Hosea 5:7-15

Sunday, August 22, 2010

I know that it appears that I skipping around quite a bit, but you have to believe that my paper journal is in order. Or an order, of sorts. Today, I woke up early-ish with my son and decided there was plenty of time to read a few verses of my Bible with cup of coffee. Then there seemed to be just enough to write in my study blog.
My normal study Bible is in the car, ready for church, so today I used my old Teen Study Bible. It doesn’t have the study text like the Zondervaan’s Bible, but that just meant I had to do a little digger (that and I opened up the Geneva Study Bible online for a little help.

The verses are here.

One of my biggest difficulties, especially in a book like this, is separating the analogies from the realities. Verse 7 is a great example. A reference to “illegitimate children” that indicates their unfaithfulness to the Lord. Are we talking about true illegitimate children? The Geneva Study Bible interprets this as the children themselves are degenerate, and thus there is no hope for them. I may have to do a little more digging on this particular verse. (Edit: I brought my study Bible in from church & it says its a reference “unfaithfulness” as a metaphor.)

I’m not sure what “moving boundary stones” is verse 10 means. It actually reminds me of the act of gerrymandering, but I’m not sure if I’ve got that correct. Either way, it seems like an unethical political practice.

Verse 13 actually reads pretty clear. By indicating that the people of Israel went to a king first to solve their problems, it is obvious that they did not turn first to the Lord, as they ought to have.

The last verse of this section I read today says (in the NIV translation) “…in their misery, they will earnestly seek me.” I was reminded of a Sunday School class a while back, where one of the women confessed that it didn’t seem right that some people only come to God after hitting rock bottom; that reaching out to God as a last-ditch effort seemed wrong. I think this verse is a perfect answer to that. God recognizes that some people have to hit rock bottom before their pride leaves them and they are open and free to accept Christ.

Update...

Monday, February 15, 2010

Sometimes, updating my Bible studying through here is intimidating. I feel as if I can't write unless I have everything figure out, but that to read the Bible without truly studying it is silly. But reading the Bible is never silly, whether it is for study, or simply for the uplifting of my soul as I read of God's wonderful grace.

So a compromise is in order. I have a paper journal now, so when I read the Bible, I can take notes, and then later, reference commentaries and other texts to complete the study. Which means, I'll probably post broader generalizations on here than I have in the past, but hopefully, it means that I will have more to post on, and that I'll be able to read a considerable amount of the Bible this year.
Please pray that I will be led to the Word like a moth to a flame; it is a not New Year's Resolution, but a New Life Resolution.

James 1:1-8

Friday, November 6, 2009


Now for the meat of the chapter - the actual verses. This particular day's notes were taken on scrap paper I found in my purse, because I did not have the foresight to bring a notepad with me to the Bible Study. I may get things wrong, or have incomplete thoughts as a consequence, but I will do my best.


It should not be a surprise, that given the information in the brief introduction to this chapter, that James' letter differs greatly from Paul's letters. Even the first verse is different. The greeting in James uses the word "chairein" which is a secular greeting in Greek, whereas Paul used a greeting which said "Grace and Peace." This verse is one of only two places where Jesus' name is mentioned, and James uses the word doula, or servant to describe his relationship to Christ. (I personally attribute the word 'doula' to childbirth, but the root meaning remains the same).

The next bit of notetaking is jumled, but I wrote down information about dispersal. The Jews (to whom James was presumably writing) had been dispersed through many means, including but not limited to being captured by the Assyrians, Babylonian captivity and Pompei conquering the Jews and bringing them to Rome. In my study Bible introduction it says,
"it has been plausibly suggested that there were believers from the early Jerusalem church, who, after Stephan's death, were scattered as far as Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Syrian Antioch. This would account for James' references to trials and oppression, his intimate knowledge of the readers and the authoritative nature of the letter."

