Hosea - An Allegory or Vision?

[Venator Veritatis]

My daily scripture reading has taken me into Hosea this morning. I'm reading through scripture in the Geveva Bible and noticed this note on 1:2

"not that the Prophet did this thing in effect, but sawe this in a vision, or else was commanded by God to set forth understanding this parable or figure..."

I have never been exposed to the idea that Hosea wasn't a literal account. I then referenced Calvin who says

"We said in yesterday's Lecture, that God ordered his Prophet to take a wife of whoredom, but that this was not actually done; for what other effect could it have had, but to render the Prophet contemtible to all?"

Burroughs in his commentary seems to also lay out reasons why it was a vision and not an actual account.

Is this, and should this be, the commonly held Reformed position? Are there pitfalls to read the account of Hosea and not understand it as a vision but as an actual historical event?

 

[Joshua]

You may (or may not, I dunno) find this instructive/helpful for what you’re seeking:

https://ccrpcorg.s3.amazonaws.com/Readings/082221R-P2.mp3

 

[Venator Veritatis]

You may (or may not, I dunno) find this instructive/helpful for what you’re seeking:

https://ccrpcorg.s3.amazonaws.com/Readings/082221R-P2.mp3

l'll listen to that on my drive to work this morning. Thank you!

 

[iainduguid]

There is certainly a long history in Reformed circles of skittishness around Hosea's actions, which continues on, probably until today. E.J. Young, for instance writes:
“If Hosea had actually married an adulterous woman, would he not by that act have destroyed the effectiveness of his ministry…when a present-day minister of the gospel becomes entangled with a woman of loose character, do not people look askance at him? Do they not question the sincerity of his profession?”

This objection, it seems to me, totally misses the point of prophetic sign acts. These are often shocking actions that are designed to arrest people’s attention: they are never intended as examples for people to follow but rather are intended to be depictions of the presently existing state of affairs. For example, the Lord commands Isaiah to wander around naked for three years (Isa. 20:2-4), behavior that would certainly destroy the effectiveness of the ministry of a present day minister of the gospel (even if you question whether the nakedness was total or allowed him to retain his undergarments – the whole point is that everyone would be shocked by his lack of attire). Similarly, the Lord commands Ezekiel to eat food prepared in a ceremonially unclean manner, baked over human dung (Ezek. 4), an act that certainly would have raised questions about the prophet’s orthodoxy. Even though the Lord subsequently relented and allowed the prophet to cook his food over animal dung, the shocking nature of the sign is once again the whole point. In comparison to those actions, commanding a prophet to marry someone whom he knew was already or would soon become an adulteress is a relatively tame assignment religiously, however devastating it must have been for the prophet personally. In view of those events, there is no reason to suppose that the Book gives us anything other than the account of a real, historical experience on the part of the prophet. Certainly, there is nothing in the text to suggest that this is a vision or parable, even though in other places visions and parables are generally clearly marked.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

Thank you!

You essentially describe the perspective that I've always heard Hosea preached from. A deacon at my church always says "when the plain sense makes sense, seek no other sense ", and that probably applies here given there is little (no?) indication that it's a vision. But I also don't want to discount what older divines were asserting and fighting for out of hand either.

 

[Venator Veritatis]

You may (or may not, I dunno) find this instructive/helpful for what you’re seeking:

https://ccrpcorg.s3.amazonaws.com/Readings/082221R-P2.mp3

I enjoyed that and found it helpful. It's interesting that both Calvin and Burroughs were recommended commentaries...and then the teaching goes in a complete different direction.

I appreciate the resource!

 

[MW]

Is this, and should this be, the commonly held Reformed position? Are there pitfalls to read the account of Hosea and not understand it as a vision but as an actual historical event?

It probably is not the commonly held position now, but it used to be, and it should be. William Henry Green's Class Notes are as follows:

Marriage. As to the account of the prophet's marriage, from ancient times interpreters have been divided. Was his faithless wife an allegory or a fact? In either case it was certainly symbolical of the Lord's relation to His erring people. It is improbable that it was a literal occurrence, for

1. God would not have commanded a holy prophet to form such a connection. (Hengstenburg) though it is not a command to form a sinful connection, as some have maintained, yet it was certainly a revolting one, would subject him to an endless amount of scandal, and thus destroy his influence.

