¹ Kirby, J., “Hope and Hubris in Hosea,” in Sewanee Theological Review 50/4 (2007) 487–494Google Scholar.

² D. Stuart, Hosea (Waco Texas: Word Books, 1987) xxxii–xlii. Stuart has compiled an extensive list of covenant curses and blessing which locates Hosea's prophecy directly in the salvation-historical paradigm.

³ See Hosea 2:1–3; 2:16–25; 3:4–5; 6:1–3; 11:1–11; 13:14; 14:5–9.

⁴ Luther's Bible translation will assist in this regard.

⁵ In her essay Hope and Hubris, Kirby, sets an agenda, which seems to depart radically from the biblical intent. In essence she sets Hosea and Yahweh against one another so that she can freely impose feminist language and categories on the text. We will deal with this issue at large below but for now make a point of it to highlight the importance of historical grounding in all methodological approaches. The question arises as to whether Kirby is actually doing justice to the rhetorical school itself in her use of its methods. Osborne would seem to correct Kilby here, “In fact, in literary theory, the identification of the original situation is an essential component, for that situation dictated the rhetorical strategy employed” (Osborne, G.R, The hermeneutical Spiral: a comprehensive introduction to biblical interpretation (Downers Grove: IVP, 1991) 125Google Scholar.

⁶ See Rad, G. von, “Typological interpretation of the Old Testament” in Essays on Old Testament Hermeneutics (Richmond: John Knox, 1965) 140Google Scholar; and Zimmerli, W., Old Testament Theology in Outline (Atlanta: John Knox, 1968) 88Google Scholar.

⁷ Jehu is commended by Yahweh in 2 Kings 10:30–31 for the blood purge. He had done right in the eyes of Yahweh. Yet the strange thing in the text is that Jehu continued to follow the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat. It smacks of hypocrisy, and shows that the presence of apostasy and idol worship still remained even after such bloodletting. The worship of the golden calves at Bethel and Dan still continued (2 Kings 10:29).

⁸ Bright, J., A History of Israel (London: SCM, 1972) 247Google Scholar.

⁹ Bright, A History of Israel, 247.

¹⁰ Bright, A History of Israel, 250

¹¹ Bright, A History of Israel, 256.

¹² Bright, A History of Israel, 257.

¹³ H.D. Hummel, The word becoming flesh: an introduction to the origin and meaning of the Old Testament (St Louis: Concordia, 1979) 285.

¹⁴ The existence of cultic prostitution in the religious life of Israel is contested among the scholars. Wolff says ‘yes’, Rudolph says ‘no,’ see in Childs, B.S., Introduction to the Old testament as Scripture (London: SCM, 1979) 376Google Scholar. Hos 4:14 seems to indicate some form of cultic prostitution. It is possible that the negative opinion is driven more by the desire to free Gomer from the charge of prostitution and to spiritualize the nation's actual and physical sin.

¹⁵ Heschel, A., The Prophets, Vol I & II (London: Colophon, 1962) 46Google Scholar.

¹⁶ Heschel, The Prophets, 46.

¹⁷ Hadley, J.M., “Baal” in NIDOTTE (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997) 422Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Bright, A History of Israel, 270.

¹⁹ Bright, A History of Israel, 272.

²⁰ Limburg, J., Hosea–Micah (Atlanta: John Knox) 8Google Scholar.

²¹ See also Hos 12:9; 13:4–5.

²² Kirby has made this fundamental flaw in promoting a dubious hermeneutic that is foreign to the text. True rhetorical analysis would bear this out, but one suspects that analysis is the last thing on the agenda of Kirby's programme. Accordingly, to mistaken the identity of the narrative voice and the addressee, the dubious exegete can find in Hosea Ch 2 all sorts of fanciful illusions. Hosea becomes one that ‘sanctifies violence against women’ (Kirby, Hope and Hubris, 487). He is a misogynist with a voyeuristic fantasy for rape (Hope and Hubris, 489). It is physiological rubbish that grovels in the perverse delight in using such graphic language that supposedly represents a textual dichotomy between an angry man (Hosea) and the wounded lover (feminine God). It is not Hosea that has created the metaphor/sign-act, it is Yahweh. Our textual analysis below will explicitly deny a feminist reversal in this text and seek the voice of Yahweh, a voice that addresses and commands in the posture of a determined lover.

²³ The English translations for some reason do not follow the Hebrew, LXX and Luther Übersetzung, which rightly transitions with the end of the English equivalent of 1:9, and begins chapter 2 with 1:10.

²⁴ It is strange how Kirby could miss this fundamental point. Probably on the basis that if one has a hard time distinguishing narrator and the like, it gives more felicitous grounds for the development of one's own particular agenda. Context in this case promotes a sensible understanding of who the narrator is. Sanders reminds us “Context is not solely or even principally a literary reference, but refers primarily to the full, three dimensional situation in antiquity that is necessary to understand the significance of the literary record” (From sacred Story to Sacred text (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 89. By lifting a text out of its historical setting one can determine, or choose not to determine narrative voice. In the case of Hosea it is a definite character that addresses us; it is Yahweh, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To divorce rhetorical analysis from historical context risks the path of calling evil good and good evil.

²⁵ Childs sees a threefold development in the text (Introduction, 378–381).

²⁶ My translation from Die Bibel: LutherÜbersetzung (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgessellschaft, 1999)Google Scholar.

