Yes, Hosea obviously thought this, but as I have shown above, after Hosea had said that Yahweh would punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel, he predicted that Yahweh would also cause the kingdom of the house of Israel to end, and from there, he went on to explain that Israel's abandonment of Yahwism for the worship of other gods, especially Baalism, was why Yahweh was going to cause the kingdom of the house of Israel to end. LJ is trying to make the "blood of Jezreel" apply to both parts of the prophecy, but as I showed earlier, this phrase was placed within the sentence where it would modify only the first part of the prophecy, which was that Yahweh would punish the house of Jehu for the blood of Jezreel. LJ is trying to put a broader application onto the phrase than what Hosea likely intended.

Hosea married Gomer, who bore a son who was given the symbolic name "Jezreel"--which means "God sows"--for God was going to judge Israel, put an end to the kingdom of the house of Israel, and scatter ("sow") the Israelites among the heathens (cf. Hosea 1:11 and Zechariah 10:9).

As I showed here in Part One, when LJ first presented this interpretation of the meaning of Jezreel, a more likely interpretation is that the word was being used to convey the source of Gomer's fertility. As LJ's own explications are showing, Hosea was upset over the widespread worship of Baal, who was seen by some of his worshipers as the source of fertility, so Gomer's "whoredom" was likely that she had been involved in cultic prostitution. Giving the name Jezreel to her first child would have been a way of acknowledging that the source of her fertility had actually been "God" or Yahweh rather than Baal. This is easily a correct interpretation of the use of Jezreel in Hosea 1:4, and as long as it is, LJ must show us that it was being used to mean that "God was going to judge Israel" and "sow," in the sense of scattering the Israelites among other nations, rather than to mean that Gomer's conception was the result of God's sowing fertility.

Further evidence that the word Jezreel in Hosea 1:4 was intended to convey a sense of fertility that was "sown" or derived from God can be found in an analysis of the word. According to Brown, Driver, and Briggs, this word was derived from zâra‘ and ’êl. The latter, of course, meant god, and zâra‘ meant "to sow," but also, according to Brown, Driver, and Briggs, was sometimes used to convey the sense of "to conceive or become pregnant." This latter sense is found in Leviticus 12:2--"Speak to the people of Israel, saying: If a woman conceives [zâra‘] and bears a male child, she shall be ceremonially unclean seven days...." The same word was used three times in the Genesis account of creation in reference to plants that "yield" seed or fruit (1:11-12,29). That Hosea was using Jezreel in the sense of God's sowing by causing or bringing about fertility is indicated in 2:21-23. Notice the emphasized references to Jezreel in the context of the earth's producing fruit.

Hosea 2:21 On that day [when Yahweh takes Israel to be his wife again] I will answer, says Yahweh, I will answer the heavens and they shall answer the earth; ²² and the earth shall answer the grain, the wine, and the oil, and they shall answer Jezreel; ²³ and I will sow him for myself in the land. And I will have pity on Lo-ruhamah [Gomer's second child, whose name meant "that has not obtained pity"], and I will say to Lo-ammi [Gomer's third child, whose name meant "not my people"], "You are my people"; and he shall say, "You are my God."

Notice how Jezreel was used in a context that associated it with God's sowing in the land and bringing about fruit. Hosea had said earlier that Yahweh would bring about a cessation of prosperity and, among other punishments, "lay waste" the vines and fig trees of Israel (2:10-13), but on the day when he took Israel again to be his wife, this would change, and he would bless the land again and restore its fertility. LJ said above that the "theme" of the book of Hosea was important in understanding the "context" in which "the blood of Jezreel" had been used, and the theme of the passage just quoted above is clearly that Yahweh was the source of fertility.

I will continue to explicate the expression "blood of Jezreel" as I continue through LJ's "solution" to the Jehu problem, but we have already seen plenty of evidence that the term, as it was applied to Gomer's first child, was being used in the sense of divine fertility and not as any kind of reference to the blood of the children of Israel who had been killed during the reigns of the Jehu dynasty. Anyway, the meaning of Jezreel has now become irrelevant, because LJ said here in the revised section that he asked me to post that he "do[es] not now think--as some commentators do--that the meaning of the name Jezreel ("God sows") has any significance in Hosea 1:4-5 because (a) the text itself does not relate the meaning of the name to what it is supposed to symbolize...." What LJ may think about the meaning of Hosea 1:4 is apparently subject to frequent change, but his "revision" is quite telling, because he seems to be admitting that the text doesn't relate the name to "what it is supposed to symbolize." What it is supposed to symbolize, of course, is the spin that LJ has tried to put onto the name, i. e., the blood of the children of Israel killed by the Syrians during the reigns of the Jehu dynasty, but I am glad to see him now admitting that the text does not relate the name [Jezreel] to this.

As a token of this God would destroy "the bow of Israel" (military prowess--see Jeremiah 49:35; Genesis 49:24) in the Valley of Jezreel.

As LJ has correctly indicated here, the word bow was used at times to symbolize the military power of a nation, and so "breaking the bow" would mean that the military might of the nation had been broken. The issue, however, is not what breaking the bow of Israel meant but what the prophet thought was the reason why it was going to be broken. I hate to sound like a broken record, but I have shown here that Hosea 1:4 contained two predictions: (1) the house of Jehu would be punished, and (2) the kingdom of the house of Israel would be brought to an end. I went on to show here that the adverbial phrase "for the blood of Jezreel" was placed within the sentence where it would modify just the punishment of the house of Jehu. No reason per se was given in the verse for the second prediction, i. e., bringing the kingdom of the house of Israel to an end, but, as even LJ's own explications are showing, the rest of the book of Hosea gave the reason for the second one. Yahweh would cause the kingdom of the house of Israel to end because of the "sins" of the nation, chief of which was its toleration of idolatry.

The beginning of the end of the northern kingdom started with an invasion of Israel by Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria (called "Pul" in 2 Kings 15:19), to whom king Menahem paid tribute (2 Kings 15:19-20). From that time onward Israel became a vassal state until the kingdom was brought to an end by king Shalmaneser V (2 Kings 17:3-6).