The next bit, verses 2 - 4, hit so close to home that I made them my blog byline. James talks here about testing, trials and temptations. This doesn't mean seduction into sin, but trials which purify your heart and desires. They make your walk with the Lord constant and steadfast. Speaking from my own experience, I feel that my trials have taught me to trust that God will take care of me and also that material possessions, while nice to own, really are more an ebb and flow. You get something, you loose something. Tom's bike gets stolen, we find two for free on Craigslist.org. (Though I know these things, it is incredibly difficult to live. For me, it's like knowing that the amusement park drop tower won't crash into the ground, but still being terrified by the fall.) It's basically a Temptation --> Trying -->Patience --> Perfection, although our version of perfection is pretty weak compared to Christ's example.

James tell us in verses 5 - 8 that wisdom is a gift from God. It keeps you from living a life of sin, and you can receive wisdom by honestly and doubtlessly (I'm not sure that's a word) asking the Lord for wisdom. If you ask sincerely and are not "double-minded" (Greek dipsuchos), God will give generously.

James: Introduction

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

I have been in a Bible study on the book of James. I've been taking notes so that I can review them here and  have lasting reference.  The Bible study is lead by my pastor, so I have more detailed information than I might normally have for myself. However, I am using my notes as a reference for these entries, so if I have anything wrong, please feel free to correct me.

    Beginning with some background and history of the book of James. James was not in the Muratorian fragment (the books which were originally on a fragment found to be part of the Bible and thus canon) and didn't wasn't officially accepted until much later at the council of Trent. James is one of the deuterocanonical books that is now accepted as canon in both the Protestant and Catholic Bibles. One of the reasons for this (it is believed) is that the book James appears to be written for Jews, with its emphasis on good works in addition to faith. It was this emphasis that turned off Martin Luther; in fact he called James an "Epistle of Straw." Luther actually made references that essentially, the book of James was fine for other people, but not good enough for him. The lack of references to Jesus, the Resurrection, and the Holy Spirit is another reason for the late acceptance of James into the Bible.
    The book of James, while obviously written by James, could be written by any number of James'. There are roughly five real contenders (it could also have been an anonymous Jew). They are: the father of the "other" Judas, the son of Alphious, James the Younger, the son of Zebidee or James, the brother of Jesus. It is generally agreed (but yet highly debated) that James the brother of Jesus wrote this book. Arguments against James the brother of Jesus are that the Greek is too good for someone who should have spoken Aramaic.
    Assuming it is the brother of Jesus, I have some basic information written down. I forgot to note whether this is speculative information or if it is verified fact. If you know, please tell me! He didn't believe in Christ's divinity during Christ's lifetime and converted some time around the Pentecost. He was a praying man, also known as James the Just, and died a martyr in Jerusalem in 62 AD; death by stoning.

EDIT: When I turned over my page of notes, I realized I had forgotten to write down some other "Intro" type notes.

The book of James was written in approximately 50 AD. James wrote the book because he felt that Christians were behaving in "unChristian" ways. My pastor said it could be considered a "Practical Guide to Christian Life and Conduct." The tone is authoritative, like a preacher giving a sermon; a very "do this" sort of message. You get the impression though, that he's not trying to be bossy, but only help Christians to grow spiritually by applying the lessons Christ taught to their daily lives.

Themes in this book include Rejoice in Trials, Wisdom, Speech to Strengthen, Status of the Rich & Poor, and Prayer. 

Hosea 2:6-13

Friday, October 9, 2009

Read the passage here.

I'm glad I have these commentaries (see the 'Resources' header in the left column) while reading Hosea, because it is so easy to get lost in the analogy of Hosea/God and Gomer/Israel. I relied on them heavily while reading this passage.

In verse 6, the Lord says He'll block her path (NIV) or fence her in (NLT) or dump her (TM) into the thorns/thornbushes/thistles. The NIV translation gives the visual image of Israel struggling through obstacles and hardships, which is what both the Geneva Study Bible (GSB) and Wesley's Explanatory Notes (WEN) say. But them it goes on to say He will wall her in, block her path, or (rather bizarrely, I feel) lose her in a dead end alley. I get the blocking her path/wars and devastation connection - but what does walling/fencing her in symbolize? Did Israel undergo some sort of blockade during that time? That's really the only good analogy I can make.
Also, this verse highlights why I don't care much for The Message version. It says

But I'll fix her: I'll dump her in a field of thistles, then lose her in a dead-end alley.
What sense does that make?! Go dump her in a field a thistles, then go back, find her, drag her out, take her to a dead end alley, and then leave her there.
But now I'm getting distracted by translations... Moving on.

