The opening chapters of Hosea’s prophecy set the scene of Israel’s unfaithfulness through a narrative focused primarily on the prophet’s personal life. The remaining chapters include a series of more conventional oracles that build on the same theme and, again, point forward from sin and inevitable judgment to future restoration.1 There is little in this part of the book to indicate historical context (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 313). The indictments are fairly general, though they fit with what we know of the general situation in the third quarter of the eighth century bc and may include some allusions to political events.
Following on from chapters 1–3, 4:1 – 5:7 refers frequently to Israel’s adultery and prostitution. Yahweh has entered into a relationship with the nation, but the people and their religious leaders have failed to show the faithfulness and the ḥesed that their participation in the relationship demanded.
1. The verse begins with a common prophetic introduction, Hear the word of the Lord,2 which frequently prefaces oracles of judgment and addresses the Israelites (bĕnê yiśrāʾēl) directly. The purpose of the oracle is to bring a charge (rîb) against those who live in the land. The term rîb sometimes points to a legal charge brought by God against the people because of their failure to meet their covenant obligations. That seems to be the case here too, though this oracle does not follow the general pattern of covenant lawsuits.3
There are two references to the land. Because of the sin of ‘the inhabitants of the land’ (nrsv, esv),4 which here parallels Israelites, the land is devoid of the things that are required to maintain the covenant relationship with Yahweh: faithfulness, ḥesed and acknowledgment of God. These three ideas occur together in the list of bridal gifts in 2:19–205 which ensure that the new covenant relationship will be permanent. Significant here too is the idea that the land is affected by the sin of the people (v. 3).
2. The first part of the verse gives a list of failings, using language that reflects Israel’s law. Murder, stealing and adultery repeats terms found in the sixth, eighth and seventh commandments respectively (Exod. 20:13–15; see also Jer. 7:9). Lying (kāḥaš) may allude to the ninth commandment. While not the same term as in Exodus 20:16, kāḥaš appears in a similar context in Leviticus 19:11. It is also used to describe the message of false prophets (Jer. 5:12). Cursing (ʾālâ) is used in the context of swearing an oath (Deut. 29:12–19), and the nrsv translates it here as ‘swearing’. It also refers to the curse that result from reneging on an oath (Deut. 29:20–21) (Scharbert 1974; Gordon 1996a; cf. Routledge 2012: 61–62). Here it may suggest swearing falsely, possibly including taking God’s name in vain (cf. Exod. 20:7). The term may have been chosen deliberately to point beyond Israel’s sin to its consequences for the land, which is also associated with a curse (cf. Isa. 24:6; Jer. 23:10).
They break all bounds translates the verb pāraṣ. This has several meanings in the Old Testament (van Dam 1996), including ‘to burst out, break through’, implying violence,6 and ‘to spread out, increase’.7 Pāraṣ may be linked with the previous list of sins, indicating their increasing prevalence: ‘Swearing, lying, and murder, and stealing and adultery break out’ (nrsv; cf. Mays 1969: 60; Garrett 1997: 112; Macintosh 1997: 129). Alternatively, they may refer to the people, suggesting excessive violation of Israel’s covenant responsibilities: overstepping all accepted boundaries. Or it may be taken with the following expression, bloodshed follows bloodshed,8 an idiom pointing to an inordinate amount of bloodshed. In that case it may indicate violent action which results in the shedding of innocent blood.9
3. This verse begins with ‘therefore’ (niv: Because of this), emphasizing the consequences of Israel’s sin for the land and also, corresponding to the indictment in verse 1, for those who live in the land. Dries up translates ʾābal. This verb is usually translated ‘to mourn’ (nrsv, esv) and may be understood metaphorically, indicating the anguish felt by the land because of the sin of its people. The term occurs in pairings that indicate drought (Isa. 24:4; Jer. 12:4; 23:10; Joel 1:10) and, as here, is often linked with ʾāmal (‘to wither, dry up, languish’; Isa. 24:7; 33:9; Jer. 14:2; Lam. 2:8), leading to the suggestion that ʾābal may have a second meaning, ‘to dry up’ (so niv) (see Baumann 1974; Hayden 1996; Hayes 2002: 12–18). However, the translation ‘the land/earth mourns’ (cf. Hayes 2002: 37–64) fits well with the rest of the verse. The removal of animals, birds and fish echoes Genesis 1:26 (cf. Ps. 8:7–8), though in reverse order, and may be seen as the undoing of creation (Deroche 1981; cf. Zeph. 1:2–3). A similar idea, also associated with ʾābal, is seen in Isaiah 24:4–6, and also in Jeremiah 4:23–28, which suggests a return to a pre-creation world that is ‘formless and empty’ (4:23; cf. Gen. 1:2).10 This reflects the understanding, found elsewhere in the Old Testament, that human sin affects the stability of the created order (see Routledge 2010: 85–86; 2014b) and may allow chaos to return. A similar idea may lie behind the reference in Romans 8:19–22 to a frustrated and groaning creation.
4–6. These verses begin the indictment of the nation’s religious leaders. The central issue of false worship makes priests the prime target, but the failure of prophets is also noted.
The interpretation of verse 4 depends on the disputed translation of its final section, which, following the mt, the niv translates:
for your people are like those
who bring charges against a priest.
Deroche (1983b: 186–193) suggests that their being like those who bring charges against a priest indicates that the whole nation is under sentence of death (Deut. 17:12) and that, rather than trying to pass the blame on to others (let no one accuse another), each must accept that responsibility. It is not clear, though, why that particular expression is used to indicate Israel’s plight, particularly as it takes a more reverential view of the priesthood than we find elsewhere (cf. 4:6, 9; 5:1; 6:9). If we follow the mt, Garrett’s suggestion (1997: 116) seems more likely. In his view, ‘your people are like those who bring charges against a priest’ refers to the dire spiritual condition of the nation, which stands as evidence against the priesthood. And, rather than the people blaming one another, it is the priesthood that should be held accountable.
The awkwardness of the mt, though, has led other English versions and commentators to make a small change and read ‘with you’ instead of ‘your people’, giving: ‘for with you is my contention, O priest’ (nrsv, esv; cf. Wolff 1974: 70; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 342, 346–348; Hubbard 1989: 100; Achtemeier 1996: 36; Macintosh 1997: 134; Dearman 2010: 155; Moon 2018: 78, 79–80). The first part of the verse may then be an objection by a (chief) priest to Hosea’s message of judgment in 4:1–3 (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 342, 345–346; Moon 2018: 82), or Hosea’s response to such an objection. This may envisage an actual confrontation, such as that between Amos and Amaziah (Amos 7:12–17), or it may be a rhetorical device. It seems better, though, to take priest as a reference to the priesthood as a whole. Priests are responsible for the nation’s lack of spiritual awareness, and, rather than passing the blame on to others, as in Garrett’s view (1997: 116), they must bear the brunt of the indictment.
Hosea’s use of wordplay is evident in verses 5–6, which can be divided into four pairs of lines, each with repeated terms:
You stumble day and night, and the prophets stumble with you.
So I will destroy your mother. My people are destroyed from lack of knowledge.
Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests;
Because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children.
The metaphor of stumbling (kāšal) indicates failure to walk the right path. Elsewhere in Hosea, the people stumble because of sin (5:5; 14:1, 9). Here, that is traced back to priests and prophets: religious leaders who have collaborated in their support of corrupt cultic institutions, and so have failed to instruct the people in the ways of Yahweh.11 The nrsv reflects the mt: ‘You shall stumble by day; the prophet also shall stumble with you by night’, indicating the continual failure of those who should be providing spiritual leadership.
I will destroy your mother may refer to action against the mother of a particular priest (cf. Amos 7:17) (Wolff 1974: 78; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 350), though as a general indictment it may be taken figuratively, to indicate the cutting off of the institutions that spread corruption (Garret 1997: 117; Moon 2018: 84). However, mother refers to the nation as a whole in 2:2, 5, and that may be the best interpretation here (Hubbard 1989: 100; Dearman 2010: 158). The action of corrupt leaders will result in the ruin of the nation. This is further linked to a lack of knowledge, which is a frequent theme in the book.12 In this context it refers to the knowledge of God (cf. 4:1; 6:6) and continues the indictment of the priests, whose responsibility it was to instruct the people (cf. Deut. 33:10; Mal. 2:6–7).
The third and fourth pairs of lines, which are linked to the first two by the repetition of knowledge, focus particularly on God’s judgment as a result of the failure of leadership. Children, like mother, may refer to the people as a whole who, led by the priests, also ignore (niv) or ‘forget’ (nrsv) God’s law (cf. 2:13). Alternatively, it may refer to the priests’ actual offspring (Hubbard 1989: 101), or, more probably, to those who follow the same corrupt path, and so to the priesthood more generally (Dearman 2010: 159). Part of the responsibility of the priests was to teach the law; ignoring the law would thereby disqualify them from office. The repetition of reject and ignore/‘forget’ is another example of the correspondence between divine judgment and human sin.13
7–11. These verses continue the indictment of the priesthood. ‘The more they increased’ (v. 7, nrsv, esv; emphasis added) better reflects the mt. The niv paraphrases to make the reference to the priesthood clear. During the prosperity under Jeroboam II there appears to have been growth in the size and prestige of cultic institutions (cf. 8:11), and therefore of their impact. This should have helped to deal with the people’s sin. Ironically, though, because of the influence of Baal worship, it only increased the problem.
In the last part of verse 7, the mt reads ‘I will change’ (cf. lxx, esv). This is frequently emended to ‘they (ex)changed’ (nrsv, niv) (Wolff 1974: 71; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 342; Stuart 1987: 70, 72),14 and ‘glory’ is then associated with the worship of Yahweh, which has been exchanged for the dishonour of serving Baal. There seems little reason, though, to alter the mt, which continues the theme of divine judgment. God will remove the priests’ honoured status (Mays 1969: 66; Hubbard 1989: 102; Garrett 1997: 119; Macintosh 1997: 141, 142–143; Dearman 2010: 155; Moon 2018: 78) and will show up the false worship that they revel in for the shameful practice it is (cf. 10:5). There may be an indication, too, that the nation’s role of revealing God’s glory has been compromised (cf. 9:11).
