My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children (Hosea 4:6).

And they do not cry to Me from their heart When they wail on their beds; For the sake of grain and new wine they assemble themselves, They turn away from Me (Hosea 7:14).

These two indictments against Israel are related. The first is their rejection of true knowledge from the law of God. The second is the misdirection of their appeals to God, which are not from their hearts for the Lord but rather from their mouths for the benefits they can get from Him. These two indictments are related in that their ignorance of God's truth led them to seek God in a wrong way.

Friends, the same could be said for many today. Because people are ignorant of God's truth, they are easily swayed by wrong teaching coming from preachers and theologians, who have dangerously taken the liberty not only to extract Scriptures out of their context but also to give new meanings to terms the Scripture clearly defines. For example, a notable theologian, Wayne Grudem, has shrugged off the weight of Scripture and history to redefine what the words "prophet" and "prophecy" mean to give contemporary self-proclaimed prophets a pass in being fallible and mistaken in their prophecies. The prophet of God and prophecies of God at their heart were infallible and without mistake, for this was how they were distinguished from the diviners and false prophets both in the Old and New Testament times.

However, if people are ignorant of what God has said, they will take the persuasive words of Grudem as holy writ and allow this nefarious influence and corruption of truth into their churches. This is certainly a kind of wolf in sheep's clothing scenario. It threatens big and small churches alike, for the people are as sheep and the leaders are the ones that are propagating this ignorance and error. Friends, be warned. Your church is not immune. If you have groups taking regular pilgrimages to places like IHOP (International House of Prayer) in Kansas City, your church is already in spiritual peril, for this would mean that your leadership has either embraced or is sympathetic to the Montanist-like heresy being practiced and propagated by the group.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Hosea’s indictment concerns rejected knowledge, not simply a shortage of information. Hosea 4:1 connects the absence of knowledge of God with failures of faithfulness and covenant love; verses 2–3 describe the social devastation that follows. In verse 6, the accusation turns especially toward the priestly responsibility to preserve and teach God’s law. People are harmed when those entrusted with instruction treat that calling carelessly. Knowledge here is relational and ethical: to know the Lord is to live before him truthfully.

Hosea 7:14 adds the problem of misdirected desire. The people want relief and agricultural abundance but do not turn to God from the heart. The text is not condemning prayer for food; the Lord’s Prayer includes that request. It exposes seeking the benefits of God while withholding allegiance to him. This distinction can test both spectacular religious movements and quiet, conventional church life. Any community can value God mainly for success, comfort, identity, or institutional survival.

The original applies the warning through a cessationist critique of fallible prophecy. To evaluate that critique, Wayne Grudem’s actual distinction should be stated fairly. In his teaching outline on prophecy, he distinguishes Scripture’s divine authority from human reporting of something believed to have been brought to mind by God. He appeals to congregational evaluation and to the narrative concerning Agabus. His critics dispute whether those texts establish a lower category of genuinely prophetic speech. The disagreement is therefore an exegetical argument, not simply a choice between valuing Scripture and disregarding it.

The central texts can be examined directly. First Corinthians 14:29 requires evaluation; 1 Thessalonians 5:19–22 combines openness with testing; Acts 21:10–14 narrates Agabus’s warning, while Acts 21:27–33 and 28:17 supply material for evaluating its fulfillment. One question is whether evaluation distinguishes true from false prophecy, assesses fallible reporting, or involves some other distinction. Another is how apostolic authority relates to congregational speech. Stating those questions allows readers to understand why Christians who affirm Scripture’s authority reach different conclusions.

Likewise, comparison with ancient Montanism requires attention to the actual teachings, authority claims, and historical setting of that movement. A shared emphasis on prophecy alone does not establish identity. The original’s judgments about modern ministries should be recognized as the author’s assessment and tested through documented teaching, rather than extended to every visitor or sympathetic member by association.

The constructive application is a congregation that can read carefully, ask informed questions, and distinguish biblical commands from a leader’s interpretation. No claimed revelation should override Scripture, excuse manipulation, or prevent examination of a failed prediction. Equally, criticism should not bypass accuracy because its author believes the stakes are high. Hosea’s concern for knowledge presses in both directions. Love for God’s truth requires careful handling of the biblical text and truthful representation of those with whom one disagrees.

Hosea 3

And the Lord said to me, “Go again, love a woman who is loved by another man and is an adulteress, even as the Lord loves the children of Israel,

I was surprised to read this passage since he was already married. The word-for-word translation of the ESV and NASB point to God directing Hosea to marry twice, entering into polygamy.

Other translations take the interpretation that God sent him after his wayward wife and to bring her back home. But she isn't named. 'A woman' is said, not 'your woman' or 'wife'... Either way, I don't think it is a problem that God would direct a prophet like this.

Nor does this give approval of polygamy, as some have claimed. God is not under a moral law, rather it is under him, so he isn't out of his authority to direct Hosea like this. Consider the killing (judgment) that Israel brought upon the Canaan - we are not to judge, but God gave them authority to do this. Consider the unclean deeds Ezekiel is made to eat from dung-flames, he does not make all things clean till Peter's vision.