I understand that her "lovers" are Israel's idols, although WEN also says they are Israel's idolaters, which I don't understand. Then "my husband" I just assumed to be God (and WEN agrees) but the GSB says the first husband represents the truly faithful/truly converted. I can only hope that my initial understanding of what the verse means is totally acceptable, and that all the resources are doing for me at this point is making it worse.

However, I like what WEN adds to verse 8. Where the texts say she [Gomer] has not acknowledged, doesn't realize, didn't know (NIV, NLT, TM) that the Lord was providing her with all these gifts, WEN says that she hasn't considered. The word considered brings an element of thoughtlessness instead of innocence. It is the difference between being able to figure it out if you think about it and not having the capacity to figure it out. Isreal could have known the Lord was providing, but they just choose to assume it was their idols.

Again, mulitple discussions on verse 10 - the word "lewdness." My interpretation is that exposing her lewdness would be similar to being exposed in your lies - embarrassing, uncomfortable and dreadful, and applying those feelings to Israel. WEN says it is Israel's folly & wickedness being exposed, which I guess is in line with what I thought. But the GSB is way out there, saying that her lewdness is her "service, ceremonies & inventions" that Israel used to worship her idols. How does the Lord "expose" that? They already know it's going on.

In verse 12, the Lord is destroying her vines, figs, etc because she claims they are her pay from her lovers (or, as TM puts it in a very strong way, "Whoring paid for all this!"). But I am a little confused about the revoking of His benefits in verse 9, and then here as well. I thought that all of the benefits Israel got from the Lord would be revoked all at once. Why are the "vines" & "figs" seperate? What do they represent in Israel that is different from the grains and wines and oils and wool?

Lastly, the phase "decked herself" or "put on her earrings and jewels" seems to have a deeper meaning than I thought. I thought it was simply that she was dressing herself up to meet someone else. Lines from a song by ok go come to mind:
So now you're headed to your car.
You say it's dinner with your sister, sweetie.
But darling look at how you're dressed; your best; suggests
Another kind of guest.
WEN calls this putting greater honor on her idols than God, which sounds about right to me. The GSB says that this line reflects on how idolators spend a great deal of time adorning themselves on holy days as part of their religion, as if that was why Israel was drawn to it in the first place: to play dress-up. But maybe this isn't that far off. Modern idolators who worship fashion and status are playing dress up too.

Hosea 2:3-5

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Read the passage here.

It's been a while since I've studied my Bible. We've been moving and it hasn't yet become a daily habit. I've found a source I can use at work as a study Bible, the Geneva Study Bible (see the resources on the right).

Verse 3 has interesting imagery, considering God is talking about Israel. It was my understanding that to "strip naked" was an embarassment; a punishment. However, Wesley states that the act of stripping a adulterous women was a common act performed by the husbands as a way of divorcing himself from her. In this light, it makes more sense. The Lord will divorce Israel if she keeps this up. The Geneva Study Bible (GSB) states this best:
For even though his people were as a harlot for their idolatries, yet he had left them with their dress and dowry and certain signs of his favour, but if they continued still, he would utterly destroy them.
The idea of "parching with thirst" also makes sense then; God's way of "divorcing" Israel is to take away the gifts, like fertile soil, He bestowed up Israel. (As a side note: Isn't Israel mostly desert now?) Then he goes on to say that Gomer/Israel openly speaks of her lovers and the gifts they give her, like food, clothes and drink. Israel's lovers are her idols, and the gifts she has received she is mistakenly attributing to these idols, and not to God, from whom they are given.

