking about the intrigue, political intrigue and conspiracy against the king.

It's like a fire that's going to consume the king, but it's hidden from him. It's hidden within his own administration. There are plots against him.

And so there's this continuing image of the fire burning in the oven. And it talks about how these people sleep at night, and it burns in their hearts while they're waiting at night to launch their conspiracy in the morning. And when they wake up, it's burning still.

It has to do with basically their treachery against their king. It's an image of fire. Now, there's one commentator mentioned in verse 4. It says, they're all adulterers, like an oven heated by a baker.

And this one commentator thought that this should be connected with Paul's statement about burning. It's better to marry than to burn. And it's talking about burning with lust, because it mentions all our adulterers.

But adultery here is apparently not a reference to physical adultery, but spiritual adultery. They're unfaithful. They're even unfaithful to their king.

And the reason I say that is because the rest of the context after verse 4 doesn't in any way fit with the description of physical adultery. It talks about conspiracy against kings, and killing their judges, and killing their kings. In verse 7, it's sort of stated in plain terms.

They have devoured their judges, and all their kings have fallen. It's in symbolic terms until that point, but then it kind of explains what it means. But none of them have ever called on God.

Israel didn't have one king that called on the Lord. Ephraim has mixed himself among the peoples. Ephraim is a cake unturned.

Aliens have devoured his strength, but he does not know it. Yes, gray hairs are here and there on him, and he doesn't know it. And the pride of Israel testifies to his faith, but they do not return to the Lord their God, nor seek him for all this.

Ephraim also is like a silly dove without sense. They call to Egypt. They call to Assyria.

Wherever they go, I will spread my net on them, and I will bring them down like birds of the air. I will chastise them according to what their congregation has heard. Woe to them, for they have fled from me.

Destruction to them, because they have transgressed against me. Though I redeemed them, yet they have spoken lies against me. They did not cry out to me with their hearts when they wailed upon their beds.

They assembled themselves, I'm sorry, they assembled together for grain and new wine. They rebel against me, though I disciplined and strengthened their arms, yet they devise evil against me. They return, but not to the Most High.

They are like a deceitful bow, which shoots narrow crooked. Their princes shall fall by the sword, for the cursing of their tongue, this shall be their derision in the land of Egypt. Now, it's a little hard reading there, but what that main section is about, from verse 8 through 16, is talking about their foreign policy.

Not only do they kill their own kings, but they've got a bad foreign policy too. Namely, when they're in trouble, instead of turning to the Lord, they turn to Assyria and to Egypt. When he says, Ephraim has mixed himself among the people, rather than remaining pure and separate to the Lord, and letting the Lord be his defense, he's made himself like other nations, and he's made leagues and alliances with other nations.

He's mixed himself with the other people. These leagues were in order to find military protection from Assyria and from Egypt. And yet, he says in verse 9, aliens have devoured his strength, which means that those people that he's paid tribute to, to protect him, have basically consumed all his wealth.

God wouldn't have done that if they'd just trusted God. But they're spending all their money, in other words, seeking military assistance from other nations. And they don't realize that they're growing weaker and weaker economically because of this.

And it's like the nation's getting old. It's got some gray hairs appearing here and there, showing signs of age and weakness, but they're not aware of it. It's as if a man's growing old, and because he doesn't look in the mirror, he doesn't know he's aging, doesn't know he doesn't have the same strength he had when he was younger.

And so he's saying they're deteriorating their wealth and their strength, and their virility as a nation is deteriorating, but they're unaware of it. And they're not looking to God for help, but they're like a silly dove flying around here and there, senselessly, going to Egypt, going to Assyria, verse 11 says, seeking help. But he says in verse 13, woe to them, for they have fled from me.

Instead of fleeing to God for help, they fled away from God to other enemies to seek help from them. And he says in verse 14, they did not cry out to me with their heart when they should have. It says in verse 16, they returned, but not to the most high.

The complaint here is that they don't turn to God. They turn to Egypt. They turn to Assyria, and this they did frequently, and that's the foreign policy that's being complained about here, that the kings did.

Now it says in verse 16 at the end, this shall be their derision in the land of Egypt. Now here's the first hint in Hosea that there's going to be a going back to Egypt. There's several references in Hosea to the Exodus and the fact that God took them out of Egypt, and there's also references to the fact that they're going to go back to Egypt.