This summation of historical events that happened in the northern kingdom after the time of Hosea does nothing to establish LJ's claim that "the blood of Jezreel" in Hosea 1:4 meant not the blood that Jehu had shed at Jezreel but the blood of the children of Israel, who had died during the reigns of the house of Jehu. LJ has yet even to offer a plausible explanation for why Hosea would have put such a twist as this onto a phrase that had obvious connotations of a specific historical event. The fact that the northern kingdom eventually came to an end, as Hosea had predicted, would in no way prove that Yahweh had pulled the strings that caused this to happen. In the first place, Hosea could have easily seen events in his time that gave him reasonable cause to predict that the northern kingdom's days were numbered. Ezekiel, for example incorrectly prophesied the everlasting destruction of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek. 26-28), but even if this prophecy had come about as predicted, there would have been nothing remarkable about it, because the prophet Ezekiel claimed that he was a captive in Babylonia during the time of Nebuchadnezzar (Ezek. 1:1-3), so he could have easily seen or heard indications of an impending Babylonian invasion of Tyre and wrongly assumed that a small city state was doomed if the powerful kingdom of Babylon laid siege to it. Hosea, likewise, could have been party to information that would have enabled him to make an educated guess that the kingdom of Israel was going to be destroyed.

Though not recorded in the historical books of the Old Testament, the "bow of Israel" must have been broken by Assyria in some decisive battle in the Valley of Jezreel about 724 B.C., though Samaria held out under siege for some three years longer.

LJ claimed that he isn't a biblical inerrantist, but he assumed here the inerrancy of the Bible by saying that "'the bow of Israel' must have been broken by Assyria in some decisive battle in the Valley of Jezreel." Why would LJ think this? Well, Hosea prophesied that Yahweh would break the bow of Israel in the valley of Jezreel, so if he predicted this LJ assumes that it must have happened. If LJ isn't actually an inerrantist, he apparently wants to be one.

The "Valley of Jezreel" is a plain in northern Israel which has been a major battlefield of nations throughout history. It took its name from the town of Jezreel, which stood between Megiddo and Beth Shean, and between Mount Carmel and Mount Gilboa.

And this does what to prove that "the blood of Jezreel" in Hosea 1:4 referred not to the massacre that Jehu had committed at Jezreel but to the "blood of the children of Israel" who had been killed during the reigns of the Jehu dynasty? I suspect that LJ is hiding his lack of contextual evidence behind his lengthy summations of Israelite history that made no references at all to Jezreel.

It was a natural battlefield. The Midianites, Amalekites, and people of the east once crossed the Jordan and encamped in the Valley of Jezreel to fight with the Israelites (Judges 6:33; cf. 1 Samuel 29:1).

Yes, this is what the passages cited claim, but how do they in any way prove that "the blood of Jezreel" in Hosea 1:4 referred not to the massacre that Jehu had committed at Jezreel but to the "blood of the children of Israel" who had been killed during the reigns of the Jehu dynasty? LJ seems to think that everyone should just automatically accept as fact anything that he asserts.

The name "Jezreel" alludes to "Israel" by a play of letters and sounds--even more so in sound in Hebrew than in English. In the Bible we read about other small changes in names: Sarai became Sarah; Abram became Abraham. These changes were for the better, but this time it is for the worse. Jacob became "Israel," meaning "he will rule as God," which now becomes "Jezreel," meaning "God scatters"--a demotion!

Well, LJ has finally made a contextual effort to find his meaning of "the blood of Jezreel," but to do so, he took the "pun" route, which inerrantists have used before when they couldn't find what they wanted explicitly stated in the Bible. An example of this ploy is the way that inerrantists have tried to find the Persian conquest of Babylon in Daniel 5, which says that the Babylonian kingdom was "received" by "Darius the Mede" (v:30-31). Since historical records clearly indicate that Babylon fell to the Persians rather than to the Medes, inerrantists have claimed that the writer of Daniel indicated through a pun two verses earlier that he knew that the Persians had actually conquered the city. In my exchanges with Everette Hatcher on the book of Daniel, he claimed that in a pun used to interpret the word peres in the message that the mysterious hand had written on the wall (5:28), Daniel showed his awareness that Babylon had fallen to the Persians. In Aramaic, the word p^erac [peres] meant "to split" or "divide," so because its spelling was similar to Pârac [Persia], inerrantists like Hatcher have claimed that Daniel was showing through a pun that he knew that Babylon had fallen to the Persians. In other words, when inerrantists couldn't find their position explicitly stated in the book of Daniel, they found it in a "pun," as if their god were incapable of directly stating that Babylon was conquered by the Persians.

This is what LJ has done in his search for textual evidence to support his claim that "the blood of Jezreel" in Hosea 1:4 meant not the massacres that Jehu committed at Jezreel but the killing of the children of Israel during the reigns of the Jehu dynasty. Not finding any real contextual evidence to support this claim, LJ has also taken the "pun" route. The transliterated spelling of Jezreel is Yizr^e‘ê’l and the spelling of Israel is Yisrâ’êl. Although the spellings and pronunciations are similar, whether Yizr^e‘ê’l was intended as a pun or not is really a matter of speculation. The story of Jehu's massacre at Jezreel was told in 2 Kings 9-10, where the words Yizr^e‘ê’l and Yisrâ’êl were used 12 and 17 times respectively. Are we to assume that the author of 2 Kings was punning in these chapters whenever he used the word Jezreel in the same contexts with Israel?

I have shown in Part One and above in this article that Hosea 1:4 was a two-part prophecy: first, Yahweh would punish the house of Jehu; second, Yahweh would bring the house of Israel to an end. The sections linked to will show linguistic evidence that the expression "the blood of Jezreel" was so placed in the verse that, unless the "inspired" prophet was a sloppy writer, it could modify only the first part of the prophecy. I went on to show that the rest of the book was devoted primarily to explaining why Yahweh was going to bring the kingdom of Israel to an end. I further showed how Hosea could easily have placed "for the blood of Jezreel" within the prophecy to make it clearly modify both parts. Linguistic evidence, therefore, just does not support the spin that LJ wants to put onto this prophecy. The pun that he thinks he sees in the prophecy is just a straw he is grabbing to try to make "the blood of Jezreel" mean what he wants it to mean.

This definite allusion reinforces what is already obvious from other verses:

I just showed that the "allusion" that LJ thinks he sees in the prophecy is far from "definite." It is more of an illusion than an allusion.

whatever Hosea writes in the first chapter or elsewhere concerning "Jezreel" must refer to God's dealings with the nation Israel, and Israel alone.

