I read one of your major posts within this thread. I was going to reply to it but I realized that nothing I would really present to you would matter. In your mind, God told Hosea to marry a prostitute. There is no changing that idea for you. Neither Scripture nor morality will alter your locked interpretation on this passage.
Then I have to ask - why are you here? I could equally argue that you are just as locked in your thinking, and neither Scripture nor morality is changing your mind, particularly evidenced by your seeming reluctance to engage with my posts that SPECIFICALLY deal with the texts. Whenever I've attempted to engage with your reading of the actual words of Hosea, you either don't reply, or you retreat to the "but God is good" fallback, which simply begs the question. No one here is disagreeing God only does good things, and doesn't do bad things.
For the record, I'm quite ready to have my mind changed. There is no particular doctrine or position I hold that is going to be totally thwarted by whether or not Hosea actually married a prostitute. I'm just not convinced by what 'evidence' you've mustered.
Also for the record, I've been doing more reading and actually view as
fairly plausible the idea that Gomer was not a prostitute at the time she married Hosea, but became one later, making Hosea's words in the first few verses of chapter 1 a retrospective interpretation of the events prophetically (i.e., he sees the marriage retrospectively as being at God's instruction). Of course, this doesn't change the fact that Hosea quite clearly
saw the events of his life as being ordained by God for prophetic purposes, and doesn't really change the underlying morality of the situation, as I don't see how it's any better for God to get Hosea to marry someone He knows WILL DEFINITELY be a prostitute during the marriage than if she was one currently (which I referred to earlier and have yet to hear a response on). H Wheeler Robinson puts forward this view quite clearly, although he also agrees that Hosea knowing she was a prostitute before hand is a possible reading as well.
In any case, even that view is still quite removed from the argument you put forth, which is that Gomer was never sexually promiscuous, but was simply an idolator. I've already engaged with those parts of your argument, so as you say, it's entirely down to your discretion whether you want to engage with me on this or not. That's your prerogative, but please don't turn around and say that I'm intractable in my position when it is in fact YOU who is failing to engage with my position. If I'm wrong, please show me.
Also, seeing you nor anyone else here did not really reply to my answer on how it is moral and good for God to tell Hosea to marry a prostitute, it is only fair that I don't reply (at my discretion), as well.
I'll give you a reply now, but I also want to note that if you were genuinely interested in convincing people, I can't understand why you wouldn't take every opportunity to answer people. Anyway, seeing as you asked so nicely
here is why I think it is morally defensible for God to give that instruction, and provide a net good not possible without that instruction. I'll keep it to a few key points, mostly because at this point I'm not sure you will reply. But here we go...
Theological grounds: I think we can both agree God does not do things that are evil or sinful. So, if we can establish Hosea is saying exactly what most people in this thread are saying it says, it is obviously not sin. This is why it matters what Hosea means, and why it is not acceptable to simply override Hosea with whatever other texts you can find - God's thoughts are not our thoughts, and we should be very careful to see what it is that God is saying, and not what we think it is that God should be saying. So, if we conclude that the text of Hosea allows for some readings and excludes others (e.g., if the text of Hosea clearly talks about sexual promiscuity on the part of Gomer), it is essential we accept that reading, and not throw it under the bus of our own suppositions about what Scripture should be saying.
Scriptural grounds: The pivotal texts in your argument are, I assume, Leviticus 21 and 1 Corinthians 9. I'll try and deal with these briefly, and then it's up to your discretion whether to continue.
Firstly, Leviticus is obviously concerned with the requirements for the priesthood, and not with requirements for the general population. Leviticus instructs priests not to marry prostitutes, but also not to marry divorcees (which is permitted for regular people under certain circumstances, cf Deut 24), or widows (which is obviously acceptable in places like Ruth, etc) or to be near or handle corpses (which, obviously, regular people would have to do from time to time, even though they would have to purify themselves later for reacceptance into the Temple). Therefore, Leviticus 21 is not a relevant text in this regard, either for Hosea or for the church population in general.
Secondly, 1 Cor 9. It's important to note first of all that Paul is primarily concerned not with prostitution per se, but prostitution as an allegory for spiritual indecision. He begins his discussion with those who will not inherit the kingdom of God at 9-10, then discusses the idea that all things are lawful, but not beneficial, with what is beneficial seeming to be that which is 'for the Lord' (v.13). Then, he proceeds to the discussion of being raised with Christ, of being Christ's body, and therefore not being joined (it does not use the concept of marriage here) to a prostitute, precisely because the two shall be made one flesh - it mirrors quite closely the "you cannot serve two masters" discourse in the gospels.
So, then, the focus is not on prostitutes per se, but on prostitutes as a TYPE. It is not a discourse dealing with individuals marrying those who are or were prostitutes, and certainly has nothing to do with marriage as an institution. It is focused on prostitution as a spiritual reality, a particularly sordid distraction from the Lord, temptation, etc - which is precisely what the image of Hosea and Gomer is intended to portray. This is the key to Hosea, and where most of its rhetorical power comes from - the shock of Hosea allowing himself to be married to a prostitute, even though she is utterly undeserving, is precisely the shock we are to feel when we consider that OUR SIN and OUR IDOLATRY and OUR PROSTITUTION is so, so heinous, but that God still pursues us and calls us out.
The scenario of Hosea: With all this in mind, if we assume God is literally telling Hosea to marry someone who is known to be a prostitute or promiscuous woman, does he essentially command Hosea to sin?
Well, it would seem that act itself is not under the jurisdiction of Leviticus 21, as Hosea is not a priest and does not serve in the temple.
Similarly, 1 Cor 9 does not apply, partially because obviously it post dates Hosea, partially because 1 Cor 6 is concerned with the spiritual reality of prostitution in so far as it detracts from union in Christ, and this clearly does not apply if Hosea is doing as instructed by God in order to call people back to the Lord.
Hosea is not himself sinning because all sexual conduct is conducted within marriage, and Gomer is otherwise not sinning any more than she already would have been in her extra or pre-martial liaisons, and although the text is vague on the biographical details, it is possible the action resulted in a net good for Gomer, morally speaking, compared to if she hadn't been married. It certainly resulted in a net good for Israel, and for us, as this instruction called people back to worship the one God, not prostituting themselves before the Baals, and has been retained as part of the Scriptutres that are God breathed.
Therefore, there is no reason to say that it was anything but a moral and good instruction for Hosea to have joined himself to Gomer, under God's instruction.
