Heb “the Baals.” The singular term בַּעַל ( ba ’ al ) refers to the Canaanite god Baal himself, while the plural form הַבְּעָלִים ( habbé ’ alim ) refers to the manifestations of the god (i.e., idols; BDB 127 s.v. בָּעַל II.1).


Heb “from her mouth.” In the translation this is rendered as second person for consistency.


Heb “they will no longer be mentioned by their name.”


Heb “And in that day” (so KJV, ASV).


Heb “I will break”; NAB “I will destroy”; NCV “I will smash”; NLT “I will remove.”


Heb “bow and sword and warfare.” The first two terms in the triad וְקֶשֶׁת וְחֶרֶב וּמִלְחָמָה ( vÿqeshet vÿkherev umilkhamah , literally, “bow and sword and warfare”) are examples of synecdoche of specific (bow and sword) for general (weapons of war, so CEV). However, they might be examples of metonymy (bow and sword) of association (warfare).


Heb “and I will cause them to lie down in safety.” The causative nuance (“will make them”) is retained in several English versions (e.g., KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV).


Heb “I will betroth you to me” (so NIV) here and in the following lines. Cf. NRSV “I will take you for my wife forever.”


The preposition בְּ ( bet ), which is repeated throughout 2:19-20 [21-22], denotes price paid (BDB 90 s.v. בְּ III.3; e.g., Ezek 3:14 ). The text contains an allusion to the payment of bridal gifts. The Lord will impute the moral character to Israel that will be necessary for a successful covenant relationship ( contra 4:1).


The vav consecutive on the suffix conjugation verb וְיָדַעַתְּ ( véyada ’ at , “then you will know”) introduces a result clause (cf. NASB, CEV).


Or “know.” The term יָדַע ( yada ’, “know, acknowledge”) is often used in covenant contexts. It can refer to the suzerain’s acknowledgment of his covenant obligations to his vassal or to the vassal’s acknowledgment of his covenant obligations to his suzerain. When used in reference to a vassal, the verb “know” is metonymical (cause for effect) for “obey.” See H. Huffmann, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew ya„daà ,” BASOR 181 (1966): 31-37.


The MT reads יְהוָה ( yÿhvah , “the Lord ”); however, many Hebrew mss read כִּי אָנִי ( ki ’ ani , “that it is I”), as also reflected in the Latin Vulgate (cf. CEV “know who I am”).


Heb “And in that day”; NAB, NRSV “On that day.”


The verb עָנָה , (’ anah ) which is used throughout 2:23-24, is related to the root I עָנָה (’ anah ), “to answer, listen attentively, react willingly” (BDB 772 s.v. 1 .b; HALOT 852 s.v. ענה 3.b).


Heb “and they.” In the Hebrew text the plural pronoun is used because it refers back to the term translated “sky,” which is a dual form in Hebrew. Many English versions (e.g., NAB, NASB, NRSV) use the plural term “heavens” here, which agrees with a plural pronoun (cf. also NIV, NCV “skies”).


Heb “Jezreel.” The use of the name יִזְרְעֶאל ( yizré ’ e ’ l , “Jezreel”) creates a powerful three-fold wordplay: (1) The proper name יִזְרְעֶאל (“Jezreel”) is a phonetic wordplay on the similar sounding name יִשְׂרָאֵל ( yisra ’ el , “Israel”): God will answer Israel, that is, Jezreel. (2) The name יִזְרְעֶאל (“Jezreel”) plays on the verb זָרַע ( zara ’, “to sow, plant”), the immediately following word: וּזְרַעְתִּיהָ ( uzéra ’ tiha , vav + Qal perfect 1st person common singular + 3rd person feminine singular suffix: “I will sow/plant her”). This wordplay creates a popular etymology for יִזְרְעֶאל meaning, “God sows/plants,” which fits well into the agricultural fertility imagery in 2:21-23 [2:23-25]. (3) This positive connotation of יִזְרְעֶאל (“Jezreel”) in 2:21-23 [23-25] reverses the negative connotation of יִזְרְעֶאל (“Jezreel”) in 1:4-5 (bloodshed of Jehu in the Jezreel Valley).


Heb “for myself.”


The Hebrew text, carrying out the reference to the son born in 1:8-9 , uses the third person masculine singular pronoun here; some English translations use third person plural (“they,” so KJV, NASB, NIV, CEV) in keeping with the immediate context, which refers to reestablished Israel.


The words “You are” do not appear in the Hebrew text, but are implied. It is necessary to supply the phrase in the translation to prevent the reader from understanding the predicate “my God” as an exclamation (cf. NAB).


Heb “Go again! Love!” Cf. NAB “Give your love to.”


Heb “a woman.” The probable referent is Gomer. Some English translations (e.g., NIV, NLT) specify the referent as “your wife.”


The MT vocalizes אֲהֻבַת (’ ahuvat ) as a construct form of the Qal passive participle and takes רֵעַ ( rea ’) as a genitive of agent: “who is loved by רֵעַ .” However, the ancient versions (LXX, Syriac, Vulgate) all vocalize אֲהֻבַת as an absolute form of the Qal active participle, and take רֵעַ as the accusative direct object: “who loves רֵעַ .” The English translations consistently follow the MT. The editors of BHS suggest the revocalization but with some reservation. For discussion of the vocalization, see D. Barthélemy, ed. , Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 5:230. tn Heb “a woman who is loved by a companion” ( אִשָּׁה אֲהֻבַת רֵעַ , ’ ishah ’ ahuvat rea ’). The substantival participle אֲהֻבַת (“one who is loved”) is in apposition to אִשָּׁה (“a woman”). The genitive noun רֵעַ (“companion”) functions as the agent of the preceding construct noun: “who is loved by a companion” ( אֲהֻבַת רֵעַ ). Cf. NAB “a woman beloved of a paramour”; NRSV “a woman who has a lover.”


The meaning of the noun רֵעַ ( rea ’) is debated because it has a broad range of meanings: (1) “friend,” (2) “lover,” (3) “companion,” (4) “neighbor,” and (5) “another” ( HALOT 1253-55 s.v. II רֵעַ ; BDB 945-46 s.v. II רֵעַ ). The Hebrew lexicons favor the nuance “lover; paramour” here ( HALOT 1255 s.v. 2 ; BDB 946 s.v. 1 ). Most scholars adopt the same approach; however, a few suggest that רֵעַ does not refer to another man, but to her husband (Hosea). Both approaches are reflected in English translations: NASB “a woman who is loved by her husband”; NIV “though she is loved by another”; NAB “a woman beloved of a paramour”; KJV “a woman beloved of her friend”; NJPS “a woman who, while befriended by a companion”; TEV “a woman who is committing adultery with a lover”; CEV “an unfaithful woman who has a lover.”


Heb “love a woman who is loved of a lover and is an adulteress.”


Heb “like the love of the Lord .” The genitive after the construct functions as a subjective genitive.


Heb “sons of Israel” (so NASB); KJV “children of Israel”; NAB “people of Israel.”


Heb “they are lovers of cakes of raisins.” A number of English translations render this literally (e.g., ASV, NAB, NASB, NRSV).


The LXX reads “a homer of barley and a measure of wine,” a reading followed by some English translations (e.g., NRSV, NLT). tn Heb “a homer of barley and a lethech of barley.” A homer was about 5 bushels (180 liters) and a lethech about 2.5 bushels (90 liters).


Heb “and you will not be for”; NIV “be intimate with.”


Heb “sons of Israel” (so NASB); KJV “children of Israel”; NAB “people of Israel” (likewise in the following verse).


Heb “David their king”; cf. NCV “the king from David’s family”; TEV “a descendant of David their king”; NLT “David’s descendant, their king.” sn It is not clear whether Hosea was predicting a restoration of Davidic kingship over Israel and Judah (e.g., Jer 17:25; 22:2 ) or referring to the ultimate Davidic king, namely, the Messiah, who will fulfill the conditions of the Davidic covenant and inaugurate/fulfill the blessings of the Davidic covenant for Israel. The Messiah is frequently pictured as the “New David” because he would fulfill the ideals of the Davidic covenant and be everything that David and his descendants were commissioned to be (e.g., Isa 9:7 [6]; 16:5 ; Jer 23:5-6; 30:9; 33:15-16 ; Ezek 34:23-24; 37:24-25 ).


Heb “his goodness”; NLT “his good gifts.”


Heb “in the end of the days.” Cf. NAB, NASB, NIV, NCV, NLT “in the last days.”


Heb “sons of Israel” (so NASB); KJV “children of Israel”; NAB, NRSV “people of Israel.”


The noun רִיב ( riv , “dispute, lawsuit”) is used in two contexts: (1) nonlegal contexts: (a) “dispute” between individuals (e.g., Gen 13:7 ; Isa 58:1 ; Jer 15:10 ) or (b) “brawl; quarrel” between people (e.g., Exod 17:7 ; Deut 25:1 ); and (2) legal contexts: (a) “lawsuit; legal process” (e.g., Exod 23:3-6 ; Deut 19:17; 21:5 ; Ezek 44:24 ; Ps 35:23 ), (b) “lawsuit; legal case” (e.g., Deut 1:12; 17:8 ; Prov 18:17; 25:9 ), and (c) God’s “lawsuit” on behalf of a person or against his own people ( Hos 4:1; 12:3 ; Mic 6:2 ; HALOT 1225-26 s.v. רִיב ). The term in Hosea refers to a covenant lawsuit in which Yahweh the suzerain lodges a legal case against his disobedient vassal, accusing Israel and Judah of breach of covenant which will elicit the covenant curses.


Heb “with the inhabitants of the land” (so KJV); NAB, NASB, NRSV “against the inhabitants of the land.”


Heb “there is no truthfulness nor loyalty nor knowledge of God in the land.” Here “knowledge of God” refers to recognition of his authority and obedience to his will.


Heb “they break out and bloodshed touches bloodshed.” The Hebrew term פָּרַץ ( parats , “to break out”) refers to violent and wicked actions (BDB 829 s.v. פָּרַץ 7; HALOT 972 s.v. פרץ 6.c). It is used elsewhere in a concrete sense to describe breaking through physical barriers. Here it is used figuratively to describe breaking moral barriers and restraints (cf. TEV “Crimes increase, and there is one murder after another”).


Or “languish” (so KJV, NRSV); NIV “waste away.”


Heb “the beasts of the field” (so NAB, NIV).


Or “Let no one contend or accuse.”


The MT reads וְעַמְּךָ כִּמְרִיבֵי כֹהֵן ( vÿ ’ ammÿkha kimrive khohen ): “And your people [are] like those who contend against the priest.” This is reflected in the LXX and the versions; however, it is syntactically awkward and makes little sense in context. Several textual critics suggest emending the text to read וְעִמְּךָ רִיבִי כֹהֵן ( vÿ ’ immÿkha rivi khohen ): “My contention is with/against you, O priest!” This involves (1) the revocalization of עַמְּךָ (“your people”) to עִמְּךָ (“with/against you”) and (2) positing dittography (a letter written twice instead of once) of כְּ ( kaf ) between original וְעַמְּךָ רִיבִי to create וְעַמְּךָ כִּרִיבִי (MT). The BHS editors suggest that the MT is corrupt and should be emended. However, the editors of the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project retain the MT reading with a “B” rating. Likewise, the English translations are split: (1) KJV “for thy people are as they that strive with the priest”; NASB “for your people are like those who contend with the priest”; NIV “for your people are like those who bring charges against a priest”; (2) RSV “for with you is my contention, O priest”; NJPS “for this your people has a grievance against [you], O priest!”; TEV “my complaint is against you priests”; CEV “My case is against you, the priests!” tn The singular noun כֹּהֵן ( cohen , “priest”) may be understood as a singular of number (so KJV, NASB, NRSV), referring to a singular individual (perhaps the high priest); however, it is more likely that it functions as a collective singular, referring to the priesthood as a whole (e.g., 4:7-10 , so NAB, NCV, TEV, NLT, CEV). Collective singular forms alternate with plural forms throughout the oracle against the priests in 4:4-10 .


The MT reads וְדָמִיתִי אִמֶּךָ ( vÿdamiti ’ immekha , “and I will destroy your mother”), and is followed by most English versions; however, the text should probably be emended to וְדָמִית עַמֶּךָ ( vÿdamit ’ ammekha , “and you have destroyed your own people”). The 2nd person masculine singular form וְדָמִית ( vÿdamit , “and you have destroyed”) is preserved in several medieval Hebrew mss and reflected in Jerome’s Vulgate. For discussion in favor of the MT reading, see D. Barthélemy, ed. , Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 5:232. tn Or “and I will destroy your mother” (so NASB, NRSV).


Heb “they have destroyed” or “my people are destroyed” (so KJV, NIV, NRSV).


Heb “Because you reject knowledge”; NLT “because they don’t know me.”


Heb “have forgotten”; NAB, NIV “have ignored.”


Heb “forget” (so KJV, NRSV); NLT “forget to bless.”