Now, of course, their captivity was mostly not in Egypt, but in Assyria. But if you take Judah and Israel together in these prophecies, you can see that some went into Assyria and some went into Babylon and some went into Egypt. You remember Jeremiah was carried away by a group of Jews who fled to Egypt.

Pharaoh Necho had taken, who, Jehoiachin? I forget. One of the kings of Judah was taken into Egypt as captive. So even though there wasn't a mass exile to Egypt as there was to Assyria or to Babylon, yet there were some that went back to Egypt, and that's what's being spoken of here.

You go to Egypt for help. You go to Assyria for help. Well, you're going to find you're going to go to Egypt and Assyria as slaves because you're losing your strength.

You're giving up all your wealth to them, paying them off to keep you safe. That's going to destroy you economically as a nation and put you at their mercy, and you're going to end up just being in derision in the land of Egypt. Chapter 8 goes on, and we'll find there are further references to going to Egypt as this goes on.

"...Set the trumpet to your mouth. He should come like an eagle against the house of the Lord, because they have transgressed my covenant and rebelled against my law. Israel shall cry to me, My God, we know you." In other words, claiming that God ought to help them because they're his people, but he says that Israel has cast off the good.

They may claim to know God, but they've cast off good behavior, and therefore he doesn't come to their aid. "...The enemy will pursue him." Verse 4 says, "...They set up kings, but not by me. They made princes, and I did not acknowledge it." Now, that's interesting.

They set up kings, but not by me. Is this a reference to the fact that God never wanted them to have kings? That it was the people's decision to set up Saul and to establish an earthly monarchy? Or does it just mean the northern kingdom has kings that are not of God's choosing, because God chose David as their true king, and all the kings of Judah were of David, but the kings of Israel were just whoever happened to have the most power to assassinate the previous guy and to hold power until his generation weakened and was assassinated by someone else. It's not clear exactly what's up there, but it might also refer to the idols they set up.

Kings and princes can sometimes refer to the gods and their priests in the language of the prophets, and it may be referring to that. If it's referring to actual political rulers, it's a little difficult, because in Romans 13 it says that there are no authorities in power except those that God has ordained. And so how could it be said they set up kings but not of God? It would seem like the sovereignty of God.

God superintends the rising and the falling of kings. God himself says he raises up kings and brings down kings. On the other hand, that might be something that he does just at crucial points in history.

He may allow periods of history to go by where people are left to themselves to raise up for themselves whatever rulers they want, but then at turning points in history where his program requires a certain thing to take place, he intervenes and sets up a king and brings down a king or whatever. I mean, it's not clear exactly to what extent man and God are involved in the setting up of rulers. But we would avoid the problem altogether if we understood kings here to be the idols that they set up, but we're not sure that that's true.

Later in the verse it says, from their silver and gold they have made idols for themselves that they might be cut off. And that might be parallel to setting up kings. They've set up kings, but not by me.

They've made idols for themselves. So it might be that the kings are referred to as the idols, that they're ruled over by the gods of the heathen, in other words. Verse 5, Your calf is rejected, O Samaria, meaning the golden calf that was set up at Bethel, but the capital of the nation was Samaria, and they worshipped in Bethel.

My anger is aroused against them. How long will it be until they attain to innocence? When will they become innocent again? How can you ever become innocent again after you've lost your innocence? The answer is they'll never get it back. For from Israel is even this, a workman made it, and it is not God.

But the calf of Samaria shall be broken to pieces. They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind. The stock has no bud.

It shall never produce meal. If it should produce, aliens would swallow it up. Israel is swallowed up.

Now they are among the Gentiles like a vessel in which is no pleasure. Remember in that same passage in Romans 9, where Paul quotes a few passages from Hosea. He quotes from Hosea chapter 1, verse 10, and he quotes from Hosea 2, verse 23.

In the same passage, he makes reference to vessels of dishonor, as the Jews who have rejected Christ are called by Paul in that passage, possibly also taking that image from Hosea, because he goes on to quote Hosea twice immediately afterwards. That's in Romans 9, verses 22-24. Here they are among the Gentiles like a vessel in which there is no pleasure.

