Hosea 10 - 14

00:00

Hosea 10 - 14

In this insightful exploration of Hosea 10-14, Steve Gregg delves into the prophetic messages of a restored Israel and the coming of the Messiah. Gregg examines the symbolism of Israel's emptiness and lack of a king, revealing the significance of Jesus as the true King of Israel. He also explores the themes of God's wrath and the survival of the believing remnant, drawing connections to the book of Revelation. Gregg highlights the importance of sowing righteousness and the consequences of backsliding, emphasizing the need for mercy and the ultimate redemption brought by Christ.

Transcript

Hosea chapter 10 is where we are. At the end of chapter 9, we're seeing that God was threatening certain judgments on Israel, the northern kingdom, because of its idolatry principally. And among those judgments was barrenness.

But then, barrenness, which was usually considered a judgment, was said to be in this case not so much a judgment as a merciful thing, because if people had children, they could expect to lose them to the enemy and see them killed before them. So that Hosea actually prayed that God, in verse 14 of chapter 9, would give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts, or breasts that don't have milk to nurse babies, because it would be more merciful for them to miscarry their babies than to bring them to birth, become emotionally attached to them, and then see them wiped out in this way. So that is what was discussed at the end of chapter 9. I pointed out that Jesus, I think, deliberately borrowed from this imagery.

In Luke chapter 23, when he told the women of Jerusalem they should weep for themselves and their children, because the time would come when people would call those blessed whose wombs had never borne and whose breasts had never nursed babies, because of the same kinds of situations that Jerusalem was going to be facing soon, shortly after Jesus' time in 70 AD, similar to those conditions that Hosea was warning Israel about in his time. At the end of chapter 9, I made no comment on verse 17. He says, "...for my God will cast them away, because they did not obey him, and they shall be wanderers among the nations." And I would ask, has that changed? The Jews were wanderers through the nations from the time of 70 AD on.

Actually, the northern kingdom from the days of 721 BC on, when Samaria fell, they've been scattered ever since. And the people of Judah have been ever since 70 AD. Of course, we live in a time where many Jews have returned to their historical homeland, the land of Palestine or Israel.

And many people feel that things are not the same as they were. Ever since 1948, when Israel became a nation again, people think, well, we live in a different kind of situation now. God has restored the people of Israel back to their land.

But notice these statements. "...my God will cast them away, because they did not obey him, and they shall be wanderers among the nations." They are to wander among the nations. Why? Because they didn't obey him.

Has that changed? Do the Jews obey him now? Well, most of the Jews don't. There are, of course, most Gentiles don't either. But the point is to say that God has specially restored them to their land and put an end to the days of wandering would suggest that the conditions that caused them to go into wandering would have changed.

Namely, that they would have repented and that they would be doing the will of God now and obeying Christ. But they aren't, and therefore I question whether the presence of Israel in their land is a permanent situation or whether it's something God is doing, whether it's a man or God, I don't know. But it is also true, of course, there are more Jews outside of Israel today than in it.

They are still wandering throughout the nation. And even though Israel has been a state for over 40 years now, 42 years since Israel achieved faith, over a whole generation, yet there are many Jews who are not there. In fact, there are more Jews in New York City than there are in Israel.

You see, a lot of people feel that this condition of them being wanderers to the nations is something that God has now canceled, this curse on them, and that they are now being drawn back to their nation by God. Though he's basically restoring them mercifully to their land. Well, I wonder, you know, is that an explanation of what's happening? After all, if it is true that 1948 spelled the end of their wandering, then why is it that now, over a generation later, that the majority of Jews are still wandering, or at least are still estranged from their homeland and up there? It's true there are Jews still going there, but it doesn't seem like there's been any kind of radical restoration of the people of Israel from their wandering or their being aliens in foreign countries.

In chapter 10, he says, Israel empties his vines, he brings forth fruit for himself according to the multitude of his fruit. He has increased the altars. In other words, he goes, he empties his vine, meaning he harvests his grapes, and the more fruit he has, the more altars he builds to false gods, to offer his fruit offerings to.

Because the more God has prospered Israel, the more they've been ungrateful to him and used their prosperity as a means of honoring other gods than God, as has been said there. He has increased the altars according to the bounty of his land and has embellished his sacred pillars. Their heart is divided.

Now they are held guilty. He will break down their altars. He will ruin their sacred pillars.

This he could either refer to God or the Assyrians who ultimately did this. For now they say, we have no king because we did not fear the Lord. And as for a king, what would he do for us? They have spoken words, swaying falsely and making a covenant.

Thus judgment springs up like hemlock in the furrows of the field. When they say, we have no king, and if we did have one, what good would it do us? It seems to be projecting division to a period of time after the judgment has come. When the altars have been broken down and their sacred pillars broken down by the Assyrians, the nation of Israel will have no king anymore.

And what good would it do them if they did? Their kings had never been able to deliver them from the Assyrians. And therefore they complain that they have ceased to be a kingdom. And they have a king.

Remember? It was predicted back in Hosea chapter 3 verse 5 or verse 4, that the children of Israel still abide many days without a king or a prince. But that was to come to an end, according to Hosea 3 verse 5, when they returned to the Messiah. So when Jesus came and put an end to that, the true Israel would have a king again, namely the Messiah.

Verse 5, the inhabitants of Samaria fear because of the calf of Beth-Avon or Bethel. For its people mourn for it and its priests shriek for it, because its glory has departed from it. Again, the Assyrians have done it.

It says, the idol also shall be carried to the Assyrians, or to Assyria, as a present for King Jerob. Ephraim shall receive shame, and Israel shall be ashamed of his own counsel. As for Samaria, her king is cut off, like a twig on the water.

Also, the high places of Avon, probably meaning Bethel, Beth-Avon, the sin of Israel shall be destroyed. The thorn and thistle shall grow on their altars. Their altars will not be tended.

A thorn and thistle couldn't really grow on an altar, because they're continually burning sacrifices on it. So a thorn and thistle can burn up too. But it's stating that the sacrifices there will cease.

The altars will just be dilapidated. They'll be given over to wild shrubs and friars and so forth that will eventually cover them up. They shall say to the mountains, cover us, and to the hills, fall on us.

Now we saw that Jesus actually quotes this. Isaiah had actually been the first to suggest this, that in the day that God judges that people would look to hide in the mountains, in Isaiah chapter 2, verse 19, it says, They shall go into the holes of the rocks, and into the caves of the earth, from the terror of the Lord, and the glory of his majesty, when he arises to shake the earth and my life. So, Isaiah predicts a time when God will arise to shake the land or the earth, to punish Israel or Judah.

And people will hide in caves and under rocks and so forth, from the terror of the Lord. That's what Hosea also says. This is quoted twice in the New Testament.

Once, as I showed you earlier in Luke 23, 30, where Jesus was talking about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, he said, after he told the women, to mourn for themselves and their children. He went on to say, because the time is coming when men will say, to the mountains cover us and to the hills fall on us. So he's quoting here and applying it to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

There's one other place in the New Testament that quotes it, interestingly, in Revelation. Revelation chapter 6, and verse 16. This is when the sixth seal has been broken of the seventh sealed book, which I believe unleashes judgment on Jerusalem in 70 AD.