In this section of Part One, I explicated the prophecy within its full context of chapter one to show that Jezreel very likely was used to symbolize the fertility that comes from Yahweh rather than Baal, whose worship Hosea's wife Gomer had likely been involved in. Then further along in this part, I analyzed chapter two to show that Jezreel was being used to represent the fertility that Yahweh would send upon the land after he had taken Israel to be his "wife" again. The spin that LJ is trying to put upon "the blood of Jezreel" is too strained to be believed.

The house of Jehu is mentioned in Hosea 1:4-5 only insofar as they are included in the judgment of the nation for idolatry:

Not so! As I showed above, the house of Jehu was the subject of the first punishment that Hosea prophesied, and his placement of "for the blood of Jezreel" within this prophecy clearly indicates his belief that Yahweh would punish the house of Jehu "for the blood of Jezreel." The second part of the prophecy pertained to ending the nation of Israel, and that prophecy was clearly separated from the phrase "the blood of Jezreel," which LJ is trying to make a reference to only the nation of Israel, but in explicating the prophecy here, I showed how simple it would have been to word it so that readers would understand that "the blood of Jezreel" referred also to the part that predicted the end of "the kingdom of Israel." The fact that Hosea did not write it that way is sufficient reason to think that he didn't mean for it to refer to that part of his prophecy.

In the absence of other biblical passages in which "the blood of Jezreel" was mentioned, we have to use common sense to determine its probable meaning in Hosea 1:4. One way to apply common sense would be to compare "the blood of Jezreel" to similar expressions elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Although this would not be an infallible way to determine its meaning, it will at least give us insights into an idiomatic usage of the word dâm [blood] in ancient Hebrew. I have already cited one such example where "the blood of Naboth" was used in obvious reference to Jezebel's scheme to murder Naboth so that her husband Ahab could take possession of his vineyard. I pointed out then that basically the only difference in the two expressions--"the blood of Naboth" and "the blood of Jezreel"--is that the one referred to the person who was murdered, whereas the other referred to the place where murders or massacres were committed. Besides "the blood of Naboth," there are other biblical references where "blood of..." was used in reference to the killing of another person. The story of Abner's murder of Joab's brother Asael is related in 2 Samuel 2:12-23, but later, when the opportunity presented itself, Joab killed Abner to avenge his brother's death.

2 Kings 3:27 And when Abner was returned to Hebron, Joab took him aside in the gate to speak with him quietly, and smote him there under the fifth rib, that he died, for the blood of Asahel his brother.

Obviously, the expression "for the blood of Asahel" in this passage stated the reason why Joab killed Abner. In fact, the 30th verse in this chapter says, "So Joab and Abishai his brother slew Abner, because he had slain their brother Asahel at Gibeon in the battle." Obviously, then, the expression "for the blood of..." was used idiomatically in Hebrew to state the reason for one's taking vengeance on another person.

Another example of how "the blood of..." was used occurred in 2 Samuel 16, where David, while retreating from the initial successes of the revolt led by his son Absalom, was jeered by a man named Shimei as David was passing through his village.

2 Samuel 16:5 And when king David came to Bahurim, behold, thence came out a man of the family of the house of Saul, whose name was Shimei, the son of Gera: he came forth, and cursed still as he came. ⁶ And he cast stones at David, and at all the servants of king David: and all the people and all the mighty men were on his right hand and on his left. ⁷ And thus said Shimei when he cursed, Come out, come out, thou bloody man, and thou man of Belial: ⁸ Yahweh hath returned upon thee all the blood of the house of Saul, in whose stead thou hast reigned; and Yahweh hath delivered the kingdom into the hand of Absalom thy son: and, behold, thou art taken in thy mischief, because thou art a bloody man.

Here the man named Shimei was expressing an obvious belief that the revolt against David was a punishment he was receiving for "the blood of the house of Saul." Saul and his sons had been killed by the Philistines (1 Sam. 31), but in keeping with the superstition of the time, Shimei thought that Yahweh was punishing David for "the blood of the house of Saul" or, in other words, he thought that David, who had indirectly been involved in the opposition to Saul, was being punished for the shedding of the blood of the house of Saul. Once again, then, we see that "the blood of..." was an expression that was used in reference to the killing of the person(s) whose blood had been shed. In this case, it was the blood of the house of Saul. It would be absurd to claim that Shimei in this passage was symbolically using "the blood of the house of Saul" to represent the blood of all those in the nation of Israel who had been killed during Saul's reign.

One more example should convince all holdouts for LJ's position that he is distorting the obvious meaning of "the blood of..." in order to make Hosea 1:4 mean what he wants it to mean. That example is in the book of Isaiah, where the prophet was predicting dire punishment of Israel for various offenses against Yahweh (Isaiah 3:16-17). This punishment would make survival so difficult in Israel that "(s)even women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying, 'We will eat our own bread and wear our own clothes; just let us be called by your name'" (4:1), after which there would be a period of restoration.

Isaiah 4:2 In that day shall the branch of Yahweh be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. ³ And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remains in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem: ⁴ When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.

Here the purging of "the blood of Jerusalem" represented a removal of the bloodguilt of Jerusalem, so once again we see "the blood of..." being used in reference to the place where blood had been shed. This usage, then, is parallel to Hosea 1:4, where the prophet used the expression in reference to the place, i. e., Jezreel, where blood had been shed. To try to argue that "the blood of Jerusalem" in the text just quoted above represented the killing of people in the entire nation of Judah during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah--the kings under whose reigns Isaiah had prophesied (Isaiah 1:1)--would strain the prophet's intended meaning of the expression.

The Old Testament is filled with examples that show how "the blood of..." was used in ancient Hebrew, but I know of none that would support the spin that LJ is trying to put on its usage in Hosea 1:4.

God was going to cut off the house of Jehu first and then cut off the house of Israel after that.

Well, yes, that is what Hosea 1:4 was saying, but the order of retribution isn't really the issue. LJ must show that the expression "for the blood of Jezreel" referred to the cutting off of the house of Israel. My explication of the text in this section of Part One and again here in this part clearly shows that the expression "for the blood of Jezreel" referred only to the punishing or cutting off of the house of Jehu. After stating this, Hosea went on to show that the house of Israel would be cut off or brought to an end because of its own "sins," one of which was idolatry.