The MT reads אָמִיר (’ amir , “I will change, exchange”; Hiphil imperfect 1st person common singular from מוּר , mur , “to change, exchange”). However, an alternate scribal tradition ( tiqquneh sopherim , that is, an intentional scribal change when the Masoretes believed that the received consonantal reading was corrupt) preserves the reading הֵמִירוּ ( hemiru , “they have exchanged”; Hiphil perfect 3rd person common plural from מוּר ). This alternate scribal tradition is also found in the Targum and reflected in the Syriac Peshitta. Several translations follow the MT: KJV, RSV, NASB “I will change their glory into shame” and TEV “I will turn your honor into disgrace”; however, others adopt the alternate tradition: NRSV “they changed their glory into shame” and NIV “they exchanged their Glory for something disgraceful.” For discussion in favor of the MT reading, see D. Barthélemy, ed. , Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 5:232.


Heb “And it shall be, like people, like priest” (so ASV); NAB “The priests shall fare no better than the people.”


Heb “by guarding harlotry.” The present translation assumes that the first word of v. 11 in the Hebrew text is to be taken with the infinitive at the end of v. 10 (so also NAB, NIV, NCV, NRSV).


Heb “take away the heart of my people.” The present translation assumes that the first word of v. 12 in the Hebrew text is to be construed with the noun at the end of v. 11 (so also TEV, CEV, NLT).


Heb “adultery.” The adjective “spiritual” is supplied in the translation to clarify that apostasy is meant here.


The phrase “they sacrifice” is not repeated in the Hebrew text here but is implied by parallelism; it is provided in the translation for the sake of clarity.


The words “it is true” are supplied in the translation to indicate that this is a conclusion drawn on the preceding behavior. Cf. NAB “So must a people”; NRSV “thus a people”; TEV “As the proverb says, ‘A people.’”


The Hebrew verb “has rebelled” ( סָרַר , sarar ) can also mean “to be stubborn.” This is the same root used in the simile: “like a stubborn ( סֹרֵרָה , sorerah ) heifer.” The similarity between Israel and a stubborn heifer is emphasized by the repetition of the same term.


The particle עַתָּה (’ attah ) often refers to the imminent or the impending future: “very soon” (BDB 774 s.v. עַתָּה 1.b). In Hosea it normally introduces imminent judgment ( Hos 2:12; 4:16; 5:7; 8:8, 13; 10:2 ).


Or “How can the Lord feed them like a lamb in a meadow?” The syntax of this line is difficult and has been understood in two ways: (1) a declarative statement as an announcement of judgment (BDB 774 s.v. עַתָּה 1.b): “Now the Lord will feed them like a lamb in the broad field” (cf. KJV, ASV, NCV, NLT) or (2) as a rhetorical question lamenting the uncooperative spirit of Israel: “How can the Lord feed them like a lamb in a meadow?”; cf. NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, TEV), designed to produce a negative answer (“He cannot feed them…!”). However, this statement lacks an explicit interrogative marker. Although Hosea occasionally asks a rhetorical question without an explicit interrogative marker (e.g., 10:9; 13:14 a), he normally does use a rhetorical particle to introduce rhetorical questions (e.g., 6:4; 8:5; 9:5, 14; 11:8; 13:9-10, 14 b). Elsewhere, Hosea uses the introductory temporal adverb עַתָּה (“soon”) to introduce announcements of imminent future judgment ( 2:12; 4:16; 5:7; 8:8, 13; 10:2 ) and accusations of sin ( 5:3; 13:2 ). Although Israel has been as rebellious as a stubborn heifer, the Lord will indeed gain control of Israel: they will be like lambs (weakened and defeated) when he puts them out to pasture in a broad field (exile).


Heb “their altars” (so NAB, NRSV) or “their sacrifices” (so KJV, NASB, NIV). Here זִבְחוֹתָם ( zivkhotam , “altars; sacrifices”) is a metonymy of association for Israel’s apostate idolatrous Baal worship.


Heb “O house of Israel” (so NAB, NASB, NRSV); NLT “all of Israel’s leaders.”


Heb “Use the ear”; ASV “give ear.”


Heb “O house of the king” (so KJV); NIV “O royal house.”


Heb “for the judgment is to you”; or “For this accusation is against you.” Cf. NIV “This judgment is against you.”


Heb “you were a trap to Mizpah.”


Heb “and a net spread out over Tabor.”


The MT reads וְשַׁחֲטָה שֵׂטִים הֶעְמִיקוּ ( vÿshakhatah setim he ’ miqu ): “and rebels have made deep the slaughter.” The BHS editors propose ושַׁחַת הַשִּׁטִּים הֶעְמִיקוּ ( vÿshakhat hashittim he ’ miqu ): “they have made the pit of Shittim [place of idolatry] deep” (cf. NRSV, TEV, NLT; see BDB 1006 s.v. שַׁחֲטָּה ). This involves: (1) phonological confusion between the similar sounding consonants ת ( tav ) and ט ( tet ), (2) redivision of words to take ה ( hey ) as the article with הַשִּׁטִּים rather than feminine noun ending of וְשַׁחֲטָה , and (3) revocalization of הַשִּׁטִּים with the two daghesh fortes . Retaining the reading of the MT is preferable here. tn Heb “and those who revolt have gone deep into slaughter” (similar KJV, NIV); NASB “deep in depravity.”


Heb “but I am discipline to all of them”; ASV “but I am a rebuker of them all.”


The phrase “all too well” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity and stylistic reasons.


The phrase “the evil of” does not appear in the Hebrew text here, but is implied by the metonymical (cause-effect) use of the term “Israel.” It is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity. Cf. NCV “what they have done is not hidden from me.”


Or “Israel has become corrupt”; NCV “has made itself unclean”; TEV “are unfit to worship me.”


Heb “a spirit of harlotries”; NIV “a spirit of prostitution”; TEV “Idolatry has a powerful hold on them.” However, CEV takes this literally: “your constant craving for sex keeps you from knowing me.”


Heb “will stumble” (so NCV, NLT). The verb כָּשַׁל ( kashal , “to stumble; to stagger; to totter”) is used figuratively to describe distress ( Isa 59:10 ; Ps 107:12 ), the debilitating effects of misfortune and calamity ( Isa 5:27 ), and toil in exile ( Lam 5:13 ). It is often used figuratively to describe the overthrow of a people or nation through divine judgment ( Isa 8:15 ; Jer 6:21; 50:32 ; Hos 4:5; 5:5; 14:2 ). The Niphal stem used here is also frequently used in reference to divine judgment: “be overthrown,” of nations, armies ( Jer 6:15; 8:12 ; Dan 11:19, 33, 34, 41 ; BDB 505 s.v. כָּשַׁל 1.b). This figurative use of כָּשַׁל is often used in collocation with נָפַל ( nafal , “to fall”; Isa 3:8; 31:3; 8:15 ; Jer 6:15 ; Dan 11:19 ).


Or “in” (so NAB, NIV, NRSV).


Heb “will stumble” (so NCV). The term כָּשַׁל ( kashal ) appeared in the preceding line (Niphal “be overthrown”) and now appears here (Qal “will stumble”). The repetition of כָּשַׁל emphasizes that a similar fate will befall Judah because it failed to learn its lesson from God’s judgment on Israel. The verb כָּשַׁל (“to stumble”) does not describe the moral stumbling of Judah, but the effect of God’s judgment ( Isa 8:15 ; Jer 6:21; 50:32 ; Hos 4:5; 5:5; 14:2 ), and the toil of exile ( Lam 5:13 ).


Heb “they go out to seek the Lord ”; NCV “to worship the Lord”; NLT “to offer sacrifices to the Lord.”


Heb “the Lord”; the phrase “the favor of” does not appear in Hebrew here, but is supplied for the sake of clarity. It is implied by the metonymical (cause-effect) reference to the Lord, the source of favor and forgiveness.


Heb “dealt treacherously against” (so KJV, NASB); NRSV “dealt faithlessly”; NLT “betrayed the honor of.”


The particle עַתָּה (’ attah ) often refers to the imminent or the impending future: “very soon” (BDB 774 s.v. עַתָּה 1.b). In Hosea it normally introduces imminent judgment ( Hos 2:12; 4:16; 5:7; 8:8, 13; 10:2 ).


The MT reads the anomalous אַחֲרֶיךָ בִּנְיָמִין (’ akharekha binyamin , “behind you, O Benjamin”), a reading followed by many English versions. The LXX reads ἐξέστη ( exesth ) which might reflect an alternate textual tradition of הַחֲרִדוּ בִּנְיָמִין ( hakharidu binyamin , “Tremble in fear, O Benjamin”); the verb form would be a Hiphil imperative 2nd person masculine plural from חָרַד ( kharad , “to tremble, be terrified”; BDB 353 s.v. חָרַד ). For discussion of this textual problem, see D. Barthélemy, ed. , Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 5:236.


Heb “day of rebuke” (so KJV, NASB); NCV, NRSV, TEV, NLT “day of punishment.”


The verb הוֹדַעְתִּי ( hoda ’ ti , Hiphil perfect 1st person common singular from יָדַע , yada ’; Qal “to know,” Hiphil “to make known, declare”) here functions as (1) an instantaneous perfect, representing an action being performed at the same instant that the speaker utters the statement (e.g., Gen 14:22 ; Deut 8:19; 26:3 ; 2 Sam 17:11; 19:30 ; Ps 143:6 ); or (2) an epistolary perfect, representing a situation in past time from the viewpoint of the recipient of the message but in present time from the viewpoint of the writer (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:19 ; 2 Chr 2:12 ). For functions of the perfect tense (suffix-conjugation), see IBHS 486-90 §30.5.1.


The substantival use of the Niphal participle נֶאֱמָנָה ( ne ’ emanah , “that which is sure”) refers to an event that will occur in the future (BDB 52 s.v. אָמַן 2).


Heb “like water” (so KJV, NAB, NRSV); NLT “like a waterfall.” The term מַיִם ( mayim , “water”) often refers to literal flood waters ( Gen 7:7, 10; 8:3, 7-9 ; Isa 54:9 ) and figuratively describes the Lord ’s judgment that totally destroys the wicked (BDB 566 s.v. מַי 4.k).


The verb עָשַׁק (’ ashaq , “to oppress”) may refer to (1) oppressing the poor and defenseless (BDB 798 s.v. עָשַׁק 1), or more likely to (2) oppression of one nation by another as the judgment of God ( Deut 28:29, 33 ; 1 Chr 16:21 ; Pss 105:14; 119:121, 122 ; Isa 52:4 ; Jer 50:33 ; Hos 5:11 ; BDB 798 s.v. 2 ). The Qal passive participles עָשׁוּק (’ ashuq , “oppressed”) and רְצוּץ ( rÿtsuts , “crushed”) might refer to a present situation (so KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NRSV); however, the context suggests that they refer to a future situation (so NLT). When a participle is used in reference to the future, it often denotes an imminent future situation and may be rendered, “about to” (e.g., Gen 6:17; 15:14; 20:3; 37:30; 41:25; 49:29 ; Exod 9:17-18 ; Deut 28:31 ; 1 Sam 3:11 ; 1 Kgs 2:2; 20:22 ; 2 Kgs 7:2 ). For functions of the participle, see IBHS 627-28 §37.6f.


Heb “crushed of judgment” ( רְצוּץ מִשְׁפָּט , rÿtsuts mishpat ). The second term is a genitive of cause (“crushed because of judgment” or “crushed under judgment”) rather than respect (“crushed in judgment,” as in many English versions).


The meaning of the Hebrew term translated “worthless idols” is uncertain; cf. KJV “the commandment”; NASB “man’s command”; NAB “filth”; NRSV “vanity.”


The noun רָקָב ( raqav , “rottenness, decay”) refers to wood rot caused by the ravages of worms (BDB 955 s.v. רָקָב ); cf. NLT “dry rot.” The related noun רִקָּבוֹן ( riqqavon ) refers to “rotten wood” ( Job 41:27 ).


Hosea employs three preterites ( vayyiqtol forms) in verse 13 a-b to describe a past-time situation.


Heb “went to” (so NAB, NRSV, TEV); CEV “asked help from.”


Heb “sent to” (so KJV, NIV, NRSV).


The MT reads מֶלֶךְ יָרֵב ( melekh yarev , “a contentious king”). This is translated as a proper name (“king Jareb”) by KJV, ASV, NASB. However, the stative adjective יָרֵב (“contentious”) is somewhat awkward. The words should be redivided as an archaic genitive-construct מַלְכִּי רָב ( malki rav , “great king”; cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV, NLT) which preserves the old genitive hireq yod ending. This is the equivalent of the Assyrian royal epithet sarru rabbu (“the great king”). See also the tc note on the same phrase in 10:6 .


Heb “your wound will not depart from you.” sn Hosea personifies Ephraim’s “wound” as if it could depart from the sickly Ephraim (see the formal equivalent rendering in the preceding tn ). Ephraim’s sinful action in relying upon an Assyrian treaty for protection will not dispense with its problems.


The verb יֶאְשְׁמוּ ( ye ’ shÿmu , Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine plural from אָשַׁם , ’ asham , “to be guilty”) means “to bear their punishment” (Ps 34:22-23; Prov 30:10 ; Isa 24:6 ; Jer 2:3 ; Hos 5:15; 10:2; 14:1 ; Zech 11:5 ; Ezek 6:6 ; BDB 79 s.v. אָשַׁם 3). Many English versions translate this as “admit their guilt” (NIV, NLT) or “acknowledge their guilt” (NASB, NRSV), but cf. NAB “pay for their guilt” and TEV “have suffered enough for their sins.”