My understanding of the seventh sealed book is that it has to do with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. And it says, concerning that time, in verse 16, And they said to the mountains and the rocks, fall on us, and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb. For the great day of his wrath has come, and who is able to stand? And interestingly, the answer to that question, who is able to stand, is given in chapter 7 of Revelation, when it tells of the 144,000, the believing Jews who survived the fall of Jerusalem, who were firstfruits unto God, as it says in chapter 14.

Anyway, we don't have time to go into that now. We shall, eventually. But the point is that twice in the New Testament, this statement from Hosea is picked up and applied to what happened to Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Hosea is no doubt talking about what happened to Israel in 721 BC, but it's quite clear from the way that these images are picked up in the New Testament and reapplied, that they apparently saw that the fall of Samaria in 721 BC was a type of the ultimate fall of the whole nation in 70 AD. And so Jesus quotes from this frequently when he's talking about that great destruction that would occur. In verse 9, O Israel, you have sinned from the days of Gibeah.

Gibeah, remember, was mentioned earlier, the place where that atrocity took place in the book of Judges. Where the Levites' concubine was raped to death. There was earlier mention of that.

And it says, There they stood, the battle in Gibeah against the children of iniquity did not overtake them. What does that mean? Good question. I resorted to the NIV in this case, where they paraphrased things for us and make things a little clearer.

The way they understand, where in the New King James, it says, There they stood and following, in verse 9. It says, There you have remained, in the NIV. Did not war overtake the evildoers in Gibeah? You can see the NIV simplifies, some might say oversimplifies the language, but it at least gives us probably a clear meaning of what was intended in the passage. It says, You have sinned from the days of Gibeah and you've remained there, as you haven't changed since the time of Gibeah.

You're just the same kind of people as they were, or as your people were then. But it says, Didn't war overtake them? And of course, making reference to the fact that the whole tribe of Benjamin was almost exterminated as a result of that. And what he's saying, that the same can be looked for by them.

Verse 10, When it is my desire, I will chasten them. People shall be gathered against them. When I bind them for their two transgressions, or double transgressions.

I don't know what their two transgressions are, unless perhaps it makes reference to the two golden calves. The one in Bethel and the one in Dan. That might be the two transgressions that it's referred to.

It might also be a play on words in a sense, because the name Ephraim, which is what Hosea calls the Northern Kingdom many times, means double fruitfulness. And now perhaps he's making a play on words that those who should have been doubly fruitful have become doubly sinful. Instead of doubly fruitful.

I'm going to bind them for their two or their double transgressions. Okay, verse 11 says, Ephraim is a trained heifer that loves to fresh. But I harness her fair neck.

I will make Ephraim pull a plow. Judas shall plow, and Jacob shall break his claws. Breaking the claws with a plow, in other words.

Now what's he saying? I think he's speaking ironically or sarcastically. Ephraim seems to love to serve foreign powers. I mean, they willingly surrender to them.

They willingly pay tribute to them to obtain security from them. Well, since they seem to love to be under the plow so much, or they love to fresh, that is, they love to be servants of foreigners, well, I guess I'll just bring them into forced servitude to those powers, since they like it so much. That's what I think he's saying there.

That since they seem to love to serve foreign powers, he'll bring them into forced labor or into captivity to those foreign powers. Verse 12, sow for yourselves righteousness. Reap in mercy.

Break up your fallow ground, for it is time to seek the Lord, till he comes and rains righteousness on you. You have plowed wickedness. You have reaped iniquity.

You have eaten the fruit of lies, because you trusted in your own way, in the multitude of your mighty men. Now, because they trusted in their own strength, their own mighty men, their own armies, God has been offended by this. Jeremiah said, woe unto him, accursed is he, who puts his trust in man and makes flesh his arm, or makes flesh his security and his strength.

In other words, who trusts in man for security. In Jeremiah 17, 5, Jeremiah said that. And there's many places in the Scripture that speak of this foolishness of putting your trust in military strength instead of in the Lord.

And that's what they're saying. They did that, and therefore they're going to reap the fruit of lies. Now, this sow righteousness, and you'll reap in mercy, reminds us of what Paul said in Galatians, that whatsoever man sows, that shall he also reap.

Galatians 6, verses 7 and 8. And he seems to be talking there about the sowing of spiritual seed into our character, will produce spiritual character. If we sow carnal or fleshly seed, or worldly seed, then we'll reap worldly character. Well, here, it's sort of the same.

If you want mercy from God, you need to sow the kinds of behavior that will reap mercy from God. God cannot send mercy for sin, and he cannot send judgment upon righteousness. So, if you want mercy, sow the right kind of seed.

You want to reap mercy from God, then sow righteousness. That's what he's saying. Now, he says, right now, if you're going to even consider doing that, you're going to need to break up the fallow ground.

Meaning, that it's been so long since you sowed any righteousness. It's been so long since you did anything right, or had any concern about being right with God, that the ground, in a sense, has become hard and fallow, untilled. And you're going to have to get out the plow and break it up.

You're going to have to recondition the soil. And, of course, in the New Testament, the soil always represents, or usually represents the heart that receives the seed one way or another. Hard soil doesn't receive it well.

But if you take out the plow and break it up, break up the hard soil, then you can sow in righteousness and produce a crop. And it says, then God will come and rain righteousness on you. Now, it's interesting.

He says you need to sow in righteousness. But we don't have any righteousness to sow. So, what do we do? We just have to break up the ground, and God will rain the righteousness onto it.

We just have to make the soil prepared for the righteousness to be added by God. And when the soil receives righteousness, then it will reap mercy from God. This is just figurative speech, of course.

All it's really saying is, what you sow is what you're going to reap. And also, essentially, whatever you put out is what you'll get back a just response for. And so he says in verse 13, you have plowed wickedness, of course, you're going to reap iniquities.

Earlier he said, they've sown the wind and will reap a whirlwind. I'm not sure exactly how that's understood. In chapter 8, verse 7, they sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

It might mean that the calamities are going to be more severe than what they expected. But I don't know exactly how that's to be understood. Verse 14, Therefore, tumult shall arise among your people, and all your fortresses shall be plundered.

As Shalman plundered Beth Arbel in the day of battle, a mother dashed in pieces upon her children. Thus it shall be done to you, O Bethel, because of your great wickedness. In a morning, the king of Israel shall be cut off utterly.

Our curiosity, of course, asks, who was Shalman who plundered Beth Arbel? And unfortunately, we get no satisfactory answer. There's no mention of this in the Bible or any other literature elsewhere. We don't know who Shalman or Beth Arbel were.

We have no record of this event or this person. It's quite clear, however, that Hosea's contemporaries knew who it was because he calls upon it as a well-known situation and says that it's going to be like that when God judges Israel. So it was probably some petty ruler of some two-bit nation that history hasn't left any record of, but it was possibly a recent memory of the Israelites.

But we don't know very much about it. We don't know anything about it, except that it's mentioned here. Okay, chapter 11, When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

As they called them, so they went from them. They sacrificed to the Baals, and they burned incense to carve images. I taught Ephraim to walk, taking them by their arms, but they did not know that I healed them.

I drew them with gentle cords, with bands of love, and I was to them as those who take the yoke from the neck. I stooped and fed them. Now, this is, of course, a poetic description of the Exodus.

