Hosea - Literal or Vision?

[FenderPriest]

I started reading Calvin on the Minor prophets recently, and was initially surprised to read that a large majority of interpreters in history seem to have taken Hosea as a vision and not a literal story. This took me by surprise because of all my readings of it, it always seemed to be about a man who literally took a wife as a prophetic picture to Israel. Calvin's reason for taking the marriage of Hosea and Gomer as a vision and not a literal marriage is because to take a harlot for a wife would have undercut Hosea's authority as a prophet to Israel. He says that Hosea presents the figurative marriage as a picture, but does not actually marry a woman named Gomer.

Do you guys have any experience with interpreting this book, and/or have any thoughts on the books marriage as literal or figurative? I've always read it as a literal marriage because there didn't seem to be any indicators as to it being non-literal, but I'm happy to be corrected here. Thanks!

 

[k.seymore]

hehe. I just read through the beginning of Calvin's commentary on Hosea and I love how when scripture says, "'Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the LORD.' So he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son." Calvin says this couldn't have possibly happened, what these verses actually mean is that Hosea went before the people and "he laid before them masses of figs." Wow! If that is what taking a whore for a wife means, then I myself have committed handfuls of whoremongering adultery in my days. And the fornication tasted delicious, both in fruit form and wrapped in a Newton.

 

[Amazing Grace]

hehe. I just read through the beginning of Calvin's commentary on Hosea and I love how when scripture says, "'Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the LORD.' So he went and took Gomer, the daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son." Calvin says this couldn't have possibly happened, what these verses actually mean is that Hosea went before the people and "he laid before them masses of figs." Wow! If that is what taking a whore for a wife means, then I myself have committed handfuls of whoremongering adultery in my days. And the fornication tasted delicious, both in fruit form and wrapped in a Newton.

Calvin is way off on this one!!!!!

 

[jd.morrison]

Yeah, I just went through a study on Hosea with my Pastor and am now leading a Bible Study on it. I would say if God tells you to take a whore for a wife and have children, then that is what you do. It would legitimize his position as Prophet for his obedience.

I agree, I don't think Calvin is right here.

 

[MW]

Jer. 25:15, 17, "For thus saith the Lord God of Israel unto me; Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it... "Then took I the cup at the Lord's hand, and made all the nations to drink, unto whom the Lord had sent me."

Literal? or parable?

Zech. 11:4, 7, "Thus saith the Lord my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter... And I will feed the flock of the slaughter ... and I fed the flock."

Literal? or parable?

Hos. 1:2, 3, "And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for theland hath committed great whoredoms, departing from the Lord. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son."

Literal? or parable? In all three cases the prophet is told to do something in order to convey the message the Lord had given him, but in none of these cases is there any compelling evidence that the actions were literally done.

 

[Barnpreacher]

Jer. 25:15, 17, "For thus saith the Lord God of Israel unto me; Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it... "Then took I the cup at the Lord's hand, and made all the nations to drink, unto whom the Lord had sent me."

Literal? or parable?

Zech. 11:4, 7, "Thus saith the Lord my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter... And I will feed the flock of the slaughter ... and I fed the flock."

Literal? or parable?

Hos. 1:2, 3, "And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for theland hath committed great whoredoms, departing from the Lord. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son."

Literal? or parable? In all three cases the prophet is told to do something in order to convey the message the Lord had given him, but in none of these cases is there any compelling evidence that the actions were literally done.

So, does this hold true in each case that God tells a prophet to do something in order to convey a message? I'm thinking for example: Jeremiah and the linen girdle (Jeremiah 13), Isaiah going into the prophetess (Isaiah 8), Isaiah walking naked and barefoot (Isaiah 20), Ezekiel laying on his side (Ezekiel 4). Just a few examples of "strange" things that God commanded the prophets to "do" that came to my mind while reading this thread.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Jer. 25:15, 17, "For thus saith the Lord God of Israel unto me; Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it... "Then took I the cup at the Lord's hand, and made all the nations to drink, unto whom the Lord had sent me."

Literal? or parable?

Zech. 11:4, 7, "Thus saith the Lord my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter... And I will feed the flock of the slaughter ... and I fed the flock."

Literal? or parable?

Hos. 1:2, 3, "And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for theland hath committed great whoredoms, departing from the Lord. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son."

Literal? or parable? In all three cases the prophet is told to do something in order to convey the message the Lord had given him, but in none of these cases is there any compelling evidence that the actions were literally done.

Id rather consider it typological. An actual event I am certainly compelled to believe, that also represents the whoredom of Israel. It is much more than a parable though. Regardles, where Calvin dreamed up this nonsense of "he laid before them masses of figs." is in left field. A field that one could only fiend with a supernatural compass.