Heb “seek my face” (so KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV); NAB “seek my presence.”


“has struck”; NRSV “struck down.”


The Piel of חָיָה ( khayah ) may mean: (1) to keep/preserve persons alive from the threat of premature death ( 1 Kgs 20:31 ; Ezek 13:18; 18:27 ); (2) to restore the dead to physical life ( Deut 32:39 ; 1 Sam 2:6 ; cf. NCV “will put new life in us”); or (3) to restore the dying back to life from the threat of death ( Ps 71:20 ; BDB 311 s.v. חָיָה ).


Heb “after two days” (so KJV, NIV, NRSV). The expression “after two days” is an idiom meaning “after a short time” (see, e.g., Judg 11:4 ; BDB 399 s.v. יוֹם 5.a).


Heb “on the third day” (so NASB, NIV, NRSV), which parallels “after two days” and means “in a little while.” The “2-3” sequence is an example of graded numerical parallelism ( Prov 30:15-16, 18-19, 21-23, 24-28, 29-31 ). This expresses the unrepentant overconfidence of Israel that the Lord ’s discipline of Israel would be relatively short and that he would restore them quickly.


The object (“him”) is omitted in the Hebrew text, but supplied in the translation for clarity.


Heb “let us pursue in order to know.” The Hebrew term רָדַף ( radaf , “to pursue”) is used figuratively: “to aim to secure” (BDB 923 s.v. רָדַף 2). It describes the pursuit of a moral goal: “Do not pervert justice…nor accept a bribe…pursue [ רָדַף ] justice” ( Deut 16:20 ); “those who pursue [ רָדַף ] righteousness and who seek [ בָּקַשׁ , baqash ] the Lord ” ( Isa 51:1 ); “He who pursues [ רָדַף ] righteousness and love finds life, prosperity, and honor” ( Prov 21:20 ); “Seek [ בָּקַשׁ ] peace and pursue [ רָדַף ] it” ( Ps 34:15 ); “they slander me when I pursue [ רָדַף ] good” ( Ps 38:21 ).


The vav prefixed to וְחַסְדְּכֶם ( vÿkhasdÿkhem , “your faithfulness”) functions in an explanatory sense (“For”).


Heb “your faithfulness [so NCV; NASB “your loyalty”; NIV, NRSV, NLT “your love”] is like a morning cloud” ( וְחַסְדְּכֶם כַּעֲנַן־בֹּקֶר , vÿkhasdÿkhem ka ’ anan-boqer ). sn The Hebrew poets and prophets frequently refer to the morning clouds as a simile for transitoriness (e.g., Job 7:9 ; Isa 44:22 ; Hos 6:4; 13:3 ; BDB 778 s.v. עָנָן 1.c). For discussion of this phenomena in Palestine, see Chaplin, PEQ (1883): 19.


Heb “the dew departing early” (BDB 1014 s.v. שָׁכַם ); cf. NRSV “the dew that goes away early.” The Hiphil participle מַשְׁכִּים ( mashkim ) means “to depart early” ( Gen 19:27 ; Josh 8:14 ; Judg 19:9 ). The idiom means “early morning” ( 1 Sam 17:16 ).


The two suffix conjugation verbs חָצַבְתִּי ( khatsavti , Qal perfect 1st person common singular from חָצַב , khatsav , “to cut into pieces”) and הֲרַגְתִּים ( haragtim , Qal perfect 1st person common singular + 3rd person masculine plural suffix from הָרַג , harag , “to kill”) are used in reference to future-time events. These are examples of the so-called “prophetic perfect” which emphasizes the certainty of the future event (e.g., Num 24:17 ; Josh 10:19 ; Isa 8:23; 9:1). For this function of the perfect, see IBHS 480-81 §30.1d. Most English versions, however, render these as past tenses.


Heb “by the prophets” (so KJV, NRSV). The prophets are pictured as the executioners of Israel and Judah because they announced their imminent destruction. The prophetic word was endowed with the power of fulfillment.


Heb “them.” The shift from the 2nd person masculine singular referents (“your” and “you”) in 6:4-5 to the 3rd person masculine plural referent (“them”) is an example of enallage, a poetic device used for emphasis.


Heb “with the words of my mouth” (so NIV); TEV “with my message of judgment and destruction.”


The disjunctive vav prefixed to the noun ( וּמִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ , umishpatekha ) has an explanatory function.


The MT reads וּמִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ אוֹר יֵצֵא ( umishpatekha ’ or yetse ’, “and your judgments [are] a light [which] goes forth”) which is enigmatic and syntactically awkward (cf. KJV, NASB). The LXX reads καὶ τὸ κρίμα μου ὡς φώς ( kai to krima mou {ws fos , “my judgment goes forth like light”) which reflects וּמִשְׁפָּטִי כָאוֹר יֵצֵא ( umishpati kha ’ or yetse ’, “my judgment goes forth like the light”) and posits only a simple misdivision of words. This is reflected in the Syriac Peshitta and Aramaic Targum and is followed by the present translation (so also NCV, NRSV). See D. Barthélemy, ed. , Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 5:238.


The noun אוֹר (’ or , “light”) is used here in reference to the morning light or dawn (e.g., Judg 16:2; 19:26 ; 1 Sam 14:36; 25:34, 36 ; 2 Sam 17:22; 23:4 ; 2 Kgs 7:9 ; Neh 8:3 ; Job 24:14 ; Prov 4:18 ; Mic 2:1 ; cf. CEV, NLT) rather than lightning (cf. NIV). This continues the early morning imagery used throughout 6:2-5 . sn In 6:3 unrepentant Israel uttered an over-confident boast that the Lord would rescue the nation from calamity as certainly as the “light of the dawn” ( שַׁחַר , shakhar ) “comes forth” ( יֵצֵא , yetse ’) every morning. Playing upon the early morning imagery, the Lord responded in 6:4 that Israel’s prerequisite repentance was as fleeting as the early morning dew. Now in 6:5 , the Lord announces that he will indeed appear as certainly as the morning; however, it will not be to rescue but to punish Israel: punishment will “come forth” ( יֵצֵא ) like the “light of the dawn” ( אוֹר ).


The phrase “I delight” does not appear in the Hebrew text a second time in this verse, but is implied from the parallelism in the preceding line.


Or “Like Adam”; or “Like [sinful] men.” The MT reads כְּאָדָם ( kÿ ’ adam , “like Adam” or “as [sinful] men”); however, the editors of BHS suggest this reflects an orthographic confusion of בְּאָדָם ( bÿ ’ adam , “at Adam”), as suggested by the locative adverb שָׁם ( sham , “there”) in the following line. However, שָׁם sometimes functions in a nonlocative sense similar to the deictic particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh , “Behold!”). The singular noun אָדָם (’ adam ) has been taken in several different ways: (1) proper name: “like Adam” ( כְּאָדָם ), (2) collective singular: “like [sinful] men” ( כְּאָדָם ), (3) proper location: “at Adam,” referring to a city in the Jordan Valley ( Josh 3:16 ), emending comparative כְּ ( kaf ) to locative בְּ ( bet , “at”): “at Adam” ( בְּאָדָם ). BDB 9 s.v. אָדָם 2 suggests the collective sense, referring to sinful men ( Num 5:6 ; 1 Kgs 8:46 ; 2 Chr 6:36 ; Jer 10:14 ; Job 31:33 ; Hos 6:7 ). The English versions are divided: KJV margin, ASV, RSV margin, NASB, NIV, TEV margin, NLT “like Adam”; RSV, NRSV, TEV “at Adam”; KJV “like men.”


The verb עָבַר (’ avar ) refers here to breaking a covenant and carries the nuance “to overstep, transgress” (BDB 717 s.v. עָבַר 1.i). Cf. NAB “violated”; NRSV “transgressed.”


The adverb שָׁם ( sham ) normally functions in a locative sense meaning “there” (BDB 1027 s.v. שָׁם ). This is how it is translated by many English versions (e.g., KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). However, in poetry שָׁם sometimes functions in a nonlocative sense to introduce expressions of astonishment or when a scene is vividly visualized in the writer’s imagination (see BDB 1027 s.v. 1 .a. β ), or somewhat similar to the deictic particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh , “Behold!”): “See [ שָׁם ] how the evildoers lie fallen!” (Ps 36:13); “Listen! The cry on the day of the Lord will be bitter! See [ שָׁם ]! The shouting of the warrior!” ( Zeph 1:14 ); “They saw [ רָאוּ , ra ’ u ] her and were astonished…See [ שָׁם ] how trembling seized them!” ( Ps 48:7 ). In some cases, it introduces emphatic statements in a manner similar to הִנֵּה (“Behold!”): “Come and see [ לְכוּ וּרְאוּ , lÿkhu urÿ ’ u ] what God has done…Behold [ שָׁם ], let us rejoice in him!” ( Ps 66:5 ); “See/Behold [ שָׁם ]! I will make a horn grow for David” ( Ps 132:17 ). The present translation’s use of “Oh how!” in Hos 6:7 is less visual than the Hebrew idiom שָׁם (“See! See how!”), but it more closely approximates the parallel English idiom of astonishment.


The verb בָּגַד ( bagad , “to act treacherously”) is often used in reference to faithlessness in covenant relationships (BDB 93 s.v. בָּגַד ).


The participle phrase פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן ( po ’ ale ’ aven , “workers of wickedness”) emphasizes continual (uninterrupted), habitual action. This particular use of the participle is an ironic play on the professional occupation function (see IBHS 615 §37.2c). In effect, the major “professional guild” in Gilead is evil-working; the people are producers of evil!


Heb “it is foot-tracked with blood”; NAB “tracked with (+ footprints of NLT) blood.”


Heb “a harvest is appointed for you also, O Judah” (similar ASV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV).


In the verse divisions of the MT (Leningrad Codex and Aleppo Codex), this is the last line of 6:11 . However, the BHK and BHS editors suggest that it belongs with the beginning of 7:1 . The ancient versions (Greek, Syriac, Latin) all reflect textual traditions that connect it with 6:11 . The English versions are divided: some connect it with 6:11 (KJV, NASB, NLT), while others connect it with 7:1 (RSV, NAB, NIV, NRSV, NJPS). The parallelism between this line and 7:1 a favors connecting it with 7:1 .


Heb “and they do not say in their heart”; TEV “It never enters their heads.”


Heb “they [the sinful deeds] are before my face” (so KJV, NASB, NRSV); NCV “they are right in front of me.”


The MT reads מְנָאֲפִים ( mÿna ’ afim , “adulterers”; Piel participle masculine plural from נָאַף , na ’ af , “to commit adultery”), which does not seem to fit the context. The original reading was probably אוֹפִים (’ ofim , “bakers”; Qal participle masculine plural from אָפַה , ’ afah , “to bake”), which harmonizes well with the baker/oven/fire motif in 7:4-7 . The textual deviation was caused by: (1) confusion of נ ( nun ) and ו ( vav ), (2) metathesis of נ / ו ( nun / vav ) and א ( alef ), and (3) dittography of מ ( mem ) from the preceding word. Original כֻּלָּם אוֹפִים ( kullam ’ ofim , “all of them are bakers”) was confused for כֻּלָּם מְנָאֲפִים (“all of them are adulterers”). In spite of this most English versions follow the reading of the MT here.


The MT preserves the enigmatic כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בֹּעֵרָה מֵ ( kÿmo tannur bo ’ erah me , “Like a burning oven, from…?”). The adjectival participle בֹּעֵרָה (“burning”) is feminine while the noun תַנּוּר ( tannur , “oven”) that it modifies is masculine. The BHS editors solve this problem by simply redividing the words: כְּמוֹ תַנּוּר בֹּעֵר הֵם ( cÿmo tannur bo ’ er hem , “they are like a burning oven”). This solution is followed by many English versions (e.g., NCV, NRSV, NLT).


Heb “the day of” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV); NIV “On the day of the festival of our king”; NLT “On royal holidays.”


The MT preserves the awkward 1st person common plural suffix reading מַלְכֵּנוּ ( malakenu , “our king”). The BHS editors suggest reading the 3rd person masculine plural suffix מַלְכָּם ( malkam , “their king”; so CEV), as reflected in the Aramaic Targum.


The MT vocalizes the consonants החלו as הֶחֱלוּ a Hiphil perfect 3rd person common plural from I חָלָה (“to become sick”). However, this is syntactically awkward. The BHS editors suggest revocalizing it as Hiphil infinitive construct + 3rd person masculine singular suffix from חָלַל ( khalal , “to begin”) or Hiphil perfect 3rd person common plural from חָלַל . For a discussion of this textual problem, see D. Barthélemy, ed. , Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 5:240. tn Heb “when their king began [to reign].”


Heb “he joined hands”; NCV “make agreements.”


The words “like flour” are not in the Hebrew text, but are implied by the imagery.


Heb “a cake of bread not turned.” This metaphor compares Ephraim to a ruined cake of bread that was not turned over in time to avoid being scorched and burned (see BDB 728 s.v. עֻגָה ). Cf. NLT “as worthless as a half-baked cake.”


Heb “foreigners consume his strength”; NRSV “devour (sap NIV) his strength.”