The corruption of the priesthood is further highlighted in verse 8. The priests feed on (ʾākal) and relish (niv) or ‘are greedy for’ (nrsv, esv) Israel’s sin. Instead of helping them overcome sin, the priests revel in the people’s failure. This may be because it served to increase the significance and status of the cult. There may also be a deliberate play on words. The first word for sin, ḥaṭṭāʾt, may also refer to the ‘sin offering’ (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 342),15 which was offered to make atonement for some sins. As part of the ritual, the priests ate some of the sacrifice (e.g. Lev. 6:24–29; 10:17–20). Thus, the more the people sinned, the better the priests ate (cf. 1 Sam. 2:12–17). This further reflects Hosea’s view that the priesthood is intentionally self-serving.
Like people, like priests (v. 9) appears to be a proverb. The priesthood cannot evade responsibility by claiming special privileges. Nor can the people escape judgment by blaming the priests. Ways and deeds together suggest both characteristic misconduct and specific actions. Repay translates the Hebrew šûb (‘return’).16 The sinful actions of priests and people will be brought back on them: both will receive what they deserve (cf. 12:2).
They will eat but not have enough (v. 10) may refer back to the appetite of the priests in verse 8, where the same verb, ʾākal (‘to eat’), occurs, or may indicate more general dissatisfaction associated with false worship (cf. 2:5–7). Similarly, prostitution, which may here be spiritual, actual, or both, will not result in increase.17 Because the priests have deserted Yahweh, their sinful pursuits will lead only to frustration. Flourish (niv) translates pāraṣ, which relates to the spread and severity of Israel’s sin in 4:2; its use here may suggest divine action to stem that increase (Stuart 1987: 70, 72; Hubbard 1989: 103).
In the mt, verse 10 ends with the verb šāmar. This usually means ‘to guard, keep’, though it may also suggest devotion. It is usually linked to verse 11: people turn from Yahweh to devote themselves to prostitution (niv, nrsv; Mays 1969: 66;18 Wolff 1974: 72; Achtemeier 1996: 39; Dearman 2010: 156), or to prostitution, wine and new wine (esv; Garrett 1997: 121; Macintosh 1997: 147; Moon 2018: 78). In Deuteronomy, šāmar occurs in connection with observing laws associated with the covenant.19 Here, it may highlight the sins of the priests who, rather than guarding instruction and keeping the law, are committed to following their own appetites. The repeated reference to wine suggests drunkenness, which here, maybe together with prostitution, inhibits understanding (cf. Lev. 10:9–11; Isa. 28:7).20
12–14. These verses begin by focusing on the people. Their failure, though, however willing, is also an indictment of the priests who have led them astray, and so the verses go on to include further judgment on the priests.
The people are accused of seeking guidance from pieces of wood. The first term, ʿēṣ, may refer to a wooden idol (as niv). It is, though, a general term for ‘wood’, and is used here sarcastically. The second term, maqqēl, refers to something that can be carried, such as a ‘staff’ (esv). The niv and nrsv translate this diviner’s rod, and it may have had some cultic significance, though here again the language is intentionally sarcastic: those who consult idols might as well be talking to any other piece of timber! Isaiah uses similar sarcasm when he describes idols as mere firewood (Isa. 44:14–17). Consult (šāʾal) includes making inquiries of God (e.g. Judg. 18:5; 20:18; 1 Sam. 10:22; 23:2; 2 Sam. 2:1), which is what the people should be doing.
The people are led astray by a spirit of prostitution (rûaḥ zĕnûnîm). It is unlikely that this indicates something demonic. The range of meanings of rûaḥ includes the disposition within human beings that governs their actions (Routledge 2008a: 144–145), and that may be the sense here.21 Prostitution (zĕnûnîm) has been discussed already.22 This, and the parallel expression they are unfaithful to their God, refers to the people’s spiritual adultery (cf. 1:2). This is further emphasized in the reference to the location of sacrifices (v. 13a). References to hill, mountaintops and the shade of trees parallel closely the location of Canaanite altars, which were to be destroyed when the people entered the land (Deut. 12:2). Altars were frequently located in elevated positions so as to be closer to the deity. Trees provided shade, but also represented fertility, and might be associated with the goddess Asherah (e.g. Deut. 12:2–3; 16:21).23 These ‘high places’ (bāmôt; cf. 10:8) were not always linked with idolatry (e.g. 1 Sam. 9:11–14). However, they may have included Canaanite altars taken over by Israel and not easily disassociated from their earlier cultic practices. They were also prominent in Baal worship, and became a serious stumbling block for God’s people.24 The significance of the particular trees mentioned seems to be primarily their size and the effectiveness of the shade they offer.25 This is a practical consideration, though may point further to the superficiality of Israel’s worship (Hubbard 1989: 106).
As a direct consequence of what the priests have led the people into, the priests’ daughters and daughters-in-law have become caught up in prostitution and adultery. This is unlikely to be only metaphorical (though see Adams 2008: 291–305). It is not clear that illicit sexual practices played a formal part in Baal worship; however, they appear to be closely linked to the cult,26 and members of the priests’ own families have become involved.
Yahweh’s response to this promiscuity – I will not punish your daughters . . . nor your daughters-in-law (v. 14) – and the rationale, that the men are guilty too, seems odd. Dearman (2010: 156, 165–166) addresses this by translating: ‘I will not punish (only) your daughters.’ Others take the statement as a rhetorical question: ‘Will I not punish . . . ?’ (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 369; Stuart 1987: 71, 83). Wolff (1974: 87) suggests that the blame for such activities must be levelled at the priests. Moon’s explanation seems to fit better with the mt. He argues that the men here continues to refer to the priests, and notes that under the law promiscuous daughters of priests were punished primarily because of the shame their actions brought on their fathers (e.g. Lev. 21:9) and thus on the priestly office. Here, though, punishment that was intended to protect the holiness of the priesthood becomes meaningless, because the priests themselves behave in the same shameful way (Moon 2018: 87–88).
Shrine-prostitutes translates qĕdēšôt. The link with sacrifice suggests some cultic association, and, while it is not clear what their precise role was, the parallel with harlots (zônâ) indicates sexual activity. Thus, actual promiscuity runs alongside Israel’s spiritual unfaithfulness.
The priests’ failure results in a widespread lack of understanding. The term bîn may apply to discernment generally, though probably refers here to the understanding of who God is and what he requires (cf. 14:9; see also e.g. Isa. 6:9–10; 43:10; 56:11; Jer. 4:22). This is closely related to the failure to acknowledge him (2:8; 4:1, 6). The result of the people’s lack of understanding is ruin (cf. 4:6). The priests have failed to show true leadership; that, though, is no excuse, and the whole people face divine judgment.
15–16. The prophetic indictment is now directed towards the people as a whole. Verse 15 contrasts Israel and Judah.27 It is addressed primarily to Israel, and the rhetorical purpose may be to indicate that the nation’s adulterous behaviour is not inevitable and, at least for the moment, Judah can avoid falling into the same sin. Further, this might reflect the view that the prophecy links hope for the future with the southern kingdom and the Davidic leader who will come from there (cf. 1:11; 3:5). Israel is likely also to be the main target of the following proscriptions, though they also include a warning to Judah.
Two particular sanctuaries to avoid are singled out: Gilgal and Beth Aven. Gilgal was located close to Jericho. Joshua set up twelve stones there, taken from the Jordan, to represent the twelve tribes of Israel (Josh. 4:19–25). There, too, the Israelites were circumcised, celebrated the first Passover after entering the Promised Land and ate the first produce of Canaan (Josh. 5:8–11). Later, it became a significant centre (e.g. 1 Sam. 7:16; 10:8). Beth Aven (bêt ʾāwen) appears to be a sarcastic reference to Bethel (‘house of God’). Bethel (see Brodsky 1992) has important associations with Jacob (Gen. 28:19; 31:13; cf. Hos. 12:4) and was also one of the sanctuaries set up by Jeroboam after the division of the kingdom (1 Kgs 12:28–29). These sanctuaries appear to have had particular significance in relation to Israel’s sin in the eighth century bc. Amos also refers to Bethel and Gilgal (Amos 4:4; 5:5), and the derogatory term Beth Aven probably derives from his warning that Bethel would ‘be reduced to nothing [ʾāwen]’.28 Both sanctuaries were close to Judah, and the injunction to stay away may also be directed at potential visitors from the south as well as from the north.
As well as avoiding key sanctuaries, the people are urged not to swear oaths in Yahweh’s name. The formula as the Lord lives (ḥay yhwh)29 is used legitimately to reinforce oaths and express strong intent (e.g. Judg. 8:19; Ruth 3:13; 1 Sam. 14:39; 26:16; 2 Sam. 15:21; Jer. 38:16). It is, though, an affront when Yahweh’s name is invoked as a mechanistic formula, without regard for the covenant relationship that lies behind it.30
Verse 16 emphasizes further Israel’s intransigence. The contrast here is between God’s desire to take care of his people as lambs that follow their shepherd and so may enjoy open pasture, and Israel’s stubbornness, like that of a headstrong cow, in resisting the divine will. The alliteration in this verse, sōrērâ sārar yiśrāʾēl (‘[like a] stubborn [heifer], Israel is stubborn’), has already been noted as part of the wordplay common in the book.31
17–19. Israel’s intransigence is linked to idolatry (v. 17). Joined to idols indicates alliances with false objects of worship. The people who were called into covenant relationship with Yahweh have bound themselves to idols (ʿāṣāb).32 Andersen and Freedman (1980: 377) note that ḥābar (‘to join’) may also relate to weaving charms or spells (cf. Deut. 18:11; Ps. 58:5) and suggest, instead: ‘Ephraim has been captivated by idols.’
The imperative leave him alone! in the second part of verse 17 may be aimed at priests, urging them to cease their corrupting behaviour, or it may continue the warning to Judah to stay clear of Israel’s corrupting influence. It may also be directed at Hosea, expressing frustration that Israel is so in thrall to idols as to be beyond any correction (cf. 5:4, 6). This is the first time that Israel is addressed as Ephraim, after the largest northern tribe. Hosea uses this designation more than thirty times, often alongside references to Judah (5:5, 12–14; 6:4; 10:11; 11:12), and its appearance here may indicate an intended contrast with the south.