2. The law of Moses (Lev. 21:7) forbade a priest to marry an unchaste woman. In regard to this, the law of ceremonial purity relative to the priesthood is not to be applied to the prophet, for the priest would not even marry a divorced woman. The high priest (Lev. 21:13, 14) could not marry a widow. But the prophets were nevetheless a sacred order of men as well as the priests, and God would not specially direct them to form alliances of this kind. Some think God could command this for he could change the moral law.

3. An argument from the third chapter in which the prophet is again required to form another such connection, without any intimation that the former wife is dead or put away. Is this a direction to renew his connection with the woman? Or is it a direction to marry irrespective of the command? The force of this argument depends upon the interpretation to be put upon this latter command, (Chap. 3). If it is interpreted as a mere repetition of the former command, the argument has no force. If it is a new command, the argument will apply. The whole appearance of the second command is against a previous actual marriage.

4. Significant names of the children of this woman seem to show that it was merely allegorical.

5. The action of the first chapter would require years for its performance, requiring not only his marriage, but the birth of several children.

The symbolic lesson would be lost entirely, and the people would think of the scandal. The marriage is simply an allegory. [W. H. G.]

 

[Venator Veritatis]

It probably is not the commonly held position now, but it used to be, and it should be. William Henry Green's Class Notes are as follows:

Marriage. As to the account of the prophet's marriage, from ancient times interpreters have been divided. Was his faithless wife an allegory or a fact? In either case it was certainly symbolical of the Lord's relation to His erring people. It is improbable that it was a literal occurrence, for

1. God would not have commanded a holy prophet to form such a connection. (Hengstenburg) though it is not a command to form a sinful connection, as some have maintained, yet it was certainly a revolting one, would subject him to an endless amount of scandal, and thus destroy his influence.

2. The law of Moses (Lev. 21:7) forbade a priest to marry an unchaste woman. In regard to this, the law of ceremonial purity relative to the priesthood is not to be applied to the prophet, for the priest would not even marry a divorced woman. The high priest (Lev. 21:13, 14) could not marry a widow. But the prophets were nevetheless a sacred order of men as well as the priests, and God would not specially direct them to form alliances of this kind. Some think God could command this for he could change the moral law.

3. An argument from the third chapter in which the prophet is again required to form another such connection, without any intimation that the former wife is dead or put away. Is this a direction to renew his connection with the woman? Or is it a direction to marry irrespective of the command? The force of this argument depends upon the interpretation to be put upon this latter command, (Chap. 3). If it is interpreted as a mere repetition of the former command, the argument has no force. If it is a new command, the argument will apply. The whole appearance of the second command is against a previous actual marriage.

4. Significant names of the children of this woman seem to show that it was merely allegorical.

5. The action of the first chapter would require years for its performance, requiring not only his marriage, but the birth of several children.

The symbolic lesson would be lost entirely, and the people would think of the scandal. The marriage is simply an allegory. [W. H. G.]

I was hoping you'd respond to this post. After I posted I realized I should have searched to see if anyone had asked this before. Sure enough in 2008 it came up and you had some pretty good points then as well.

Thank you! I'll have to ponder this as I read through Hosea this week.

 

[TheInquirer]

Visions seem to be fairly well indicated in Scripture aren’t they? I have a very hard time believing Gomer isn’t real, the kids aren’t real, etc.

1. God would not have commanded a holy prophet to form such a connection. (Hengstenburg) though it is not a command to form a sinful connection, as some have maintained, yet it was certainly a revolting one, would subject him to an endless amount of scandal, and thus destroy his influence.

God is worried about a prophet’s action causing scandal among sinful, rebellious Israelites? Hardly.

The law of Moses (Lev. 21:7) forbade a priest to marry an unchaste woman. In regard to this, the law of ceremonial purity relative to the priesthood is not to be applied to the prophet, for the priest would not even marry a divorced woman. The high priest (Lev. 21:13, 14) could not marry a widow. But the prophets were nevetheless a sacred order of men as well as the priests, and God would not specially direct them to form alliances of this kind. Some think God could command this for he could change the moral law.

Sounds like Green undercut his own argument. Prophets are not priests.

An argument from the third chapter in which the prophet is again required to form another such connection, without any intimation that the former wife is dead or put away. Is this a direction to renew his connection with the woman? Or is it a direction to marry irrespective of the command? The force of this argument depends upon the interpretation to be put upon this latter command, (Chap. 3). If it is interpreted as a mere repetition of the former command, the argument has no force. If it is a new command, the argument will apply. The whole appearance of the second command is against a previous actual marriage.

