Here it will be attempted to examine three characters of within Hosea chapters one through three--from a socio-historical feminist viewpoint, ergo, socio-herstorical-in order to try to understand why they are portrayed the way they are in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament history. It is an attempt to try to dissect the politics of loyalty in ancient Israelite times. In order to present a better-rounded, three-dimensional personae in these three characters, the context out of which their common story arises becomes a crucial element in revealing who they are, versus the way in which they are chosen to be remembered as written in the book of Hoshea.
[...] King Hoshea seems like he was able to strike the balance, because, even though his loyalties were divided, in the end, the real lesson here is that he was the person who did not get killed.There's nothing super spiritual, idolatrous, or remotely selfish about self-preservation. To what extent, is a different debate entirely altogether. However, that should not be confused with the selfless acts that come with being an everyday hero as treating one's fellow human beings with dignity and respect. [...]
[...] First, however, what seems of primary importance here is that an entire book of the Bible was named after a Northern Israelite king who was captured in battle, and yet, didn't die-which would have made him the ancient equivalent of a prisoner of war. One should keep a few points of fact in mind when considering why-unlike two-thirds of the kings who also had held the throne of the Northern Kingdom-Hoshea, of all of them, had had his life spared. [...]
[...] The city is a jealous mistress. Although this may be an uncharacteristic parallel, it seems fitting here to talk about the city, a physical place, to be a geographical allegory for loyalty. There are groups with connections who choose to liaise; there is the chance for reunion; and, finally, there are dissonant parties. One piece of information that can help illuminate this discomfited position is, is perhaps the question-What is the draw of the capital? The shrines and sanctuaries of the holy places were the throbbing ebb and flow of the metropolis. [...]
[...] Hosea saw the Israelites acting in the exact opposite manner that he would have hoped they would, and that is what caused him to become pro-active and become a solution rather than remain part of the problem.Hosea wanted his people to follow their true calling, which was befitting their nature and upbringing-which they were, at that time, not fulfilling, in his eyes.Instead, Hosea saw his people acting selfishly, like they had no faith, and he probably regarded it as a signature of severe disloyalty (not only to themselves, but to one another as a people). [...]
[...] This is the possibility that the story of Hosea and Gomer might be a beautifully-shaped and carefully constructed leitmotif for what was really going on within the kingdom of Israel under the rule of a foreign power. As such, the story of Hosea and Gomer would be made-up to the extent that the characters involved were either not real people, or, if they were, that their story was based on real peoples' lives with or without the same names. For our purposes, we're going to assume that there were three figures we can be sure of from looking at history: the king named Hoshea, the prophet Hosea as recorded by different sources, and the prostitute Gomer whom Hosea married to demonstrate God's love for a backsliding Israel.(Incidentally, the political boundary at that time called Gimirri--what would eventually become the northern part of the Assyrian Empire-was also known as Gomer.) In a way, the book of Hosea may have been written to serve as a form of propaganda antithetical to the bureaucracy's establishment. [...]
Online readingwith our online reader
Content validatedby our reading committee