The first part of verse 18 links drinking and illicit sexual activity (cf. 4:10–11): having had their fill of one, people turn, in excessive measure,33 to the other. The text of the second part of the verse is unclear. The niv reading – their rulers dearly love shameful ways (cf. esv) – captures its essence,34 emphasizing the nation’s passion to pursue the shameful practices associated with Baal worship.
The picture in verse 19 is of Israel caught up in a powerful wind (rûaḥ) that confines the people in its (metaphorical) wings (cf. 2 Sam. 22:11; Pss 18:10; 104:3) and sweeps them away. Rûaḥ may also relate to the spirit of prostitution in 4:12 (Stuart 1987: 86; Hubbard 1989: 111; Dearman 2010: 169; Moon 2018: 95–96). The people are in the grip of false worship and must bear the shameful consequences of their idolatrous sacrifices. Wind may also be an instrument of divine judgment (e.g. 13:15), which, when linked to Israel being swept away, may suggest exile (Ben Zvi 2005: 107–108; cf. Macintosh 1997: 173–174). The people’s sin, which now controls them, will carry them ultimately to destruction.
1–2. This section widens the scope of 4:1–19 and includes a challenge to the royal house. The priests are again indicted. The third group, ‘house of Israel’ (nrsv, esv), may refer to the general population (niv: Israelites), though some relate it to a further tier of leadership (Wolff 1974: 97; Garrett 1997: 141; Dearman 2010: 171; however, cf. Hubbard 1989: 112; Moon 2018: 100).
This judgment is against you (niv) translates more literally as ‘the judgment [mišpāṭ] is yours’. Mišpāṭ (see on 2:19–20) can be translated ‘justice’ (Wolff 1974: 94; Macintosh 1997: 175) or ‘judgment’ (Mays 1969: 79; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 380; Hubbard 1989: 112–113) and may have a double meaning (Stuart 1987: 88; Dearman 2010: 171; Moon 2018: 100): leaders should administer justice; their failure results in judgment.
Failure and judgment are linked with particular sites, though the nature of the sin is unclear. Setting a snare or a ‘net’ is associated with catching birds, though it is also a metaphor for how the wicked prey on the righteous (e.g. Pss 140:5; 141:9; Jer. 18:22) and for divine judgment (e.g. Isa. 8:14; 24:17–18; Jer. 48:43–44). Here, it appears to refer to the seizure, by corrupt leaders, of the people and of the nation’s religious institutions. Mizpah (see Arnold 1992) is probably the sanctuary in Benjamin which, with Bethel and Gilgal (cf. 4:15), was part of Samuel’s judicial circuit (1 Sam. 7:16). Mount Tabor (see Frankel 1992) is in the Plain of Jezreel and was where Deborah and Barak defeated Sisera (Judg. 4:6–15). The reason for the reference to these sites is unclear, though the context suggests that they were associated with Baal worship. Many translations and commentators suggest that the snare was set at (lĕ) Mizpah (niv, nrsv, esv; Mays 1969: 79; Macintosh 1997: 175; Dearman 2010: 169) and that people were led astray there. However, lĕ usually relates to what the snare was intended to catch (Pss 69:22; 119:110; 140:5; 142:3; Amos 3:5), and a better translation may be: ‘you set a snare for Mizpah’ (Wolff 1974: 94; Stuart 1987: 88; Garrett 1997: 143; Moon 2018: 101), indicating that the sanctuary, like the people, was the victim of a corrupt regime.
In the first part of verse 2, the rebels are knee-deep in slaughter (niv; cf. esv) broadly follows the mt (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 380; Hubbard 1989: 113–114; Moon 2018: 98–99). This may pick up on the excessive bloodshed noted in 4:2. Details of the slaughter are not given. Andersen and Freedman (1980: 388) relate it to child sacrifice, though if that was happening it is likely that it would have been condemned more specifically (see on 4:2). The main emphasis appears to be that the nation’s leaders, who should be guarding and protecting the people, are preying on them. Difficulties with the text have prompted some to emend it to ‘and a pit dug deep in Shittim’ (nrsv; Mays 1969: 79; Wolff 1974: 94; Stuart 1987: 88; Dearman 2010: 169).35 This continues the theme of setting a trap, and three place names, corresponding to the three groups addressed in verse 1, better fits the poetic pattern. Shittim is where Moabite women led the Israelites to worship Baal of Peor (Num. 25:1–3; cf. Hos. 9:10) and so fits well with the charge of spiritual, as well as actual, prostitution (cf. 4:12–14; 5:3).
As a result of their corruption, Israel’s rulers will face discipline (mûsār). In Proverbs, mûsār frequently refers to right instruction (e.g. 1:8; 8:10; 13:1; 23:23). It is used, too, in the context of severe punishment (e.g. Isa. 26:16; Jer. 2:30; 30:14), though with the intention of correction, and that may be the sense here. The rulers will be punished severely. Even so, a gracious God wants to bring sinners to repentance.
3–4. These verses are framed by the ironic inclusio: I know [yādâ] . . . Ephraim (v. 3); they do not acknowledge [yādâ] the Lord (v. 4).36
Verse 3 takes a poetic form to emphasize both God’s knowledge of his people and the nature of their sin. The first part of the verse has a chiastic structure: ‘I know . . . Ephraim/Israel is not hidden from me.’ The second part of the verse notes that Israel has acted as a prostitute (zānâ), and parallels that with ṭāmēʾ (‘to defile’), which indicates ritual uncleanness. This same pairing also occurs in 6:10. The people’s behaviour has defiled them in the eyes of a holy God.
Verse 4 notes the hopelessness of Israel’s position. The people’s actions have separated them from God and do not allow them to return (šûb).37 This is linked with a spirit of prostitution (see on 4:12): the controlling impulse that drives them to worship Baal and prevents them acknowledging God. This suggests that the people’s actions have created a barrier that cannot be breached from their side, making divine judgment inevitable. It is significant here that, while earlier the priests were indicted for leading the people astray, the people are, nevertheless, held accountable for their own actions.
5–7. These verses further indict Israel and elaborate on the judgment that has been announced. Testifies (v. 5) translates ānâ (‘to answer, respond’). In 2:15, 21–22 it denotes Israel’s proper response to Yahweh, and Yahweh’s response in terms of restoration and blessing. Here it appears in a quasi-legal sense, suggesting the testimony of a witness. In this case, it is Israel’s gāʾôn (‘arrogance, pride’) that testifies against it (literally, ‘in his face’). The term may also refer to Yahweh’s ‘majesty’ (e.g. Exod. 15:7; Isa. 2:19; 24:14), and it is possible that ‘Israel’s pride’ here is Yahweh (cf. Amos 8:7), who testifies against them. It is more likely, though, that Israel’s arrogant self-reliance gives further evidence of the nation’s guilt (Glenny 2013: 104; Moon 2018: 102). This hubris may be linked to Israel’s relative prosperity during the reign of Jeroboam II, which appears to have led to complacency (cf. Amos 5:18–20; 6:1). The consequence of such arrogance is that, like the priests and prophets, the nation stumbles (cf. 4:5) and cannot walk the path that Yahweh has set out for it.
In the second part of verse 5, the mt presents Israel and Ephraim, which are synonyms in previous verses, as distinct (esv; cf. nrsv), leading to the suggestion that there may have been factions within the northern kingdom.38 Sin, though, affects the whole nation, and the southern kingdom of Judah is also implicated.
Going with flocks and herds to seek [bāqaš] the Lord (v. 6) refers to people taking animals for sacrifice (cf. Exod. 10:9). Generally, seeking ‘the Lord’ is something positive (e.g. Deut. 4:29; Zeph. 2:3; Zech. 8:20–23) and may indicate repentance (cf. 3:5; 5:15; Isa. 55:6–7; Jer. 50:4). Here, though, it appears to suggest reliance on ritual which, without a right attitude, proves fruitless. It may also reflect arrogance in taking Yahweh for granted and supposing that he will be available when they choose to seek him (Glenny 2013: 104). But though they seek him, they will not find him,39 because Yahweh has withdrawn himself from them (cf. 5:15).
In verse 7, Israel is accused of having ‘dealt faithlessly with the Lord’ (nrsv; cf. 6:7), pointing to the nation’s infidelity in worshipping other gods. The outcome is the birth of illegitimate [literally, ‘strange’] children. This may refer to children born as a result of the promiscuity associated with the cult. The primary reference, though, as with the equivalent expression ‘children of whoredom’ (1:2, nrsv), appears to be to a generation which, because of the failure of its spiritual leaders, is also unfaithful to Yahweh (Glenny 2013: 105). The consequence of this endemic infidelity is the devouring of Israel’s fields (cf. 2:9, 12).
While its general meaning is clear, the precise translation of the last part of verse 7 is difficult.40 The nrsv and esv (cf. niv mg.) follow the mt: ‘Now the new moon shall devour them [along] with their fields’ (Garrett 1997: 146–147; Dearman 2010: 170; Moon 2018: 98; cf. Ben Zvi 2005: 133–134). Hōdeš (‘new moon’) may refer to the New Moon festival (cf. niv), which was part of Israel’s traditional worship but had become corrupted by its association with Baal (cf. 2:11). The sense might then be that Israel’s corrupt worship, far from ensuring prosperity, is responsible for the judgment that results in the loss of the land and its produce. Alternatively, the niv reading takes Yahweh as the subject of devour and hōdeš as the time when divine judgment will take place.41 Common to both translations is the idea that the coming devastation is linked with Israel’s unfaithfulness and corrupt worship practices.
This section begins a direct indictment of the nation. The first part is reminiscent of a covenant lawsuit, reminding the people of their failure to live up to the responsibilities of their relationship with Yahweh. Three key qualities are lacking: faithfulness, ḥesed and the knowledge of God. This is apparent in Israel’s idolatrous worship, which the prophet describes as spiritual adultery. However, this cannot be separated from behaviour. A failure to understand who God is leads to a compromised understanding of what he requires and this, in turn, results in a lack of moral restraint, including sexual promiscuity, drunkenness, law-breaking, violence and actions that transgress the bounds of common decency. And the further the people go down this path, and the more endemic their infidelity becomes, the more it takes control of their lives and the more difficult it is for them to turn back to Yahweh.