Fits perfectly with God’s relationship with Israel.

Significant names of the children of this woman seem to show that it was merely allegorical.

I don’t get this argument - the Bible is full of symbolic names for real people.

The action of the first chapter would require years for its performance, requiring not only his marriage, but the birth of several children.

So what?

Dr. Duguid’s argument seems much stronger to me than William Green’s.

 

[MW]

God is worried about a prophet’s action causing scandal among sinful, rebellious Israelites? Hardly.

Read chapter 11. He is deeply concerned to demonstrate His actions are consistent with being the Holy One.

Sounds like Green undercut his own argument. Prophets are not priests.

These are class notes. He summarily provides all the arguments and counter-arguments. His argument is that the prophets are a holy class like priests.

Fits perfectly with God’s relationship with Israel.

Did He take a harlot for His wife? I don't think so. He certainly didn't take another.

I don’t get this argument - the Bible is full of symbolic names for real people.

Cumulatively, they give a strong push in the direction of allegory.

So what?

Again, cumulatively, it speaks to the unlikelihood of it being literal.

 

[MW]

Dr. Duguid’s argument seems much stronger to me than William Green’s.

OK. Let's make this a little more even since William Green is not here to present a fuller case. We can turn to Prof. Duguid's NIVAC commentary on Ezekiel 23 to show the parallels.

Duguid on Ezekiel: "the prophet depicts the history and future of Judah by means of an extended metaphor... The shockingly explicit language... gives the resulting picture an ‘in-your-face’ effect."

Parallel to Hosea: This is precisely the same prophetic strategy. The command to Hosea is the shocking, "in-your-face" opening to a sustained metaphor. Both prophets use graphic sexual imagery to break through spiritual complacency.

Duguid on Ezekiel: The sisters are "Oholah" and "Oholibah." "The meaning of these names... does not seem to be in this case of any particular significance; rather, it is the similarity of their names that draws our attention." They are symbolic stand-ins for Samaria and Jerusalem.

Parallel to Hosea: The allegorical view sees "Gomer" and "Hosea" in the same light. They are characters in a divine parable. "Gomer" is not primarily a historical individual but a symbolic representation of faithless Israel. "Hosea" in the vision represents the Lord.

Duguid on Ezekiel: He repeatedly links the metaphor to specific historical events and policies: alliances with Assyria and Babylon, the actions of Jehu, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. "What his compatriots may have read as political necessity, however, Ezekiel presents in a different light: Spiritual adultery."

Parallel to Hosea: Hosea's prophecy is equally grounded in the specific historical idolatry and political whoring of the Northern Kingdom with Egypt and Assyria (Hosea 5:13, 7:11, 8:9). The marriage metaphor is not abstract; it's a commentary on real-world faithlessness.

Duguid on Ezekiel: "the prophet seeks to challenge Judah’s complacent sense of moral and spiritual superiority to her former northern neighbor."

Parallel to Hosea: The allegory in Hosea functions identically. It is designed to shock Israel out of its complacency and show them that their idolatry is not a minor religious infraction but a fundamental, covenantal betrayal equivalent to the most heinous marital unfaithfulness.

The point of the symbolism is to accuse Israel of becoming a harlot. The allegorical structure allows this to be done with maximum prophetic force without creating a contradictory narrative about God's original covenant.

In Ezekiel's allegory, the scandal is contained within the story, which is about the sisters' sin. The allegorical view of Hosea argues the same: the scandal is part of the vision's content, meant to convict Israel, not a biographical detail about the prophet that would confuse his moral standing.

Ezekiel 23 proves that a prophet could receive a long, detailed, sexually explicit, and historically grounded allegory from the Lord. For the interpreter, this makes it entirely feasible to see Hosea's experience as belonging to this category of prophetic revelation.

Duguid's commentary on Ezekiel 23 provides a hermeneutical blueprint for the allegorical interpretation of Hosea. It shows how a prophet can use an extended, unannounced metaphor to deliver a covenant accusation grounded in history. Applying this blueprint to Hosea allows the message of God's holy, faithful love and Israel's faithless whoredom to stand in stark contrast.

 

[TheInquirer]

Matthew,

I appreciate your desire to vindicate the holiness of God as you believe it would be compromised if the Hosea experience were actual instead of allegorical. My desire is also uphold God's integrity and that of His word as well.

Thanks for dialoguing on this.