Heb “redeem” (so NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT); NCV, TEV “save”; CEV “I would have rescued them.”


Heb “they do not cry out to me in their heart”; NLT “with sincere hearts.”


The MT reads יִתְגּוֹרָרוּ ( yitgoraru ) which is either (1) Hitpolel imperfect 3rd person masculine plural (“they assemble themselves”; so KJV, NASB) from I גּוּר ( gur , “to sojourn”; BDB 157 s.v. I גּוּר ) or (2) Hitpolel imperfect 3rd person masculine plural (“they excite themselves”) from II גּוּר ( gur , “to stir up”; BDB 158 s.v. II גּוּר ). However, the Hebrew lexicographers suggest that both of these options are unlikely. Several other Hebrew mss preserve an alternate textual tradition of יִתְגּוֹדָדוּ ( yitgodadu ) which is a Hitpolel imperfect 3rd person common plural (“they slash themselves”) from גָּדַד ( gadad , “to cut”; BDB 151 s.v. גָּדַד ), as also reflected in the LXX (cf. NAB “they lacerated themselves”; NRSV, TEV “gash themselves”; NLT “cut themselves.” This reflects the pagan Canaanite cultic practice of priests cutting themselves and draining their blood on the ground to elicit agricultural fertility by resurrecting the slain fertility god Baal from the underworld ( Deut 14:1 ; 1 Kgs 18:28 ; Jer 16:6; 41:5; 47:5 ). Cf. CEV which adds “in the hope that Baal will bless their crops.”


Heb “their arms” (so NAB, NRSV).


The MT reads the enigmatic יָשׁוּבוּ לֹא עָל ( yashuvu lo ’ ’ al ) which is taken variously: “they turn, but not upward” (NASB); “they do not turn to the Most High” (NIV); “they return, but not to the most High” (KJV). The BHS editors suggest יָשׁוּבוּ לַבַּעַל ( yashuvu labba ’ al , “they turn to Baal”; so RSV) or יָשׁוּבוּ לַבְּלִיַּעַל ( yashuvu labbÿliyya ’ al , “they turn to Belial”) which is reflected by the LXX.


Heb “because their tongue.” The term “tongue” is used figuratively, as a metonymy of cause (tongue) for the effect (prayers to Baal).


Heb “this [will] be for scorn in the land of Egypt”; NIV “they will be ridiculed (NAB shall be mocked) in the land of Egypt.”


Heb “A horn unto your gums!”; NAB “A trumpet to your lips!”


Or perhaps “A vulture.” Some identify the species indicated by the Hebrew term נֶשֶׁר ( nesher ) as the griffon vulture (cf. NEB, NRSV).


Heb “my covenant” (so NAB, NIV, NRSV); TEV “the covenant I made with them.”


Heb “but without me”; NCV “without asking my permission”; CEV “without consulting me.”


Heb “but I did not know”; NRSV “but without my knowledge.”


Heb “in order to be cut off.” The text gives the impression that they made the idols for this purpose, but the language is ironic and sarcastic, bringing out the futility of their efforts. One could paraphrase, “they made idols…but only so that they might be destroyed.” Though they had other plans for the idols, God’s judgment would bring their intentions to naught.


Heb “How long will they be able to be free from punishment?” This rhetorical question affirms that Israel will not survive much longer until God punishes it.


Or “has hired herself out to lovers”; cf. NIV “has sold herself to lovers.”


Or “they have hired themselves out to lovers”; cf. NASB “they hire allies among the nations.”


The Piel stem of קָבַץ ( qavats ) is often used in a positive sense, meaning “to regather” a dispersed people ( HALOT 1063 s.v. קבץ 3.a; BDB 868 s.v. קָבַץ 1. α ). However, in Hosea 8:10 it is used in a negative sense, meaning “to assemble (people) for judgment” (e.g., Ezek 20:34 ; Hos 9:6 ; HALOT 1063 s.v. 3 .e.i). Cf. JPS “I will hold them fast” (in judgment, see the parallel in 9:6 ).


The vav consecutive + preterite וַיָּחֵלּוּ ( vayyakhellu , Hiphil preterite 3rd person common plural from חָלַל , khalal , “to begin”]) denotes temporal subordination to the preceding clause: “then…” (so NLT); cf. TEV, CEV “Soon.”


Heb “a king of princes” (cf. KJV, NASB); TEV “the emperor of Assyria.”


Heb “foreign” or “alien”; NASB, NRSV “as a strange thing.”


Heb “does not accept them”; the referent (their sacrifices) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “do not rejoice unto jubilation”; KJV “Rejoice not…for joy”; NASB “Do not rejoice…with exultation.”


Heb “you have committed adultery”; NRSV “you have played the whore.”


Heb “you love the wages of the prostitute” (NIV similar); NAB “loving a harlot’s hire.”


Heb “them”; the referent (the people) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “her” (so KJV, ASV). This is taken as a collective singular (so also most modern English versions).


The deictic particle הִנֵּה ( hinneh , “Behold!”) is used frequently in prophetic announcements, introducing a solemn or important declaration, particularly in threats of judgment (BDB 244 s.v. הִנֵּה b. β ). Many modern English versions leave this particle untranslated here.


The conjunction כִּי ( ki ) introduces a concessive clause: “Although, when, if, even if” (BDB 473 s.v. כִּי 2.c. β ). It has a force approximating “even if” (so NIV, NCV, NRSV, CEV, NLT), but it represents a situation as more likely to occur than אִם ( ‘im , “if”). The concessive use of כִּי is normally followed by an imperfect, but occasionally a perfect is used, as is the case here (e.g., Mic 7:8 ; Nah 1:10 ; Pss 21:12; 119:83 ).


The verb קָבַץ ( qavats , “to gather together”) should be nuanced “grab hold” in this context ( HALOT 1063 s.v. קבץ ). This pictures a personified Egypt taking the fugitives prisoner.


Heb “the treasured things of their silver”; NASB, NIV, TEV, NLT “treasures of silver.”


Heb “their tents” (so NIV, NRSV); CEV “your tents.”


Heb “the days of the visitation”; NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV “the days of punishment.”


Heb “has come” ( בָּאוּ , ba ’ u ). The two perfect tense (suffix-conjugation) verbs בָּאוּ (Qal perfect 3rd person common plural from בּוֹא , bo ’, “to come”) repeated in this verse are both examples of the so-called “prophetic perfect”: the perfect, which connotes completed or factual action, is used in reference to future events to emphasize the certainty of the announced event taking place.


Heb “the days of the retribution”; NIV “of reckoning”; NRSV “of recompense.”


Heb “has come”; NIV “are at hand”; NLT “is almost here.”


The Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex (the MT ms employed for BHS ) both place the atnach (colon-divider) after יֵדְעוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל ( yedÿ ’ u yisra ’ el , “Let Israel know!”), indicating that this line belongs with 9:7 a (cf. NAB, NASB, NIV). However, the LXX reads κακωθήσεται ( kakwqhsetai ) which reflects an underlying Vorlage of יָרֵעוּ ( yare ’ u , Qal imperfect 3rd person common plural from יָרַע , yara ’, “to cry”), as opposed to the MT יֵדְעוּ ( yedÿ ’ u , Qal jussive 3rd common plural from יָדַע , yada ’, “to know”). The Old Greek connects יֵדְעוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל (“Israel cries out”) with the following lines (cf. NRSV), which appear to be quotations of Israel mocking Hosea. Aquila ( ἔγνω , egnw ) and Symmachus ( γνώσεται , gnwsetai ) both reflect the proto-MT tradition. For a discussion of this textual and syntactical problem, see H. W. Wolff, Hosea (Hermeneia), 150.


Or “is distraught”; cf. CEV, NLT “are crazy.”


Heb “the man of the Spirit”; NAB, NRSV “spirit.”


Or “is driven to despair.” The term מְשֻׁגָּע ( mÿshugga ’, Pual participle masculine singular from שָׁגַע , shaga ’, “to be mad”) may be understood in two senses: (1) It could be a predicate adjective which is a figure of speech: “to be maddened,” to be driven to despair ( Deut 28:34 ); or (2) it could be a substantive: “a madman,” referring to prophets who attempted to enter into a prophetic state through whipping themselves into a frenzy (1 Sam 21:16; 2 Kgs 9:11 ; Jer 29:26 ; see BDB 993 s.v. שָׁגַע ). The prophetic context of 9:7 favors the latter option (which is followed by most English versions). Apparently, the general populace viewed these mantics with suspicion and questioned the legitimacy of their claim to be true prophets (e.g., 2 Kgs 9:11 ; Jer 29:26 ).


Heb “great.”


The Leningrad Codex (the MT ms used for BHS ) and Aleppo Codex both place the atnach (colon divider) after אלהי (“my God”) and connect נָבִיא ( navi ’, “prophet”) with the following colon. On the other hand, BHS suggests that נָבִיא ( navi ’, “prophet”) belongs with the first colon. For discussion of this syntactical problem, see F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea (AB), 533-34.


The syntax of this line is difficult, and the text is questionable. The major options include: (1) Adopt the MT vocalization and BHS line division: צֹפֶה אֶפְרַיִם עִם־אֱלֹהָי נָבִיא ( tsofeh ’ efrayim ’ im-elohay navi ’, “The prophet is a watchman over Ephraim with my God [= on behalf of God]”). There are two problems with this: (a) Although BHS places נָבִיא (“prophet”) with this colon, the Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex both connect נָבִיא with the next colon (as do KJV, ASV). (b) The phrase עִם־אֱלֹהָי (“with my God”) is difficult to explain. (2) Adopt the MT vocalization and the MT line division: עִם־אֱלֹהָי צֹפֶה אֶפְרַיִם (“Ephraim is a watchman with my God,” cf. NASB). The problem with this, of course, is that Ephraim hardly fits the description of a prophetic watchman. (3) Revocalize the MT and adopt BHS line division: צֹפֶה אֶפְרַיִם עַם אֱלֹהָי נָבִיא (“Ephraim – the people of my God! – lies in ambush for the prophet”) This involves: (a) revocalization of the preposition עִם (’ im , “with”) to the noun עַם (’ am , “people”), (b) taking עַם־אֱלֹהָי (“people of my God”) in apposition to אֶפְרַיִם (“Ephraim”), and (c) nuancing צֹפֶה as “to lie in wait (=set ambush)” (e.g., Ps 37:32 ). This is contextually attractive and harmonizes well with the following line: “traps are laid along all of his paths.” However, it has two problems: (a) there is no textual evidence supporting the revocalization of עם as “people” and (b) the unusual nuance “to lie in wait” for צֹפֶה occurs only in Ps 37:32 , where it takes the preposition לְ ( lamed , i.e., “to lie in wait for the righteous”; HALOT 1044 s.v. צפה 4). (4) Emend אֱלֹהָי (“my God”) to אֹהֶל (’ ohel , “tent”), as suggested in the BHS textual apparatus: אֶפְרַיִם עַם־אֹהֶל נָבִיא צֹפֶה (“Ephraim spies on the prophet’s tent”). The verb צָפָה may mean “to spy” (BDB 859 s.v. צָפָה ; HALOT 1044 s.v. צפה 3); however, the preposition עִם (’ im ) does not normally mean “upon” and צָפָה is not used with עִם elsewhere.


Or “Ephraim is a watchman with my God”; cf. ASV, NASB.


Heb “with my God” (so ASV, NASB).


Heb “bird trap of a bird catcher” or “snare of a fowler” (so KJV).


Or “The prophet is like a trap along all of his paths.” The Aleppo Codex and Leningrad Codex ( ms used in BHS ) both connect נָבִיא ( navi ’, “prophet”) with this colon. On the other hand, BHS places נָבִיא (“prophet”) at the end of the preceding colon.


Heb “house.” The term בַּיִת ( bayit , “house”) is used as a figure of speech, referring to either (1) the temple or official sanctuaries (so TEV, CEV) or (2) the land of Israel (e.g., Hos 9:15 ).


Or more literally, “they are deeply corrupted.” The two verbs הֶעְמִיקוּ־שִׁחֵתוּ ( he ’ miqu-shikhetu ; literally, “they have made deep, they act corruptly”) are coordinated without a conjunction vav to form a verbal hendiadys: the second verb represents the main idea, while the first functions adverbially (GKC 386-87 §120. g ). Here Gesenius suggests “they are deeply/radically corrupted.” Several translations mirror the syntax of this hendiadys: “They have deeply corrupted themselves” (KJV, ASV, NRSV), “They have been grievously corrupt” (NJPS), and “They are hopelessly evil” (TEV). Others reverse the syntax for the sake of a more graphic English idiom: “They have gone deep in depravity” (NASB) and “They have sunk deep into corruption” (NIV). Some translations fail to represent the hendiadys at all: “You are brutal and corrupt” (CEV). The translation “They are deeply corrupted” mirrors the Hebrew syntax, but “They have sunk deep into corruption” is a more graphic English idiom and is preferred here (cf. NAB “They have sunk to the depths of corruption”).


Heb “fathers”; a number of more recent English versions use the more general “ancestors” here.


Heb “their glory” (so NASB); TEV “Israel’s greateness.”