²⁷ ‘Uios’ is translated Kinder in the German. It has a masculine emphasis on the legitimate son.

²⁸ Luther uses Sagen; ‘eipate’ is in the second person plural, Luther, (M., Die Bibel: Luther: Übersetzung, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgessellschaft, 1984)Google Scholar.

²⁹ The plural denotes a conversation between the Lord and Israel, not an inter-relational conflict between Hosea and Gomer.

³⁰ Luther uses Gnaden, ‘eleemene’, to have mercy and compassion on, it is not ‘love’ as in the NIV. Ruhamah is one pitied.

³¹ In the first instance Jezreel is the name given to Hosea's first born as a sign against the massacre at Jezreel by Jehu. It is in the nature, authority and ability of Yahweh to create a positive meaning out of a despicable incident. In this sense he exercises his authority over history.

³² Von Rad and Luther support this thesis. Luther goes as far as to say that the “breasts” (2:4c) are the wicked teachers “who, like a mother's breasts, feed the people” (Luther, M., “Lectures on Hosea” Luther's Works (St Louis: Concordia, 1975)Google Scholar LW 18:8.

³³ See Hosea 4:5, 6,7,9; 5:1; 9:15,17.

³⁴ Heschel, The Prophets, 57.

³⁵ Implies that the woman referred to in both accounts is the same woman: Gomer. Chapter 2 is cast in the sense that Gomer had abandoned her covenant with Hosea and that Hosea is in direct existential pathos with Yahweh. It brings the reader into direct confrontation with the call to take her back in chapter three, and opens the possibility of a sharp and painful identification of Yahweh with Hosea

³⁶ The German has Feiertagen (holidays), the NRSV and NIV have “appointed festivals,” the Greek panegureis emphasizes a solemn gathering at the festivals. The German rendering of ‘holidays’ would be very controversial in today's culture.

³⁷ She will be punished with the truth of her adultery.

³⁸ Luther sees this verse as a pre-figuring of the apostolic teaching. “Through my apostles I will teach you a sweet doctrine that is different from the Law” (LW 18:11). Given the prevalence of the law/gospel distinction throughout the text of Hosea, it seems reasonable that Luther make this assertion.

³⁹ Indicates the treachery of syncretism; of knowingly mistaking identity.

⁴⁰ To dwell safely in the land is linked to the eschatological tense reflected in Hos11:11. It also reflects the time of the new exodus spoken of in Hos3:5.

⁴¹ The German has ihn, the Hebrew is feminine.

⁴² The Hebrew renders it as ‘will answer’. It is possible that Luther chose to use the word erhören for theological reasons based on the Hebrew. To hear in German can also be translated as to yield. In keeping with the planting metaphor of Jezreel, the process of yielding that begins with God and eventually yields Jezreel is very interesting. See (LW 18:114).

⁴³ Childs, Introduction, 382.

⁴⁴ Hummel, The word becoming flesh, 287.

⁴⁵ Heschel, The Prophets, 57. A husband publicly betrayed by his wife is prevented by law and by emotion from renewing his marital life (Heschel, The Prophets, 51). Yet Yahweh breaks the rules and Hosea is called to follow suit as a sign-act.

⁴⁶ Heschel, The Prophets, 49. See also Hos 9:17.

⁴⁷ Heschel, The Prophets, 57). See Hos 4:1, 6; 6:6.

⁴⁸ The NIV renders the Greek with ‘acknowledgement’.

⁴⁹ Heschel, The Prophets, 59.

⁵⁰ Limburg, Hosea–Michah, 3.

⁵¹ Zimmerli, Old Testament,188.

⁵² Von Rad, Old Testament,143. Knowledge (scientia) knowing (notitia) would be better. Passively, this is “learning to know” (cognitio). This is how Is.11:9 has it “For the earth is full of the knowledge (scientia) of the Lord.” See also Is 53:11. To know (cognoscere) God as God, to know that we receive every good thing from him—that is learning to know (cognitio) God’ (Luther, LW 18:19).

⁵³ Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 188.

⁵⁴ Ward, J.M., Thus says the Lord: the message of the prophets (Nashville: Abingdon, 1991) 229Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ See Psalm 119.

⁵⁶ von Rad, Old Testament, 27.

⁵⁷ Hummel, The word becoming flesh, 293.

⁵⁸ Dumbrell, W.J., Covenant and Creation: a theology of the Old Testament covenants (London: Paternoster,1984) 170Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Hummel, The word becoming flesh, 29.

⁶⁰ E.J. Pentiuc, “Messianism in the book of Hosea in light of patristic interpretations” in Greek Orthodox Theological Review (46, 1/2, 2001) 35–56). See Hosea 2:16–25 [2:18–25]; 3:4–5; 6:1–3; 11; 14:5–9.

⁶¹ Pentiuc, Messianism, 36.

⁶² Pentiuc, Messianism, 45. See 1 Thess 4:13–17 and Hosea1:11; 3:5.

⁶³ Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 22.

⁶⁴ Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 19.

⁶⁵ Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 21.

⁶⁶ Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 34.

⁶⁷ Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 36.

⁶⁸ Von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 37.

⁶⁹ LW 18:15.

⁷⁰ Hummel, The word becoming flesh, 290.

⁷¹ Sor, W.A. La, Old Testament Survey (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1982) 345Google Scholar.

⁷² LW 18:76.

⁷³ LW 18:76.