An important factor, again, is the failure of spiritual leadership, and much of the blame for the people’s sin is directed towards the priests. Those who should know better, and who should be directing the people in the right way, are themselves corrupt. They have a responsibility to the community of believers, and failure to live up to that responsibility results in divine judgment (cf. Ezek. 34:1–10; Jas 3:1) and the existence of a generation that shares their unfaithfulness. However, though priests bear much of the blame, the people are not thereby exempt from responsibility, and the whole nation faces judgment.
Sin has implications for individuals, particularly for the priests, and for the community, in terms of the loss of land and its produce. Its seriousness is seen in its effect, too, on the created order. A further devastating consequence is Yahweh’s withdrawal from the people. They have forsaken him and turned to other gods and so may no longer know the blessings associated with his presence. However, as subsequent passages indicate, because of his continuing love, this is temporary (cf. 5:15), and however difficult it may be for the people to return, judgment is tempered with the hope of eventual restoration.
The trumpet blasts and warnings in the opening verses suggest a military conflict, primarily between north and south. This is widely viewed as the Syro-Ephraimite war and the Assyrian invasion of Israel that followed.42 That seems a likely backdrop to these verses. However, it is possible, too, that the Syro-Ephraimite war provides only the latest episode in a long-running dispute between Israel and Judah (Macintosh 1997: 195–198; see also on 5:8), and Hosea also has that wider picture in view. Because of the context, references to Judah here are not generally regarded as part of a later redaction.43
This is the first of a series of oracles that appears to run through to 7:16, maybe focusing on events around 733 bc. Commentators are not agreed on how to divide the sections. Wolff (1974: 110–112) takes this as a single unit, though it may be better, with Dearman (2010: 179), to see it as a collection, linked by key words and themes. Most, however, take 5:8–15 as a single coherent unit which follows on from the theme of judgment in 5:1–7.
8. The towns mentioned here, Gibeah, Ramah and Beth Aven,44 are in the territory of Benjamin. All lie close to the Israel–Judah border and so are likely to be caught up in any conflict between them.
The relationship between Benjamin and the kingdoms of Israel and Judah is unclear. When the kingdom divided, Benjamin appears to have supported Judah (1 Kgs 12:21; cf. 2 Chr. 11:5–12). However, some Benjamite towns, such as Bethel, remained, at first, part of the northern kingdom, and it seems likely that the territory of Benjamin became divided, with both north and south vying for possession.45 Judah appears to have captured territory as far north as Bethel in the early days of the divided monarchy (2 Chr. 13:19). Later, Israel was temporarily in possession of Ramah, with Judah then retaking territory up to Mizpah (1 Kgs 15:16–17, 22). Israel’s hold on the region is likely to have been re-established in the eighth century bc, when Jehoash defeated Judah and attacked Jerusalem before returning home (2 Kgs 14:11–14). A less successful advance towards Jerusalem is described during the Syro-Ephraimite war (2 Kgs 16:5). Given the volatility of the Israel–Judah border, it is possible that during Hosea’s ministry these three towns were under Israelite control.46
The sound of the trumpet (šôpār) and horn could be warning of an impending threat, or a call to arms. The third term refers to a shout, and this, too, may be an alarm (nrsv, esv) or a battle cry (niv).47 The last part of the verse reads simply ‘behind you Benjamin’, and this, too, could be a warning: ‘look behind you’ (nrsv), or a rallying call: ‘we are behind you’ (cf. niv, esv).48 If this is a warning it might indicate Judah’s incursion into Benjamite territory, possibly after the intervention of Assyria in the Syro-Ephraimite war, to recover land previously lost to Israel (Mays 1969: 86–88; Stuart 1987: 101; Hubbard 1989: 118–121; Achtemeier 1996: 48; Macintosh 1997: 194–198). There is no explicit biblical reference to such a counter-attack, but it is not unlikely, given the history of border disputes. The order in which the towns are listed might also suggest an advance from south to north, and this is consistent, too, with the reference to Judah removing boundary stones (v. 10). If this is a call to arms, it might be an encouragement to Benjamin to resist Judah’s incursion. The limited historical evidence makes a firm conclusion impossible, and while a counter-attack by Judah seems the most likely setting, the primary concern is the internecine conflict between Israel and Judah, which Hosea regards as sinful (cf. 1:11), and which will result in judgment on both nations.
9. The result of divine judgment is that Ephraim, which appears here to refer to the whole of the northern kingdom, will be laid waste (šammâ). This will take place on the day of reckoning. This expression occurs only here and may refer to coming judgment at the hands of Assyria. Or it may be similar to the ‘Day of the Lord’, when Yahweh would intervene decisively in world history (Stuart 1987: 103; Dearman 2010: 184). Israel expected this event to bring vindication, the defeat of their enemies and restoration (cf. 2:16–23). However, it would also bring judgment on God’s unfaithful people (cf. Amos 5:18–20). The ‘Day of the Lord’ is associated with the ‘desolation [šammâ] of the earth’ in Isaiah 13:9 (cf. Hos. 4:3), and that future devastation may be foreshadowed by Israel’s defeat by Assyria.
The second part of the verse emphasizes the certainty of coming judgment, and notes that its proclamation is among the tribes of Israel. In the Old Testament, tribes of Israel generally relates to the nation before the division of the kingdom, though it is also associated with God’s choice of Jerusalem (e.g. 1 Kgs 8:16; 11:32; 14:21; 2 Kgs 21:7) and with Ezekiel’s vision of a restored and reunited nation (Ezek. 47:21; 48:19, 29, 31). Here, Hosea refers to the northern kingdom as Ephraim, and tribes of Israel appears to indicate the whole nation, including Judah. This suggests the ideal of a united people of God, which is undermined by hostility between the northern and southern kingdoms (cf. Emmerson 1984: 68–69, 99).
10. Focus on the whole nation continues with an indictment of Judah. If the primary context here is the Syro-Ephraimite war, the northern kingdom is the main aggressor. However, the leaders of Judah – probably a reference to military commanders, officials and the royal house – have also undermined the unity of God’s people by acting like those who move boundary stones. The term gĕbûl refers to the border of national and local territories. It may also refer to the marker that separates neighbouring plots of land; moving that marker in an attempt to appropriate property was condemned as a breach of covenant responsibility (Deut. 19:14; 27:17; cf. Job 24:2; Prov. 15:25; 22:28; 23:10). In the Old Testament, this use of the term relates to local, rather than national, boundaries. That may explain the inclusion of like. Annexing northern towns might not involve the actual movement of boundary markers, but it represents the same kind of covenant violation as when a local landowner attempts to steal a neighbour’s land.49 The mt refers to Yahweh pouring out his wrath ‘like water’ (nrsv, esv). As this is referring to judgment the niv is probably right in interpreting it as like a flood of water. Isaiah 8:7 uses similar language when referring to Assyria as an instrument of divine judgment on Judah. This may also allude to the reversal of creation (cf. 4:3) and the return of chaotic waters as a symbol of judgment (cf. Amos 5:8; 9:6) (cf. Routledge 2008a: 133–136; 2010: 85–86).
11. The focus of judgment now moves back again to Ephraim. The nation will be oppressed (ʿāšaq) and trampled (rāṣaṣ). The same terms describe injustices within Israelite society (Amos 4:1) and so represent appropriate retribution. They also occur together in the list of covenant curses (Deut. 28:33). This will come about through the coming Assyrian invasion.50
The particular sin mentioned here is Israel’s intent to go after ṣāw. The meaning of this term is unclear (cf. Macintosh 1997: 204–205). Its only other occurrences are in Isaiah 28:10, 13, where it is repeated with other short sounds, maybe to reproduce the meaningless ramblings of drunkards (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 409; Stuart 1987: 97, 99). The lxx (cf. nrsv) relates it to an Arabic term meaning ‘empty, worthless’ (Wolff 1974: 104; Achtemeier 1996: 48; Macintosh 1997: 204; Dearman 2010: 180). Another suggestion is that it is a shortened form of a word meaning ‘filth’ (cf. esv; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 399; Moon 2018: 105, 110–111), maybe referring to idols (niv). The sense seems to be of something disgusting or of no account. In a political context, it may refer to Israel’s alliance with Syria, or its overtures to Assyria (Hubbard 1989: 123; cf. Macintosh 1997: 205).
12–14. With the northern and southern kingdoms having been indicted separately, they are now placed together and face parallel judgment for their mutual hostility. Moth (ʿāš) and rot (rāqāb) in verse 12 indicate decay. In the Old Testament, ʿāš is associated with the destruction of clothes (e.g. Isa. 50:9; 51:8), though it may also refer to maggots (cf. nrsv) that infest open wounds (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 412; Garrett 1997: 153), or to the pus associated with sores (Wolff 1974: 104; Stuart 1987: 97, 105).51 Rot relates to wood (Isa. 40:20) and to bones (e.g. Prov. 12:4; 14:30; Hab. 3:16), and so may also indicate bodily decay. The terms occur in parallel in Job 13:28, referring to wasting away. The sense may be that Yahweh will cause Ephraim and Judah to waste away, or, when taken alongside verse 13, it may point to the putrefaction associated with wounds that are left unattended, or even aggravated by Yahweh.
Ephraim’s and Judah’s response to their wounds was to turn to Assyria (v. 13). The verse does not specifically note Judah’s dependence on Assyria, though in the light of the parallelism in the verse some take Judah as the subject of sent to the great king (Hubbard 1989: 123; Macintosh 1997: 209). The northern kingdom elicited Assyrian support under Menahem, and, following the death of Pekah, Hoshea relied on Assyria to secure his appointment.52 In the south, Ahaz asked Assyria for help against the Syro-Ephraimite coalition, and consequently Judah, too, became an Assyrian vassal. It is also possible that Hosea deliberately breaks the parallelism at this point to focus on Ephraim (cf. Wolff 1974: 115; Emmerson 1984: 70). In either case, dependence on Assyria is condemned. The wound, here represented as a weeping sore (māzôr), has been inflicted by God, and neither Assyria nor anything else apart from God can offer healing.