Heb “no childbearing, no pregnancy, no conception.” The preposition מִן ( min ) prefixed to the three parallel nouns functions in a privative sense, indicating deprivation (BDB 583 s.v. מִן 7).


Heb “I will bereave them from a man”; NRSV “I will bereave them until no one is left.”


The MT is corrupt in 9:13 . The BHS editors suggest emending the text to follow the LXX reading. See D. Barthélemy, ed. , Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 5:250-51.


Heb “breasts that shrivel up dry”; cf. KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV “dry breasts.”


Heb “out of my house” (so NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV); TEV, NCV, NLT “my land.”


Or perhaps, following the plant metaphor, “will be blighted” (NIV similar).


The phrase “to Baal” does not appear in the Hebrew text here, but is implied; it is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity. Cf. NCV “altars for idols”; NLT “altars of their foreign gods.”


Heb “he”; the referent (the Lord ) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The referent of the 3rd person common plural verb דִּבְּרוּ ( dibbÿru , “they speak”) is the masculine singular noun וְהַמֶּלֶךְ ( vÿhammelekh , “a king” in v. 3 ) which is used generically, representing all human kings of Israel to which the 3rd common plural verb refers. Although this is a bit syntactically awkward, it is not necessary to emend the MT to the 3rd masculine singular verb form דָּבַר ( davar , “he speaks”) as the BHS editors suggest. The LXX, however, reads the singular form λαλῶν ( lalwn , “uttering”).


Heb “they speak words.” The cognate accusative construction דִּבְּרוּ דְבָרִים ( dibbÿru dÿvarim ; literally, “they speak words”) is an idiom that means “they speak mere words” (so NASB; NRSV similar) or “they utter empty words” (so TEV), that is, they make empty promises (e.g., Isa 58:13 ; BDB 180-181 s.v. דָּבַר 2). The immediately following collocated phrase אָלוֹת שָׁוְא (’ alot shavÿ ’, “swearing an empty oath”) confirms this nuance. The LXX understood this idiom in the same way: λαλῶν ῥήματα προφάσειας ψευδεῖς ( lalwn r{hmata profaseias yeudeis , “speaking false professions as his words”).


The two infinitive absolutes אָלוֹת (’ alot , Qal infinitive absolute from II אָלָה , ’ alah , “to swear an oath”; BDB 46 s.v. II אָלָה ) and כָּרֹת ( karot , Qal infinitive absolute from כָּרַת , karat , “to make [a covenant]”; BDB 503 s.v. כָּרַת 4), which appear without conjunctions, continue the description of the action of the preceding finite verb דִּבְּרוּ ( dibbÿru , Piel perfect 3rd person common plural from דָּבַר , davar , “to speak”). Although the infinitives continue the description of the action of the finite verb, they call special attention to the action of the infinitive rather than the action of the finite verb. See IBHS 595 §35.5.2b.


The word “empty” is not in the Hebrew text, but is implied. It is supplied in the translation for clarity. Cf. TEV “useless treaties.”


The noun II רֹאשׁ ( ro ’ sh ) refers to a “poisonous plant” ( Deut 29:17 ; Hos 10:4 ) or “bitter herb” ( Ps 69:22 ; Lam 3:5 ; BDB 912 s.v. רֹאשׁ 1; HALOT 1167 s.v. רֹאשׁ 1).


The MT reads the singular construct noun שְׁכַן ( shÿkhan , “the inhabitant [of Samaria]”), while the LXX and Syriac reflect the plural construct noun שְׁכַנֵי ( shÿkhane , “the inhabitants [of Samaria]”). The singular noun may be a collective referring to the population of Samaria as a whole (BDB 1015 s.v. שָׁכֵן ; e.g., Isa 33:24 ). Most English translations view this as a reference to the inhabitants of the city as a whole (KJV, RSV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NJPS, TEV, CEV, NLT).


The MT reads יָגוּרוּ ( yaguru , Qal imperfect 3rd person common plural from III גוּר , gur , “to dread”; see BDB 159 s.v. III גוּר 1). This reading is followed by most English versions but is syntactically awkward because III גוּר (“to dread”) is used nowhere else with the preposition לְ ( lamed , “they are in dread for…”?). BDB suggests reading יָנוּדוּ ( yanudu , Qal imperfect 3rd person common plural from נוּד , nud , “to lament”; BDB 626 s.v. נוּד 2.a) which harmonizes better with the parallelism with אָבַל (’ aval , “to mourn”) in the following line. The verb נוּד (“to lament”) is used with the preposition לְ in the idiom “to lament for” (e.g., Isa 51:19 ; Jer 15:5; 16:5; 48:17 ; Nah 3:7 ). This involves simple orthographic confusion between ג ( gimel ) and נ ( nun ), as well as ר ( resh ) and ד ( dalet ) which were often confused by the scribes.


The MT reads the plural לְעֶגְלוֹת ( lÿ ’ eglot , “for the calves”), while some Greek versions (LXX, Theodotion) and the Syriac reflect the singular לְעֵגֶל (“for the calf [calf idol]”). The singular reading is preferred on the basis of internal evidence: the oracle denounces the calf idol worship of Samaria. The plural form probably arose due to the ambiguity of the term “calf” when a scribe did not realize that the term was being used as a metonymy for the worship of the Egyptian calf goddess. Most recent English versions adopt the singular form and relate it to the calf goddess cult (RSV, NASB, NIV, NCV, NJPS, TEV, CEV, NLT); however, older English versions follow the MT plural (KJV, ASV).


The MT appears to read יָגִילוּ ( yagilu , “they will rejoice”; Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine plural from גִּיל , gil , “to rejoice”), but this is likely an example of semantic polarization. See F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea (AB), 556-67. The BHS editors propose the reading יְיֵלִילוּ ( yÿyelilu , “they will lament”; Hiphil imperfect 3rd person masculine plural from יָלַל , yalal , “to lament”), which also appears in Hos 7:14 . If this reading is original, the textual variant may be attributed to: (1) orthographic confusion between ל ( lamed ) and ג ( gimel ), and (2) haplography or dittography of י ( yod ). English versions are split; some follow the MT (KJV, ASV, NIV, NJPS), others the proposed emendation (RSV, NASB, NCV, NRSV, TEV, NLT).


This line division follows the MT rather than the line division suggested by the BHS editors.


Heb “from it” (so NAB, NRSV).


The antecedent of the 3rd person masculine singular direct object pronoun אוֹתוֹ (’ oto , “it”) is probably the calf idol of Beth Aven mentioned in 10:5 a. This has been specified in the translation for clarity (cf. TEV, NLT).


The MT reads מֶלֶךְ יָרֵב ( melekh yarev , “a king who contends”?) which is syntactically awkward: מֶלֶךְ (“king”) followed by יָרֵב (“let him contend!”; Qal jussive 3rd person masculine singular from רִיב , riv , “to contend”). Note that KJV, ASV, NASB treat this as a proper name (“king Jareb”). The MT reading is probably the result of faulty word division. As the BHS editors suggest, the original reading most likely is מַלְכִּי רָב ( malki rav , “the great king”). The suffixed י ( yod ) on מַלְכִּי is the remnant of the old genitive ending. This is the equivalent of the Assyrian royal epithet sarru rabbu (“the great king”). See also the tc note on the same phrase in 5:13 .


The preposition מִן ( min ) functions in a causal sense specifying the logical cause: “because of” or “on account of” (e.g., Exod 2:23 ; Deut 7:7 ; Nah 3:4 ; BDB 580 s.v. מִן 2.f; HALOT 598 s.v. מִן 6).


The meaning of the root of מֵעֲצָתוֹ ( me ’ atsato , preposition מִן , min , + feminine singular noun עֵצָה , ’ etsah , + 3rd person masculine singular suffix) is debated. There are three options: (1) “its counsel” from I עֵצָה (“counsel; advice; plan”; BDB 420 s.v. עֵצָה ; HALOT 867 s.v. I עֵצָה 3.a); (2) “its disobedience” from II עֵצָה (“disobedience,” but the existence of this root is debated; see HALOT 867 s.v. II עֵצָה ); and (3) “its wooden idol” from III עֵצָה (“wood”; cf. Jer 6:6 ) referring to the wooden idol/effigy (the calf idol in 10:5 ), a stick of wood covered with gold ( HALOT 867 s.v.). The last option is favored contextually: (a) the idol is called “a stick of wood” in Hos 4:12 , and (b) the calf idol (probably the referent) of the cult is mentioned in 10:5 . The English versions are divided: (1) “his idol” (RSV, NRSV), “its wooden idols” (NIV), “image” (NJPS margin), “that idol” (CEV), “this idol” (NLT); and (2) “his own counsel” (KJV, ASV), “its own counsel” (NASB), “his plans” (NJPS), “his schemes” (NAB), “the advice” (TEV).


The term נִדְמֶה ( nidmeh , Niphal participle feminine singular) is derived from II דָמָה ( damah ; so BDB 198 s.v. דָמָה ; HALOT 225 s.v. III דמה ): “be cut off, cease to exist, be destroyed.” The Niphal form נִדְמֶה (“will be destroyed”) is paralleled by the Niphal וְנִשְׁמְדוּ ( vÿnishmÿdu , “will be destroyed”) in 10:8 . Several English versions nuance the literal wording for the sake of the idiom: “will float away like a twig on the surface of the waters” (NIV), “Like a twig in a stream…will be swept away” (CEV), “will be carried off like a chip of wood on an ocean wave” (NLT).


The noun II קֶצֶף ( qetsef ) is a hapax legomenon (a term that occurs only once). Historically, it has been understood in two different ways: (1) “foam” (Vulgate, Aquila, Symmachus) and (2) “snapped-off twig” (LXX, Theodotion, Syriac Peshitta). Both interpretations make sense in the light of the simile. The latter has more support because of the related verb קָצַץ ( qatsats , “to cut off, chop off”) used in reference to wood (BDB 893 s.v. קָצַץ ; HALOT 1125 s.v. קצץ ) and the related feminine noun קְצָפָה ( qÿtsafah , “stump; splinter” of fig-tree; BDB 893 s.v. קְצָפָה ; HALOT 1125 s.v. קְצָפָה ). English versions differ along these lines: (1) “foam” (KJV, NAB, NJPS) and (2) “chip” (NRSV, TEV, NCV, NLT), “stick” (NASB), “twig” (NIV, CEV).


Alternately, “Aven” (KJV, NAB, NRSV, NLT) for the city name “Beth Aven.” The term “Beth” (house) does not appear in the Hebrew text here, but is implied (e.g., Hos 4:15 ). It is supplied in the translation for clarity.


The MT reads בָּמוֹת אָוֶן ( bamot ’ aven , “high places of Aven”); however, several Hebrew mss read בָּמוֹת בֵּית אָוֶן ( bamot bet ’ aven , “high places of Beth Aven”). In Hos 4:15 the name בֵּית אָוֶן (“Beth Aven”; Heb “house of wickedness”) is a wordplay on “Bethel” ( Heb “house of God”). It is possible that בָּמוֹת בֵּית אָוֶן (“high places of Beth Aven”) was original: בֵּית ( bet , “house”) dropped out as an unintentional scribal error by haplography due to presence of the consonants בת in the preceding word במות ( bamot , “high places”). tn Heb “high places of wickedness” ( בָּמוֹת אָוֶן , bamot ’ aven ); so NIV. The noun אָוֶן (“wickedness”) is an attributive genitive: “wicked high places.”


Heb “days” (so KJV, NAB, NIV, NRSV).


Heb “in my desire”; ASV, NASB “When it is my desire”; NCV “When I am ready.”


The MT reads וְאֶסֳּרֵם ( vÿ ’ essorem , vav conjunction + Niphal imperfect 1st person common singular + 3rd person masculine plural suffix from אָסַר , ’ asar , “to bind”). The LXX reads παιδεῦσαι αὐτούς ( paideusai autous , “to discipline them”) which reflects a Vorlage of אִיסַּרֶם (’ issarem , Qal imperfect 1st person common singular + 3rd person masculine plural suffix from יָסַר , yasar , “to discipline”; BDB 416 s.v. יָסַר 3). The textual variant was caused by orthographic confusion between ו ( vav ) and י ( yod ) with metathesis of the two letters.


Heb “Nations will be gathered together against them.”


The verb אָסַר (’ asar , “to bind”) often refers to conquered peoples being bound as prisoners (BDB 63 s.v. אָסַר ). Here it is used figuratively to describe the Israelites being taken into exile. Cf. NIV “to put them in bonds.”


The Kethib is לִשְׁתֵּי עֵינֹתָם ( lishte ’ enotam , “for their two eyes”), while the Qere reads לִשְׁתֵּי עוֹנֹתָם ( lishte ’ onotam , “for their two sins”). The phrase “two sins” could refer to (1) the sinful episode at Gibeah and the subsequent war between the tribe of Benjamin and the other tribes ( Judges 19-21 ), or (2) the entire Gibeah incident ( Judges 19-21 ) and Israel’s subsequent failure to repent up to the time of Hosea: “the time of Gibeah” (first sin) and “there you have remained” (second sin).