It isn't against God's character to have his people break ceremonial laws or seemingly break moral laws only to create or enforce a greater law. If God is his people's righteousness what ceremonial rule could interfere?

Consider that he uses a lying, deceiving, killer (LDK) to do what you expect an LDK to do... Lie, deceive and kill - namely Satan.

Again, God has within himself an order. He is both judging and merciful, but does put one above the other given his purpose and means.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Hosea 3 presents the prophet’s costly love as a sign of the Lord’s continuing love for an unfaithful people. The command begins with renewed action, and the woman’s conduct is explicitly compared with Israel’s turning to other gods. That comparison is the chapter’s interpretive anchor. Before deciding whether every unstated feature can be reconstructed, we should attend to what the narrative plainly emphasizes: God’s love moves toward those whose conduct has contradicted their covenant relationship with him.

The original notices that the woman is unnamed and that some translations use an indefinite expression rather than “your wife.” This is a legitimate textual observation, but it does not establish that Hosea takes a second wife while remaining married to Gomer. The absence of a name is not positive evidence of a different person, and the command is to love, with the subsequent purchase and period of abstinence giving the action its particular shape. Translators and interpreters differ over details, but the common reconciliation reading connects naturally with chapters 1–2 and the restoration of Israel described in 3:4–5. Hosea 3 and the NET translation notes.

The larger argument about God’s authority also needs a distinction between sovereign freedom and moral inconsistency. God is not accountable to a higher deity or an independent lawgiver, yet Scripture consistently presents his commands as expressive of his holy and truthful character. It does not encourage us to infer that a doubtful interpretation must be acceptable because God could command something contrary to his goodness. In this case, the proposed polygamy has not first been established by the text, so it cannot serve as evidence for a theory of divinely authorized moral exceptions.

Ezekiel’s cooking sign offers a different kind of issue. The prophet objects to the use of human dung, and God permits cattle dung instead (Ezekiel 4:12–15). The passage concerns an enacted portrayal of defilement and exile, not a general declaration that ceremonial instructions are irrelevant whenever a greater purpose is asserted. Likewise, divine use of wicked agents does not make their wickedness good; biblical narratives can distinguish God’s purpose from the culpable intentions of those he permits to act.

The constructive lesson is to let a passage’s clear purpose govern our speculation. Hosea 3 teaches costly covenant love, the seriousness of unfaithfulness, and a period of restoration ordered toward renewed seeking of the Lord. These themes are already demanding. We do not need to make the prophet’s household prove more than the narrative tells us. Reverence for God’s freedom should be joined to confidence in his goodness and restraint about assigning him actions our interpretation has not securely established.

“In that day,” declares the Lord, “you will call me ‘my husband’; you will no longer call me ‘my master.’ I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips; no longer will their names be invoked. In that day I will make a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, the birds in the sky and the creatures that move along the ground. Bow and sword and battle I will abolish from the land, so that all may lie down in safety. I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the Lord.

I will plant her for myself in the land; I will show my love to the one I called ‘Not my loved one.’ I will say to those called ‘Not my people,’ ‘You are my people’; and they will say, ‘You are my God.’” (Hosea 2:16–20, 23).

Here we have an early expression of the New Covenant in Hosea. Like the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel after him, he spoke of a covenant that God would both initiate and make effective. Thus, God says,

In that day...I will make a covenant...I will remove the names of the Baals from her lips... I will betroth you to me forever; I will betroth you in righteousness and justice, in love and compassion. I will betroth you in faithfulness, and you will acknowledge the Lord.

There does not seem in these statements any room for compromise or failure. The reason for this is that it is God Himself, who is sovereignly initiating and implementing these promises. God's "I will" will accomplish it. While it requires our participation, we are not the effective agents. God gives the faith. God does the work. Just like in Jeremiah, God writes His words upon hearts and minds. As in Ezekiel, God takes away the heart of stone and replaces it with a heart of flesh that is responsive to Him. We can speak of our salvation, but it has been given to us. We can speak of ourselves as saints, but it is the work of Christ that made us so. We can speak of our faith, but it is only effective because God made it so by His Spirit.

Hosea and Gomer reflect God's faithfulness to His unfaithful wife. It is not Gomer that first asks for Hosea when she is a slave to her prostitution. He goes after her and buys her back with his own initiative. God does the same for His people. They do not ask for Him as they wallow in their stubborn unbelief and sin. He goes after them. Just as Hosea makes Gomer his wife again, so God makes Israel His people again (cf. Hosea 3:1).

The problem with both Israel and Judah was a depraved heart, which would not permit them to repent and turn back to God:

Their deeds do not permit them to return to their God. A spirit of prostitution is in their heart; they do not acknowledge the Lord. Israel’s arrogance testifies against them; the Israelites, even Ephraim, stumble in their sin; Judah also stumbles with them (Hosea 5:4–5).