Great king translates melek yārēb. This means, literally, ‘a king who contends’ (Ben Zvi 2005: 143) or it may refer to an otherwise unknown ‘King Jareb’. Dividing the Hebrew words differently (malkî rāb) gives the more likely reading great king,53 referring to the Assyrian ruler (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 413–414; Stuart 1987: 99; Garrett 1997: 154; Moon 2018: 105–106).54 Its use here is probably ironic: even the so-called ‘great king’ is no match for Yahweh.
The parallelism between Judah and Ephraim resumes in verse 14. Yahweh will come against both as a lion55 which tears and devours its prey. This emphasizes the ferocity of Yahweh’s judgment and so, also, the extent and seriousness of the people’s sin. The futility of seeking help elsewhere is also highlighted: there is no one to rescue them.
15. The purpose of judgment is that the people will, in their distress, turn, not to Assyria, but to Yahweh. In the meantime God withdraws. Continuing the imagery of God as a lion, the niv interprets māqôm (‘place’, cf. nrsv, esv) as lair. While this may refer to Yahweh the lion taking his prey to his lair (Moon 2018: 111–112), it seems better to see it, again, as Yahweh’s withdrawal from the people (cf. 5:6), leaving them to face their distress. However, in stark contrast to 5:6, there is the implication that, when the people are in earnest about turning to him, he may be found, and is able to offer the healing that is available nowhere else. The people cannot escape the suffering associated with their guilt, but its aim, emphasized by parallel references, is that they will seek (bāqaš) his face and earnestly search him out (šāḥar).
A key theme in these verses is the judgment on both nations because of their hostility to one another. The conflict between Israel and Judah, in both the Syro-Ephraimite war and numerous border incidents over a long period, threatens the unity of the people. Yahweh’s desire is for one people that can stand as a witness to the nations, but that is undermined by continuing rivalry and infighting. This remains a serious problem for the church today, where division can undermine its effectiveness for service.
Another feature is the horrific imagery associated with divine judgment. This indicates the seriousness with which God takes sin, and the desperate state of those who have turned from him. But that very desperation is intended to drive them to recognize their guilt, to seek God and to find healing. For the world today, the horrific image of Christ dying on the cross proclaims that same message of judgment and hope for those who put their trust in him.
The desperation of Israel and Judah led them to turn instead to Assyria. These verses emphasize the futility of asking for help from anyone but Yahweh. In earlier chapters, he removed blessings that the people associated with Baal in order to demonstrate their true source. Here, he withdraws from the people until they recognize their need of him. The people of God in every generation face the temptation to put confidence in other things. But for all its military might, the extent of its empire and the ‘greatness’ of its king, Assyria’s power is no match for God’s. Nothing is. God alone is the source of his people’s help and strength, and believers then and now need to depend on him.
The emphasis here is on the lack of true repentance by Ephraim and Judah. The first section (6:1–3) uses language similar to that in the previous verses and appears to be a response to the judgment announced there. The nature of the response, though, is debated.56 It may be spoken by the people (Wolff 1974: 116–117; Hubbard 1989: 124–125; Achtemeier 1996: 50), led by the priests, possibly as a formal expression of penitence in the light of the disastrous consequences of the Syro-Ephraimite war. If so, the following verses, which point to the people’s insincerity (6:4–6) and covenant unfaithfulness (6:7–11a), and which include a further catalogue of sins which prevent a true turning back to Yahweh (6:11b – 7:2), indicate that their repentance does not go far enough. However, there is nothing in 6:1–3 to suggest that it is not genuine, and it may be better to see it instead as a call by Hosea, setting out what the people need to do (Stuart 1987: 107; Garrett 1997: 156–157; Macintosh 1997: 216–219; Moon 2018: 114). The rest of the section makes it clear, though, that this is not forthcoming. In either case, the people’s response to God falls short of what it needs to be (Dearman 2010: 191–193).
1–3. Verse 1 reflects the judgment in the previous section. It repeats the reference to ‘tearing’ (ṭārap) (cf. 5:14), and the idea of binding wounds may reflect the imagery of putrefying sores in 5:12–13, which only Yahweh can cure (rāpāʾ).
Despite the absence of an admission of guilt (Hubbard 1989: 125), the call to return (šûb), which echoes Yahweh’s returning to his place (5:15), seems an appropriate response to the challenge to earnestly seek him (5:15), and is accompanied by the further exhortation to acknowledge (yādaʿ) Yahweh (6:3). The repetition acknowledge . . . press on to acknowledge may also reflect the earnestness called for in 5:15.57 Rādap, translated here ‘to press on’, occurs in 2:7 in relation to Israel ‘chasing after’ her lovers. That futile endeavour is now better directed. As noted already, both šûb and yādaʿ are key terms for Hosea,58 and together they indicate repentance and a right understanding of who God is and what he requires of his people. These verses, so understood, offer the hope of national healing and restoration.
In verse 3, Yahweh’s coming is likened to the sun and rain that ensure the land’s prosperity. In 2:8–13, Yahweh threatens to withdraw his blessings because the people do not acknowledge (yādaʿ) that they come from him, and attribute them instead to Baal. Here, there is a proper recognition of Yahweh as their source, and that, along with the repentance in verse 1, opens the way for assurance that divine blessing will return. ‘Dawn’ (nrsv) suggests hope and a new beginning (cf. Isa. 58:8), though the main emphasis here is on its certainty: however dark the night, dawn will come.59 And with the right response of the people, Yahweh’s coming is also sure. Rain watering the earth is a common image of renewal and restoration (e.g. Isa. 44:3; Joel 2:23). Winter rains here translates a general term for rain (gešem), while spring rains (malqôš), also referred to as ‘latter rain’, refers, more specifically, to the second of the two major periods of rainfall in Israel’s agricultural year (Deut. 11:14; Jer. 5:24). The autumn or early rain softens the ground for sowing; the spring rain provides the crops with the water necessary to continue their growth and ensure a harvest.
Verse 2 begins with two parallel lines:
After two days he will revive us [hāyâ];
on the third day he will restore us [qûm].60
Following the theme of verse 1, this could refer to healing (Mays 1969: 95; Wolff 1974: 117; Eidevall 1996: 95; Macintosh 1997: 220–221; cf. Johnston 2002: 221–222). However, in the Old Testament, hāyâ and qûm appear as a word pair only in reference to resurrection (Isa. 26:14, 19; cf. 2 Kgs 13:21; Job 14:12, 14) (J. Day 2000: 118–119). The distinction between healing a nation at the point of death and restoring it to life may not be too great (Johnston 2002: 222). Nevertheless, the language of death and resurrection is used elsewhere to refer to national restoration (e.g. Isa. 26:19; Ezek. 37), and it seems reasonable to take it that way here (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 420; Stuart 1987: 108; Hubbard 1989: 125; Garret 1997: 158–159; Dearman 2010: 193–194; Moon 2018: 115).61 Thus understood it points to a radical new beginning for the nation: death (cf. 6:5) in the form of defeat and exile and, when all pretensions and false hopes are removed, resurrection to new life.
The significance of three days is also debated. If verse 2 refers to healing, this may indicate a short period.62 With reference to resurrection, one suggestion is that three days may be the time between death and the soul leaving the body (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 420), or when decomposition begins (Hubbard 1989: 125; Pickup 2013). Three days appears frequently in the Old Testament as a significant period of time, and it may be better to take it that way here.63 Resurrection on the third day has a particular resonance with a Christian audience, and when Paul talks about Christ’s resurrection ‘on the third day according to the Scriptures’ (1 Cor. 15:4), he probably has this passage in mind.64 However, links with the New Testament are primarily typological, presenting correspondences between the narratives of God’s people in the Old Testament and Christ, the ideal Israel (Garrett 1997: 159).65 Such correspondences are generally noted in retrospect. The Old Testament sets out patterns of divine activity which are recognized and reapplied by later writers, and that appears to be the significance of ‘according to the Scriptures’. However, in their original context, they are not predictive.66
The resurrection/healing of the nation will result in life in the presence of God, literally ‘before his face’. This echoes the language of 5:15, where Yahweh withdraws until the people ‘seek his face’. The people’s repentance brings not only new life to the nation, but restoration, too, of a broken relationship with Yahweh.
These verses indicate that the call to repentance in verses 1–3, with the hope of recovery and restoration that it might have brought, goes unheeded.
4–6. Verse 4 begins with two rhetorical questions indicating Yahweh’s frustration with Ephraim and Judah, given all he has done for them. Love here translates ḥesed, which is the proper response of the people to Yahweh, and to one another, on the basis of their covenant relationship.67 This, though, is as transient as morning mist or as dew that evaporates quickly in the heat of the day. This suggests that the people may have made some effort, but it was fleeting and has come to nothing.
Verse 5 begins with two parallel lines describing divine judgment. Like the images in 5:11–14, this is portrayed in stark terms. ‘To cut in pieces’ (ḥāṣēb) usually relates to cutting stones, but in Isaiah 51:9 it describes God’s action in defeating Rahab, who is usually viewed as a monster representing chaos68 and so is opposed to the order established in creation. The fate of Israel and Judah, whose sin also challenges the divine order (cf. 4:3), is similar. Less dramatic, but no less severe, is the parallel expression I killed [them]. This judgment is closely associated with the prophets, which parallels the words of my mouth and emphasizes the divine origin and authority of their message. The prophetic role was to call the people back to God and warn them of the dire consequences of continued apostasy. However, when those warnings were not heeded, the prophets had the responsibility, too, to proclaim divine judgment, which, as noted already, was viewed as the death of the nation. The reference is probably to the full sweep of prophets, including Hosea’s own ministry. He refers to Moses in 12:13, and 5:6 may echo Samuel’s conflict with Saul (1 Sam. 15:21–22).
