Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
ESV
Hosea 3:3 And I said to her, “You must dwell as mine for many days. You shall not play the whore, or belong to another man; so will I also be to you.”
What does "so will I also be to you" mean? A commentary of the Shorter Catechism said it means that Hosea promised that he would belong to the woman only.
Maybe it did for Hosea. Hosea was acting out a play for a teaching example to the nation of Israel at God's direction. He was not setting in motion rules of marriage for all time. To have more than one wife was not forbidden in general neither was it mandatory, except to raise children to a deceased brother.
Gotta quit it, Rusty, I'm having trouble walking through doors after reading your posts lately. Actually, truth be told, Ive never been able to walk through doors! But lately, its been hard to get this big head through the open doorway!
You're NOT Helping this insanely male medical condition.
Hosea said that "so will I also be to you", did he mean he would not belong to another woman, just like what he request his woman to do?
Here's what I have read:
The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly - Explained and Proved from Scripture by Thomas Vincent
Page 159.
Q. 8. What are the duties of husbands to their wives?
...
4. Fidelity to them in keeping the marriage-covenant, so as to forbear the use of any other besides themselves.
"Thou shalt not be for another man; so will I also be for thee."—Hos. i i i . 3.
Hosea said that "so will I also be to you", did he mean he would not belong to another woman, just like what he request his woman to do?
Here's what I have read:
The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly - Explained and Proved from Scripture by Thomas Vincent
Page 159.
Q. 8. What are the duties of husbands to their wives?
...
4. Fidelity to them in keeping the marriage-covenant, so as to forbear the use of any other besides themselves.
"Thou shalt not be for another man; so will I also be for thee."—Hos. i i i . 3.
Howdy Michael,
Not everyone necessarily agrees on the approach I take, but let me explain how I and some others view interpretation of scripture.
1) A single verse is never sufficient to form a doctrine.
2) Consult the Laws of Moses to guide me on what sin is.
3) Consult the NT to get a commentary on the OT.
4) OT and NT are harmonious and cannot contradict each other.
5) Apparent contradictions can usually be resolved by further study of other portions if scripture.
In your verse shown, no other verse in scripture would limit a man to only one. I am going to attribute this verse to:
Hosea is making a personal vow, just for him. It would not apply to any other men.
How do we apply this to the obvious allusions to Hosea being a type of imagery of God? Anyone?
Hosea said that "so will I also be to you", did he mean he would not belong to another woman, just like what he request his woman to do?
Here's what I have read:
The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly - Explained and Proved from Scripture by Thomas Vincent
Page 159.
Q. 8. What are the duties of husbands to their wives?
...
4. Fidelity to them in keeping the marriage-covenant, so as to forbear the use of any other besides themselves.
"Thou shalt not be for another man; so will I also be for thee."—Hos. i i i . 3.
So . . . . I'm just gonna say it! The view of fidelity mentioned in the Westminster catechism was never present in the covenant alluded to or any covenant of the era. This view of fidelity is strictly the result of an RCC bias.
The closest that Hosea could have possibly been coming to fidelity would have been the idea that she should commit to being his forever, just as he was hers forever. . .that he would never leave her nor forsake her.
A promise to be hers forever does not necessarily include exclusivity. Only that he would be hers, not that he would be hers alone.
I also found it interesting that the phrase "so will I also be to you" has no Hebrew to back up the phrase. In my interlinear, there's nothing there to support the phrase. Is this an instance of translator bias much like the explanation from the catechism?
I'll try to do some more checking and maybe Ish has some thoughts or explanation here
I also found it interesting that the phrase "so will I also be to you" has no Hebrew to back up the phrase. In my interlinear, there's nothing there to support the phrase.