When Israel was an infant nation, when he was a little child, God set his love on him. And when he says, Out of Egypt I called my son, reminds us of the fact that God had told Pharaoh, Israel is my firstborn, and if you do not let Israel go, I will kill your firstborn. He had referred to the nation of Israel as his son, at that time an infant son, a little child.

But he points out that even though God had been merciful to this helpless infant and delivered him out of Egypt, they had no gratitude. He indicates that they did not realize that he was the one who saved them. He says they did not know that it was I that healed them.

And that seems to be true because remember when Aaron made the golden calf, he said, These are your gods, oh Israel, that brought you out of Egypt. The people did not seem to have a clear notion of who God was who brought them out. That is also stated elsewhere in this book.

That God blessed them, and they gave the credit to other gods, and sacrificed the products of their labor, of their grounds, to the other gods. Also back when it said that God had found them like, what did he call it, over in chapter 9 verse 10, When I found Israel, I found them like grapes in the wilderness, and I saw your fathers as the first fruits of the fig tree in the first season. But they went to Baal-Pior and separated themselves to that tree.

He contrasts their later behavior with how he first found them. He first found them like a child, innocent, or like a young girl willing to marry him, with pure promises and so forth. But how quickly they defected to the Baals.

Now there is of course a need for us to comment on Hosea 11.1 because it's quoted in the New Testament in a rather peculiar way. Matthew quotes it in Matthew 2.15. And the connection of the quotation in Matthew is when Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt with the infant Jesus, because Herod was going to come and wipe out all the babies in Bethlehem. And so they fled and safely remained there until the death of Herod, and they returned from Egypt to Palestine.

And so Jesus spent a little while in his infancy in Egypt, and then he returned to Israel. And Matthew says, this fulfilled the prophecy, I called my son out of Egypt. Well, he's quoting this prophecy, but this prophecy is not necessarily a prophecy at all.

As you can see, chapter 11, verse 1 is just a historical statement. It's just saying something that had happened before in the Exodus. And yet Matthew treats it as if it's a prophetic statement about Jesus and his infancy.

How does he do this? How does he justify it? Well, we could just say, well, Matthew wrote by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and therefore we won't question, you know, avant-garde interpretations of Old Testament scriptures, but I think there's a message to the madness that can be seen if you look at it carefully. I believe Matthew understood that Jesus was the epitome of all that Israel was supposed to be. He was the model Israelite.

He was the ultimate servant of the Lord. Do you remember the servant of the Lord in Isaiah? How that Israel was supposed to be the servant of the Lord, but they failed to produce fruit, so God called Jesus to be the servant of the Lord? It says, though, he was what Israel was supposed to have been. He was God's faithful servant.

He was the model of what God was always looking for in Israel. And there's a sense in which the career of Israel parallels in the Old Testament the career of Jesus. In fact, I think that Matthew is saying that Israel is a type of Christ in that respect, and Jesus is the antitype.

And just as God had called Israel out of Egypt in their infancy, so for the type to follow clearly, Jesus had to be called out of Egypt. Not so much that Hosea had predicted it, but that Hosea made a statement which can be seen as a fulfillment in two ways, in the type and in the antitype. A statement that applies to Exodus, but also applies to Jesus' infancy.

And I think it's because Matthew considers that Jesus is the antitype of Israel's history, that he feels justified in applying this statement about Israel and applying it to Jesus. Because there's a parallel, he points out, a parallel between Israel's early history and Jesus' early history. And I think that that's how Matthew's thinking when he uses it.

Although it seems clear that Hosea is not consciously making a messianic prediction. In fact, Hosea is not consciously making a prediction at all, simply making a historical statement, basically that God called Israel out of Egypt. But because the whole career of Israel is sort of prophetic, in that it was a type of thing that was yet to come, it can be treated as a prophecy about the Messiah, and that's how Matthew treated it.

He goes on in verses 3 and 4 to point out how much care he had given. Like caring for a little child, he taught Ethan to walk, probably referring to giving him the law, teaching him the right ways to walk. He took them by the arm, that is, he carried them.

In verse 4 he says, I drew them with gentle cords and bands of love, that is, he didn't actually tie them up and pull them like slaves, but he drew them, as it were, with his kindness. He wooed them. And he says, I took the yoke off of their neck.

I released them from captivity. He says, I bent down and fed them, at the end of verse 4, probably referring to sending manna in the wilderness, in the quails of the wilderness. He stooped down.

He humbled himself to attend to their needs carefully, like a parent looking to help a child. But, in the middle of verse 3, as they didn't know that it was I who healed them. And in verse 5 it says, well, the King James and the new King James says, he shall not return to the land of Egypt, but the Assyrians shall be his king, because they refused to repent.

Now, if this is the correct reading, he shall not return to the land of Egypt, it seems to contradict several other statements in Hosea, where it did say they will go to Egypt. Back in chapter 8 and verse 13, at the end of verse 13 it says, they shall return to Egypt. Also in chapter 9 and verse 3 it says, they shall not dwell in the Lord's land, but Ephraim shall return to Egypt.

So twice it has been said very clearly, they shall return to Egypt, and some of them did. Now, if this reads correctly, he shall not return to the land of Egypt, it seems to be contradicting what was said earlier. If that is the correct reading, we could say that what he's telling us here, is they're not literally going to go back to Egypt, but those previous times that said they'd go back to Egypt, really were symbolic of going back into captivity.

But in fact it'll be Assyria, and not Egypt. Now, the way it reads in the King James, we could understand it that way. Some of the modern translators believe that it should be stated in the form of a rhetorical question, not a statement.

So that it would read, will they not return to Egypt? Will not Assyria rule over them? That's how it's rendered in the NIV, and I've consulted other translations that seem to agree with it. The idea being, that it's not saying they won't go to Egypt, but it's asking rhetorically, will they not go back to Egypt? In other words, they deserve it. Will I not send them there? I will, in other words.

And that would agree with the other statement, that they will go into Egypt. So he'd be just asking it sort of as a rhetorical question. Basically affirming that they will go to Egypt.

It could be seen either way, because you see, it's a question of whether you put, it's just a matter of the word order, and whether or not you put a question mark on it. And in the Hebrew text, you don't have an inviolable word order. You can put the words in different orders.

You can put them in more than one kind of order, and still be true to the text, and you also don't have question marks or punctuation in the Hebrew text. So it really depends on the translator. At any rate, we know from other passages, notably chapter 9 and verse 3, that he said they will go to Egypt, and they will eat unkeem things in Assyria.

So perhaps that's how we should understand chapter 11, verse 5 also. Verse 6 says, And the sword shall slash in his cities, devour his districts, and consume him because of their own counsels. My people are bent on backsliding from me, though they call to me the Most High.

I'm sorry, though they call to the Most High, none of them exalt him. Again, some translations have changed this to, he will by no means exalt them. In the Hebrew, it's just none at all exalt.

And the hymn in the King James, and New King James is in italic. So it's not clear whether it's saying that God won't exalt them, or they don't exalt him. I like it the way the King James reads it, as far as making sense.

They're backsliders, he says. Though they call on God, they don't really exalt him. And maybe there we have a description of a backslider.

In heart, anyway. Of course, some people backslide more radically than that and don't call on God at all. But here a person is backslidden, yet his name is on their praises, on their prayers.

They still call on him. But they don't exalt him in the way they live. And therefore, they're backslidden, bent on backsliding.