The mt of the last part of verse 5 reads, ‘your judgments the light goes forth’, perhaps pointing to the idea that prophetic announcements shine a light on to the people’s sin (Garrett 1997: 161). By dividing the consonants differently, it may be read as ‘my judgment goes forth like light [ʾôr]’ (so lxx, nrsv, esv and most commentaries). The niv translates ʾôr as sun, possibly echoing the reference to ‘dawn’ (sun rises, 6:3): Yahweh’s deliverance is as sure as the dawn, but where there is no repentance, his judgments are just as sure.
Verse 6 refers again to ḥesed (niv: mercy), which is paralleled with acknowledgment [daʿat] of God. These are important ideas for Hosea, and their absence (along with faithfulness) has already been noted (see on 4:1). They are contrasted with sacrifices and burnt offerings. This does not denigrate sacrifice, and the wider prophetic vision of the future includes animal sacrifices (e.g. Jer. 33:18; Ezek. 40:38–43; 46; Zech. 14:21; Mal. 1:11). However, Yahweh does not desire cultic observance which seeks to manipulate rather than respond properly to him, and ḥesed and the knowledge of God emphasize the importance of relationship with him. Sacrifices offered with the right inner attitude remain important, and will do so until Christ’s death makes them unnecessary (Routledge 2009).
7–9. The mt of the first part of verse 7 reads, ‘they, like Adam, have transgressed [ʿābar] the covenant [bĕrît]’. Some take Adam as a reference to the first human being (Achtemeier 1996: 53; McComiskey 1998: 95; Moon 2018: 127–130).69 Allusions to creation (4:3) and to the covenant with Noah (2:18) indicate that Hosea was familiar with Israel’s prehistory. And, while no covenant is specifically associated with Adam, there may have been a more general relationship implicit within the act of creation and confirmed in the covenant with Noah (Routledge 2008a: 164–165, 321). Adam’s disobedience, then, exemplifies Israel’s current violation of its covenant obligations. There are, though, no other references to Adam in the prophetic books, suggesting that the comparison was not widely recognized. A further problem is that Adam is the antecedent of ‘there’, which usually indicates a place. Moon (2018: 127–129) suggests it may refer instead to a rhetorical scenario, though the examples he notes (6:10; 13:8) could still indicate locations. The majority of translations and commentators take it as a place and read ‘at/in Adam’ (nrsv, niv; cf. Andersen and Freedman 1980: 437–439; Hubbard 1989: 128; Macintosh 1997: 67; Dearman 2010: 189, 197), referring to the town mentioned in Joshua 3:16. This is not directly associated with covenant unfaithfulness, however. Joshua 3:16–17 uses the same verb ʿābar (‘to cross, transgress’) to refer to Israel crossing the Jordan and also refers to bĕrît (‘covenant’). This suggests a possible allusion to that earlier, better time (cf. 2:15). If, as seems likely, the place is the focus, there may have been a contemporary incident at Adam that we are unaware of. One suggestion is that Adam was linked with the rebellion of Pekah, which had the support of men from Gilead (v. 7; cf. 2 Kgs 15:25). On this view, insurrection spread from Adam to Shechem (v. 9), and eventually to Samaria, where it resulted in the assassination of Pekahiah (Macintosh 1997: 238; Dearman 2010: 197–198; see also J. Day 1986a: 6). Andersen and Freedman suggest that at Adam, which is in the region of Gilead (v. 8),70 travellers on the road to Shechem were murdered by bands of priests (v. 9), who may have been on their way to join Pekah’s rebellion (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 432, 436; cf. Hubbard 1989: 128–129). Achtemeier suggests that it refers to hostility by the priests to the levitical reformers whose movement may have centred on Shechem (1996: 54). While no explanation is entirely satisfactory, a key emphasis appears to be on political upheaval, possibly in the context of Pekah’s uprising, which in turn precipitated the Syro-Ephraimite war, in which the priests played a significant part. But it is possible that the text has multiple meanings: the current covenant violations at Adam recall the sin of the first human (Garrett 1997: 162–163; cf. Curtis 2009), and Israel’s unfaithfulness contrasts with God’s faithfulness in opening the way into the Promised Land.
Mention of Shechem (v. 9) may also recall previous internecine conflict. Abimelek was made king there after killing his brothers (Judg. 9:1–6), and the city was the centre of Jeroboam’s rebellion that led to the division of the kingdom (cf. 1 Kgs 12:1, 25).
Sin is described in various ways. Breaking the covenant (v. 7) is paralleled with being unfaithful (bāgad). The term means ‘to act treacherously’. It is also associated with marital unfaithfulness (5:7; cf. Jer. 3:20; 9:2), and so links to the reference to prostitution in verse 10 and may reflect the corruption within the priesthood. Hostility between north and south may also be viewed as a covenant violation. The city’s evildoers (v. 8) are stained with footprints of blood,71 indicating the violent nature of their crimes. That is followed by the more specific reference to murder (v. 9), by gangs of priests who are likened to marauders (gĕdûd) who lie in wait to ambush travellers. Wicked schemes refers to general acts of villainy, though includes sexual depravity (e.g. Lev. 19:29; 20:14; Judg. 20:6; Jer. 13:27; Ezek. 23:48–49), a charge that has already been levelled at the priesthood (cf. 4:14).
10–11a. This summarizes the nation’s guilt. Yahweh himself is witness to what is described as ‘something horrible’. In keeping with the wider theme of the book, this is specifically linked with prostitution (zĕnût). This may include turning to other nations, including Syria and Assyria, but may also refer to actual immorality. This is evident throughout the nation (literally, ‘in the house of Israel’). This brings defilement (cf. 5:3), ritual uncleanness that would normally exclude them from God’s presence. The reference to Ephraim alongside Israel may again indicate the factions in Israel noted in 5:5. Most translations and commentators read the reference to Judah in 6:11a with 6:10 (though see Stuart 1987: 98, 112), and this may indicate that same threefold division.
Harvest (v. 11a) appears in the context of judgment in Jeremiah 51:33 and Joel 3:13. Most link this with judgment on Judah, though if, following the lxx, the first words of 6:11 are included with 6:10 (‘Israel is defiled, also Judah’), it might relate to the whole nation (Moon 2018: 122). It is not necessary to view the reference to Judah as a later addition. The Syro-Ephraimite war brought condemnation of both kingdoms.
11b – 7:2. Like 6:1–3, the first part of this section indicates that Yahweh does not seek to destroy his people, but instead offers the possibility of restoration and healing. Restore (6:11b) translates šûb and echoes the call in 6:1. If the people return to Yahweh, he will restore [their] fortunes. This expression appears more than twenty times in the Old Testament, usually in the context of deliverance from exile,72 and this fits with Hosea’s view of coming judgment (cf. 8:13; 9:3; 10:5–6; 11:5–6). Restoration is paralleled with healing (rāpāʾ), which again reflects the language of 6:1. The reference to iniquity suggests that healing may be linked with forgiveness (see O’Kennedy 2001).
However, as in 6:1–3, repentance is not forthcoming. The parallel expressions the sins [ăwôn] of Ephraim are exposed and the crimes [rāʿâ] of Samaria [revealed]73 emphasize the failure of the nation. The reference to Samaria also indicates that 6:11b – 7:2 is aimed primarily at the northern kingdom. The people practise deceit. Thieves break into homes; bandits (gĕdûd; cf. 6:9) rob in the streets. The link with 6:9 suggests that the main target here may be Israel’s priests. And the perpetrators do not realise (‘do not say to their heart’) that Yahweh is aware of all their evil (rāʿâ). Their deeds engulf (literally, ‘surround’) them, hemming them in and preventing their escape. At the same time, their sins are before Yahweh’s face, and stand between him and the restoration that he wants to bring.
A key idea in this section is God’s willingness to restore his people. Here it occurs twice: in the call to repentance in 6:1–3, and in the expression of frustration in 6:11:a – 7:1a. This is an important theme in the opening chapters but has faded from view with the catalogue of Israel’s sin in chapters 4 and 5. In the divine purpose, though, it is never far away. Sin brings judgment, which is described here in sometimes graphic terms. The people need to be aware of the seriousness of their situation. Yet, despite their failure, if they are prepared to turn back to God, he will reverse the judgment and give healing and new life. Looking at the promise of national resurrection ‘on the third day’, a Christian audience will be reminded of the true basis for restoration: the death and resurrection of Jesus.
However, the response needed by the people is not forthcoming. That is, perhaps, not surprising when those who should be giving a spiritual lead, the priests, are themselves involved in political conspiracy and murder. The priesthood has already been the subject of damning indictment (4:4 – 5:7). Here that criticism continues, and highlights again the particular responsibility of those called to positions of spiritual leadership.
Another problem is the people’s failure to demonstrate ḥesed (6:4, 6; cf. 4:1). The importance of this term for the prophecy has already been noted. Its repetition here emphasizes God’s desire for a meaningful relationship with his people. Here it is contrasted with religious ritual, which has its place but must never be allowed to take the place of devotion and love.
The focus on Ephraim in 7:1–2 provides a bridge from the wider indictment of all the people to what appears to be a more specific indictment of the northern kingdom.
The reference to a baker’s oven (7:4, 7) marks verses 3–7 as a separate subsection, dealing primarily with internal political intrigue (cf. 6:9). The setting may be the Syro-Ephraimite war and its aftermath, though it may have wider significance. Reference to kings falling (v. 7b) will include the assassination of Pekahiah by Pekah, though may indicate, too, the death of Pekah at the hands of Hoshea (2 Kgs 15:30) and, possibly, earlier murders leading to Menahem’s accession (2 Kgs 15:8–14). Calling on Assyria (v. 11) may reflect Hoshea’s request for support after the Syro-Ephraimite conflict (2 Kgs 17:3), though may also relate to Menahem (2 Kgs 15:19).
Verses 8–16 focus on Israel’s relationship with the nations. The reference to Egypt (v. 11) may allude to Hoshea enlisting Egyptian support for his eventual rebellion against Assyria (2 Kgs 17:4), so may be later than the previous verses. The two subsections are linked by the baking imagery (7:8) and may be best viewed as a single unit (Ben Zvi 2005: 149–150; Lim and Castelo 2015: 136). Even if taken separately, they may be seen to represent complementary aspects of Israel’s unfaithfulness (Dearman 2010: 207). Andersen and Freedman (1980: 447, 462) take the two sections to reflect aspects of ‘the state of the nation’.
