This essay responds to Brueggemann, Keefe, and Ben Zvi. Commending Brueggemann's discernment of multivocality in Hosea, this response considers his idea of a recovering God in light of rhetorical disjuncture between the brutal God of most of Hosea and the nurturing deity of Hosea 14. Keefe's welcome focus on class-based economic motivations for Hosea's polemics raises a question about the "urban elite male warrior class" that she identifies as responsible for regional economic exploitation; postcolonial notions of hybridity and mimicry are invoked to extend Keefe's analysis. Ben Zvi's argument that Persian-period literati would have been empowered by Hosea's utopian rhetoric is considered; the male rereadership would have been shamed, too, by Hosea's metaphorization of Israel as adulterous woman, and Yehud readers might not have seen the monarchical-era implied audience as discontinuous with themselves. The question is posed as to what role(s) the prophet Hosea might play in the hermeneutical models of Brueggemann, Keefe, and Ben Zvi.