and he said, Call his name Lo-ammi; for ye are not my people, and I will not be for you.
Hosea's second son carries the heaviest name of all. God tells the nation He drew out of Egypt that it is no longer His. The verse raises two questions the rest of the book will answer — when did this sentence fall, and is it the last word?
The first two children announced judgment on the house of Jehu and the end of mercy toward the ten tribes. This third name widens the ruin to include the tribe that had so far been spared.
A second son is named Lo-ammi (that is, "not my people"), for now Jehovah no more acknowledged the people to be His. Judah held this position for a time, even though the ten tribes were lost. At last her unfaithfulness has plunged the whole nation under the terrible judgment of being no longer the people of God, with Jehovah no longer their God.
Israel had suffered defeats and invasions before. What made this different is that God had always claimed them through those disasters.
God has disowned them as His people. In all their previous troubles, they had still been owned by God as His people, and He had owned Himself to be their God. This was in fact what made the great distinction between them and other nations. But this was now set aside in judgment.
The verse ends, "I am not your God." Others render it, "I will not be for you." Here is what that meant in practice.
They rebelled against Jehovah again and again. So He separated Himself from them. He gave them the name "Lo-ammi," which means "You are not My people, and I will not be for you" (Hosea 1:9). From their rescue out of Egypt to their captivity under Gentile rule, the children of Israel had been His own special people. He no longer regarded them so. Jehovah hid His face of favour from them and withdrew His protecting arm. They were cast back into the sea of nations out of which He had drawn them.
Commentators differ over when the words landed. Some tie it to Nebuchadnezzar's capture of Jerusalem.
There are two phases in the history of the Jewish people. There is first the time when they are owned as the people of God, whom He disciplines by Egypt and Assyria, yet owns. Later He rejects them, and the people become Lo-ammi, Not-His-people... When Nebuchadnezzar takes Jerusalem, the people become Lo-ammi. Israel is rejected. God no more owns His people. He watches over them still for final restoration to their land, but "the times of the Gentiles" begin.
Others date its full moral force to the death of Christ.
From this scripture we learn that a time was coming when God would disown His ancient people the Jews, and cast them off. And this took place at the death of their Messiah. Then the dreadful sentence "Lo-ammi" took effect morally, and they are no longer owned by God as His people. This suspension of relationship is clearly taught in Matthew 23:38-39... The Jews being thus rejected, room was left for the gathering in of the Gentiles.
The sentence touches how God governs His people. It does not touch what He has decided about them.
When God said to Israel, "not my people," it was not that God gave them up. He did not change His mind; no, never! They shall be His people at last, because He did not mean it in purpose when He said Lo-ammi — but now they are Lo-ammi still.
Paul takes up Hosea's words in Romans 9. Once God falls back on His own sovereignty, the ground is as open to a Gentile as to a Jew — and the promised title is higher than the one forfeited.
God drops the word "people" and uses "sons" instead. With perfect fitness He signals through His prophet that when He was going to work in grace, He would work worthily of His name. He would bring Gentiles not merely into the place of Israel, but into a better standing. Granted that they were the vilest of the vile: even so grace could and would raise them into the nearest relationship to God Himself.
Hosea 2 turns each name of judgment inside out, and the reply from the people's own mouth completes the exchange.
"And I will sow her to Me in the earth [this refers to the name Jezreel]. And I will have mercy on her who had not obtained mercy (Lo-ruhamah). And I will say to those who were not My people (Lo-ammi), You are My people; and they shall say, My God."
- Cause. Long rebellion, reaching at last into Judah, brought the whole nation under the name "not my people."
- Loss. God withdrew the one thing that marked Israel out from every other nation: He owned them as His, and owned Himself as theirs.
- Purpose. He disowned them, but He did not give them up. They are Lo-ammi still, and in His purpose they will be His people at last.
- Reach. Israel's rejection made room for the Gentiles. God calls them "sons" — a nearer place than the one Israel lost.
- Reversal. Hosea himself turns each name around: no mercy becomes mercy, not my people becomes "My people" — answered by "My God."
Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be as the sand of the sea which cannot be measured or numbered; and it shall come to pass, [that] in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, it shall be said unto them, Sons of the living God.
God has just called Israel Lo-ammi — "not my people." In the same chapter He promises a people beyond counting and a new name, given in the very place where that sentence fell — so who are these sons?
Lo-ammi describes how God deals with Israel, not what He has decided about them.
Because of the sin of Israel they are, for a time, outwardly not God's people. God has not changed His purpose concerning His ancient people, Romans 11:29; He has only changed His manner toward them. Hosea 2:23 adds, "I will say to those who were not my people, You are my people; and they shall say, You are my God." This will be when God's set time arrives for bringing them again into blessing.
Everything here turns on one word. God does not cancel Lo-ammi by saying "Ammi" — "my people." He says something else. (The ESV reads "children of the living God"; the writers quoted here use the older wording "sons," and the argument rests on that word.)
In a vague and general sense, compared with distant Gentile nations, Israel is called son, child, firstborn. But that is only as a nation, while "sons" is individual. The expression "in the place… you are the sons of the living God" is the faint allusion to the call of the Gentiles I mentioned earlier. It is so faint that many people swallow it up altogether and make it bear on Israel. If God had said, "Then they shall be Ammi," we could have read this of Israel. He does not, however, say this. He says "sons of the living God."
The promise does not hand Israel's old title to someone else. It gives a better one.
He would bring Gentiles not merely into the place of Israel, but into a better standing. Granted, they were the vilest of the vile. Even so, grace could and would raise them into the nearest relationship to God Himself. Then they should be, not a mere substitute for Israel, but "the sons of the living God" — a title never given in its full force to any but the Gentiles who are now being called.
Paul applies the verse to Gentiles, and the wording fixes where the new name is spoken.
Paul, writing to the saints in Rome — chiefly Gentiles — applies in Romans 9:25-26 not only Hosea 2:23, which predicts the future recall of Israel, but also Hosea 1:10, which reveals the actual call of Gentiles. They are not to be His people as Israel will be later, but to have the blessed title of Christians now, "sons of the living God." Notice the peculiarity of the phrase "in the place where it was said to them Lo-ammi, there it shall be said to them, 'sons'". It was among the nations while the Jews are not recognised as such.
That sentence puts Israel where the nations already stood.
The Gentiles were always "Lo-ammi," and He says to Israel, "Lo-ammi"; so all are "Lo-ammi." But now we get a new principle. "In the place where it was said to them, Lo-ammi, there they shall be called the children of the living God." And this is going on now. When Israel is restored, it is as "the people of God."
Peter and Paul both quote Hosea, but not the same lines. One writer makes that difference the strongest proof that this verse looks past Israel.
What confirms this as the true interpretation is that Peter also quotes from our prophet. Peter was writing to a remnant of Jews only, while the apostle Paul was writing in his own proper place to Gentiles. Peter does quote Hosea, but he leaves out the words "They shall be called the sons of the living God." See 1 Peter 2:10. For his purpose he quotes from Hosea 2, not from Hosea 1.
So does the verse speak of Israel or of the nations? One writer holds both together.
The first chapter shows more than the restoration of Israel. That restoration is perfectly true, and no one should argue against it. But in a mysterious way God also left room for bringing in the Gentiles. The form of the allusion is very easy to overlook. By it He proves His perfect knowledge beforehand, and tells us of the call of the Gentiles in their own proper distinctive relationship as sons of the living God, and not merely His people.
- Sentence. Lo-ammi changed God's manner toward Israel, not His purpose; the name has a set time to expire.
- Substitution. God does not answer "not my people" with "my people" — He says "sons," and that single word is where the wider promise hides.
- Standing. Sonship is individual, and it lifts those who had no claim at all above the place Israel held as a nation.
- Spot. God speaks the new name in the very place He spoke the rejection — among the nations, while Israel goes unrecognised.
- Split. Peter quotes Hosea 2:23 to believing Jews and stops. Paul adds this verse for the Gentiles — one prophet, two reaches of the same mercy.