3. They here appears to refer to an unidentified group of conspirators, possibly the priests, noted in 6:9 (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 447; Hubbard 1989: 132), though Garrett (1997: 168) sees a more general reference to those in power. Wickedness (rāʿâ) is mentioned for the third time in three verses, highlighting its all-pervasiveness; the parallel with lies (kāḥaš; cf. 10:13; 11:12) suggests that while the term has wider implications, the main issue here is conspiracy.
The parallel references to king and princes probably indicate the whole royal court (cf. 7:5; 8:10). Their delight in the lies of the conspirators may indicate that wickedness reaches the highest levels of society (cf. 5:1) (Moon 2018: 135), and perhaps more specifically points to the joy of the new king and officials as the beneficiaries of conspiracy (Mays 1969: 104; Wolff 1974: 124; Hubbard 1989: 132). Another possibility is that pleasing the royal court is part of the conspirators’ treachery (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 448; Garrett 1997: 163; Dearman 2010: 202): they curry favour with a view to assassination. The latter is perhaps more likely (cf. v. 5), though in the light of frequent changes in monarchy, it may have elements of both: the new regime celebrates its position, while others await their opportunity.
4. They and all refer to the same group as in verse 3. Adulterers is a common theme in the prophecy (cf. 3:1; 4:2, 13, 14) and in this context probably indicates disloyalty to Yahweh (Hubbard 1989: 132; Macintosh 1997: 257; Dearman 2010: 203): the spiritual counterpart to political treachery.
The oven (tannûr) would usually be used to bake bread. It is likely to have been an upright clay cylinder with a fire in the bottom that would be allowed to burn very hot (Ross 1996: 434; Curtis 2001). When it was hot enough, dough would be pressed on to the inside of its upper walls to bake. The heat of the oven might indicate the burning ambition that drives treachery (cf. vv. 6, 7).
The significance of the baker is unclear. Andersen and Freedman (1980: 456; cf. Hubbard 1989: 132–133) see this as an official who should protect the king but whose inattentiveness allows his downfall (cf. v. 6). Garrett (1997: 169) sees a reference to the king himself, whose inactivity allows treachery to flourish. More likely, the baker is part of the oven simile. Despite needing little attention from the baker while the dough is rising, the oven remains hot, suggesting the unseen growth of conspiracy (Wolff 1974: 124–125; Macintosh 1997: 258–259; cf. Dearman 2010: 203). Paul (1968: 116) takes this to indicate periods when the baker left the fire smouldering, before stirring it up again. This corresponds to the fire being left overnight, before being brought to life in the morning (v. 6). Alternatively, the baker’s neglect could allow the fire to burn too hot, and thus indicates desire that is out of control (Moon 2018: 135; cf. Hubbard 1989: 132–133).
5. The day of the festival of our king (niv; literally, ‘the day of our king’; cf. nrsv, esv) is likely to refer to a feast held to honour the king, though specific details are not given.
Inflamed with wine (niv) translates more literally as ‘sick with the heat of wine’ (nrsv, esv). The verb ḥalâ could be translated ‘to be ill’, suggesting general drunkenness, in which the inebriated king reached out to mockers, possibly those plotting against him. In the Hiphil, ḥalâ more usually means ‘to make ill’. Garrett (1997: 167) suggests that the princes make the king ill, though kings and princes are better taken together. A more likely translation is ‘they make the princes ill’, where ‘they’ relates to the ‘mockers’, who use the intoxication of the king and those around him to further their conspiracy. On this interpretation, verse 3 points to deceiving the king and princes in order to overthrow them, rather than being part of the conspiracy that brought them to power.
Macintosh (1997: 261) suggests that the relatively sympathetic reference to our king indicates that this refers to the assassination of Pekahiah, the only king in Israel’s recent history who had not seized the throne by violence. However, while particular situations may be in view, the details are unclear, and it is better to focus on the more general picture of a royal court seething with intrigue.
6–7. These verses continue the imagery of the oven. Again, the text is difficult, though the overall theme of burning ambition, deception and conspiracy leading to the overthrow of kings seems clear.
The mt of verse 6 reads: ‘For they approach, their hearts like an oven, in their ambush. All night their baker (is) sleeping. In the morning it burns like a raging fire.’ The first part is relatively straightforward. Lust for power burns like an oven in the hearts of the conspirators as they set their ambush (for the king). The idea of ambush reflects the image in 6:9 of robbers lying in wait, and reinforces the view that the plotters may be priests. ‘Their baker’ seems obscure. Some retain it (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 447; Hubbard 1989: 132–133; Garrett 1997: 168; Moon 2018: 133), and the reference to him sleeping may correspond to his lack of attention in verse 4. Most translations, though, emend the pointing to read ‘their passion/anger’ (cf. niv, nrsv). Both suggest that, just as a baker’s fire smoulders through the night (while the baker sleeps) before being brought to life in the morning, so treachery bides its time, waiting for the time when it will become a raging fire.
The heat of the oven is noted again in verse 7, where it is specifically linked with devouring the nation’s rulers (šōpĕṭîm). This term may also be translated ‘judges’, referring to those responsible for administering justice. This includes the king and probably the princes already mentioned. The oven of lust and ambition has become so hot that it consumes the institutions of state that maintain government and ensure fairness and decency in society.
The reference to kings falling probably refers to the assassinations of four kings between the deaths of Jeroboam and Hoshea, though might be more pertinent at the time of Menahem, who acceded to the throne after two kings were killed in the space of a month. Significantly here, Yahweh was excluded, and this is particularly pertinent if priests were involved in the conspiracy. Each new regime may have claimed religious legitimacy. Yahweh, though, distances himself from them. There may also be an ironic allusion to the charge already levelled, that the conspirators did not turn to Yahweh but were all too ready to seek help from foreign powers (cf. 5:13).
8–10. The emphasis now changes from internal to international politics. The possible allusion to turning to Assyria (rather than Yahweh) at the end of verse 7 and the continuation of the baking metaphor provide a link with the previous section.
In verse 8, the verb ‘to mix’ (bālal) usually relates to mixing flour and oil to make bread for the grain offering (e.g. Lev. 2:5; 23:13; Num. 6:15), though it also refers to the confusion of languages at Babel (Gen. 11:7, 9). In such a mixture, individual elements become indistinguishable, suggesting that Israel’s involvement with surrounding nations – Syria, Egypt and Assyria – has led to its loss of distinctiveness as God’s people. The second description, Ephraim is a flat loaf not turned over, also relates to bread-making: dough needed to be turned during baking, otherwise one side would be uncooked and the other burnt. Ephraim here is half overdone and half underdone. This may further indicate Ephraim’s loss of identity. It may hint, too, at the inattentiveness of the baker (7:4, 6), here referring to the nation’s leaders.
A significant feature of verse 9 is the repeated reference to ‘he does not know it’ (nrsv, esv).74 The nation, caught up in political intrigue and foreign alliances, remains unaware of how desperate its condition is. Foreigners sap [literally, ‘eat, devour’] his strength probably refers to the economic and agricultural consequences of paying tribute to foreign powers. His hair is sprinkled with grey (niv) is better translated ‘grey hairs are sprinkled upon him’ (nrsv, esv). This is usually understood to refer to the loss of physical vitality associated with old age: Ephraim has become weak but does not know it! It may be better, though, to relate śêbah (‘grey hairs, old age’) to an Akkadian word referring to the white-haired mould that grows on bread (Paul 1968: 118–120; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 467; Hubbard 1989: 137–138; Garrett 1997: 170), thus pointing to the decay that pervades the nation. This might then suggest a pairing of ideas in verses 8–9: Ephraim mixes with the nations/foreigners devour his strength; Ephraim is an unturned loaf/mould is spread on him (cf. Andersen and Freedman 1980: 467).
In verse 10, Israel’s arrogance testifies against him repeats the beginning of 5:5. It points to the self-reliance that contrasts with trust in Yahweh, and, ironically, confidence in the ability to negotiate foreign alliances (cf. 7:11). Again, that arrogance is linked with their failure to return (šûb) to God (cf. 5:4). The language (‘return’, ‘seek’, ‘Yahweh their God’) echoes 3:5, where it points to future restoration. For the moment, though, the nation is oblivious to the seriousness of its plight and, despite everything (despite all this), it looks elsewhere for help, rather than to the one who alone can secure its future.
11–12. Ephraim is further likened to a senseless dove (v. 11), flying first one way, then another. Two expressions sum up the nation’s folly. Easily deceived (pātah) suggests simple-mindedness, naïvety and gullibility. Senseless translates, literally, ‘without heart’, and, because the heart (lēb) was the seat of the will, indicates an inability to make sound judgments.75 That has led to vacillation between Assyria and Egypt, depending on which seemed better able to provide the help needed. Calling (qārāʾ) to Egypt contrasts with the nation’s unwillingness to ‘call’ on Yahweh (v. 7), and the futility of turning (literally, ‘going’ [hālak]) to Assyria has already been noted (5:13).
The verb ‘to go’ (hālak) is repeated at the start of verse 12. When they go, Yahweh will intervene directly to frustrate their plans. A fowler laid bait, and when a bird, tempted by the bait, came to the ground, the fowler caught it in his net. Here Ephraim is lured by the apparent security of Egypt or Assyria, but that security is illusory and will bring disaster.
The last part of verse 12 is difficult. The mt reads literally, ‘I will discipline them according to the report to their assembly’ (cf. nrsv, esv).76 This probably refers to the report to an Israelite assembly of negotiations with a foreign power,77 though Moon’s suggestion that it refers to Yahweh’s words delivered to the assembly by the prophet (2018: 139–140) is also possible. The details of any such assembly are unknown, but condemnation of agreements with other nations is clear (cf. 12:1).
13. The first part of verse 13 comprises parallel lines announcing divine judgment. Woe to them implies a threat, specified as destruction. Strayed (nādad) often occurs in the context of fleeing (e.g. Isa. 21:15; 22:3), and this is paralleled with the charge of rebellion. Ephraim has rejected Yahweh’s authority and runs from him, and so must face the consequences.