This point is important because the construction of the expression "the blood of Jezreel" as a reference to Jehu's massacre of some members of royal family in Jezreel, which was a matter between the house of Jehu and the house of Ahab alone, is incongruous with the signification of the emblem.

Well, I have shown repeatedly that it isn't incongruous. My explications show that giving the expression reference to the cutting off of the house of Israel is an interpretation for which LJ has no linguistic evidence. On the other hand, the very command that the "son of the prophets" delivered to Jehu shows again that the expression "for the blood of..." obviously referred to the person or the place that was mentioned in the same context. Let's notice how the "son of the prophet" used the expression during his encounter with Jehu. I will emphasize it in bold print.

2 Kings 9:5 He [the "son of the prophets"] arrived while the commanders of the army were in council, and he announced, "I have a message for you, commander." "For which one of us?" asked Jehu. "For you, commander." ⁶ So Jehu got up and went inside; the young man poured the oil on his head, saying to him, "Thus says Yahweh the God of Israel: I anoint you king over the people of Yahweh, over Israel. ⁷ You shall strike down the house of your master Ahab, so that I may avenge on Jezebel the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of Yahweh. ⁸ For the whole house of Ahab shall perish; I will cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel. ⁹ I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat, and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah. ¹⁰ The dogs shall eat Jezebel in the territory of Jezreel....

First of all, let's notice that this "son of the prophets" was delivering to Jehu a message from Yahweh, which instructed him to "strike down the house of [his] master Ahab." The prophet then switched to first person, as if Yahweh himself were commanding Jehu to "cut off from Ahab every male, bond or free, in Israel," so if Yahweh was telling Jehu to do all of this, "'the blood of Jezreel' as a reference to Jehu's massacre of some members of [the] royal family in Jezreel" was hardly just "a matter between the house of Jehu and the house of Ahab alone." For one thing, the house of Ahab had been eradicated, so there was no way for Ahab's house to keep this "a matter" between it and Jehu's house, since an extinct lineage would be incapable of conducting a feud against the descendants of the one who had destroyed that lineage. The longer LJ goes in his quest for some way to justify an obviously strained interpretation, the farther he shoves his foot into his mouth.

The obvious meaning of the "blood" expression in the message delivered to Jehu was that Yahweh was going to avenge the blood of his prophets on Jezebel, or, in other words, he was going to punish Jezebel for the shedding of the blood of the prophets. The "blood of the prophets" in this statement no doubt referred to 1 Kings 18, which recounted Jezebel's part in the murders of prophets of Yahweh.

1 Kings 18:3 Now Obadiah feared Yahweh greatly: ⁴ For it was so, when Jezebel cut off the prophets of Yahweh, that Obadiah took a hundred prophets, and hid them by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water.

In a conversation with Elijah, Obadiah made reference to Jezebel's killing of the prophets.

1 Kings 18:13 Was it not told my lord what I did when Jezebel slew the prophets of Yahweh, how I hid a hundred men of Yahweh's prophets by fifty in a cave, and fed them with bread and water?

The command given to Yahweh to avenge on Jezebel "the blood" of Yahweh's servants the prophets was obviously a reference to the killings mentioned in the passages just quoted, so the "son of the prophet" was telling Jehu that his mission to destroy the house of Ahab was to be a retribution on or punishment of Jezebel for having killed the prophets. Now, for ease of comparison, I will juxtapose the "blood" expression in the command given to Jehu with its counterpart in Hosea 1:4.

I may avenge on Jezebel the blood of my servants the prophets, and the blood of all the servants of Yahweh....

I will avenge the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu....

The only substantial difference in the two statements is that the first put the object of Yahweh's vengeance [Jezebel] before "the blood of my servants," whereas the second put the object of Yahweh's punishment [the house of Jehu] after "the blood of Jezreel," but LJ surely wouldn't try to argue that the meaning of the first statement would be changed if it had said, "I may avenge the blood of my servants the prophets on Jezebel." If, then, avenging the blood of the prophets on Jezebel meant that she was going to be punished for having killed Yahweh's prophets, by what linguistic gymnastics does LJ think that he can make the "blood" expression in Hosea 1:4 mean anything else but that Yahweh was going to avenge the blood of Jezreel on the house of Jehu. That this latter statement meant that Yahweh intended to punish the house of Jehu for the massacres that Jehu had committed at Jezreel is so obvious that I really should stop here and declare the case closed. However, LJ had a lot more to say, so I will follow him where he takes us.

Since the first son of Gomer named "Jezreel" in Hosea 1:4 represents the children of Israel,

But I have shown beyond reasonable doubt that the name of Gomer's first son did not represent "the children of Israel" but rather the source of Gomer's fertility, so there is no need for me to swat a mosquito with a sledgehammer by rehashing that rebuttal here again.

[Since the first son of Gomer named "Jezreel" in Hosea 1:4 represents the children of Israel,] in the immediately following clause in the same sentence "Jezreel" is used in the sense of "the children of Israel" in pronouncing judgment against the house of Jehu.

As I have now shown several times, the "blood" expression in Hosea 1:4 obviously referred only to the first part of the prophecy and not to the second. Readers can go to this section of Part One and here in this article to review my linguistic analysis of the prophecy, so all I need to do here is rehash it quickly. The first part of the prophecy was that Yahweh would punish the house of Jehu "for the blood of Jezreel," and the second part was that he would bring the kingdom of the house of Israel to an end. By its placement within the sentence the expression "for the blood of Jezreel" could refer only to the first part of the prophecy.

Consequently, the phrase "the blood of Jezreel" means "the blood of the children of Israel."

By going to the links in my paragraph above, readers can easily see that LJ's "consequently" is seriously wrong. "The blood of Jezreel" made obvious reference to the massacres committed at Jezreel and did not refer to "the blood of the children of Israel" in the sense of the whole nation of Israel. It referred to the blood that Jehu had shed at Jezreel, and that bloodshed was the reason why Hosea thought that Yahweh would punish the house of Jehu. Then, after prophesying that Yahweh would bring the kingdom of the house of Israel to an end, Hosea went on in the rest of his book to explain that Israel's own "sins," especially idolatry, were the reason why Yahweh was going to do this.

