Hosea and His Whore, So too, Yahweh and His

It is my position that the scriptures are teaching that: Hosea’s marriage to Gomer was literal (not merely allegorical), one in which Gomer was originally chaste; yet having the propensity for adultery, thus became a whore after her marriage to Hosea. Although, in this post, the focus will be on the question of Gomer’s original chastity or lack thereof, it is worth mentioning that this marriage was historical, that is a literal marriage. Even this fact is debated by scholars; however, the mention of No Mercy being weaned from Gomer’s breast before the birth of Not My People is strong evidence to the historicity of the marriage; for allegory does not waste ink on such meager, non-pointed observations. So, then, the remainder of the post will be spent attempting to demonstrate why a chaste Gomer turned whore is the best conclusion to draw from the data offered, to then share some reflections on what it is that Yahweh sought to teach about himself and ourselves and the relationship between the two of us.

I. Gomer Originally Chaste

A. Gomer’s original chastity can be found in the context of Hosea’s prophecy itself. The first, and perhaps most obvious, reason for this position comes from the fact that the prophecy was recorded by Hosea years after the events took place. This is implicit in the opening clause of 1:2; the words that directly precede the phrase that creates controversy. It reads, “When Yahweh first spoke through Hosea, Yahweh said...” (v.2a). To illustrate this from my own experience I, today, might say something like this to a new acquaintance: “just about a year ago, God called my family and I from Kansas to Virginia that I might attend Christ College and serve in a church near Smith Mountain Lake.” But, this is sheer retrospect and hindsight. The two reasons that I listed were not at all the precise reasons we moved; however, given our vantage a year latter, this was obviously why God was calling us here; at least for now. So also Hosea, writing with the 20/20 vision of hindsight offers the reader more the intended results, rather than the original state of affairs concerning his marriage to Gomer. I recognize that this is perhaps not an extremely strong argument but, it is nevertheless, the first of many subtle points that cumulatively lead to the “Gomer—chaste” interpretation and is thus worthy of mention.

Secondly, and stronger yet, is the language of the imperative itself. The KJV has it best I believe: “Go take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms.” There is at least two closely related points in this clause that are note worthy. First is the presence of a Hebrew idiom known as zeugma. This is when a verb or verbs (i.e., “Go :: take unto thee”) is joined with two objects (i.e., “a wife” and “children”). Grammatically, the verbs here refer only to “wife,” but are also indirectly linked to the “children” as well; due to the absence of a third verb such as, “beget” or “have.” Unfortunately, most modern translations insert one of these two 3rd verbs in order to make the English a bit smoother; nevertheless, they are not present in the original. The verbs absence is intended to highlight the shameful title shared by both the wife and the children, “whoredoms.”

The second, and closely related to the former issue in this portion of the text is the title itself. The title “whoredoms” is a plural form of the masculine noun zanuwn. In the plural form this word has a very restricted semantic field; found only in Hosea (1:2; 4:12; 5:4). As such it speaks of a personal quality rather than the activity itself. Moreover, the children, two of which were males, bear the same title, thus bringing the focus on a general propensity toward whorish activities instead of the fact of being a whore. If this understanding is correct a fair, yet loose paraphrase might look something like this: “Go, and marry a woman of loose character, one who will not be faithful and her children will be just like her—faithless.” This is further supported by the word’s use in 4:12 and 5:4, which speak of Israel (and Judah) being “led astray” (4:12) by “a spirit of whoredoms.” And in 5:4 “within them” is “the spirit of whoredoms.” Thus, it would be safe to conclude that Gomer, pre-marriage, was not a whore proper, but had a whoring spirit.

Third in the immediate context is the indication that the first child was born to Hosea himself. “She conceived and bore him (Hosea) a son” (1:3). The latter two children are not qualified as being fathered by Hosea, but only that “she...bore a daughter” (1:6) and later “bore a son” (1:8). The omission of the 2nd and 3rd children being directly attributed to Hosea is not a weighty point in itself but, in light of the harlotry motif and the foregone arguments it does add strength to the “Gomer—chaste” interpretation.

B. The language of 2:15b and its inter-textual parallels present Israel as having been betrothed to Yahweh in original chastity; so too Gomer to Hosea. 2:15b says, “And there she shall answer as in the days of her youth, as at the time when she came out of Egypt.” This verse is clearly alluding to the exodus, when Yahweh first “married” (covenanted) his bride Israel. Parallel passages referring to Israel’s original purity are also found in Jer 2:1—3 and Eze 16:1—14; both of which devolve into a similar story of whorish debauchery as here in Hosea. Although there is a shift in metaphor, from Husband/wife to Father/son, 11:1 carries similar overtones of Israel and Yahweh’s covenant being borne in chastity. Therefore, for the living but heart breaking analogy of Hosea and Gomer’s marriage to most closely mirror Yahweh’s bond to his bride, Israel, Gomer would have had to have been of chaste beginnings.

Therefore, given Hosea’s retrospective view for recording his prophecy; the grammatical construction and use of words to describe Gomer (and the children); and the originally chaste view of Israel when Yahweh betrothed her after the Exodus, it appears that the “Gomer—chaste” view is the most natural understanding of this passage and its message.

II. The Pedagogical Value of Hosea’s Marriage

How great the sadness and shame would have been for Hosea when receiving the second word of direction from Yahweh concerning his wayward Gomer. Hosea learns that he must now, after her whoring, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adultress” (3:1). [Note here: that Gomer is now called “an adultress” proper, something not done in chapter 1; therefore, there was a change in her adultery from then, potential to now, actual. This further bolsters the Gomer—chaste view]. This is to reflect the yearning, hard pursuing nature of Yahweh; he is the only True covenant keeper, who will “divorce” his people in their harlotries, yet never for riddance but rather, restoration.

From Gen 3 to Rev 19; all throughout the story line is the fact that we all have, like Israel and Gomer, “the spirit of whoredoms.” All of us; we are all idolaters at heart. Idolatry is not an OT-only phenomenon; it is the first sin of all, for it is the de-Goding of God himself.

The book of Hosea offers several perspectives of the how and what of idolatry; all of which the church today, corporately and individually, is susceptible to. The beginnings are always the same regardless of our place in time; it is ignorance of Yahweh and his Word (4:6). This is precisely what Moses warns us against in Deut 6. Yahweh’s words and deeds are to be constantly turned over and over in our minds. Another point of spiritual departure in Hosea is identified as seeking after worldly wisdom and principles of thinking (5:11). A brief survey of the modern methodologies of the church would reveal that this is certainly a form of idolatry that has found a soft spot in the people of God today. This last point is actually correlated to the first, for we are never neutral in our thinking; to put out of our minds the knowledge of Yahweh and thinking his thoughts after him is to necessarily replace that knowledge with another form of thinking. As one writer has said, you aren’t what you think you are; but what you think—you are! With our thought life we reflect that which is the constant meditation of our hearts and minds. Lastly, I would point out that materialism is a sure sign of idolatry and the product of failing in the former two points (9:1). Little needs to be said here, as the American church today is neck deep in the art of pedaling a gospel of prosperity, self-help, self-esteem and self-absorption.

The church today is not altogether different from or impervious to the whoredoms of Israel in Hosea’s day. However, in Hosea’s marriage we find that God is a God who pursues hard after his wayward people saying, turn! Turn back to me! And when this happens there is, as always, the promise of full and glorious restoration for his people—his bride.