How can I give you up, Ephraim? This is one of the most emotional passages in the book of Hosea. How can I hand you over, Israel? How can I make you like Adna? How can I set you like Zerboim? Adna and Zerboim were two of the cities of the plain with Sodom and Gomorrah that were destroyed. Four cities were destroyed, Sodom and Gomorrah, Adna and Zerboim.

That's mentioned in the book of Deuteronomy 29.23, that those were among the cities destroyed there. So, in other words, he could have said, how can I make you like Sodom and set you like Gomorrah? For some reason, he chose the other two cities to name instead. My heart churns within me, God says.

My sympathy is stirred. I will not execute the fierceness of my anger. I will not again destroy Ephraim.

For I am God and not man. The Holy One in your midst, and I will not come with terror. They shall walk after the Lord.

He will roar like a lion. When he roars, then his sons shall come trembling from the west, and they shall come trembling like a bird from Egypt, like a dove from the land of Assyria. And I will let them dwell in their houses, says the Lord.

So, he's after talking about this judgment and sending them back into Egypt and so forth, he says, ah, but he can't make a full end of them. He's too compassionate. He's not a man.

Men can sometimes be totally unmerciful, but God can't divorce himself from his own nature. I'm God, I'm not a man, he says. I've got too much mercy and compassion in my nature to just cast them off entirely.

So, he speaks of, obviously, a remnant of them coming back and walking in his ways. And he'll roar for them to come out of captivity and to walk with him again. And I believe, here we have again another reference to the church age, like several others in the book.

Verse 12, Ephraim has encompassed me with lies, and the house of Israel was deceit. But Judas still walks with God, even with the Holy One who is faithful. Now, here again we have a textual problem.

The King James and the new King James both follow the text that says, or render it this way, Judas still walks with God. So that he's making a contrast between the northern kingdom of Ephraim and the southern kingdom of Judah. Ephraim's totally gone into wickedness, but Judah still walks with God.

The problem is, there's already been some indication earlier, and there is immediately afterwards, that God has a case against Judah also. And therefore, some translators have understood it differently. For instance, the New American Standard, in the margin, I think it reads, Judah is yet unsteadfast with God.

Rather than saying he still walks with God, they render it, he is yet unsteadfast with God. And the NIV reads, and Judah is unruly against God. So they're saying the opposite thing.

The question is, is God commending or condemning Judah in the statement, and it's not clear, because apparently the Hebrew texts are obscure enough, but some translators say it one way and some another way. It would seem that it would be more fitting in the context to say that God is upset with Judah also, because down in verse 2 of the next chapter, it says, the Lord also brings a charge against Judah. Until now, remember chapter 4, verse 1, he brought a charge against Ephraim, or against Israel.

Now he brings a charge against Judah. So, it's hard to know, you know, whether chapter 11, verse 12 is talking about Judah still at that time walking with God. Actually, in Hosea's day, Judah had some good kings.

He proselytized in the days of Uzziah, and Jotham, and Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Well, three of those were good kings. So it seems, perhaps, that it could be commending Judah, but then maybe when we get to chapter 12, verse 2, it's looking beyond to a time when Judah also will have to be judged.

But that's unsolvable. OK, you just have to, as scholars, think different ways about that. OK, chapter 12, verse 1. Ephraim feeds on the wind, and pursues the east wind.

He daily increases lies and desolation. Apparently, the wind represents lies. There's nothing to it.

There's no, you know, feeding on wind is eating something that is empty. There's nothing, there's no nutrition in it. Like living according to something other than truth.

It's empty. It won't feed you in your spiritual needs. Also, they make a covenant with the Assyrians, and oil is carried to Egypt.

See, Wade, you were asking about references to them doing that. We had a couple of references in 2 Kings, but here's a direct statement that they made covenants with Assyrians and bought off Egypt with oil and things like that. So that's been mentioned earlier.

One of the things God had against them. But this, too, now turns on Judah. The Lord also brings a charge against Judah, and will punish Jacob according to his ways.

According to his deeds, he will recompense him. He, and that means the man Jacob, because it isn't Jacob. See, the name Jacob can apply to the individual or to the people of Israel.

And in this case, he kind of figuratively uses it both ways. He took his brother by the heel in the womb, and in his strength he struggled with God. Yes, he struggled with the angel and prevailed.

He wept and sought favor from him. He found him in Bethel, and there he spoke to us. Now, what he's doing is showing that the modern descendants of Jacob are nothing like their ancestors.

They're not crying out to God for mercy. Jacob was a man who sought after the birthright. Even as an infant, he grabbed his brother's heel, Esau's heel.

That's why they named him heel catcher, or supplanter, Jacob. Which suggested that he was going to take from Esau the birthright. And later on we see that consciously as an adult, Jacob did take the birthright from Esau.

He bought it from him. Which shows that Jacob, unlike the modern Jews, was concerned about the birthright. The modern Jews weren't.

They'd cast off their birthright to go after other gods. And he's saying that that contrasts with the nature of their ancestor Jacob, no doubt whom they revered and venerated. Then he brings up another case from Jacob's life.

When he wrestled with God. And he says he struggled with God, and he struggled with the angel and prevailed, and he wept and sought favor from him. Do you remember that when Jacob saw that he couldn't escape? Well, actually it was the angel saw that he couldn't escape.

That the angel said, let me go. The day is dawning, and Jacob said, I won't let you go unless you bless me. Jacob was tenacious.

Just as he clung to his brother's heel to get the blessing and the birthright, so he clung on to God and wouldn't let him go until he got favor from God. The idea is, here was a man who was not satisfied to live without the blessing of God. Here was a man, Jacob, who wouldn't rest until he'd gotten all the spiritual blessing that was his by birthright.

And how unlike the people of Israel, who cast off their birthright as if it was nothing, and cast off God as well. It says also in the end of verse four, He, that is God, or Jacob, one or the other, found him in Bethel, and there he spoke to us. You remember that when Jacob first encountered God, it was in Bethel.

That's where Jacob was fleeing from Esau, and he slept on a stone, and had the dream of the ladder going into heaven, and God spoke to him there. That's what it's referring to. But it's mentioned here ironically, because when Jacob came to Bethel, he met God, and communicated with the true God, and made vows to God.

But what was Bethel now? It's Jacob's descendants, but a place where a golden calf was worshipped. There's been so much deterioration among the offspring of Jacob, they're not like their ancestors. That's the point he's making.

He says, that is the Lord God of hosts, the Lord is his memorial. So, you, by the help of your God, return. Observe mercy and justice, and wait on your God continually.

Returning to God was basically to become just and merciful, to observe mercy and justice in their dealings, and to simply wait on God to come through for them. Verse 7, A cunning Canaanite, deceitful scales are in his hand. He loves to oppress.

No doubt he's saying that Israel is like a Canaanite, they're no better than the Canaanites. They have corrupt scales in their marketplace, Amos mentioned that also. They love to oppress the poor, Amos had complained about that also.

And Ephraim said, Surely I have become rich, I have found wealth for myself, in all my labors they shall find in me no iniquity that is sin. In other words, they're claiming they're sinless. They're claiming their rightness, but they're actually living in oppression and cheating, in their business dealings.

But I am the Lord God, ever since the land of Egypt. I will again make you dwell in tents, in the days of the appointed feast, that would be in the days of the Feast of Tabernacles. I have also spoken by the prophets, in a multiplied vision.