Since the house of Jehu led the people of Israel in idolatry, they are responsible for it and its consequences, which was divine judgment of the nation in the form of enemy attacks against it with much blood-spilling.

The house of Jehu had led the people of Israel into idolatry? How did LJ reach this conclusion. The story of the massacre at Jezreel claims that Jehu actually eradicated Baal worship in Israel by tricking those involved into this cult into one location so that they could be massacred.

2 Kings 10:18 Then Jehu assembled all the people and said to them, "Ahab offered Baal small service; but Jehu will offer much more. ¹⁹ Now therefore summon to me all the prophets of Baal, all his worshipers, and all his priests; let none be missing, for I have a great sacrifice to offer to Baal; whoever is missing shall not live." But Jehu was acting with cunning in order to destroy the worshipers of Baal. ²⁰ Jehu decreed, "Sanctify a solemn assembly for Baal." So they proclaimed it. ²¹ Jehu sent word throughout all Israel; all the worshipers of Baal came, so that there was no one left who did not come. They entered the temple of Baal, until the temple of Baal was filled from wall to wall. ²² He said to the keeper of the wardrobe, "Bring out the vestments for all the worshipers of Baal." So he brought out the vestments for them. ²³ Then Jehu entered the temple of Baal with Jehonadab son of Rechab; he said to the worshipers of Baal, "Search and see that there is no worshiper of Yahweh here among you, but only worshipers of Baal." ²⁴ Then they proceeded to offer sacrifices and burnt offerings. Now Jehu had stationed eighty men outside, saying, "Whoever allows any of those to escape whom I deliver into your hands shall forfeit his life." ²⁵ As soon as he had finished presenting the burnt offering, Jehu said to the guards and to the officers, "Come in and kill them; let no one escape." So they put them to the sword. The guards and the officers threw them out, and then went into the citadel of the temple of Baal. ²⁶ They brought out the pillar that was in the temple of Baal, and burned it. ²⁷ Then they demolished the pillar of Baal, and destroyed the temple of Baal, and made it a latrine to this day. ²⁸ Thus Jehu wiped out Baal from Israel.

So rather than leading Israel into Baal worship, Jehu had actually "wiped out Baal from Israel," for which Yahweh had presumably rewarded him by promising that his sons to the fourth generation would sit on the throne of Israel (2 Kings 10:30), but Jehu did not "depart from the sins of Jeroboam" in that he allowed the worship of the golden calves in Bethel and Dan to continue (v:29). Evidently, Yahweh didn't consider this a grievous sin at this time, because the very next verse, just cited above, went on to praise Jehu for having "done well in executing that which was right in [Yahweh's] eyes." As also just noticed, Yahweh was so pleased at Jehu's conduct in this matter that he rewarded him by promising to let his sons reign in Israel through the fourth generation. Jehu was succeeded by his son Jehoahaz (2 Kings 10:35). The writer of 2 Kings said that Jehoahaz "did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh" in that he too followed the sin of Jeroboam, i.e., allowing the worship of the golden calves, but this would not have been an act of "leading" Israel into idolatry, because Jeroboam was the one who had introduced this worship into the northern kingdom, and, as just noticed, Jehu had allowed this worship to continue (even though he had done well in executing that which was right in Yahweh's sight). The writer of 2 Kings said the same about Joash [Jehoash], who succeeded his father Jehoahaz (2 Kings 13:9-13), and Jeroboam II, who succeeded his father Joash (2 Kings 14:23-29), and Zechariah, who succeeded his father Jeroboam II (2 Kings 15:8-12). Thus ended the Jehu dynasty, and in each case the writer claimed that these descendant kings of Jehu had done evil in the sight of Yahweh by not departing from Jeroboam's sin of introducing the worship of the golden calves, but since the first Jeroboam was the one who had set up these shrines at Bethel and Dan, it can hardly be said, as LJ claimed above, that the house of Jehu had "led the people of Israel into idolatry." The worse that could be said about them is that they had allowed an idolatrous practice that had been introduced by the first Jeroboam, but if this was such a heinous sin, why was Jehu praised for having executed all that was right in the eyes of Yahweh when he too had allowed the practice to continue, and if in allowing this practice to go on during their reigns, Jehu's descendant kings had sinned so grievously that Yahweh determined to put an end to the house of Jehu, why did he wait so long? Why didn't he end the nation of Israel during Jehu's reign or at least during the reign of his son Jehoahaz? Why wait so long?

The answer to this is simple, but I doubt that LJ will accept it. The people of that time thought that national misfortune was the result of their god's displeasure with the nation, so when calamities like droughts, famines, military setbacks, etc. happened, the prophets always looked for something to blame it on. Idolatrous practices was an easy target to blame, but that the prophets were simply interpreting contemporary events through the superstitious beliefs of their time when they affixed such blame is evident in statements like the writer's explanation for why Yahweh didn't destroy the northern kingdom during the reign of Jehoahaz of Israel, who didn't depart from the first Jeroboam's sin of worshiping the golden calves.

That people living in our more enlightened times would believe such nonsense is almost too incomprehensible to imagine, but LJ's acceptance at face value of what Old Testament writers claimed had caused the fall of nations is evidence that some today actually believe such silliness.

This blood, Hosea declares, is now going to be avenged on the house of Jehu. It was in the power of the kings of Israel to eradicate the cult of calf worship in Israel or perpetuate it, and, sadly, they chose the latter.

My analysis above of the reigns of Jehu's dynasty and the excuse-making of the author of 2 Kings shows just how silly LJ's belief is. The nation of Israel ended because of changes in military power that no longer enabled it to resist invasions. If Yahweh ended it because of some supposed "sins" committed by its kings, why didn't Yahweh act long before he did? Now look for LJ to say something like the longsuffering of Yahweh was why he waited so long to end the kingdom of Israel. He claims that he isn't a biblical inerrantist, but he seems willing to grab any straw in sight to keep from admitting that the Bible contains discrepancies and downright silliness.