 

[MW]

Id rather consider it typological. An actual event I am certainly compelled to believe, that also represents the whoredom of Israel. It is much more than a parable though.

We have his marriage with Gomer, which taught the people they were under the judgment of God for their whoredoms. Then after an interruption of many months the effect is reproduced in the birth of a child of whoredoms, indicating that these gross idolaters were illegitimate children. This is repeated a second time after many years, with the message God will no longer show mercy on them. Finally, after another long period, when the second child is weaned, the people are finally taught through the birth of Loammi that they are no longer God's people. Are we honestly to believe the prophet's message took all these years to deliver?

Then in chapter 2, we have the prophet forgotting the names of these so-called literal children, leaving off the negative "Lo." He then says he will not have mercy on these children of whoredoms; how so? aren't they supposed to be his children? why are they now regarded as children of whoredoms simply because their mother has gone to play the harlot? and what have they done wrong? The whole chapter makes it as plain as day that these are not literal children, but are rather figures of how God will deal with Israel. That is why the story can revert from the symbol to the reality with flexibility and not require consistency throughout.

Finally, in chapter 3, this literal series of events becomes ludicrous; the prophet now purchases an adulterous woman in addition to Gomer. But it is clear that this is really another parable with new characters, and that the figures of the former parable are forgotten.

 

[k.seymore]

Jer. 25:15, 17, "For thus saith the Lord God of Israel unto me; Take the wine cup of this fury at my hand, and cause all the nations, to whom I send thee, to drink it... "Then took I the cup at the Lord's hand, and made all the nations to drink, unto whom the Lord had sent me."

Literal? or parable?

Zech. 11:4, 7, "Thus saith the Lord my God; Feed the flock of the slaughter... And I will feed the flock of the slaughter ... and I fed the flock."

Literal? or parable?

Hos. 1:2, 3, "And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for theland hath committed great whoredoms, departing from the Lord. So he went and took Gomer the daughter of Diblaim; which conceived, and bare him a son."

Literal? or parable? In all three cases the prophet is told to do something in order to convey the message the Lord had given him, but in none of these cases is there any compelling evidence that the actions were literally done.

You are far better at defending the position than Calvin
You may be right, the first two may definitely be parables, which might lead to Hosea being one as well. However, I couldn't tell if parts of the two passages you quoted were part of the parables or simply figurative language for what the prophet was doing. In Jeremiah God tells him the message about the sword is the cup of God's wrath, and perhaps Jeremiah really did tell the nations about their impending doom. And in Zechariah God calls the people sheep doomed to slaughter and tells Zechariah to shepherd them. Zechariah may very well have shepherded the people as pastors do today. In which case it isn't either/or. Both would be neither literal nor parable. Although the fact that in Zechariah and in Hosea the actions of the prophet are used to tell a parable definitely may mean that even the actions themselves didn't really happen. That's really interesting, I'll definitely think about this one for awhile. Thanks for your insights.

What seems different still to me in the case of Hosea is the details we might not expect if it was parabolic: what a strange thing to mention what the woman's father's name was. Oh wait. It means fig cakes... perhaps Calvin was right about it being a reference to cakes of figs. Hehe. I better not think too hard about it or I'll realize I need to be defending Calvin here.

 

[Amazing Grace]

Id rather consider it typological. An actual event I am certainly compelled to believe, that also represents the whoredom of Israel. It is much more than a parable though.

We have his marriage with Gomer, which taught the people they were under the judgment of God for their whoredoms. Then after an interruption of many months the effect is reproduced in the birth of a child of whoredoms, indicating that these gross idolaters were illegitimate children. This is repeated a second time after many years, with the message God will no longer show mercy on them. Finally, after another long period, when the second child is weaned, the people are finally taught through the birth of Loammi that they are no longer God's people. Are we honestly to believe the prophet's message took all these years to deliver?

Then in chapter 2, we have the prophet forgotting the names of these so-called literal children, leaving off the negative "Lo." He then says he will not have mercy on these children of whoredoms; how so? aren't they supposed to be his children? why are they now regarded as children of whoredoms simply because their mother has gone to play the harlot? and what have they done wrong? The whole chapter makes it as plain as day that these are not literal children, but are rather figures of how God will deal with Israel. That is why the story can revert from the symbol to the reality with flexibility and not require consistency throughout.

Finally, in chapter 3, this literal series of events becomes ludicrous; the prophet now purchases an adulterous woman in addition to Gomer. But it is clear that this is really another parable with new characters, and that the figures of the former parable are forgotten.

Very good points matthew. I will reread this book when i have time. At this time I am not ready to dismiss this as a literal, typological account.

 

[holyfool33]

I think Calvin is wrong on this one Isaiah was commanded to walk around naked and Ezekiel was told to make bread by heating it with cow dung. That's alot weirder then taking a whore for a wife.