I have given symbols through the witness of the prophets. Though Gilead has idols, surely they are vanity. Though they sacrifice bulls and gilgal, indeed their altars shall be heaps and furrows of the field.

These idols and altars were all part of their departure from God. So even though they're sacrificing, God's going to judge them. Jacob fled to the country of Syria.

Now he's talking again about the man Jacob. He fled to Padnerim, which is the land of Syria, where Laban lived. And there, that's where he worked for Laban, and got his two wives.

Israel served for a spouse, and for a wife he tended sheep. But a prophet of the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet he was preserved. Now it's not quite clear what the point is here, of mentioning Jacob serving for a spouse.

It might be saying that just as Jacob had to flee from the promised land, and spend time in servitude to a foreigner, before he got the promises and so forth, Israel also was going to have to be thrust out of the land, and have to serve foreigners. That could very well be what is intended here. That Jacob's experience is going to be repeated in his offspring, just as he had to flee to a foreign land, and end up serving for several years.

So these people were going to have to flee to another land. But the people of Israel, Jacob's offspring, were let out of Egypt by a prophet. That was Moses.

And the reason that's mentioned is because the people at that time didn't like prophets. That is, the descendants of Jacob thought of the prophets as insane. Remember, it says in chapter 9 and verse 7, the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is insane.

That's how the people were thinking about prophets. And yet he says in chapter 12, verse 10, I've spoken to you by the prophets, I've multiplied visions, I've given you symbols through the prophets. In fact, verse 13 says, The prophet of the Lord brought them out of Egypt.

They owe a lot to the prophets. They should listen to this one and repent. It was by heeding a prophet that the children of Israel escaped Egypt before.

If they would heed this prophet, Hosea, they might escape it again. Otherwise, they'd go back to Egypt. Ephraim provoked him to anger, most bitterly.

Therefore, his Lord will leave on him his blood guilt and return his reproach upon him. Okay, chapter 13. Then, when Ephraim spoke, trembling.

Now, I don't know how this is punctuated in the King James version. Let me see. When Ephraim spoke, trembling.

Okay, yeah. There's... The way it's punctuated in the King James version, it looks like it's talking about Ephraim speaking trembling, that is, trembling while he speaks. The New King James, I think, correctly puts a comma after spoke.

And we see, when Ephraim spoke, trembling. In other words, it caused trembling among people. There was a time when God's blessing was on Israel, and he had honor and respect.

And when he spoke, people trembled. But he's saying that's James. There was a time when, because of Israel's righteousness, the nations feared.

Do you remember how the Canaanites feared when they heard of what was done in Egypt when God brought the children of Israel out of Egypt? It caused the whole... What did Rahab say about her countrymen in Jericho? She said their hearts had melted and they were trembling because of what they'd heard. There was a time when God's blessing on Israel caused the nations to tremble. And that's what he's saying.

He exalted himself in Israel. But when he offended in Baal, he died. So, this place of honor is conditional on obedience.

When they broke God's commands and went after Baal, then no one trembles anymore at them. In fact, they become a laughingstock. Now they sin more and more and have made for themselves molded images, idols of their silver according to their skills.

All of it is the work of a craftsman. They say to them, Let the men whose sacrifice kiss the calves. Therefore they shall be like the morning clouds and like early dew that passes away, like chaff blown off from the threshing floor and like smoke from a chimney.

Four images here are given of what is intended to illustrate transitoryness. The passing away of a morning cloud, the dew that evaporates quickly, chaff that is easily carried away by the wind because it's so light and feathery, and also smoke from a chimney which is easily carried by the wind. The idea is that these people are going to get carried away and they're not going to last long.

Now, the first two of these images already appeared earlier in chapter 6 and verse 4, but not about the people but about their loyalty to God and their faithfulness. They pledged loyalty to Him, but He says, Your loyalty or your faithfulness is like a morning cloud that passes away and like the early dew. And so now because their faithfulness is so transient, they're going to be transient or transitory.

Verse 4, Yet I am the Lord your God ever since the land of Egypt. He said that earlier also. And you shall know no God but Me, for there is no Savior besides Me.

I knew you in the wilderness, in the land of the great drought. When they had pasture, they were filled. They were filled and the heart was exalted.

Therefore they forgot Me. There's many times in the Bible that it's suggested that once God feeds people, there's the danger of them forgetting Him. There's a number of other scriptures that say things like that.

When I fed them to the full, they went out and committed adultery. When people are hungry, they learn to trust in God. He said in the 8th chapter of Deuteronomy that He had caused them to hunger in the wilderness so that they might learn.

That man does not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. In other words, by making them hungry, they had to trust in God. They had to hang on His every word.

They had to stay close to God. They had to feed on His word on a daily basis. That is to say, hear what He had to say and obey it.

Because upon that, they were dependent for survival. But once they become prosperous, they're not dependent on a day-by-day basis for God. Then they have the luxury of departing from God.

And that's what they did every time. And that's what He says they did in verse 6 here. Verse 7, And so I will be to them like a lion, like a leopard by the road I will observe them.

I will meet them like a bear deprived of her cubs. I will tear open their ribcage, and there I will devour them like a lion. The wild beast shall tear them.

Now the reference to tearing open the ribcage like a lion does, so the victim, means, of course, to break open the ribs to protect the inward parts. And breaking open the ribs makes the lion eat the guts out of the victim. Well, perhaps this is a picture of breaking through the walls of Samaria.

Like the ribcage protects the organs from within. Yet a bear is strong enough to break through the ribs and get to those vulnerable parts. So also that the children of Israel might think themselves secure within the ribbed walls of their cities.

But God will bring an enemy strong enough to break through and to get at the vulnerable defenseless people inside. The image is kind of grotesque, but it may have that meaning. Verse 9, O Israel, you are destroyed, but your help is from me.

I will be your king. Where is any other that he may save you in all your cities? And your judges to whom you said, give us kings and princes. He's now complaining because of their desire for a king back in 1 Samuel chapter 8. They had said, give us a king to rule us.

And now he's calling them on that and throwing it back in their faces. Where are those kings now that you wanted? They can't save you. You wanted kings because you didn't want to trust in me as your king.

And now look, you'd be better off if you'd have me for your king after all. Now he says, I will be your king. He's making a promise that if they will meet the right conditions, he will again welcome them as subjects.

And he will be glad to be their king again. But this was not fulfilled any time in the Old Testament. And I think when John the Baptist came saying the kingdom of God is at hand, he was essentially saying that that prophecy, this and many others like it, where God was going to set himself up as a king over his people, that that was the time for the fulfillment.

So I think he's referring here to the time of Jesus coming and establishing the kingdom. And God would then again be king over his people. And they wouldn't have a political ruler over them in Israel anymore.

He says in verse 11, I gave you a king in my anger. I took him away in my wrath. He's been upset about their kings.

And Saul was given to them as a concession, but God was angry that they'd asked. And when Saul turned out to be unworthy, God wrathfully took him away and caused him to be killed. The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up.

His sin is stored up. The sorrows of a woman in childbirth shall come upon him. He is an unwise son, for he shall not stay long where the children are born.