The MT is unintelligible: עַל־טוּב (’ al-tuv , “upon a fine [thing]”?). Cf. KJV “I passed over upon her fair neck”; NRSV “I spared her fair neck.” The BHS editors suggest the revocalization עֹל־טוּב (’ ol-tuv , “a fine yoke”), followed by many modern English versions (e.g., NAB, NASB, NIV, NCV, TEV, NLT). The noun עֹל (’ ol , “yoke”) also appears in 11:4 in a metaphor which compares Israel to a young heifer as well.


Or “Judah will plow” (so NASB); NIV, NRSV, CEV “Judah must plow.”


Or “Jacob will break up.”


Or “righteousness” (so KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT); NAB “justice.”


The MT (followed by KJV, NASB) reads the enigmatic בְּדַרְכְּךָ ( bÿdarkÿkha , “in your own way”) which does not seem to fit the context or the parallelism with בְּרֹב גִּבּוֹרֶיךָ ( bÿrov gibborekha , “in your multitude of warriors”). The BHS editors suggest the original reading was בְרִכְבְּךָ ( vÿrikhbÿkha , “in your chariots”), a reading followed by NAB, TEV. If this is correct, the textual corruption was caused by orthographic confusion between רֶכֶב ( rekhev , “chariot”) and דֶּרֶכ ( derekh , “way”).


The phrase “you have relied” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the parallelism in the preceding line.


Heb “as the devastation of Shalman.” The genitive noun שַׁלְמַן ( shalman , “Shalman”) functions as a subjective genitive: “as Shalman devastated [Beth Arbel].”


For location see Map4-G4 ; Map5-C1 ; Map6-E3 ; Map7-D1 ; Map8-G3 .


Heb “when the dawn is cut off” or “when the day ceases.” Cf. NLT “When the day of judgment dawns.”


The root דָמָה ( damah , “to be cut off, cease to exist, be destroyed”; BDB 198 s.v. דָמָה ; HALOT 225 s.v. דמה ) is repeated in the Hebrew text. The form נִדְמֹה ( nidmoh , Niphal infinitive absolute) appears in the first colon, and the form נִדְמָה ( nidmah , Niphal perfect 3rd person masculine singular) appears in the second colon. This striking repetition creates a dramatic wordplay which, for stylistic reasons, cannot be reproduced in English translations: “The moment the dawn ceases to exist (i.e., at the break of dawn), the king of Israel will cease to exist .”


The words “like a son” are not in the Hebrew text, but are necessary to clarify what sort of love is intended (cf. also NLT).


The MT reads בְנִי ( vÿni , “My son”); however, the LXX reflects בָנָיו ( vanav , “his sons”). The MT should be retained as original here because of internal evidence; it is much more appropriate to the context.


The MT reads קָרְאוּ ( qar ’ u , “they called”; Qal perfect 3rd person common plural from קָרַא , qara ’, “to call”), cf. KJV, NASB; however, the LXX and Syriac reflect כְּקָרְאִי ( kÿqar ’ i , “as I called”; preposition כְּ ( kaf ) + Qal infinitive construct from קָרַא + 1st person common singular suffix). The presence of the resumptive adverb כֵּן ( ken , “even so”) in the following clause supports the alternate textual tradition reflected in the LXX and Syriac (cf. NAB, NIV, NCV, NRSV, TEV, NLT).


The MT reads מִפְּנֵיהֶם ( mippÿnehem , “from them”; preposition + masculine plural noun + 3rd person masculine plural suffix), so KJV, ASV, NASB; however, the LXX and Syriac reflect an alternate Hebrew textual tradition of מִפָּנַי הֵם ( mippanay hem , “they [went away] from me”; preposition + masculine plural noun + 1st person common singular suffix, followed by 3rd person masculine plural independent personal pronoun); cf. NAB, NIV, NRSV. The textual variant was caused simply by faulty word division.


Or “taught Ephraim to walk” (so ASV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV). The verb תִרְגַּלְתִּי ( tirgalti , “I taught [him] to walk, I led [him]”; Tiphil perfect 1st person common singular from רָגַל , ragal , “to walk”) is an unusual verb stem: the Tiphil (properly Taphel) is attested three times in Biblical Hebrew ( Hos 11:3 ; Jer 12:5; 22:15 ) and once in Biblical Aramaic ( Ezra 4:7 ; see GKC 153 §55. h ).


Or “that it was I who had healed them” (NIV, NLT similar).


Or “humane cords” or “cords of human kindness.” The noun אָדָם (’ adam ) is traditionally related to I אָדָם (“man”) and translated either literally or figuratively (as a metonymy of association for humane compassion): “cords of a man” (KJV, RSV margin, NASB), “cords of human kindness” (NIV, NCV), “human ties” (NJPS), “cords of compassion” (RSV). It is better to relate it to II אָדָם (“leather”; HALOT 14 s.v. אָדָם ), as the parallelism with II אַהֲבָה (’ ahavah , “leather”) suggests (see below). This homonymic root is well attested in Arabic ’ adam (“skin”) and ’ adim (“tanned skin; leather”). This better fits the context of 11:4 which compares Israel to a heifer: the Lord led him with leather cords, lifted the yoke from his neck, and fed him. Elsewhere, Hosea compares Israel to a stubborn cow ( 4:6 ) and harnessed heifer ( 10:11 ).


Or “ropes of love.” The noun אַהֲבָה (’ ahava ) is traditionally related to I אַהֲבָה (“love”; BDB 13 s.v. אַהֲבָה 2). This approach is adopted by most English translations: “bands of love” (KJV, RSV), “bonds of love” (NASB), “ties of love” (NIV), “cords of love” (NJPS). However, it is probably better to derive אַהֲבָה from the homonymic root II אַהֲבָה (“leather”; HALOT 18 s.v. II אַהֲבָה ). This root is attested in Arabic and Ugaritic. It probably occurs in the description of Solomon’s sedan chair: “upholstered with purple linen, and lined with leather” ( Song 3:10 ). This fits the context of 11:4 which compares Israel to a young heifer: the Lord led him with leather ropes, lifted the yoke from his neck, and bent down to feed him. Elsewhere, Hosea compares Israel to a stubborn cow ( 4:6 ) and a young heifer harnessed for plowing ( 10:11 ). This is supported by the parallelism with II אָדָם (’ adam , “leather”; HALOT 14 s.v. II אָדָם ). Of course, this might be an example of a homonymic wordplay on both roots: “ropes of leather/love.” For discussions of II אַהֲבָה , see G. R. Driver, “Supposed Arabisms in the Old Testament,” JBL 55 (1936): 111; G. R. Driver, Canaanite Myths and Legends , 133; S. E. Loewenstamm, Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible , 1:39. D. Grossberg, “Canticles 3:10 in the Light of a Homeric Analogue and Biblical Poetics,” BTB 11 (1981): 75-76. For homonymic wordplays, see W. G. E. Watson, Classical Hebrew Poetry [JSOTSup], 237-38; J. Barr , Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament , 151-55.


Heb “And I was to them like those who lift a yoke.”


Heb “their jaws” (so KJV, ASV, NASB).


Heb “him.” This is regarded as a collective singular by most English versions and thus translated as a plural pronoun.


Or “Will they not return to Egypt?” (so NIV). Following the LXX and BHS , the MT לֹא ( lo ’, “not”) should probably be read as לוֹ ( lo , “to him”) and connected to the end of 11:4 rather than the beginning of 11:5 . The textual confusion between לֹא and לוֹ probably reflects an unintentional scribal error due to a mistake in hearing (cf., e.g., Kethib / Qere in Ps 100:3 ).


Heb “Assyria, he will be his [Israel’s] king” (NASB similar).


Heb “return” (so KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV). The root שׁוּב ( shuv , “to turn, return”) appears at the beginning and ending of this verse, creating an inclusio . This repetition produces an ironic wordplay: because Israel refuses to “return” to God or “turn” from its sin, it will “return” to Egypt. The punishment fits the crime.


The term תְלוּאִים ( tÿlu ’ im , Qal passive participle masculine plural from תָּלָא , tala ’, “to hang”) literally means “[My people] are hung up” (BDB 1067 s.v. תָּלָא ). The verb תָּלָא // תָּלָה (“to hang”) is often used in a concrete sense to describe hanging an item on a peg ( Ps 137:2 ; Song 4:4 ; Isa 22:24 ; Ezek 15:3; 27:10 ) or the impaling of the body of an executed criminal ( Gen 40:19, 22; 41:13 ; Deut 21:22, 23 ; Josh 8:29; 10:26 ; 2 Sam 21:12 ; Esth 2:23; 5:14; 6:4; 7:9, 10; 8:7; 9:13, 14, 25 ). It is used figuratively here to describe Israel’s moral inability to detach itself from apostasy. Several English versions capture the sense well: “My people are bent on turning away from me” (RSV, NASB), “My people are determined to turn from me” (NIV), “My people are determined to reject me” (CEV; NLT “desert me”), “My people persist in its defection from me” (NJPS), and “they insist on turning away from me” (TEV).


The 1st person common singular suffix on the noun מְשׁוּבָתִי ( mÿshuvati ; literally, “turning of me”) functions as an objective genitive: “turning away from me.”


The meaning and syntax of the MT is enigmatic: וְאֶל־עַל יִקְרָאֻהוּ ( vÿ ’ el- ’ al yiqra ’ uhu , “they call upwards to him”). Many English versions including KJV, NIV, NRSV, NLT take the referent of “him” as the “most High.” The BHS editors suggest reading וְאֶל־בַּעַל יִקְרָא וְהוּא ( vÿ ’ el-ba ’ al yiqra ’ vehu ’, “they call to Baal, but he…”), connecting the 3rd person masculine singular independent personal pronoun וְהוּא ( vÿhu ’, “but he…”) with the following clause. The early Greek recensions (Aquila and Symmachus), as well as the Aramaic Targum and the Vulgate, vocalized עֹל (’ ol ) as “yoke” (as in 11:4 ): “they cry out because of [their] yoke” (a reading followed by TEV).


The imperfect verbs in 11:8 function as imperfects of capability. See IBHS 564 §34.1a.


The phrase נֶהְפַּךְ עָלַי לִבִּי ( nehpakh ’ alay libbi ) is an idiom that can be taken in two ways: (1) emotional sense: to describe a tumult of emotions, not just a clash of ideas, that are afflicting a person ( Lam 1:20 ; HALOT 253 s.v. הפך 1.c) and (2) volitional sense: to describe a decisive change of policy, that is, a reversal of sentiment from amity to hatred ( Exod 14:5 ; Ps 105:25 ; BDB 245 s.v. הָפַךְ 1; HALOT 253 s.v. 3 ). The English versions alternate between these two: (1) emotional discomfort and tension over the prospect of destroying Israel: “mine heart is turned within me” (KJV), “my heart recoils within me” (RSV, NRSV), “My heart is turned over within Me” (NASB), “My heart is torn within me” (NLT); and (2) volitional reversal of previous decision to totally destroy Israel: “I have had a change of heart” (NJPS), “my heart is changed within me” (NIV), and “my heart will not let me do it!” (TEV). Both BDB 245 s.v. 1 .b and HALOT 253 s.v. 3 suggest that the idiom describes a decisive change of heart (reversal of decision to totally destroy Israel once and for all) rather than emotional turbulence of God shifting back and forth between whether to destroy or spare Israel. This volitional nuance is supported by the modal function of the 1st person common singular imperfects in 11:8 (“I will not carry out my fierce anger…I will not destroy Ephraim…I will not come in wrath”) and by the prophetic announcement of future restoration in 11:10-11 . Clearly, a dramatic reversal both in tone and in divine intention occurs between 11:5-11 .


The Niphal of כָּמַר ( kamar ) means “to grow warm, tender” (BDB 485 s.v. כָּמַר ), as its use in a simile with the oven demonstrates ( Lam 5:10 ). It is used several times to describe the arousal of the most tender affection ( Gen 43:30 ; 1 Kgs 3:26 ; Hos 11:8 ; BDB 485 s.v. 1 ; HALOT 482 s.v. כמר 1). Cf. NRSV “my compassion grows warm and tender.”


The three imperfect verbs function as imperfects of capability, similar to the imperfects of capability in 11:8 . See IBHS 564 §34.1a.


When the verb חָרַד ( kharad , “to tremble”) is used with prepositions of direction, it denotes “to go or come trembling” (BDB 353 s.v. חָרַד 4; e.g., Gen 42:28 ; 1 Sam 13:7; 16:4; 21:2 ; Hos 11:10, 11 ). Thus, the phrase מִיָּם … וְיֶחֶרְדוּ ( vÿyekherdu … miyyam ) means “to come trembling from the west.” Cf. NAB “shall come frightened from the west.”


For the meaning of חָרַד ( harad , “to tremble”) with prepositions of direction, see 11:10 above.


The phrase “has surrounded me” is not repeated in the Hebrew text here, but is implied by the parallelism in the preceding line. It is supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons, smoothness, and readability.


The verb רוּד ( rud , “to roam about freely”) is used in a concrete sense to refer to someone wandering restlessly and roaming back and forth (BDB 923 s.v. רוּד ; Judg 11:37 ). Here, it is used figuratively, possibly with positive connotations, as indicated by the preposition עִם (’ im , “with”), to indicate accompaniment: “but Judah still goes about with God” ( HALOT 1194 s.v. רוד ). Some English versions render it positively: “Judah still walks with God” (RSV, NRSV); “Judah is restive under God” (REB); “but Judah stands firm with God” (NJPS); “but Judah yet ruleth with God” (KJV, ASV). Other English versions adopt the negative connotation “to wander restlessly” and nuance עִם in an adversative sense (“against”): “Judah is still rebellious against God” (NAB), “Judah is unruly against God” (NIV), and “the people of Judah are still rebelling against me” (TEV).


