THEOSISCyrill of Alexandria
Gomer, the daughter of Devlaim, went and engaged with Gomer, the daughter of Devlaim, leading her to conceive and bear a son. Gomer later conceived again, resulting in the birth of a daughter of Devlaim, bearing yet another son. Arguments cannot sway us to dismiss the Scripture, denounce this narrative as trivial, or consider the event itself as inappropriate, nor can we, like some, assert that such occurrences did not transpire, given that the Holy Scripture clearly indicates a conception and a birth, names the child, identifies the father of the wayward woman, and even states the name of this woman. Therefore, those who boldly adhere to the truth of these events must acknowledge the reality of what has transpired. Let us, then, consider the claims of those who ridicule everything before turning to the account of salvation's work.
One well-known commentator sought to elucidate this passage. He criticized the narrative and those who maintain its truth, asserting directly that the lovers of moderation should openly declare regarding this chapter that "the letter... kills" (2 Cor. 3:6). Seemingly launching an assault on Scripture, he offered further reasoning. He stated that divine Moses commanded Israel, liberated from Egyptian enslavement, to enter the sacred land promised to the forefathers—namely, the land of promise. The prophet Jeremiah experienced the voice of God, who explicitly said, "Before I formed thee in the womb I knew thee, and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations" (Jeremiah 1:5). Are those, asks the aforementioned interpreter, unworthy of awe who deny such a noble and lovely ministry and hesitate to accept its truth?
One individual declared, "I beseech Thee, O Lord, send someone else" (Exodus 4:13), while another attempted to argue with God regarding his youth. Similarly, the prophet Ezekiel, upon being commanded to prepare bread over human dung, showed considerable displeasure at this directive, only to receive the message: "I have given thee cow's dung instead of man's dung, and thou shalt prepare thy bread with it" (Ezekiel 4:15). Divine Peter, when the great sheet descended from heaven containing various quadrupeds and creatures, heard the command: "Rise, Peter, kill and eat" (Acts 10:13), yet he resisted, declaring, "Not so, Lord, for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean" (Acts 10:14), insisting that none unclean had touched his lips.
However, when Hosea learned he was to be united with a disgraceful and promiscuous woman, he neither hesitated nor sought to be excused; rather, he engaged eagerly, almost as if overtaken by a desire for the harlot. Taking the interpretation further into obscenity, some claimed that Hosea would have long resisted had he been aware that God commanded him to have carnal relations with the harlot. But the actions of the prophet were spiritual and stemmed from a profound love for God, as he proceeded eagerly to fulfill the divine command. Otherwise, they contend, the God of self-control would not have desired such shameful and defiling interactions.
They then sought to reframe the historical event in a symbolic light, surmising that Gomer represented the soul enamored with a disgraceful existence, while the prophet symbolized the supreme and heavenly Word, which comes from God the Father. By establishing a spiritual connection with our souls, He sows within them the seeds of a virtuous life. Such arguments they concocted to convince themselves of the validity of their reasoning.
I was quite bewildered first by their assertion that disregards the truth of their claims, and second, by their reference to the supposed contradictions of the higher commands through Moses and the others we mentioned. They fail to acknowledge that those who stood against divine commands were not without guilt. Moses, the architect of the Old Testament service, was reproached by the Lord for his hesitation to execute God's directive, citing his lack of eloquence. The Lord asked, "Who has made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I, the Lord? Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say" (Ex. 4:11-12). When Moses continued to evade and stall, "the anger of the Lord was kindled against Moses" (Ex. 4:14).
Similarly, when Jeremiah hastily protested, "I cannot speak, for I am a child," the Lord responded, "Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee, thou shalt speak" (Jeremiah 1:6-7). Thus, it is immensely unwise to presume that the Divine Will acknowledges error in calling a young man to prophetic ministry. Likewise, Peter, when commanded through the vision to "slaughter and eat," counters, "I have never eaten anything unclean" (Acts 10:14) and immediately learns the rebuke, "What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common" (Acts 10:15).
Even though the God of all is patient and does not harbor severe anger towards them for their moments of opposition, their denial remains a serious matter. Those who receive heavenly instructions should embrace them as right and without fault, striving to fulfill their commands, even if such commands are uncomfortable to our desires. Consider the example of Saul, who was commanded by God to execute Agag for his transgressions against the Israelites. Yet Saul decided to spare him, thus offending God deeply. He appeared to dispute divine wisdom by preserving the life of one condemned by the Lord. This led the grieving prophet Samuel, alongside God, to express divine indignation, resulting in Agag's demise—“As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women" (1 Sam. 15:33). Samuel also foretold Saul's loss of kingship and the severe ramifications of his disobedience.