God takes no pleasure in them. They are a vessel of dishonor, a vessel of wrath. For they have gone up to Assyria like a wild donkey alone by itself.

Ephraim has hired lovers. Yes, though they have hired among the nations, now I will gather them, and they shall sorrow a little because of the burden of the king of princes. Now, the burden of the king of princes may refer to the Assyrian king.

Otherwise, it's difficult to know who it's referring to. A lot of these things I'm not making comment on because I assume that they're fairly self-explanatory. Maybe they wouldn't be if we hadn't already been through several of the prophets that talk the same way, but having been through several prophets and becoming familiar with the way they talk and the kinds of things they're talking about, I'm assuming we don't need to comment on every verse because for the most part it's very like the prophets that we've studied in many respects.

Verse 11, because Ephraim has made many altars for sin, they have become for him altars for sinning. I have written for him the great things of my law, but they have considered it a strange thing. Strange, not meaning bizarre, but meaning foreign.

It's foreign to them. They haven't embraced it as their own. They think of it as something that's not theirs, not part of their culture.

God gave them great laws, great things in his law were given to them, a tremendous privilege, but they have become estranged from the law. They've disowned it and consider it a foreign thing, an intrusion. For the sacrifices of my offering, they sacrifice flesh and eat it, but the Lord does not accept them.

Now he will remember their iniquity and punish their sins. They shall return to Egypt. It's implied that at the end of chapter 7. Now he states it very clearly.

They shall return to Egypt. He'll say it again in chapter 9, verse 3. Now verse 4, for Israel has forgotten his maker and has built temples. That would be temples to other gods, to the golden calves and such, and to Baal.

Judah has multiplied fortified cities, but I will send fire upon his cities, and it shall devour his palaces. You might recognize that line. I will send fire upon his cities and it shall devour his palaces.

That is the refrain that occurs six or seven times in the book of Amos in the first two chapters when he pronounces judgment on those various nations. For three transgressions of Damascus and for four, I will not withhold my judgment. He says, and I will therefore devour the... I shall kindle fire upon Hazel, and it shall devour the palaces of Ben-Hadad, or something like that.

I mean, I will kindle fire and it will devour the palaces is a phrase that recurs in Amos 1, chapter 4. I mean, excuse me, verse 4, verse 7, verse 10, verse 12, and verse 14, and also a couple of times in chapter 2. It's a refrain, but here we have it, the very same phrase in Hosea. Now, Hosea is later than Amos, but contemporary, near the end of Amos' ministry, so no doubt he's borrowing this expression from Amos. And it's interesting that Amos had used this expression about all seven of the cities that he pronounced judgment on, except for Israel.

When he spoke of Israel, he didn't use this particular phrase. He didn't speak of judgment on Israel. It was the eighth burden in chapter 2 of Amos.

But of the first seven burdens, he used this expression, but of the eighth, which was of Israel, he didn't use that expression. And now Hosea picks it up from Amos and uses it about Israel, as though that's a little bit of unfinished business that Amos left unsaid, that this is going to be true of Israel, as it was also of the others that were spoken against by Amos, whom Hosea certainly would have known. Chapter 9, Do not rejoice, O Israel, with joy like other people, for you have played the harlot against your God.

You have loved for reward on every threshing floor. The threshing floor and the winepress shall not feed them, and the new wine shall fail in her. In other words, God's going to send drought and not give them any more crops because they just feed the idols with them.

In other words, they offer their crops up to the idols as sacrifices and said to God. So he says, I'm not going to feed them anymore. I'm not going to support this harlotry of yours, so I'm going to stop paying alimony.

I'm going to stop giving you new wine and crops. They shall not dwell in the Lord's land, but Ephraim shall return to Egypt and shall eat unclean things in Assyria. Some feel that Egypt, return to Egypt, is just a figurative reference to going back into captivity, and that he's really just referring to them going back to Assyria.

But he speaks of it figuratively as going back to Egypt because they were once in captivity in Egypt, and he's essentially saying you're going to go back into captivity, and figuratively speaking of it as going back to Egypt. But I think it's probably literally true. I mean, we know that some of them went back to Egypt, although most went to Assyria.

He's saying both. Ephraim shall return to Egypt and shall eat unclean things in Assyria. Notice he says, Israel shall not dwell in the Lord's land.