Heb “a treaty” (so NIV, NRSV); KJV, NASB “a covenant”; NAB “comes to terms.”


The phrase “as tribute” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for clarity. Cf. NCV “send a gift of olive oil.”


The noun רִיב ( riv , “dispute”) is used in two contexts: (1) nonlegal contexts: (a) “dispute” between individuals (e.g., Gen 13:7 ; Isa 58:1 ; Jer 15:10 ) or (b) “brawl, quarrel” between people (e.g., Exod 17:7 ; Deut 25:1 ); and (2) legal contexts: (a) “lawsuit, legal process” (e.g., Exod 23:3-6 ; Deut 19:17; 21:5 ; Ezek 44:24 ; Ps 35:23 ), (b) “lawsuit, legal case” (e.g., Deut 1:12; 17:8 ; Prov 18:17; 25:9 ), and (c) God’s “lawsuit” on behalf of a person or against his own people ( Hos 4:1; 12:3 ; Mic 6:2 ; HALOT 1225-26 s.v. רִיב ). The term in Hosea refers to a covenant lawsuit in which Yahweh, the suzerain, lodges a legal case against his disobedient vassal, accusing Israel and Judah of breach of covenant which will elicit the covenant curses. Cf. NLT “is bringing a lawsuit.”


The verb שָׂרָה ( sarah ) means “to strive, contend” ( HALOT 1354 s.v. שׂרה ) or “persevere, persist” (BDB 975 s.v. שָׂרָה ; see Gen 32:29 ). Almost all English versions render the verb here in terms of the former: NAB, NASB “contended”; NRSV “strove”; TEV, CEV “fought against.”


The MT vocalizes the consonantal text וָיָּשַׂר ( vayyasar , vav consecutive + Qal preterite 3rd person masculine singular from שׂוּר , sur , “to see”); however, parallelism with שָׂרַה ( sarah , “he contended”) in 12:3 suggested that it be vocalized as ויּשׂר ( vav consecutive + Qal preterite 3rd person masculine singular from שׂרה [“to strive, contend”]). The latter is followed by almost all English versions here.


Heb “him”; the referent (God) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


For location see Map4-G4 ; Map5-C1 ; Map6-E3 ; Map7-D1 ; Map8-G3 .


The Leningrad Codex and the Allepo Codex both read 1st person common plural עִמָּנוּ (’ immanu , “with us”). The LXX and Peshitta both reflect an alternate Hebrew Vorlage of 3rd person masculine singular עִמוֹ (’ imo , “with him”). The BHS editors suggest emending the MT in favor of the Greek and Syriac. The internal evidence of 12:4-5 favors the 3rd person masculine singular reading. It is likely that the 1st person common plural ־נוּ reading on עִמָּנוּ arose due to a misunderstanding of the 3rd person masculine singular ־נוּ suffix on יִמְצָאֶנּוּ ( yimtsa ’ ennu , “he found him”; Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine singular + 3rd person masculine singular suffix) which was probably misunderstood as the 1st person common plural suffix: “he found us.” Several English versions follow the LXX and Syriac: “there he spoke with him” (RSV, NAB, NEB, NIV, NJPS, TEV). Others follow the MT: “there he spoke with us” (KJV, NASB, CEV). The Hebrew University Old Testament Project, which tends to preserve the MT whenever possible, adopts the MT reading but gives it only a “C” rating. See D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 5:262-63.


Heb “[is] his memorial name” (so ASV); TEV “the name by which he is to be worshipped.”


The verb תָשׁוּב ( tashuv , Qal imperfect 2nd person masculine singular from שׁוּב , shuv , “to return”) functions as an imperfect of moral obligation, introducing the following imperatives (e.g., Gen 20:9 ; Exod 4:15 ). For this function of the imperfect, see IBHS 508-9 §31.4g.


The verb וְקַוֵּה ( vÿqavveh , vav + Piel imperative 2nd person masculine singular from קָוָה , qavah , “to wait for”) means “to hope for, wait for, look eagerly for” (BDB 875 s.v. קָוָה 1; HALOT 1082 s.v. קָוָה 2.b). The Qal meaning refers to a general hope; the Piel meaning refers to hope directed toward an object, or hope inserted within a sequence of expectation and fulfillment. When the Piel is used in reference to a thing, it refers to waiting expectantly for something to occur (e.g., Gen 49:18 ; Isa 5:2, 4, 7; 59:9, 11 ; Jer 8:15; 13:16; 14:19 ; Ps 69:21 ; Job 3:9; 6:19; 11:20 ). When it is used in reference to God, it refers to the people of God waiting expectantly for God to do something or to fulfill his promise (e.g., Pss 25:5, 21; 27:14; 37:34; 40:2; 52:11; 130:5 ; Isa 8:17; 25:9; 26:8; 33:2; 51:5; 60:9 ; Hos 12:7 ). The personal object can be introduced by the preposition לְ ( lamed , “for”; HALOT 1082 s.v. קָוָה 2.a) or אֶל (’ el , “for”; HALOT 1082 s.v. קָוָה 2.b; e.g., Pss 27:14; 37:34 ; Isa 51:5 ; Hos 12:7 ). The point seems to be that if Israel will repent and practice moral righteousness, she can look to God in confident expectation that he will intervene on her behalf by relenting from judgment and restoring the covenant blessings.


The phrase “to return to you” does not appear in the Hebrew text but is implied; it is provided in the translation for clarity. This ellipsis fills out the implicit connotations of the verb קָוָה ( qavah , “to wait for”).


Heb “the merchant…loves to cheat.” The Hebrew has singular forms (noun and verb) which are used generically to refer to all Israelite merchants and traders in general. The singular noun II כְּנַעַן ( kÿna ’ an , “a merchant; a trader”; BDB 488 s.v. II כְּנַעַן ) is used in a generic sense to refer to the merchant class of Israel as a whole (e.g., Ezek 16:29; 17:4 ; Zeph 1:11 ).


Heb “The merchant – in his hand are scales of deceit – loves to cheat.” The present translation rearranges the Hebrew line division to produce a smoother English rendering.


Heb “says” (so NAB).


Heb “I have found wealth for myself.” The verb מָצַא ( matsa ’, “to find”) is repeated in 12:8 to create a wordplay that is difficult to reproduce in translation. The Israelites have “found” ( מָצַא ) wealth for themselves (i.e., become wealthy; v. 8 a) through dishonest business practices (v. 7 ). Nevertheless, they claim that no guilt can be “found” ( מָצַא ) in anything they have done in gaining their wealth (v. 8 b).


The MT reads the 1st person common singular suffix on the noun יְגִיעַי ( yÿgi ’ ay , “my labors/gains”; masculine plural noun + 1st person common singular suffix). The LXX’s οἱ πόνοι αὐτοῦ ( {oi ponoi autou , “his labors”) assumes a 3rd person masculine singular suffix on the noun יְגִיעַיו ( yÿgi ’ av , “his labors/gains”; masculine plural noun + 3rd person masculine singular suffix). The BHS editors suggest adopting the LXX reading. The textual decision is based upon whether or not this line continues the speech of Ephraim (1st person common singular suffix) or whether these are the words of the prophet (3rd person masculine singular suffix). See the following translator’s note for the two rival lexical meanings which in turn lead to the textual options for the line as a whole. tn Heb “In all my gains/labors.” The noun יְגִיעַ ( yÿgi ’ a ) has a two-fold range of meanings: (1) “toil, labor” and (2) metonymical result of toil: “product, produce, gain, acquired property” (i.e., wealth gained by labor; BDB 388 s.v.; HALOT 385-86 s.v.). Normally, only one of the categories of meaning is present in any usage; however, it is possible that intentional semantic ambiguity is present in this usage because the context invokes both ideas: action + wealth.


The phrase מָצָאתִי אוֹן לִי ( matsa ’ ti ’ on li , “I have found wealth for myself” = I have become wealthy) forms a wordplay with לֹא יִמְצְאוּ לִי עָוֹן ( lo ’ yimtsÿ ’ u li ’ avon , “they will not find guilt in me”). The repetition of מָצָא לִי ( matsa ’ li ) is enhanced by the paronomasia between the similar sounding nouns עוֹן (’ on , “guilt”) and אוֹן (’ on , “wealth”). The wordplay emphasizes that Israel’s acquisition of wealth cannot be divorced from his guilt in dishonest business practices. Israel has difficulty in protesting his innocence that he is not guilty ( עוֹן ) of the dishonest acquisition of wealth ( אוֹן ).


The MT reads “[in] all my gains, they will not find guilt in me which would be sin.” The LXX reflects a Hebrew Vorlage which would be translated “in all his labors, he cannot offset his guilt which is sin.” Some translations follow the LXX: “but all his riches can never offset the guilt he has incurred” (RSV); “None of his gains shall atone for the guilt of his sins” (NEB); “All his gain shall not suffice him for the guilt of his sin” (NAB). Most follow the MT: “In all my labours they shall find none iniquity in me that were sin” (KJV); “In all my labors they will find in me no iniquity, which would be sin” (NASB); “With all my wealth they will not find in me any iniquity or sin” (NIV); “All my gains do not amount to an offense which is real guilt” (NJPS); “No one can accuse us [ sic ] of getting rich dishonestly” (TEV); “I earned it all on my own, without committing a sin” (CEV). See D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project , 5:262-63. tn Heb “In all my gains/labors, no one can find in me any guilt which is sin.”


Or “[Ever since you came] out of Egypt”; CEV “just as I have been since the time you were in Egypt.”


Heb “as in the days of meeting” ( כִּימֵי מוֹעֵד , kime mo ’ ed ). This phrase might refer to “time of the festival” (e.g., Hos 2:13; 9:5 ; cf. NASB, NRSV, NLT) or the Lord ’s first “meeting” with Israel in the desert (cf. NAB, TEV, CEV). In his announcements about Israel’s future, Hosea uses “as in the days of […]” ( כִּימֵי ) or “as in the day of […]” ( כְּיוֹם , kÿyom ) to introduce analogies drawn from Israel’s early history (e.g., Hos 2:5, 17; 9:9; 10:9 ).


Heb “I myself multiplied vision[s]”; cf. NASB “I gave numerous visions.”


There is debate whether אֲדַמֶּה (’ adammeh , Piel imperfect 1st person common singular) is derived from I דָמָה ( damah , “similitude, parable”) or II דָמָה (“oracle of doom”). The lexicons favor the former (BDB 198 s.v. I דָּמָה 1; HALOT 225-26 s.v. I דמה ). Most translators favor “parables” (cf. KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, NJPS), but a few opt for “oracles of doom” (cf. NRSV, TEV, CEV).


Heb “by the hand of”; KJV, ASV “by the ministry of.”


The noun אָוֶן (’ aven ) has a broad range of meanings which includes: (1) “wickedness, sin, injustice” (2) “deception, nothingness,” and (3) “idolatry, idolatrous cult” ( HALOT 22 s.v. אָוֶן ; BDB 19 s.v. אָוֶן ). While any of these meanings would fit the present context, the second-half of the verse refers to cultic sins, suggesting that Hosea is denouncing Gilead for its idolatry. Cf. NLT “Gilead is filled with sinners who worship idols.”


The introductory deictic particle אִם (’ im ) functions as an interrogative and introduces an interrogative clause: “Is there…?” (see HALOT 60 s.v. אִם 5; BDB 50 s.v. אִם 2). The LXX assumed that אִם was being used in its more common function as a conditional particle: “If there….”


Heb “they”; the referent (the inhabitants of Gilead) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


The noun שָׁוְא ( shav ’, “emptiness, nothing”), which describes the imminent judgment of the people of Gilead, creates a wordplay in Hebrew with the noun אָוֶן (’ aven , “nothingness” = idolatry). Because Gilead worshiped “nothingness” (idols), it would become “nothing” (i.e., be destroyed).


Heb “served” (so NAB, NIV, NRSV); NLT “earned a wife.”


Heb “by a prophet” (so NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV).


Heb “he”; the referent (Israel) has been specified in the translation for clarity.


Heb “was protected”; NASB “was kept.” The verb שָׁמַר ( shamar , “to watch, guard, keep, protect”) is repeated in 12:13-14 HT ( 12:12-13 ET). This repetition creates parallels between Jacob’s sojourn in Aram and Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness. Jacob “tended = kept” ( שָׁמַר ) sheep in Aram, and Israel was “preserved = kept” ( נִשְׁמָר , nishmar ) by Moses in the wilderness.


The noun תַּמְרוּרִים ( tamrurim , “bitter things”) functions as an adverbial accusative of manner, modifying the finite verb: “He bitterly provoked Him to anger” (GKC 375 §118. q ). The plural form of the noun functions as a plural of intensity: “very bitterly.” For the adverbial function of the accusative, see IBHS 172-73 §10.2.2e.