I didn't understand what that was saying until I consulted some other translations and it brought it out fairly clearly. What's happening here is the travail of Israel is compared, first of all, to a mother bringing forth a child, a mother in the pangs of labor. But then it shifts, and he's compared to the child in the birth canal, who is described as being unwise or so foolish that it's not smart enough to come out.

A child that gets stuck in the birth canal. A child that resists being born. And, you know, because it resists being born, it only leads to its own destruction.

If a woman is not able to bear the child, to bring the child out, bring it to birth, then she'll die and so will the child. And he's describing a child as if it's refusing to be born. It's remaining in the place where the children are born, namely the birth canal.

And it's an unwise son or foolish because, for some reason, it fears to be born and therefore stays in. The idea is that Israel has never really been willing to come to full fruition or full birth of what God wanted them to be. And it's been to their own destruction that they've resisted it.

Then verse 14 says, I will ransom them from the power of the grave. I will redeem them from death. O death, I will be your plagues.

O grave, I will be your destruction. Pity is hidden from my eyes. This statement, I will ransom them from the power of the grave and redeem them from the death, no doubt is figurative initially.

I think, as Hosea understood it and as Moses understood it, it's figurative. It's using imagery like resurrecting from the grave, but it's really talking about resurrecting the nation. Life from the dead, basically.

Bringing out of a dead nation a living nation again. He's going to practically kill them. They're going down to Sheol, to the grave, as it were, as a nation.

Remember Ezekiel used that image. In Ezekiel 37, the image of the dry bones, and the Lord said, can these bones live? And he said, I don't know, you know. And then he said, we'll speak to them.

And he prophesied them and the bones stood up and assembled into bodies. And then he called for the Spirit to come and fill them. And then God said, this is what it's all about.

Israel in captivity was like a dead body. And they said, our bones are dry, but God's going to bring them back to life again. He's talking about the restoration from captivity, but he's using imagery of a resurrection of dead bodies.

That seems to be what's here also. Also, we saw that image in chapter 6, verses 1 and 2 of Hosea. Hosea said, come, let us return to the Lord.

He is torn, but he will heal us. He is stricken, but he will bind us. After two days, he will revive us.

On the third day, he will raise us up. He uses the language of being raised from the dead to describe restoration of the nation. So that's almost certainly what he's thinking of in Hosea 13 and 14 where he says, I'll ransom them from the power of the grave and redeem them from death.

That is, as a nation, he'll bring life out of death. However, the Apostle Paul takes this scripture and quotes it in 1 Corinthians 15, verses 54 and 55. He quotes it from the Septuagint, which reads a little differently, but he quotes this verse.

And he applies it to our resurrection at the last day. 1 Corinthians 15. He prefaces the quote by saying, Behold, I show you a mystery.

We shall not all sleep, but we shall be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye at the last trump. The dead shall be raised incorruptible. And this mortality must put on immortality.

And this corruption must put on incorruption. Then he says, and when this mortality puts on immortality, when this corruption puts on incorruption, referring to when our bodies are resurrected, he says, then shall be fulfilled the saying, O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? Well, actually he's quoting Hosea 13, 14 from the Septuagint. The Hebrew version, as we have it here, says, O death, I will be your plagues.

O grave, I will be your destruction. But the Septuagint reads, O death, where is your punishment? O grave, where is your sting? And that's what Paul quotes. And he says that that will be fulfilled, this scripture will be fulfilled when we are risen from the dead.

Now, here's a very obvious case of the apostle taking a scripture which almost certainly would have been understood as a figurative description of the restoration of the nation, and taking it and giving it a totally different application, knowingly. And his readers would have known he was doing it, too. He wasn't trying to fool anyone.

He was saying, essentially, that the rebirth of the nation was a picture of the resurrection of the dead. And that might shed some light on something that was stated in Romans, chapter 11, where Paul is talking about the nation of Israel and their rejection of Christ. And if I can find the verse, yeah.

Romans 11, 14, 15. Paul says, If by any means I may provoke to jealousy those who are my flesh, meaning the Jews, and save some of them. For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? For if the first fruit be holy, the lump is also holy.

Now, he's saying it's true. The nation has experienced something like death. That's their casting away.

But the acceptance of the remnant, the believing Israel, is compared to life from the dead, like a resurrection. And so the apostle Paul sees the language of resurrection, the restoration of the nation, as like life from the dead. But he applies it, in this case, to them coming into spiritual life in Christ.

And then later in 1 Corinthians 15, he applies it even further to the ultimate resurrection of the dead. So you can see that one thought in the Old Testament can be used more than one way in the New Testament. Namely, the concept of God restoring his people and restoring their fortunes is taken up in the New Testament as a picture of spiritual salvation and also resurrection from the dead, which means we can see the resurrection of the nation as a type of these New Testament thoughts.

Now, verse 15, Hosea 13, 15. Though he is fruitful among his brethren... Remember, Ephraim means double fruitfulness, so it's a play on words. Though he is fruitful among his brethren, an east wind shall come.

The wind of the Lord shall come up from the wilderness. Then his springs shall become dry, and his fountains shall be dried up. He shall plunder the treasury of every desirable prize.

That is, he, the Assyrian, will plunder their treasuries of everything desirable. Samaria held guilty, for she has rebelled against her God. They shall fall by the sword.

Their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with childs be ripped open. These kinds of atrocities were very typical of what the Assyrians did when they conquered people. Chapter 14.

Now we come to the last part of the book. It's the shortest part, but it's the brightest part because it's positive. It's talking about restoration.

And I believe it's talking about the church age. And remember, this would now correspond to the third chapter. If we understood the first three chapters to be sort of like an outline of the whole book.

I bring it up again now, but I brought it up before. The first three chapters can be seen as representative of the three parts of the book. The third part, the last part, the third of those chapters is about restoration, and it looks at the Messianic age, or the present age.

So does the last part of Hosea, which is the last chapter, 14. God's controversy with Israel has been fully discussed in chapters 4 through 13. There's no need to go further into it.

Now, he calls them to return to God and make certain promises, if they will do so. O Israel, return to the Lord your God, for you have stumbled because of your iniquity. Take words with you and return to him.

Say to him, Take away all iniquity. Receive us graciously, for we will offer the sacrifices of our lips. Assyria shall not save us.

We will not ride on horses, nor will we say any more to the work of our hands, You are our God, for in You the Fatherless finds mercy. Now, these are the words you're supposed to bring. You're supposed to return to God, he says, you people, and when you go, bring this speech with you, and mean it.

Namely, ask him to take away our sins. If we confess our sins, he's faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all our unrighteousness, and bring the sacrifices of their lips. Now, this idea is taken up in the New Testament.

In Hebrews chapter 13, in verse 15, it says that we need to offer up the sacrifices of praise, even the fruit of our lips. Now, the idea here is that instead of animal sacrifices, which can be offered without any sincerity at all, the fruit of the lips ideally reflects within the heart, because you said out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks. So the fruit of your lips is representative of what's really in your heart.

Now, true, you can speak insincerely. Your lips can be saying something, and your heart can be thinking something else. But the implication here is, speak honestly these words.

Let this be what comes from your heart. Let what proceeds out of your heart be a sacrifice to God. That which comes out of your mouth, and not just what you can offer of your animals with your hands.

Now, among the things there to confess is that they can no longer, and no longer will, trust in anything but God. First of all, verse 3 says, Assyria won't save us. They had trusted in Assyria, or in with foreign alliances.