There in verse 3. They think of it as their land. But God said it's his land, and if they don't do it his way, they won't be able to stay there. That was also stated in Leviticus 25, verse 23.

God said the land is my land, and you are tenants with me there. You're pilgrims and strangers there with me. Leviticus 25, 23.

So God never said that the land really belonged to the Jews. He let them stay there conditionally on his land if they were obedient. But when they became disobedient, he says they're not going to stay on the Lord's land.

He's kicking them out, serving an eviction notice here. They're going to go to Egypt instead. They came out of Egypt to come to that land, but now they're going out of that land to go back to Egypt and Assyria.

Did you have a question? Okay. Verse 4. They shall not offer wine offerings to the Lord, nor shall their sacrifice be pleasing to him. It shall be like bread of mourners to them.

All who eat it shall be defiled, for their bread shall be for their lives. It shall not come into the house of the Lord. What that apparently means is there's going to be salmon, there'll be so little bread that they'll need to eat it just to stay alive.

Their bread will be for their lives, for survival. They won't have any extra to bring into the house of the Lord. And that's just as well, because the house of the Lord to them is a temple that has a golden calf in it.

And therefore he's going to cut off the supplies to there, and he's going to make them have a crop failure so that they'll only have enough to eat to save their lives and not to bring to their idols. Verse 5. What will you do in the appointed day, and in the day of the feast of the Lord? For indeed they are gone because of destruction. Egypt shall gather them up.

Memphis shall bury them. Nettles shall possess their valuables of silver. Which apparently means that nettles or desert plants will grow up around where they had their valuables in their cities.

They'll just go to seed. Thorns shall be in their tents. The days of punishment have come.

The days of recompense have come. Israel knows. The prophet is a fool.

The spiritual man is insane because of the greatness of your iniquity and great enmity. The statement that the prophet is a fool and a spiritual man is insane is not so much that the prophet is saying that this is so, but that that's how they are viewed. The people treat the prophets like fools, like madmen.

Spiritual men, the few that are still left, are treated as though they're nuts. Like they don't have any common sense. And that's always been true, really.

The world just doesn't understand people who are righteous. There's different motivation than that which they can relate to. Paul said the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness.

And so the message of the church and the life of faith and so forth seem absurd to people who don't have faith and who are wicked. And so also at that time the prophets like Hosea and Amos were thought to be fools. And the spiritual man might refer to the same person as the prophet who had the spirit.

They're treated as fools and insane. But it's not because they really are fools and insane, but because the people judging them are departed from moral sense into the greatness of their iniquity and enmity. Verse 8, the watchman of Ephraim is with my God.

The watchman would be the prophet. But the prophet is a foulish snare in all his ways, and enmity in the house of his God. Not exactly clear how that's to be understood, but it may refer to the fact that the prophet, as earlier it said that God had fused them with the prophets and slain them with the word out of his mouth, that another image has been used, the prophet is trapping them, that is his words are condemning them.

It's not that clear. They're deeply corrupted as in the days of Gibeah. He will remember their iniquity and he will punish their sins.

Gibeah probably refers to the atrocity that was committed in that city in Judges 19 when a certain Levite was traveling through with his concubine. And the people of the city surrounded the house and wanted to rape the guy. And he sent his concubine out instead and the gang raped the woman and she died.

And as a result of that, you remember, he cut her into 12 pieces and sent the pieces to the 12 tribes of Israel and there was a big battle because the tribes required the tribe of Benjamin, which Gibeah belonged to, to surrender the men of Gibeah to be punished, and they wouldn't. The tribe of Benjamin stood as a solidarity against the other tribes. And in the war that followed, Benjamin as a tribe was almost exterminated.

Only what, 400 or 600 men survived the war of the whole tribe. And so the reference here to they're deeply corrupted like the days of Gibeah carries two thoughts in it. One, the people of Gibeah were unusually corrupt, like Sodom really.

All of them wanted to rape their guests, including the male guests. I mean, there was homosexuality, there was brutality, there was just total corruption in the city. But the other way that Gibeah serves as a warning to these people is that Gibeah's sin brought an almost extermination on a whole tribe in Israel.