Hosea's prophecy of doom against the royal house and the nation on account of idolatry is paralleled by Amos 7:8-11:

Behold, I am setting a plumb line in the midst of my people Israel; I will never again pass by them; the high places of Isaac shall be made desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste, and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword. Then Amaziah the priest of Bethel sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying, "Amos has conspired against you in the midst of the house of Israel.... For thus Amos has said, 'Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel must go into exile away from his land.'"

Amos couples the judgment of the house of Jeroboam (=Jehu) for idolatry with that of the nation as a whole, and that is what Hosea did too.

LJ didn't explain why Amos's denunciation of "the house of Jeroboam" would be the same as if he had denounced the house of Jehu. He simply asserted it. If he claims that Jeroboam was a descendant of Jehu, and so denunciation of the house of Jeroboam would be the same as denouncing the house of Jehu, then he would have to say that condemnation of kings Rehoboam (1 Kings 14:21-24) and Abijam (1 Kings 15:1-3) were condemnations of David, because they were the grandson and great-grandson respectively of David. Likewise, LJ would have to say that the denunciation of Jehoram (2 Kings 8:17-19) and Ahaziah (2 Kings 8:26-27; 2 Chron. 22:7) was a denunciation of David, because they were 6th- and 7th-generation descendants of David. I could cite many other examples, but these are sufficient to show that just because Amos denounced a king reigning in his time doesn't necessarily mean that he denounced also his dynastic ancestor Jehu.

Amos was just another doom-and-gloom prophet who ranted and raved against religious practices that were different from his Yahwistic beliefs. LJ apparently didn't notice that the part of his quotation that predicted Israel's end was not what Amos himself said but what Amaziah in a message to Jeroboam said that Amos had said. As noted in the verses quoted, Amaziah was a priest of Bethel, one of the shrines where the golden calves of the first Jeroboam were worshiped. Was Amaziah's message to the second Jeroboam accurate? If so, then what he said that Amos had said proved to be false prophecy, because in addition to his prediction that Israel would go into exile, Amaziah had said that Amos was saying that Jeroboam would be killed by the sword. This turned out not to be true, because, as indicated in a passage already quoted above, the record of Jeroboam II's reign implied that he had died a natural death after a rather successful reign of 41 years.

2 Kings 14:23 In the fifteenth year of King Amaziah son of Joash of Judah, King Jeroboam son of Joash of Israel began to reign in Samaria; he reigned forty-one years. ²⁴ He did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh; he did not depart from all the sins of Jeroboam son of Nebat, which he caused Israel to sin. ²⁵ He restored the border of Israel from Lebo-hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah, according to the word of Yahweh, the God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonah son of Amittai, the prophet, who was from Gath-hepher. ²⁶ For Yahweh saw that the distress of Israel was very bitter; there was no one left, bond or free, and no one to help Israel. ²⁷ But Yahweh had not said that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, so he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Joash. ²⁸ Now the rest of the acts of Jeroboam, and all that he did, and his might, how he fought, and how he recovered for Israel Damascus and Hamath, which had belonged to Judah, are they not written in the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel? ²⁹ Jeroboam slept with his ancestors, the kings of Israel; his son Zechariah succeeded him.

Except for the reference to Jeroboam's allowing the first Jeroboam's shines to continue, this is a description of a fairly successful reign compared to what the author of 2 Kings said about other kings. Saying in the final verse that Jeroboam "slept with his ancestors [fathers]" was an idiomatic way of saying that he had died a natural death (1 Kings 2:10; 11:21,43; 2 Kings 8:24; 10:35; et al), and when a king was killed in battle or assassinated, the author explicitly stated the manner of his death (1 Kings 16:8-12; 1 Kings 22:29-37; 2 Kings 12:19-21; et al). In the passage that LJ quoted from Amos, then, we have not a direct statement from the prophet himself but only a secondhand account of what a pagan priest had claimed that Amos had said. The report of this priest was that Amos was prophesying that king Jeroboam II would be "killed by the sword," but this never happened unless the writer of 2 Kings incorrectly reported the circumstances of Jeroboam II's death, so LJ is basing part of his interpretation of Hosea 1:4 on what had been claimed by a priest of the very religion that both Hosea and Amos railed against in their prophecies. He may consider that a sound hermeneutic method, but I don't.

It is noteworthy that Hosea was a contemporary of Amos, and it is unlikely that two contemporaneous prophets of God held radically different views on such an important issue. Even if they did, would both of their writings, coming from the same period in Israel's history, have been accepted into the canon of Hebrew scriptures?

This is a false premise that LJ has appealed to through a probable deficient knowledge of the Bible, because there are many examples of "radically different views" that biblical writers had. The conflict between 2 Kings 10:30 and Amos 1:4, which LJ is desperately trying to interpret away--even though he says he isn't a biblical inerrantist--is just one example. Another is the conflicting opinions about king Abijam, mentioned above, that were held by the writer of 1 Kings and the Chronicler. As noted above, the former denounced Abijam for "walk[ing] in all the sins of his father" and for not having a heart that "was perfect with Yahweh his God" (1 Kings 15:3), whereas the Chronicler depicted him as a king who won decisive battles because he and Judah relied on "Yahweh the God of their fathers" (2 Chron. 13:1-22). There is no good reason at all to suppose, as LJ prematurely did, that books written by authors who had conflicting views would not have found their way into the Hebrew canon.

We find the same juxtaposition in the prophet Ajijah's original prophecy against Israel for idolatry: "The Lord will raise up for himself a king over Israel, who shall cut off the house of Jeroboam today. And henceforth the Lord will smite Israel.... And he will give Israel up because of the sins of Jeroboam, which he sinned and which he made Israel to sin" (1 Kings 14:14-16). This Jeroboam is, of course, Jeroboam I, the first king of Israel, who introduced the cult of calf worship to Israel. It stands to reason that if the prophets accused Jeroboam of causing the people of Israel to sin through idolatry and held him responsible for their doom, then the king was also held accountable for their blood.

I am glad that LJ was honest enough to admit that the prophecy he just quoted was spoken against the first Jeroboam rather than the second one. The first one was a predecessor of Jehu and therefore neither an ancestor nor a descendant of Jehu. In saying that if Yaweh had held Jeroboam responsible for causing the people of Israel "to sin through idolatry," he would also have held him responsible for "their blood," LJ again shows a deplorable ignorance of biblical content, because I quoted above examples of where Yahweh would not punish the people of Israel for their idolatry because of an obligation that he had felt to respect the covenant that was made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The examples that I cited were by no means exhaustive. Although Jehoram of Judah "walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as did the house of Ahab," for example, Yahweh "would not destroy Judah for the sake of David," to whom Yahweh had promised to "give him a lamp for his children always" (2 Kings 8:18-19).