Secondly, we will not ride on horses, which suggests military strength. We won't trust in our military strength. We won't trust in our foreign alliances, or our military strength.

And we won't trust in other gods. We won't say any more to the work of our hands, you are our God. The Israelites had trusted in these three things, for safety and steadfastness of the Lord.

In their military, in their false gods, and in military alliances with foreign powers. And he says, Tell God you won't do that any more. And acknowledge that in God alone, the fatherless finds mercy.

He says in verse 4, I will heal a backsliding. I will love them freely. For my anger is turned away from him.

Notice this reference to healing. Not a healing of physical sicknesses, but a backsliding. Healing of wrong ways.

So we can see that, and I've pointed out many times, that healing in the prophets, and sickness usually applies to the condition of the nation, either morally, or in terms of the judgments that have come on it, and needing healing from those. For my anger is turned away from him. I will be like the dew to Israel.

Not in the sense of transitory, as the dew was used earlier, in chapter 13 and verse 3, but actually in terms of refreshment. The dew refreshes the ground, and waters the ground, and so God will be that way to his people. He shall grow like the lily, and lengthen his roots like Lebanon, the lily, how do the lilies grow? Jesus said, consider the lilies of the field how they grow.

How do they grow? Without worry. He said, they don't spin, they don't soak clothing, and yet God clothes them. How do Christians grow? Like the lily, he says here.

Israel shall grow like the lily. But how does the lily grow? Jesus said, consider that. Consider lilies how they grow.

They grow without worry. They grow by simply resting in the Lord, and trusting in him that he provides for them. And slowly too.

Although quickly compared to some plants. I mean, much more quickly than an oak. But gradually, correct.

They grow gradually like all plants do. But here the reference to Israel growing like the lily, it can refer either to the beauty of it, because Jesus said that Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed as beautifully as one of the lilies. So apparently the lilies were considered to be the most renowned for their beauty.

And to say that Israel will grow like the lily suggests God beautifying his people. But also it may have more idea of they will grow in the same way that the lily does. That is by the power of God, without worry and without stress and without strain, without human effort, it will be a work of God.

And that is the way that we really grow. We try to make ourselves grow by our own efforts. I think that we can't make ourselves grow.

Jesus said, which of you by worrying can add one foot to his statue, one cubit to his statue? You can't make yourself grow by worrying about it. You just need to leave it in the hands of God and growth will take place in its own time. Of course there are things you can do to inhibit or to encourage growth.

If a person never eats, they won't grow. They can encourage growth by eating, but still growth is in the hands of God. Same is true of plants.

You cannot water them and they won't grow. But if you water them and fertilize them, they will. But God still gives the increase.

Paul said, I planted, Paul is watered, but God gives the increase. Growth is something God does. But man, of course, can do things that will encourage or inhibit growth.

And the same is true of spiritual growth. Only God can make you grow spiritually and that takes time. But you can, of course, make choices that will either encourage your growth or discourage it.

You can certainly make it slower. You can certainly make it less healthy by starving yourself spiritually or feeding yourself with the wrong things or whatever. Anyway, the growth of Israel, and this is, I believe, the Messianic age, will be like the lily.

He will lengthen his roots like Lebanon or probably like the cedars of Lebanon that were so famous. His branches shall spread. So he's got deep roots, he's got spreading branches.

Jesus compared the kingdom of God to a mustard seed that rose into a great tree and spread its branches and the birds of the air lodge in the branches. David, in Psalm 1, compared the righteous man to a tree planted by rivers of water. His roots were down there taking nutrition.

It says, His beauty shall be like the olive tree. Again, the church, the true Israel of God, is compared to an olive tree by Paul. In Romans 11, verse 17, he compares Israel to an olive tree, or the true Israel, which is us.

We've been grafted into it. And his fragrance will be like Lebanon. So he speaks of Israel's beauty, of Israel's fragrance.

Of course, the church has a fragrance too, you know. You remember Paul speaking about that? In Corinthians, chapter 2, isn't it, or 1? Okay, end of 2, yeah. The end of chapter 2. For he says in 2 Corinthians 2, 15, For we are to God the fragrance of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing.

To one, we're the aroma of death to death, and to the other, the aroma of life to life. And who is sufficient for these things? You see, we are a fragrance of God. He's a pleasant fragrance to those who are being saved and to God himself.

And that's what's predicted of the true Israel, which is the church. It says in verse 7, Those who dwell under his shadow shall return. They shall be revived like grain and grow like the vine.

The grain growing and the vine growing are both images of the church in the New Testament. Jesus said, I'm the true vine, you're the branches. If you abide in me, you'll bear much fruit.

Grain, Jesus talked about a man who planted good seed. An enemy sowed tares, but the good seed was grain, it was wheat. And he said, those are the children of the king.

So Jesus uses all these images, or most of them, in the Testament. I mean, think of how many of these things are brought up in the New Testament as applying to Christians. Lilies are mentioned, as we're supposed to consider the lilies and imitate them.

Trees, olive tree, fragrant plant, I guess we could say. Grain, the vine, all of these are pictures in the New Testament for the church. Now verse 8, It says, Ephraim shall say, what have I to do any more with idols? I have heard and observed him.

I am like a green cypress tree, for your fruit is found in me, God says. Now, this is kind of interesting because it talks about how this Israel, this Ephraim, will never have anything to do with idols again because they've now seen God. At what point in history could it be said that anyone has seen and observed God? Could it be any other time other than that of which John spoke in John chapter 1, verse 14? The word became flesh and God said, we beheld his glory.

We saw him. She said, if you've seen me, you've seen the Father. It's talking, I think, about the church age.

Now that he has made himself visible, he's been seen by his people, he's been heard. Idols no longer can be tolerated by the people who have recognized God in Jesus, who received Christ. And so it is said, your fruit is found in me at the end of verse 8. And you know, that too is a play on the name Ephraim because Ephraim means double fruitful.

But think about it. Whose fruit is of God today? Jesus said, if you abide in me, you will bear much fruit. He said to the Jews, the kingdom of God is taken from you and given to a nation that will bring forth the fruit of it.

So when God says, your fruitfulness is found in me, who is he talking to? Who is ultimately the fruit bearer for God? It's the church. It is the Israel of God that's being discussed here. Now notice the almost mysterious way in which this ends, verse 9. Who is wise? Let him understand these things.

In other words, it sounds like what he's talking about isn't something they would readily understand, all this talk about Israel. Why does he say that? Is it because, as Paul said, in those days they didn't understand, like the apostles and prophets later would, that this was talking about a spiritual Israel and not a natural Israel? Who is wise? Let him understand these things. Who is prudent? Let him know them.

For the ways of the Lord are right, and righteous walk in them, but the transgressors stumble in them. This question, who is wise, is echoing something in the psalm. Psalm 107, verse 43.

Whoever is wise will observe these things, it says, and they will understand the loving kindness of the Lord. Now, what is it that's being discussed? If you read the psalm previous to that, it sounds like a description of God's blessings in the Messianic age and his judgments on the wicked at the same time. Notice verse 35 before this, in Psalm 107, 35.

He turns a wilderness into pools of water, sound familiar? And dry land into water springs. Sounds something like Isaiah. Sounds like Isaiah's descriptions of the present age.