And perhaps what's being suggested here is just like they are following in the utter corruption of the people of Gibeah, it will also lead to the almost extermination of their people when God brings judgment upon them. Verse 10, I found Israel like grapes in the wilderness. I saw your fathers as the first fruits on the fig tree in its first season.

But they went to Baal Peor and separated themselves to that shame. They became an abomination like the thing they loved. People become like the idols they worship.

We've pointed that out before in certain other passages say so. Here it says so too. They have become an abomination just like the thing they love.

Abomination is usually the word that means an idol. But it means that they have themselves become just as abominable as the idols because they've loved idols. Now, it says that when God found Israel, probably it means when he first called them to be a nation.

They were like grapes in the wilderness. There was an unusual refreshment in a dry place. In a world full of hostility against God, there was a small group of people whom God could call his own, through whom he could be refreshed.

They were like the first fruits on the fig tree in its first season. But then it says they departed. They corrupt themselves.

Now, I think it's interesting that he compares Israel with the first fruits on the fig tree in its first season. The NIV renders it the early fruit on the fig tree. That would be the fruit that appears before the normal fruit season.

Now, the reason I find that interesting is because in the New Testament, if you look at Mark chapter 11, Mark chapter 11, verses 12 through 14, it says, Now the next day, when they had come out from Bethany, Jesus was hungry, and seeing from afar a fig tree having leaves, he went to see if perhaps he would find something on it. And when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. In response, Jesus said to it, Let no one eat fruit from you ever again.

And his disciples heard it. Now look down at verse 20. Now in the morning, as they passed by the next day, they saw the fig tree dried up from the roots.

And Peter, remembering to him, said to him, Rabbi, look, the fig tree which you cursed was withered away, or has withered away, excuse me. So Jesus answered and said to them, Have faith in God, for assuredly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, Be removed and be cast into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things which he says will come to pass, he will have whatever he says. Therefore I say to you, Whatever things you ask when you pray, believe that you receive them and you will have them.

Now, here Jesus curses the fig tree. People often wonder why Jesus cursed this poor fig tree. After all, his complaint was that it didn't have fruit on it, but it specifically says it wasn't yet the season for figs.

So why should he hold it against the fig tree that didn't have figs? Now, the answer that's usually given here is that the fig tree represents Israel. And that Israel was fruitless, and therefore Jesus pronounced a curse on the fig tree that really carries over to Israel. Israel will not be fruitful again either.

Now, Jesus never did really make that application verbally. He never said to them, Let's see, this has to do with Israel. In fact, the only application he made to it when his disciples pointed out the fig tree was withered was that it's an example of what faith in God can do, and that they could do similar things if they had faith in God.

And therefore, there doesn't seem to be any support in the passage to equate the fig tree with Israel. And yet, it's such a fitting thing, because Israel had all the foliage. Here's the deal.

Even though it was not yet the season for figs, the fig tree sometimes would get, that is, some fig trees would get figs prematurely before the season. And the evidence that they had those figs is usually that they had the foliage, the leaves that come out. After the winter was over, the leaves had come back.

This is usually an advertisement that there were figs, even if it was before the time of figs. And so, there's a sense in which the fig tree was pretending to have figs, but didn't. Just like Israel pretended to have spiritual fruit, but didn't.

They had all the foliage, all the leaves, all the outward show of being religious. But when you looked under the leaves and looked more carefully and looked under the surface, you'd see there was no real fruit there. There was no righteousness, no justice, no mercy.

The things God was really looking for. And so, Jesus coming to the fig tree hungry for fruit, it has leaves, but it's not the season for figs, but he finds no figs on any curses, so there's never been any more fruit on it, seems to call to mind the whole picture of Israel at that time. In fact, Jesus made several statements in this same week, this final week of his life on earth, that were denouncing Israel in the same kind of terms.

Now, it's always been argued by those who don't want to apply the fig tree to Israel that Jesus makes no reference to Israel in this whole passage. But when you look back at Hosea 9 and verse 10, it specifically says, God found Israel like the first fruit, or the early fruit on the fig tree. That is, fruit that comes before its season.

There were times when fig trees produced fruit prematurely. And Israel is said to be like that early fruit on a fig tree. And therefore, the reference to the fig tree without early fruit can be seen if it's in the light of Hosea.