There are examples of kings whose acts were far worse than those in the Jehu dynasty. Manasseh, for example, "seduced [the people of Judah] to do that which [was] evil more than did the nations whom Yahweh destroyed before the children of Israel" (2 Kings 21:9). He "shed innocent blood very much, till he had filled Jerusalem from one end to the other" and "made Judah to sin in doing that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh" (v:16), yet he died a natural death and "slept with his fathers" (v:18). A more realistic way to view biblical records like these is to assume, as I pointed out above, that the writers interpreted contemporary events according to a prevalent belief of the time that the hand of their god was in every piddling event. If a king lived contrary to the way that prophets thought that he should, if he suffered defeat or early death, the writers assumed that this was punishment from their god Yahweh. If a king lived in a way considered evil but nothing happened to him and he eventually died a natural death, the writers assumed that Yahweh had a reason for allowing him to continue his reign until he died. The most common rationalizations in the latter cases were that, despite the evil done by these kings, Yahweh allowed the nation to prosper because of the covenant that he had made with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob or that Yahweh didn't punish the king or nation because of promises that had been made to David.

The idea that a person can be held responsible for the "blood" (i.e., death) of another, even though that person did not directly kill the other, is not strange to the Scriptures. Note Ezekiel 33:1-9:

I certainly won't dispute that vicarious punishment, i. e., holding people accountable for offenses that had been committed by others, was believed and practiced in biblical times, but the proof texts that LJ quoted below are not really examples of this belief. I will show this later after we have seen LJ's proof texts.

The word of the Lord came to me: "Son of man, speak to your people and say to them, If I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from among them, and make him their watchman; and if he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns the people; then if anyone who hears the sound of the trumpet does not take warning, and the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.... But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes, and takes any one of them; that man is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman's hand.

"So you, son of man, I have made a watchman for the house of Israel..." (RSV, emphasis added)

It is with this passage in mind that the apostle Paul told the unbelieving Jews in Corinth, "Your blood be upon your heads!" (Acts 18:6), i.e., "I have discharged my duty in preaching to you and so I am not responsible for the consequence of your unbelief, which is death." Also see Acts 20:26.

Deuteronomy 22:8: "When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement [parapet] for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence."

As I noted above, people in biblical times did believe that responsibility for the "blood" or deaths of others could be imputed to those who didn't actually kill them. In fact, this belief wasn't limited to murder; they believed that they could be held responsible for just any "sin" committed by others. They further believed that an entire nation could be held responsible for the "sins" of only some of the people in the nation and especially so when the "sins" were committed by kings. The passage in Ezekiel, however, is not really a case of vicarious punishment, because the watchman was not going to be punished for the sins of others but for his own offense of not warning the others to turn from their "sins." If, for example, the watchman knew that someone had committed, say, adultery or murder but did not warn that person to turn from his "sin," the watchman would be punished for his failure to warn and not for the particular "sin" committed by the other person. Although the passage in Ezekiel did not specifically address the concept of vicarious punishment, we see this belief reflected many times in the Old Testament. The stoning and burning of Achan's entire family for Achan's crime of having kept for himself booty that he had found during the sacking of Jericho (Josh. 7) would be a true case of vicarious punishment. As far as the record revealed, only Achan himself had committed the offense, but the story opens with the claim that "the children of Israel committed a trespass in the devoted thing" (v:1), so the entire nation was held responsible for an offense that had been committed by just one person, and that person's family, including even the livestock belonging to him, were killed and his personal belongings burned (v:24-26). This ancient belief was also reflected in the reaction of other Israelite tribes to the news that the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh had built a "great altar" by the Jordan River in violation of the command that sacrifices should be offered at the altar in front of the tabernacle (Josh. 22:10-11). The other tribes were so disturbed by this news that they made preparations "to go up against them in war" (v:12). Their fear was based on a belief that Yahweh would hold the entire nation accountable for an unauthorized altar having been built by just some of the tribes. Before actually going to war, emissaries were sent to try to persuade the offenders to destroy the altar, and in their appeal to the offenders, they expressed the fear that what Israel had suffered because of Achan's offense would be brought upon them again.

Joshua 22:16 "Thus says the whole congregation of Yahweh, 'What is this treachery that you have committed against the God of Israel in turning away today from following Yahweh, by building yourselves an altar today in rebellion against Yahweh? ¹⁷ Have we not had enough of the sin at Peor from which even yet we have not cleansed ourselves, and for which a plague came upon the congregation of Yahweh, ¹⁸ that you must turn away today from following Yahweh! If you rebel against Yahweh today, he will be angry with the whole congregation of Israel tomorrow. ¹⁹ But now, if your land is unclean, cross over into the Lord's land where the Lord's tabernacle now stands, and take for yourselves a possession among us; only do not rebel against Yahweh, or rebel against us by building yourselves an altar other than the altar of Yahweh our God. ²⁰ Did not Achan son of Zerah break faith in the matter of the devoted things, and wrath fell upon all the congregation of Israel? And he did not perish alone for his iniquity!'"

The "sin of Peor" was the tale of Yahweh's sending a plague upon the entire nation of Israel in the wilderness because of a pagan orgy engaged in by just some of the people (Num. 25), so that story would be another example of this ancient belief. At any rate, the appeal that the emissaries made to Achan's offense in the example above prevailed, and the offending tribes assured them that they had not built the altar to another god and that they would not turn away from following Yahweh by offering sacrifices on any altar but the "altar of Yahweh that is before the tabernacle" (vs:21-29).

Probably the most shocking example of how vicarious punishment was practiced in biblical times can be seen in Yahweh's command that Saul, the first king of Israel, go massacre the Amalekites, including even children and babies, for an offense that had been committed 400 years earlier by the ancestors of the Amalekites contemporary to Saul (1 Sam. 15:1-3), so to the barbaric mindset of the Israelites living at that time, even four centuries were not too long to exact punishment from the descendants of those who had committed offenses. There is no doubt, then, that vicarious punishment was a cultural belief in biblical times.