In another historical instance from Kings, Ahab, king of Israel, fearing the approaching Syrian king Ben-Hadad, was told through a prophet that God would deliver him from his foe. Yet when Ahab captured him, he chose to spare him, contrary to God's command. Scripture records that a prophet instructed a colleague to strike him, but because he did not do so, “thou shalt go from me, and a lion shall slay thee” (3 Kings 20:36). Thereafter, that same prophet confronted Ahab, declaring, "Because thou hast let go a man whom I appointed to utter destruction, therefore thy life shall go for his life, and thy people for his people" (3 Kings 20:42).
Consider the fate of the one who disregarded God’s voice and failed to discipline the prophet? Was it not an act of zeal and piety to refrain from striking a man of God, yet, in defiance, disobedience remains an unforgivable sin? Even so, Ahab reckless spared Ben-Hadad against God's command, with dire consequences following. It is thus imperative to exalt and hasten in performing the will of God rather than entertaining other thoughts, as such is pride; it seems as if one accuses divine wisdom of erring in its decisions.
To those who insult history with reckless accusations, we might inquire: Is it truly unbecoming for a prophet to marry a woman associated with immoral behavior? Is it more appropriate for some to be slain by holy prophets? Did not Samuel execute Agag and Elijah eliminate the prophets of Baal, though many? Was the prophet Isaiah not also commanded to go unclad as a sign for Jerusalem? (Isaiah 20:2) Is it not possible for one to criticize such acts as indecent or indicative of madness?
One might argue that those listed acted under divine command. But what shall we say of Hosea? Did he voluntarily seek out a harlot for a wife, or was he acting on God's command? I am perplexed as to how one ridicules such narratives and deems them shameful. Indeed, whoever dismisses the event due to its indecency, and asserts that the prophet did not associate with an adulterous wife but that the divine Word might sometimes interact with unclean souls, fails to grasp the absurdity of their reasoning; they expect the prophet to maintain greater purity than the sovereign God.
Should we view any difference in whether a prophet associates with a wicked woman or if the Word of God connects with an unclean soul? There is no distinction between the two. Therefore, one must reject both for the sake of indecency or accept that human understanding must conform to the will of God. Further, let us recall Gospel accounts. Our Lord Jesus dined with tax collectors and sinners, and the unfriendly Pharisees criticized Him, saying, "Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?" (Matthew 9:11). What was Christ's response? "They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick" (Matthew 9:12). God, in His boundless compassion, sent Him to cleanse those still unclean and laden with sin—this much is undeniable.
The narrative of blessed Hosea should not be dismissed as lewd, for it illustrates how the divine Word engages in communion with humanity, even amid sinfulness. The Lord instructed Hosea, "Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms," directing him not towards lust but obedience and service. He epitomizes the servant who lived as closely as possible to express the spiritual through the physical. Certainly, one cannot fault the prophet's intent; the desire to marry and to cherish offspring is nowhere condemned in divine scripture, which rather honors it: "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled" (Hebrews 13:4), affirming Paul’s teachings.
To lead a righteous and virtuous life while desiring children was entirely feasible, as exemplified by blessed Abraham, whose lineage was found favorable before God. What then is shameful in this? How can the prophet’s willingness to marry, following divine command to symbolize a necessity for his followers through earthly manifestations, be criticized? I assert, without fear, that the prophet redeemed Gomer; he led a woman so lost in immorality to remain with one husband—a woman who once transgressed the very nature of her being, not desiring to bear, but selling herself in lust to many. He turned her away from such disgraceful desires, allowing her to become a respected mother. To prioritize the salvation of another above personal comfort is noble and worthy of honor.
Should we not also admire blessed Isaiah, who, in demonstrating the meaning of impending captivity, enacted prophetic signs—disregarding shame? And when Paul expressed a willingness to be separated from Christ for the sake of his brethren, did he not embody the sacrificial spirit? "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh" (Romans 9:3). Likewise, he professes, "To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law" (1 Corinthians 9:20).
And why mention such things without noting the ultimate significance? The only-begotten Word of God Himself, to save mankind, "made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men" (Philippians 2:7). He endured the crucifixion, disregarding the shame (Hebrews 12:2). Thus, it is not astonishing that the prophet brought Gomer back to a righteous life while keeping propriety intact. God’s command for him to marry the promiscuous woman served His noble purpose, affirming that this command was directed towards illustrating how a world that unfaithfully strayed from Him was to be reconciled.