What was said in Hosea, it could be that Jesus meant for his disciples to understand that this did have to do with Israel. Because Israel was compared to a fig tree and the early fruit on a fig tree in the Old Testament. And so Jesus actually would be like an acted parable.

Here's the fig tree that should have the early fruit like Israel once had. And he looks, but there isn't any. Now I might just add another point that doesn't involve Hosea so much as it involves the parable of the fig tree or the story of the fig tree.

When the disciples point out that the fig tree had withered, Jesus said to them in verse 23, Surely I say unto you, whoever says to this mountain, Be removed and be cast into the sea, and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that those things which he says shall come to pass, he will have whatever he says. We usually think of this as just a lesson about faith. And it is principally that.

And we've talked about, I mean we've always heard people talk about faith that can move mountains. But I wonder if Jesus is really talking about faith that removes mountains here. He says, you could say to this mountain, be removed and cast into the sea.

If you think of the symbolism that the prophets used of the mountains and the sea, a mountain was a kingdom and the sea was the Gentile nation. Fairly consistently through the prophets. And Jesus often spoke using the language of the prophets.

He could have been motioning to this mountain Jerusalem. He was right there. He was right there at Mount Zion.

He could have said, you could say to this mountain, be uprooted and cast into the sea. That is, be dispersed among the Gentiles. And it will happen.

Now if there was any of that in his thought, then it would agree with the fig tree incident. The fig tree was fruitless like Israel was fruitless. It would never be fruitful again.

It would instead be dispersed among the Gentiles and never really be God's people again. And his statement about the mountain being cast into the sea could be a reference to the Jewish state being removed from its place and simply dispersed among the Gentiles, which the sea often represents. I don't know if I can find it very quickly, but in Revelation, there's an interesting image of a burning mountain falling into the sea.

And I wonder if I can find it very quickly, because I don't remember the exact reference. I think it's with the breaking of one of the seven, no, the blowing of one of the seven trumpets. Oh yeah, okay.

Chapter 8, verse 8. Revelation 8, 8. It is thought by many commentators that this breaking or this blowing of the seven trumpets refers to judgments on Jerusalem in 70 A.D. Okay, the destruction of Jerusalem. I won't take the time to defend that now, but it's thought by many to be so. When the second trumpet is blown in chapter 8 of Revelation, verse 8, it says, Then the second angel sounded, and something like a great mountain burning with fire was thrown into the sea, and a third of the sea became blood, and so forth.

Now, this is all symbolic, but it refers to a mountain on fire being thrown into the sea. If it could be shown from the context, which we won't bother to do now, but later when we say Revelation we may say truth. If it can be shown from the context that this is actually talking about the downfall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and a good case can be made for it, then this burning mountain thrown into the sea is the fall of Jerusalem, the fall of the Jewish state.

It went up in flames, and it was cast into the sea. And therefore Jesus' statement, You can say to this mountain, Be removed and cast into the sea, might actually be predicting this very thing and saying that the disciples, through their prayers, can bring about the turnover of the system, the end of the old and the incoming of the new. Now, you might say, well, Jesus wouldn't teach his disciples to pray for the downfall of Jerusalem.

That's not a very nice thing to pray for. And yet we find in the book of Revelation, chapter 6, the saints beheaded for their witness under the altar in heaven, and they're saying, Lord, how long before you avenge our blood on those who killed us? Meaning the Jews and the Romans who killed the early Christians. But we find the Christians actually praying for God to judge their persecutors.

And therefore Jesus might well be referring to something like this, that just as I curse the fig tree, you can, through your prayers, your imprecatory prayers, as it were, bring about the downfall of these who are the enemies of God in Jerusalem, who will kill Jesus and kill Stephen and persecute the apostles and kill a lot of Christians, too. Jerusalem became the persecutor of the church. And therefore to pray for its downfall is simply like for us to pray for the downfall of the communist government in China or something.

You know, I mean, it's quite appropriate. And Jesus may well have been telling his disciples, if they pray with faith, that'll happen. And the book of Revelation may, in fact, be describing that very thing.

Anyway, all of that comes from identifying Israel with the fig tree. And that seems to be supportable, if nowhere else, right here in Hosea 9.10. Well, let's finish up this chapter, at least, and we'll finish the book in our next session. Verse 11, As for Ephraim, their glory shall fly away like a bird.

