Why are we certain that the beginning of Hosea’s two days does not begin with the time that the nation was torn by the Romans (mangled and carried off-5:14 and “torn”-6:1)?
The case is absolutely decisive. You’ll see. In all other interpretations that I’ve seen, the two days is a nebulous metaphor that has little to do with signifying time of any meaningful duration, usually suggested as a metaphor for the brevity of the exile.
So why not start the two days of divine desertion with the destruction of 70? As Travis said, “why not 132 A.D.? It’s just as reasonable. After 70, the Jews recovered, repopulated, and rebounded with yet another, swiftly crushed rebellion against Rome. Then began the age-long exile of “many generations” (compare Isa 61:4 with Eze 38:8).
No, in order to mean anything concrete or significantly limited and definite, the terminus-a-quo must go back to Israel’s fall at the stumbling stone, the national rejection and crucifixion ending the 69th week. That is when He departs to the Father’s right hand, waiting till …