The problem today is the same as in the days of Hosea, namely, our stubborn and rebellious hearts will not permit us to believe in Christ as our Lord and Savior. As Paul writes, "We were dead in our trespasses...and by nature deserving of wrath" (Ephesians 2:1,3). It is only by God's grace (Ephesians 2:5), even His enabling Word, that we can believe and be saved, for as Paul writes, "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God (i.e. the decree of God)" (Romans 10:17).

Now since it is God, who gives us new birth, so that we might believe, how can we fail to believe? While we doubt and sin throughout our Christian lives because we still live within the shell of our sinful natures, God's Spirit (i.e. the Spirit of Christ, the perfect seed), which has been placed within us, guarantees our inheritance of eternal life. Thus, we are secure in our salvation even though our sense of assurance may undulate with our ever-changing feelings and experiences. But as we better align our wavering feelings with the plumbline of God's promises in election, then we can truly throw off every anxiety and freely live as God's eternally chosen people.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Hosea 2 answers betrayal with a promise of renewed betrothal. The repeated divine actions—removing rival names, establishing peace, and binding the relationship in righteousness and compassion—show that restoration arises from God’s initiative. Israel has not repaired the covenant by discovering an adequate religious technique. God acts to restore a people whose unfaithfulness has exposed the depth of their need. The promise therefore gives the original reflection a strong foundation for emphasizing grace before human boasting.

The marriage language also defines the character of the restoration. God does not merely recover possession of an unfaithful partner while leaving the relationship unchanged. Righteousness, justice, love, compassion, and faithfulness describe the renewed bond (2:19–20). These qualities prevent a doctrine of divine initiative from becoming an abstract account of power alone. The One who acts sovereignly acts to establish a relationship marked by his goodness. His purpose is not merely that the people be unable to escape, but that they truly know him and live within the fidelity he gives.

The account in Hosea 3 adds a vivid enacted sign, though some narrative details are less explicit than the original assumes. The woman is not named in that chapter, and the text describes Hosea’s purchase without fully narrating the circumstances that brought her there. The common identification with Gomer and the interpretation as recovery from a degraded situation are reasonable readings, but they should not be embellished into an account the chapter does not supply. The central command is clear: Hosea’s love is to reflect the Lord’s continuing love for Israel despite its turning elsewhere.

The use of Romans 10:17 requires a separate exegetical distinction. Paul’s immediate sequence concerns sending, preaching, hearing, and believing; the NET reads the phrase as the proclaimed message of Christ and discusses the manuscript variation between “Christ” and “God.” Interpreting the expression specifically as an eternal decree is a theological inference, not the verse’s plain lexical meaning. Divine enabling may be argued from the wider biblical witness without making this particular phrase say more than its context establishes. NET notes on Romans 10:14–17.

For a believer troubled by fluctuating feelings, Hosea offers a better place to look than the current intensity of emotion. God’s faithful character grounds hope. Yet assurance should nourish the very qualities named in the promise: justice, compassion, fidelity, and knowledge of the Lord. Grace does not make our response unreal or unnecessary; it makes restored response possible. The proper result of receiving undeserved covenant love is neither pride in being chosen nor indifference toward sin, but grateful participation in the faithful relationship God is creating.

In Hosea 2:16 through 3:4, we find a repeated phrase — "in that day" — which shifts Hosea's vision from God's present judgment on Israel and Judah to a future time when God would restore them to the land and to Himself (a reference to Hosea 2:23). At that time, Israel will call God "my husband" (a reference to Hosea 2:16) — language that looks forward to the wedding supper of the Lamb described in Revelation 19–20, where God's people are pictured as the bride of Christ. God promises a betrothal forever, in righteousness, justice, love, compassion, and faithfulness, so that Israel will truly know the LORD (a paraphrase of Hosea 2:19–20). Hosea 3:4 says Israel would go "many days" without king, prince, or sacrificial system — and it's striking just how long that's already been true, thousands of years now. As Peter reminds us, though, a single day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years like a single day (a paraphrase of 2 Peter 3:8). Eventually, Israel will return to the LORD and to David, or perhaps to great David's greater Son, the Messiah — with the sacrificial system likely restored at that time as well. Many readers connect this kind of prophecy to a future Millennial Kingdom. Speaking of that same future period, Peter writes that the Lord isn't slow to keep His promise, as some understand slowness, but is patient, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance (a paraphrase of 2 Peter 3:9). In light of that, Peter asks what kind of people we ought to be — living holy, godly lives, looking forward to and even hastening the coming day of God, since we're promised new heavens and a new earth where righteousness dwells (a paraphrase of 2 Peter 3:11–13).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The specific image this comment traces — from judgment, to betrothal, to a restored covenant relationship — is worth noting for how deliberately Hosea builds the marriage metaphor across the whole book, not just this section. Hosea's own troubled marriage to Gomer, commanded by God as a living illustration, gives this prophecy an unusually personal, embodied weight: the prophet isn't simply describing God's faithfulness to an unfaithful people in the abstract, he's lived out a small-scale version of exactly that story in his own household. That personal cost is worth remembering whenever this passage's more theoretical language about covenant restoration gets discussed — behind the theology is a man who paid a real, painful price to make God's point vivid to his own generation.