No birth, no pregnancy, and no conception. Though they bring up their children, yet I will bereave them to the last man. Yes, woe to them when I depart from them.

Just as I saw Ephraim like tyre planted in a pleasant place. So Ephraim will bring out his children to the murderer. That is, they'll have to surrender to their captors who will kill their children.

Give them, O Lord, what will you give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breath. All their wickedness is in Gilgal. There was an altar to false gods in Gilgal.

For there I hated them because of the evil of their deeds. It could also be a reference to the fact that Saul was anointed as king in Gilgal, and it may be a reference to God's displeasure with that. We find God in Hosea 13 making reference to his anger at their choosing Saul, or choosing to have a king.

In chapter 13, in verse 10, it says, I will be your king, where is any other that may save you in all your cities? And your judges to whom you said, give me a king and princes. I gave you a king in my anger, and I took him away in my wrath. So in Hosea we also find God saying he was angry when they chose Saul, and Gilgal, of course, Saul was anointed.

So it may well be that verse 15 of chapter 9 is referring to that too. I hated them there. Their wickedness was there because of the evilness of their deeds.

I will drive them from my house. I will love them no more. All their princes are rebellious.

Ephraim is stricken. Their root is dried up. They shall bear no fruit.

Yes, were they to bear children, I would kill the beloved fruit of the womb. My God will cast them away because they did not obey him, and they shall be wanderers among the nations. Now, I believe that while this no doubt has a first reference to the Assyrian captivity, that all the images from this passage are picked up in the New Testament about the destruction of Jerusalem in 7 AD as well.

Maybe it's sort of a secondary application. The reason I say that is, first of all, notice in verse 11 and 12, it says, No birth, no pregnancy, no conception. Though they bring up their children, yet I will bereave them to the last man.

I'm going to judge them with barren wombs, but if they happen to have any children, I'm going to even, they're going to lose their children. Also it says that in verse 16. Ephraim is stricken.

Their root is dried up. They shall bear no fruit. Yes, were they to bear children, I would kill their beloved fruit of their womb.

Both of these places, verses 11 and 12, and also verse 16, are saying the same thing. God strikes them with barrenness, but on the few occasions where he doesn't strike them with barrenness, the children will be destroyed anyway by the enemy. Now, in light of this, it says in verse 14, Give them, O Lord, what will you give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breast.

In other words, if they had children, they'll be slaughtered by the enemy. It says that in verse 13. Ephraim will re-honor his children to the murderer.

To have children will only bring more grief. The children you'd bear, you'd see them slaughtered before your eyes. Therefore, God, give them miscarriages.

Don't let them have children. Don't let them have milk in their breasts to nurse infants, because of the horrible disaster that will come upon them. Now, if you'll look at Luke chapter 23, Jesus may well be thinking of this passage when he makes this statement to the women who are weeping for him, as he was carrying his cross up to Golgotha.

Luke chapter 23, verses 28 and 29, they were weeping and mourning over him, and he turned to them, verse 28, Jesus turned to them, and said, Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for me, but weep for yourselves and for your children. For indeed the days are coming, in which they will say, Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore, and the breasts which never nursed. Then they will begin to say to the mountains, Fall on us, and to the hills, cover us.

Interestingly, this is a quote from Hosea 10.8. We haven't gotten there yet, but Hosea 10.8 speaks of this very thing. They shall say to us, to the mountains, cover us, and to the hills, fall on us. So Jesus quotes from Hosea 10.8 here, and when he says, they will say, Blessed are the barren, the wombs that never bore, and the breasts that never nursed, that may well be an allusion to Hosea's prayer.

In Hosea 9, Lord, give them miscarrying womb and dry breast. Why? Because it would be more merciful to lose your children to miscarriage, than to lose them to the enemy. And since Jerusalem was facing, or in Hosea's day, Israel, and in Jesus' day, Jerusalem, were facing such calamity, it would be considered merciful for God to keep them from having children, and from nursing children.

Because at the time when that calamity comes, people will be crying for shelter from the rocks and the mountains, to escape that horrible disaster. Both Hosea and Jesus make reference to that in their respective contexts. Hosea is talking about the fall of Israel to Assyria.

Jesus is talking about the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans. Well, this goes on. We'll take care of it later in our next session, because we have to quit here.