Heb “He will leave his blood upon him”; NIV “will leave upon him the guilt of his bloodshed.”


The Hebrew term translated “Lord” here is אֲדֹנָי (’ adonay ).


Heb “for his contempt” (so NIV); NRSV “for his insults”; NAB “for his outrage.”


The rulers of Ephraim (i.e., Samaria) issued many political decisions in the 8th century b.c. which brought “terror” to the other regions of the Northern Kingdom, as well as to Judah: “hearts shook as the trees of the forest shake before the wind” ( Isa 7:2 ; 2 Kgs 16:5 ).


The noun רְתֵת ( rÿtet , “terror, trembling”) appears only here in OT (BDB 958 s.v. רְתֵת ; HALOT 1300-1301 s.v. רְתֵת ). However, it is attested in 1QH 4:33 where it means “trembling” and is used as a synonym with רַעַד ( ra ’ ad , “quaking”). It also appears in Mishnaic Hebrew, meaning “trembling” (G. Dalman, Aramäisch-neuhebräisches Handwörterbuch , 406, s.v. רעד ). This is the meaning reflected in the Greek recensions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, as well as Jerome’s Latin Vulgate.


The MT vocalizes the consonantal text as נָשָׂא ( nasa ’, “he exalted”; Qal perfect 3rd person masculine singular) which is syntactically awkward. The LXX and Syriac reflect a vocalization tradition of נִשָּׂא ( nisa ’, “he was exalted”; Niphal perfect 3rd person masculine singular). The BHS editors suggest that this revocalization should be adopted, and it has been followed by NAB, NIV, NRSV.


The phrase יוֹסִפוּ לַחֲטֹא ( yosifu lakhato ’, “they add to sin”) is an idiom meaning either (1) “they sin more and more” or (2) “they continue to sin” (see BDB 415 s.v. יָסַף 2.a; HALOT 418 s.v. יסף 3.b). The English versions are divided: (1) “they sin more and more” (KJV, RSV, NASB, NIV) and (2) “they go on sinning” (NJPS), “they continue to sin” (NAB), “they (+ still TEV, NCV) keep on sinning” (NRSV, NLT).


The term כִּתְבוּנָם ( kitvunam , “according to their skill”; preposition כְּ + feminine singular noun תְּבוּנָה , tÿvunah + 3rd person masculine plural suffix) is an abbreviated form of כִּתְבוּנָתָם ( kitvunatam ; GKC 255-56 §91. e ). תְּבוּנָה means “understanding, faculty, skill” (BDB 108 s.v. תְּבוּנָה 1). It refers to a builder skillfully constructing a house ( Prov 24:3 ), God skillfully fashioning creation ( Ps 136:5 ; Prov 3:19 ), and a craftsman skillfully making an idol ( Hos 13:2 ).


Heb “They say about them.” Another possible rendering for the line is: “It is said of them – those men who sacrifice, ‘They kiss calves!’” The phrase זֹבְחֵי אָדָם ( zovkhe ’ adam , “those men who sacrifice”) functions either (1) as the subject of the verb יִשָּׁקוּן ( yishaqun , “they kiss”) in the quotation in the direct discourse: “It is said of them, ‘Those men who sacrifice kiss calves!’” or (2) in apposition to the indirect object 3rd person masculine plural suffix לָהֶם ( lahem , “about them”): “It is said of them, that is, those men who sacrifice….”


Heb “Those among men who offer sacrifices.” The genitive construct זֹבְחֵי אָדָם ( zovkhe ’ adam , “the sacrificers of men”) is misunderstood by NIV as an objective genitive phrase: “they offer human sacrifice.” Such a classification is questionable: (1) Nowhere else in the book does Hosea accuse Israel of human sacrifice, and (2) archaeological evidence does not provide any evidence of human sacrifice in the Northern Kingdom during Iron Age I (1200-722 b.c. ). This phrase should be classified as a genitive of species: the genitive represents the whole class or kind of a species (men) and the construct represents a part of the whole or subspecies within the whole (those who sacrifice): “those among men who offer sacrifice” (those who offer sacrifices). The expression “a fool of men” in Prov 15:20 provides a similar example: the genitive represents the whole class/species (men) and the construct represents a part of the whole/subspecies (a fool): “a foolish man.” This is the tactic adopted by most English versions: “the men that sacrifice” (KJV), “the men who sacrifice” (NASB), “they appoint men to sacrifice [to them]” (NJPS).


Heb “They kiss calves!” The verb יִשָּׁקוּן ( yishaqun ) may be parsed as an imperfect (“they kiss [calves]”) or jussive (“let them kiss [calves]!”). Paragogic nun endings ( ן + יִשָּׁקוּ ) are attached to imperfects to connote rhetorical emphasis. It is used either (1) to mark out an action that is contrary to normal practice and deviates from normal expectations (those who worship the calf idol are, in effect, kissing calves!), or (2) to express strong emotion (in this case disgust) at the action of the calf idolaters (they kiss calves!). For function of paragogic nun , see IBHS 516-17 §31.7.1.


Heb “they will be like” (so NASB, NIV).


The phrase כְּעֲנַן־בֹּקֶר ( kÿ ’ anan-boqer , “like a cloud of the morning”) occurs also in Hos 6:4 in a similar simile. The Hebrew poets and prophets refer to morning clouds as a simile for transitoriness ( Job 7:9 ; Isa 44:22 ; Hos 6:4; 13:3 ; HALOT 858 s.v. עָנָן 1.b; BDB 778 s.v. עָנָן 1.c).


Heb “like the early rising dew that goes away”; TEV “like the dew that vanishes early in the day.”


Heb “storm-driven away”; KJV, ASV “driven with the whirlwind out.” The verb יְסֹעֵר ( yÿso ’ er , Poel imperfect 3rd person masculine singular from סָעַר , sa ’ ar , “to storm”) often refers to the intense action of strong, raging storm winds (e.g., Jonah 1:11, 13 ). The related nouns refer to “heavy gale,” “storm wind,” and “high wind” (BDB 704 s.v. סָעַר ; HALOT 762 s.v. סער ). The verb is used figuratively to describe the intensity of God’s destruction of the wicked whom he will “blow away” ( Isa 54:11 ; Hos 13:3 ; Hab 3:14 ; Zech 7:14 ; BDB 704 s.v.; HALOT 762 s.v.).


The MT reads יְדַעְתִּיךָ ( yÿda ’ tikha , Qal perfect 1st person common singular + 2nd person masculine singular suffix from יָדַע , yada ’, “to know”), followed by KJV, ASV (“I did know thee”). The LXX and Syriac reflect an alternate textual tradition of רְעִיתִיךָ ( rÿ ’ it ’ kha , Qal perfect 1st person common singular + 2nd person masculine singular suffix from רָעָה , ra ’ ah , “to feed”), which is followed by most recent English versions (e.g., NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT).


Heb “land of intense drought” or “intensely thirsty land.” The noun תַּלְאֻבוֹת ( tal ’ uvot ) occurs in the OT only here. It probably means “drought” (BDB 520 s.v. תַּלְאֻבָה ). The related Arabic verb means “to be thirsty” and the related Arabic noun means “a stony tract of land.” The plural form (singular = תַּלְאֻבָה , tal ’ uvah ) is a plural of intensity: “a [land] of intense drought.” The term functions as an attributive genitive, modifying the construct אֶרֶץ (’ erets , “land”). The phrase is variously rendered: “land of (+ great KJV) drought” (RSV, NASB), “thirsty land” (NJPS), “thirsty desert” (CEV), “dry, desert land” (TEV), and the metonymical (effect for cause) “land of burning heat” (NIV).


The MT reads כְּמַרְעִיתָם ( kÿmar ’ itam , “according to their pasturage”; preposition כְּ ( kaf ) + noun מַרְעִית , mar ’ it , “pasture” + 3rd person masculine plural suffix). Text-critics propose: (1) כְּמוֹ רְעִיתִים ( kÿmo rÿ ’ itim , “as I pastured them”; preposition כְּמוֹ ( kÿmo ) + Qal perfect 1st person common singular from רָעַה , ra ’ ah , “to pasture, feed” + 3rd person masculine plural suffix) and (2) כִּרְעוֹתָם (“when they had pastured”; preposition כְּ + Qal perfect 3rd person masculine plural from רָעַה ). Some English versions follow the MT: “according to their pasture” (KJV), “as they had their pasture” (NASB), “when you entered the good land” (TEV). Others adopt the first emendation: “when I fed them” (NIV, NRSV), “I fed you [ sic = them]” (CEV). Still others follow the second emendation: “but when they had fed to the full” (RSV), “when they grazed” (NJPS).


Heb “their heart became exalted”; KJV, ASV “was exalted.”


The vav consecutive + preterite form וָאֱהִי ( va ’ ehi ) introduces a consequential or result clause; cf. NAB “Therefore”; NCV “That is why.”


Heb “So I will be like a lion to them” (so NASB); NIV “I will come upon them like a lion.”


The MT reads שִׁחֶתְךָ ( shikhetkha , “he destroyed you”; Piel perfect 3rd person masculine singular from שָׁחַת , shakhat , “to destroy” + 2nd person masculine singular suffix). The BHS editors suggest שׁחתיךָ (“I will destroy you”; Piel perfect 1st person common singular + 2nd person masculine singular suffix). Contextually, this fits: If the Lord is intent on destroying Israel, there is no one who will be able to rescue her from him. This reading is also followed by NCV, NRSV, TEV.


The MT reads כִּי־בִי בְעֶזְרֶךָ ( ki-vi ve ’ ezrekha , “but in me is your help”); cf. KJV, NIV, NLT. The LXX and Syriac reflect an underlying Hebrew text of כִּי־מִי בְעֶזְרֶךָ ( ki-mi ve ’ ezrekha , “For who will help you?”). The interrogative מִי (“Who?”) harmonizes well with the interrogatives in 13:9-10 and should be adopted, as the BHS editors suggest; the reading is also followed by NAB, NCV, NRSV, TEV.


The MT reads the enigmatic אֱהִי (’ ehi , “I want to be [your king]”; apocopated Qal imperfect 1st person common singular from הָיָה , hayah , “to be”) which makes little sense and conflicts with the 3rd person masculine singular form in the dependent clause: “that he might save you” ( וְיוֹשִׁיעֲךָ , vÿyoshi ’ akha ). All the versions (Greek, Syriac, Vulgate) read the interrogative particle אַיֵּה (’ ayyeh , “where?”) which the BHS editors endorse. The textual corruption was caused by metathesis of the י ( yod ) and ה ( hey ). Few English versions follow the MT: “I will be thy/your king” (KJV, NKJV). Most recent English versions follow the ancient versions in reading “Where is your king?” (ASV, RSV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NJPS, CEV, NLT).


The repetition of the phrase “Where are…?” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is implied by the parallelism in the preceding lines. It is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity and for stylistic reasons.


The prefix-conjugation verb אֶתֶּן (’ eten , “I gave”) refers to past-time action, specifying a definite past event (the enthronement of Saul); therefore, this should be classified as a preterite. While imperfects are occasionally used in reference to past-time events, they depict repeated action in the past. See IBHS 502-4 §31.2 and 510-14 §31.6.


The noun עָוֹן (’ avon ) has a three-fold range of meanings: (1) “iniquity,” so KJV, NASB, NRSV; (2) “guilt,” so NAB, NIV; and (3) “punishment” (BDB 730 s.v. עָוֹן ). The oracle of 13:12-13 announces that Israel’s punishment, though momentarily withheld, will suddenly come upon her like labor pains that will kill her.


Heb “has been bound.” צָרַר ( tsarar , “to bind”) refers elsewhere to the action of scribes binding a document into a sealed scroll of safekeeping ( Isa 8:16 ; HALOT 1058 s.v. I צרר 1; BDB 864 s.v. צָרַר 1). Here it figuratively depicts the record of Israel’s sins being written down and permanently bound in a sealed scroll for safekeeping (cf. NCV, TEV “are on record”). The guilt of Israel’s sin will be retained.


The translation of the first two lines of this verse reflects the interpretation adopted. There are three interpretive options to v. 14 : (1) In spite of Israel’s sins, the Lord will redeem them from the threat of death and destruction (e.g., 11:8 ). However, against this view, the last line of 13:14 probably means that the Lord will not show compassion to Israel. (2) The Lord announces the triumphant victory over death through resurrection (cf. KJV, ASV, NIV). However, although Paul uses the wording of Hosea 13:14 as an illustration of victory over death, the context of Hosea’s message is the imminent judgment in 723-722 b.c . (3) The first two lines of 13:14 are rhetorical questions without explicit interrogative markers, implying negative answers: “I will not rescue them!” (cf. NAB, NASB, NCV, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT). The next two lines in 13:14 are words of encouragement to Death and Sheol to destroy Israel. The final line announces that the Lord will not show compassion on Israel; he will not spare her.


Heb “Where, O Death, are your plagues?” (so NIV).


Heb “Where, O Sheol, is your destruction?” (NRSV similar). sn The two rhetorical questions in 13:14 b function as words of encouragement, inviting personified Death and Sheol to draw near like foreign invading armies to attack and kill Israel (cf. TEV, CEV, NLT).


Heb “Compassion will be hidden from my eyes” (NRSV similar; NASB “from my sight”).