Hosea 2:1-2

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Read the passage here.

I am doing this chapter on my lunch break, and do not have my Study Bible and thus I don’t have the accompanying notes. But, I’ll use the NIV, NLT, and the Message versions to try and compare & question what I’m reading, along with John Wesley’s Bible commentary on the KJV.

In verse 1, there are different instructions in each version. Or rather, the instructions seem the same, but all have different timings. The NIV version simply says “Say of your brothers…,” suggesting not a renaming like in chapter 1, but a reclassification, possibly reworded like: Your brothers are now my people. The New Living Translation begins with “In that day…” suggesting that the reclassification shouldn’t happen yet, and lastly the Message clearly says “Rename your brothers…” which is clearly not just a reclassification. In 1:10, in all 3 versions, it indicates that this is the time to come, so none of these things will happen yet.
So verses 1:10, 11 and 2:1 seem to be an actual prophecy, in the traditional sense of the word. Right now, the feelings of the Lord towards Israel are reflected in the children’s names, but He promises He won’t feel that way forever.

In verse 2, we seem to have returned to what is happening now, not what will happen. In the NIV, NLT, and Message versions, Gomer is to be rebuked, charged, or hauled into court (respectively), each version seeming to be harsher than the last. “She is not (or: no longer) my wife” shows how Gomer’s adultery has broken the marriage apart (according to Wesley), and why Hosea can say he is no longer her husband. As Gomer is Israel, this shows that the Lord is not in any way bound to Israel, given their adulterous treatment towards Him. As the verse continues, I think it simply magnifies the extent to which the Lord is betrayed by Israel. Gomer is clearly a prostitute, in her face, her clothes and her actions. Israel has not just acted against the Lord, but everyone can see it.

Well, my lunch break is over, I’ll continue with verse 3 later.

Hosea 1

Friday, July 31, 2009

Read the passage here.

I started by reading the passage online at BibleGateway.com in 3 versions, for a little comparision: The Message, New Living Translation, and NIV. It makes for an interesting comparison. I’m not a fan of The Message personally, but I accept that it can provide a new way to look at the passage. I also went to Bible.org and found this: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=925 which is a link to “An Introduction to the Book of Hosea” that provides background information, along with a section titled “Purposes For the Book.” This may be an interesting way to look at the book, by seeing if and how it aligns itself with its purposes.

So I’ll begin with some thoughts on the first heading -“Hosea’s wife and children.”

I find it interesting when the idea of “prophet” doesn’t align with my traditional thinking. What’s funny is that after looking it up in the dictionary, only one of seven definitions is the “person who fortells or predicts what is to come.” Other definitions make more sense defining the prophets, especially the type of prophecy Hosea was charged to do, like “a person who speaks for God, ” “inspired to utter special revaltions” or “a spokesperson of a cause or doctrine.” Here I find that Hosea is definitely supposed to be speaking for God, and I find it interesting that God first spoke himself to his people, then moved onto prophets, then spoke thru Christ and now doesn’t seem to “speak” at all (aside from the spirit being called inside of us). I wonder if God were to choose a spokesperson nowadays, if we’d even know, or cast this person aside as another cult leader or nut job. But back to discussing Hosea.

One of the reasons I like looking at different versions (especially when they are so accessible on the internet) is passages like 1:2. Here are the different verses.
The Message:
2 The first time God spoke to Hosea he said:
"Find a whore and marry her.
Make this whore the mother of your children.
And here's why: This whole country
has become a whorehouse, unfaithful to me, God."
New Living Translation:

2 When the Lord first began speaking to Israel through Hosea, he said to him, “Go and marry a prostitute,[b] so that some of her children will be conceived in prostitution. This will illustrate how Israel has acted like a prostitute by turning against the Lord and worshiping other gods.”
And NIV:
2 When the LORD began to speak through Hosea, the LORD said to him, "Go, take to yourself an adulterous wife and children of unfaithfulness, because the land is guilty of the vilest adultery in departing from the LORD."
In the NIV version, “Children of Unfaithfulness” hints at what is explicitly stated in the NLT, and not at all in The Message. Not only is Hosea marrying a prostitute, she will continue to prostitute during her marriage, and producing children that may not be his. I think this detail is important, especially when considering the Lord is saying that Israel is guilty of the “vilest adultery in departing from the Lord (NIV)” because it has turned “against the Lord [by] worshipping other Gods (NLT).” I think all these translations together paint a very vivid image of how the Lord has been betrayed and disrespected by his people (That‘s probably why He did it - He‘s good like that :P ). However, in the intro of my study bible, it says a few things of note:
1) there is debate of whether or not this first story of Hosea marrying a prostitute is symbolic or true, and
2) some scholars believe that Gomer was faithful at first, and later became unfaithful, while others believe that she was always unfaithful.

As a side note, Gomer is an unfortunate name for a woman.

So they have three children, a son who is named Jezreel for murders committed at Jezreel, and the Lord, in all three versions, clearly states that Israel’s military power will come to an end as punishment for what King Jehu did at Jezreel. But when I went back to figure out what had been done, it looks like the Lord had ordered him to destory Ahab’s line, and he did. In fact, in the NIV version, it even says : The LORD said to Jehu,
"Because you have done well in accomplishing what is right in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all I had in mind to do, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation."
(2 Kings 10:30). It also says that Jehu was not good at keeping the law of the Lord, but massacre specifically mentioned was commanded of Jehu by the Lord through Elijah. (Originally, in 1 Kings, the Lord was going to kill Ahab, and his family for the sins of Ahab, but Ahab repented, so the Lord spared Ahab, and decided he would punish his family later on down the line) So why are the descendants of Jehu punished now? Maybe I am missing something…

Next came Lo-Ruhamah, which means “not loved” although The Message calls her “No Mercy,” both are attempts to show that the Lord’s mercy and love would be withheld from Israel, but not Judah. An interesting note here is that all versions state that Goram gave Hosea a son, Jezreel, but then only states that she became pregnant with the other two. That, along with verse 2:4 (“I will not show my love to her children, because they are children of adultery”) suggests that Lo-Ruhamah and Lo-Ammi were both children of other men, as a result of her prostitution (which may also be why some scholars believe that Gomar was faithful at the beginning, but unfaithful later). Lo-Ammi means “not my people” or “Nobody” in The Message, to indicated the Lord stating to Israel that “I am not your God (NIV).”

So the Lord’s message in all, to the people of Israel is “I will take away your power, I do not love you anymore, and you are not my people.” Ouch.

The Purposes, in the Bible.org introduction to Hosea, state:
A. To call Israel and Judah to repentance in Yahweh, the God of loyal love
Here, I don’t think that repentance has been “required” or demanded of Israel yet.
B. To reveal the faithlessness of the nation toward their covenant with Yahweh
This one is clearly obvious, in the allegory of Hosea’s marriage to Gomer, and their children.
C. To indict the nation of its lack of knowledge, loyal love, and faithfulness
This too, I think is represented, as Israel is indicted in the naming of the children.
After the children are born, the Lord begins by saying “Yet…” which, according to the NIV study bible, means that “the threatened punishment would be only for a limited time.” I really like the NLT of these last two verses, I think they spell out intent more clearly than the NIV version:

10 “Yet the time will come when Israel’s people will be like the sands of the seashore—too many to count! Then, at the place where they were told, ‘You are not my people,’ it will be said, ‘You are children of the living God.’ 11 Then the people of Judah and Israel will unite together. They will choose one leader for themselves, and they will return from exile together. What a day that will be—the day of Jezreel[d]—when God will again plant his people in his land.
So despite the Lord’s judgement that Israel will not be loved or be God’s people, the Lord reassures them that their ways will change and they will once again be loved in the eyes God. I think this is a statement of God’s anger and mercy in one. If you consider the Father figure that to which the Lord is compared, its as if he is grounding the nation of Israel for their sins.


 
A Bible Study - by Templates para novo blogger