There he makes the hungry dwell, that they may establish a city for habitation. What city would that be? The New Zion, New Jerusalem. And so fields and plant vineyards, that they may yield a fruitful harvest.

In view of all the things we've been studying in the prophets recently, this has very clear echoes that turn our thoughts toward the prophetic symbols of the Messianic age. He also blesses them and they multiply greatly, and he does not let their cattle decrease. And he goes on, and then at the end of all that, in verse 43, it says, whoever is wise will observe these things, and they will understand the loving kindness of the Lord.

In other words, what? There are certain times in the Old Testament when there are hints about the New Covenant, and about the mystery of the spiritual blessings on the spiritual Israel, but they weren't really clear. And there were certain prophets and writers of the Old Testament who just got a glimpse of things. There's more to this than meets the eye.

It takes a wise man to really grasp this. Look at Daniel chapter 12, just immediately before Hosea. Daniel is the book prior to Hosea.

Although of course not chronologically. But Daniel chapter 12 in verse 10, well, verse 8 through 10. Daniel says, although I heard, I did not understand.

Then I said, My Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go your way, Daniel. For the words are closed up and sealed until the time of the end. Many shall be purified and made white and refined.

But the wicked shall do wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand. Isn't that interesting? What is being discussed here? I believe that he's talking about the end of the Jewish age in 70 AD. I believe the context would support it.

And so he says, What shall be the end of these things? And the speaker says, The words are sealed up. They're closed up until the time of the end. They were open in the book of Revelation.

And at the end of the book of Revelation, the angel said to John, Don't seal up the words of this book, because the time is at hand. And that was, I believe, written shortly before 70 AD. I realize there's a more popular view that Revelation was written in 96 AD, but I believe there's good, strong evidence that it was written before the fall of Jerusalem.

And that's what it's talking about. And so he says that these visions are a closed book, basically, until the end of the age. Now, remember what Peter said in 1 Peter 1, verses 10 through 12.

He said, The prophets who prophesied of this grace that would come to us searched diligently for more understanding of it, searching what and what manner of time the Spirit of Christ that was in them was speaking about when it prophesied of these things. And then it says, But it was revealed to them that it was not for themselves that they were ministering. In other words, the prophets were asked for more information, Peter says, but they were not given more information.

They were simply told it was for another generation. Well, that was the only case in the whole book of the prophets that Peter could be thinking of. Because that was the only case we know of where a prophet said, Give me more understanding, and he said, No, it's for a later age.

Peter seems to be referring to that. And if you'll look at that passage in 1 Peter, it's rather interesting, the way it's worded. And some of these applications I'm just making on the spot, I hadn't thought of them before.

But now that I'm looking at all these passages, it's all coming together. Notice in the passage I just mentioned, 1 Peter 1, 10 through 12, it says in verse 11, They were searching what or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ was in them, was indicating when he testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow, the glories of the church age. And to them it was revealed that not to themselves, but to us, they were ministering the things which have now been reported to you.

In other words, the church now has the benefit of knowing these things, but the prophets didn't. But they were prophesying through the sufferings of Christ and the glories that would follow in the church age. And that's what Daniel apparently was asking about.

It was the time of the end of the Jewish age and the beginning of a new glorious age of the church. And the angel said, Daniel, go your way. This is sealed up.

You're not going to understand this. But at the time of the end, many will be purified and made white. That is the end of the Jewish age.

That's when Jesus appeared. And he purified the sons of Levi, according to Malachi, chapter 3. And he made us white. But many will do wickedly, that is, many of the Jews rejected Christ.

And none of the wicked will understand what's going on, he says. But the wise shall understand. Just as Hosea says, who is wise? Let him understand these things, these mysteries.

Let me turn your attention to one more passage. Romans 11. Again, this section where Paul is talking about the destiny of Israel.

And in verses 25 and 26. Romans 11, 25 and 26. He says, For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery.

He wants them to be wise and understand these things. Lest you should be wise in your own opinion. And here's the mystery.

That hardening, in part, or blindness in part, has happened to Israel. Until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. This is the mystery.

That some of the Jews are cut off. And Gentiles come in. And so, or thus, or in this way, all Israel will be saved.

That is, all the true Israel is saved. How? By the cutting off of unbelievers of the Jews and the inclusion of Gentiles. On the olive tree, which he's just been discussing before.

They've cut off branches of the olive tree, that is the natural Jews. They've grafted in unnatural branches, that is the Gentiles. That's how the tree is being put together.

That's how all the true Israel is coming to salvation. But this is a mystery. He says, I don't want you to be misunderstanding.

Why? Because Daniel said in these days of the church, the wicked wouldn't understand it, but the wise would understand it. And Paul wanted them to be the wise ones, not like the Jews of his day, who were the wicked, who didn't understand. Who still thought that they had some kind of unconditional promises from God.

And Paul understood that the true Israel that was to be saved was going to be comprised of Jews and Gentiles. That's what verse 25 or 26 means, I believe, when it says, And so all Israel will be saved. That is, in this way.

In what way? By what is said in verse 25. By the cutting off of the unbelieving branches, and the inclusion of believing branches. In this way the tree is getting all its proper branches.

The true Israel is being saved in its entirety in this way. Well, that seems to be what Hosea is suggesting too. He's just given us in chapter 14, a chapter describing restoration, blessing, prosperity, fruitfulness.

And the words he uses are Ephraim and Israel and such, as he does through his entire prophecy, and as all the prophets do when they speak of the church. But he closes by suggesting there's more to this than what the Jew would think. And we know now what it is.

It's that these things are fulfilled in a spiritual Israel, not a natural Israel. And so he mystically closes his book with, Who is wise? Let him understand these things. Who is prudent? Let him know them.

As if to say, what he's saying can't be just taken at face value, like any fool would understand it. It has to be understood through an exceptional kind of wisdom or insight. And this insight was given to the disciples, I believe, the apostles, when Jesus opened their understanding that they might understand the scripture.

In Luke 24, 45. And that is why we're able to understand these things. The sad thing, of course, is that I believe those Christians who believe that these have a fulfillment in literal Israel sometime yet in the future, are neglecting that wisdom and that understanding that was given to the apostles when they interpreted these things for us, I believe.

And it's sad that not only Jews seem to misunderstand it, but even Christians who ought to know better misunderstand it. They take it in the same way that the unbelieving Jews would understand it. It's quite clear, if Jesus had to open his apostles' understanding for them to understand the scripture, that people couldn't have understood it properly without this opening of the understanding.

That suggests that the true meaning of the scriptures was hidden to natural understanding. And that it took God's revelation to the apostles to bring it out, what it really meant. Well, anyone, inspired or not, could read this and understand natural Israel, if that's what it was about.

But the fact that special understanding had to be given to understand it suggests that there's something other than natural Israel, something other than what's on the surface of the passage, and that it really looks forward to the church as we now know it. It was a mystery in the Old Testament. It wasn't clearly understood, but it was certainly prophesied.

The church was prophesied in the Old Testament. And only the apostles had brought it to light for us. And as you've seen, most of the times I apply any of these Old Testament passages to the church age, I do so by showing places where the apostles quoted or alluded to, or Jesus himself quoted or alluded to, the very passages we're dealing with.

And always gave them a church application, not a millennium application. Okay? So that seemed to be pretty much a trend among the New Testament writers. And that brings us to the end of Hosea.