I could cite numerous other examples, but there is no need to, because I don't disagree with LJ that this was a commonplace ancient belief. However, what he apparently doesn't recognize is that this belief conflicted with another belief that evolved later in Israel that Yahweh would not hold people responsible for "sins" that they didn't personally commit.

Deuteronomy 24:16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

LJ quoted Ezekiel 33:1-9 above, but if he had backed up a bit, he would have found another passage that might have helped him understand that by Ezekiel's time, the idea of vicarious punishment was becoming an obsolete custom.

Ezekiel 18:1 The word of Yahweh came to me: ² "What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: 'The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'? ³ As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Yahweh, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel. ⁴ For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die. ⁵ Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right. ⁶ He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife or lie with a woman during her period. ⁷ He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. ⁸ He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man. ⁹ He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign Yahweh. ¹⁰ Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things ¹¹ (though the father has done none of them): He eats at the mountain shrines. He defiles his neighbor's wife. ¹² He oppresses the poor and needy. He commits robbery. He does not return what he took in pledge. He looks to the idols. He does detestable things. ¹³ He lends at usury and takes excessive interest. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head. ¹⁴ But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things: ¹⁵ He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife. ¹⁶ He does not oppress anyone or require a pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked. ¹⁷ He withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live. ¹⁸ But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. ¹⁹ Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. ²⁰ The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him."

The emergence of this concept later in the history of Israel is indicated by its repetition in Jeremiah, a work that was written around the exilic period, when Ezekiel was a captive in Babylon (Ezek. 1:1-2).

Jeremiah 31:27 "The days are coming," declares Yahweh, "when I will plant the house of Israel and the house of Judah with the offspring of men and of animals. ²⁸ Just as I watched over them to uproot and tear down, and to overthrow, destroy and bring disaster, so I will watch over them to build and to plant," declares Yahweh. ²⁹ "In those days people will no longer say, 'The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge.' ³⁰ Instead, everyone will die for his own sin; whoever eats sour grapes--his own teeth will be set on edge."

Like other prophets, Jeremiah thought that Yahweh would restore both Israel and Judah, but the Israelites who had lived in the northern kingdom were never brought back from Assyrian captivity. Nevertheless, the passage just quoted from Jeremiah shows that he, like Hosea before him, thought that they would be returned. He also expressed his approval of the sour-grapes metaphor, which reflected the new idea that innocent people should not be punished for the "sins" of others. By this time, it had found its way into other biblical literature. When Amaziah succeeded his assassinated father as king of Israel, he first concentrated on "establishing" his kingdom, and then he killed those who had been involved in the plot against his father. However, he did not follow the old custom of killing also the family members of those who had been active participants in the crime.

2 Kings 14:5 After the kingdom was firmly in his grasp, he [Amaziah] executed the officials who had murdered his father the king. ⁶ Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where Yahweh commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."

That this law was recorded in "the Book of Law of Moses," i. e., Deuteronomy, does not mean that it wasn't a new law, because many biblical scholars date the authorship of this book well after the time of Moses. Some, in fact, see internal evidences that the prophet Jeremiah was its author. To discuss the authorship of Deuteronomy at this point would be off subject, as well as time consuming, so I will let LJ decide if he wants to defend its early authorship. I have brought this new law first expressed in the Deuteronomic code and included later in probable Deuteronomic additions to the book of 2 Kings into the debate in order to show that LJ was wrong when he said above that books with "radically different views" would not have been accepted into the Hebrew scriptures. Besides the "different views" that I mentioned earlier, the gradual rejection of vicarious punishment in Jeremiah's time is another example of how conflicting views held by biblical writers was not at all uncommon. If LJ could just see that Hosea 1:4 and 2 Kings 10:30 are nothing more than another example of how biblical writers disagreed at times, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

For the sake of argument, however, let's just assume that vicarious punishment, i. e., the belief that a person can be held responsible for the "sins" of others, was the prevailing view all through biblical times and that the new Deuteronomic view expressed by Jeremiah had never evolved. If we assume this, that will only make LJ's case harder to defend, for if it was the common practice in the time of Hosea to punish the innocent for the "sins" of the guilty, why should we not believe that when Hosea said that Yahweh would soon punish the house of Jehu "for the blood of Jezreel" he was simply stating that belief? Jehu had committed bloody massacres at Jezreel, and although his descendants living in the time of Hosea had not themselves participated in those massacres, they were nevertheless members of the house of Jehu. Just as the Israelites believed that all members of Achan's family should be stoned and burned because of Achan's sin, just as the Israelites believed that an altar built by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh would bring dire Yahwistic consequences upon them if the altar remained in place, just as the Israelites of Saul's time thought that the Amalekites, including even children and babies, should be massacred for something their ancestors had done 400 years earlier, and so on ad infinitum--so Hosea, who lived before the Deuteronomic code had made vicarious punishment obsolete, thought that the members of the house of Jehu should be punished for what their ancestor Jehu had done at Jezreel some 90 years earlier. If LJ would just realize (1) that belief in vicarious punishment was deeply ingrained in Israelite culture in Hosea's time and (2) that conflicting views in biblical books wasn't anything unusual, maybe he wouldn't be straining so hard to find some way to explain that Hosea 1:4 and 2 Kings 10:30 didn't present opposing views on the Jezreel massacre. Since LJ claims that he isn't a biblical inerrantist, he shouldn't find the probability of inconsistency in the Hebrew scriptures hard to accept.

At this point, LJ's article turned to the discussion of a new topic, which he called "'The blood of Jezreel' historically," so I will begin Part Three of my reply there. As we go through this part of LJ's article, I will ask readers to notice that he based almost everything he said in this section on an assumption that he had proven that the expression "for the blood of Jezreel" metaphorically referred not to Jehu's massacre at Jezreel but to "the blood of the children of Israel" who had died primarily at Syrian hands during the reigns of the Jehu dynasty. Since I have shown in Parts One and Two of my reply to his article that LJ's spin on Hosea 1:4 in untenable, I will be able to cover this third section faster by just linking readers back to where I have shown his interpretation of Hosea's prophecy against the house of Jehu to be incorrect.

Go to Part Three.

within All text Title Keywords Descriptions File name   using All words Any words Exact phrase