Again, though, alongside the threat of judgment we see Yahweh’s willingness to restore his people. Redeem (pādâ) implies rescue, usually with the payment of a price (cf. Exod. 13:15; Num. 18:15) (cf. Hubbard 1996b), and echoes Hosea’s own experience of buying back his wayward wife. It also recalls the exodus (cf. Deut. 7:8; 9:26; 15:15), and that is seen, further, in similarities in structure between verses 13 and 15 (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 473; cf. Garrett 1997: 172). However, the people have refused. Speak . . . falsely suggests misrepresentation of Yahweh. This was, no doubt, rife within a syncretistic worship system promoted by a corrupt priesthood, and it prevented the kind of response that would open the way for redemption.
14–15. Israel’s failure to offer a sincere response to Yahweh is further highlighted in verse 14. The people have cried out (zāʿq) to God in the past (e.g. Exod. 2:23; Judg. 3:9; 1 Sam. 7:8–9). Their prayer here, though, is insincere. It is not from their hearts, indicating a lack of will and commitment. Instead, they wail on their beds. This may refer to anguish that prevents sleep or, more likely, to fertility rituals, linked to lamenting the death of Baal (Garrett 1997: 174). Self-laceration is also associated with Baal worship (1 Kgs 18:28; cf. Jer. 49:3).78 These actions are to ensure the provision of grain and new wine. In chapter 2, this is attributed to Baal rather than Yahweh (cf. 2:8–9), and by engaging in these fertility rituals the people are still making the same mistake.79 They may think they are crying out to Yahweh (cf. 8:2), but their prayer is syncretistic, worshipping him as just another ‘baal’ (cf. 2:16). As the last part of verse 14 indicates, this is no different from turning away from him.
Ignorance of Yahweh’s provision is seen, too, in verse 15, whose structure is similar to that of verse 13b:
I long to redeem them but they speak about me falsely (v. 13).
I trained them . . . but they plot evil against me (v. 15).
Verse 15 recalls the exodus. I trained them (yāsar) reflects Deuteronomy 8:5, where Yahweh disciplines (yāsar) Israel as a father disciplines a child (cf. Prov. 29:17). Strengthened suggests sustained support and encouragement (e.g. Deut. 1:38; 3:28; Josh. 1:9) and is also linked with the occupation of Canaan (Deut. 11:8). Taken with 7:13b, this suggests that Yahweh’s faithfulness to his people in the past, and particularly in the events of the exodus, is reflected in his readiness to redeem them now as before.
In contrast, the people plot evil (rāʿ) against him. Israel’s wickedness (rāʿâ) has already been noted (e.g. 7:1–3).80 Here the emphasis may be on Israel’s attitude: the evil intent and ingratitude which contrast with Yahweh’s help through their history. The link with verse 13b suggests that it includes false representation of Yahweh and what he requires (cf. 7:14).
16. This verse begins with a further play on the term šûb.81 Despite the call to return to Yahweh (cf. 6:1), Israel continues to look elsewhere. According to the mt, they turn to lōʾ ʿal (‘not high/height, not above’).82 The niv relates ʿal (‘height’) to Yahweh: They do not turn to the Most High (cf. 11:7) (see also Moon 2018: 139–140). Andersen and Freedman (1980: 477–478; cf. Hubbard 1989: 142) prefer ‘no god’ (cf. Deut. 32:21). Others, in line with the image of a faulty bow, and with possible support from the lxx, emend to lōʾ yôʿilû (‘no profit’; cf. Jer. 2:8) (nrsv; Mays 1969: 110; Dearman 2010: 207). The sense, though, seems clear: the people do not turn to their only source of help, and, as a result, they have become useless (cf. Jer. 2:5). A faulty bow (cf. Ps. 78:57) is unreliable and dangerous: it may misfire when needed in battle, and possibly injure its user. This may refer to the disastrous consequences of Israel’s unfaithfulness in pursuing foreign alliances.
Continuing the military imagery, Israel’s leaders will fall by the sword. This is because of their insolent words (literally, ‘the anger/indignation [zaʿam] of their tongue’). Zaʿam (cf. Gordon 1996b) often refers to divine wrath associated with judgment (e.g. Isa. 10:5; 30:27; Jer. 10:10; Ezek. 21:31; Hab. 3:12). The verb zāʿam also means ‘to curse’ (e.g. Num. 23:7–8; Mic. 6:10). This suggests that the leaders’ words are tantamount to cursing Yahweh and so are insolent (niv, esv; cf. Mays 1969: 110; Wolff 1974: 108; Moon 2018: 139), or that they bring Yahweh’s wrath (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 479). These, though, amount to the same thing. The words may be the spoken commitments that accompany treaty-making with foreign powers (cf. 7:12) and which are in defiance of the people’s covenant relationship with Yahweh, or the lies spoken about Yahweh (7:13).
A further consequence is that Israel will be ridiculed in Egypt. This may be because of their failed alliance with Assyria, or it may point to the coming exile, which is portrayed as a return to Egypt (8:13; 9:3, 6; cf. Ezek. 36:3). There may, too, be an ironic reference to the exodus (cf. 7:13, 15): those who were brought out of Egypt will become an object of scorn there (Garrett 1997: 175; Dearman 2010: 215).
These verses describe corruption at the highest levels of society. Hardly surprising, therefore, that the nation at large has gone astray. Priests should give instruction, and princes should maintain justice. Instead, those called to lead are consumed by their own ambitious schemes, with dire consequences for themselves and for those they should be serving.
Central to that corruption is the people’s failure to trust God, relying instead on their own devices. Internally, this results in the political conspiracy and intrigue that brings about the rise and fall of kings (7:7; cf. 8:4). On the international scene it includes alliances with stronger nations (cf. 7:11). Putting confidence in other things is a constant temptation for God’s people. He, though, is the only source of true security. Turning elsewhere is arrogant self-deception which may give the impression of strength, but which masks underlying weakness and decay (7:9). It is folly (7:11) and represents rebellion against Yahweh (7:13–14). The result is mockery by enemies, and divine judgment (7:12–13, 16).
However, despite the people’s sin, Yahweh wants to redeem them (7:13). Here we see a further expression of the divine husband’s willingness to restore his unfaithful wife. There is a way back (cf. 7:10, 14), but then, as now, many who are caught up in persistent wrongdoing refuse to admit their need and turn to Yahweh with the kind of meaningful repentance that can open the way for forgiveness and restoration.
This section recalls earlier parts of the prophecy. The reference to the trumpet (šôpār) in 8:1 may deliberately echo 5:8, and the passage continues other themes from 5:8 – 7:16, including internal political corruption (8:4; cf. 7:3–7) and dependence on other nations, especially Assyria (8:8–10; cf. 5:13; 7:11). The notion of Israel going after lovers (8:9) recalls chapter 2, though here it relates to foreign nations rather than other gods. The issues of idolatry and false worship also recur (cf. 4:1 – 5:7). A key emphasis is on the people’s misplaced confidence in their corrupted religion and in other nations, and the judgment that must surely follow.
While there is general agreement that 8:1 marks the beginning of a new section, some view 8:1–14 and 9:1–9 as separate units (Wolff 1974; Macintosh 1997; Ben Zvi 2005: 185; Moon 2018).83 There are, though, common elements (Hubbard 1989: 143; cf. Ben Zvi 2005: 164). As well as having similar themes, both include Hosea’s only references to the house of the Lord (8:1; 9:4; cf. 9:8); using near-identical language, both deliver the same verdict: he will remember their wickedness and punish their sins (8:13; 9:9); and both view punishment as a return to Egypt (8:13; 9:3). It seems reasonable, therefore, to take them as two parts of a single section.
While it is difficult to assign a particular historical context to these verses, the harvest language in 9:1–9 suggests that they were delivered at the feast of Tabernacles, Israel’s autumn harvest celebration (Wolff 1974: 153; Stuart 1987: 141; Hubbard 1989: 155; Dearman 2010: 237; however, cf. Macintosh 1997: 335–336). They appear to emphasize that coming judgment will bring religious celebrations to an end, including offering sacrifices. References to Ephraim and Samaria indicate that this, like the previous section, is directed primarily at the northern kingdom, and the anticipation of imminent judgment (cf. 2 Kgs 17:6) may point to a time late in Hoshea’s reign. Judah is also mentioned briefly (8:14).
1–3. The first part of verse 1 reads literally, ‘to your palate a trumpet, like an eagle/vulture [nešer] over the house of the Lord’. The terseness of the text makes it difficult to be clear about its meaning. Sounding a trumpet might be a warning of impending attack (cf. 5:8), suggesting that the eagle represents an enemy (cf. Deut. 28:49; Jer. 4:13; Hab. 1:8) (nrsv, esv; Achtemeier 1996: 63–64; Eidevall 1996: 127–128; Macintosh 1997: 291; Dearman 2010: 216; Moon 2018: 144).84 Verse 3 also talks about being pursued by an enemy, and there is also a twofold reference to Israel’s sin (vv. 1b, 3a). This suggests a concentric structure, emphasizing judgment as the consequence of sin:
a [one like] an eagle is over the house of the Lord
b because the people have broken my covenant and rebelled against my law.
c Israel cries out to me, ‘Our God, we acknowledge you!’
b′ But Israel has rejected what is good;
a′ an enemy will pursue him.
In this case, 8:1a is addressed to the prophet, who is acting as the nation’s watchman (cf. Ezek. 3:17; 33:7; cf. Hos. 9:8), warning of coming judgment.
The house of the Lord usually refers to the temple (Emmerson 1975; Garrett 1997: 181), but that seems unlikely in a message addressed primarily to the northern kingdom. Here it appears to refer, maybe ironically, to the land (cf. 9:4, 8, 15). Israel were set apart as God’s people through the covenant established at Sinai, but they have broken that covenant relationship and rebelled (cf. 7:13–14) against God’s law (tôrâ).
Verse 2 describes Israel’s empty cry to Yahweh: Our God, we acknowledge [yādaʿ] you!85 This may reflect language used in worship, and many worshippers may believe it to be true. However, the prophet is clear that the people do not know or acknowledge Yahweh (2:8; 5:4; 11:3; cf. 4:1).86 Their worship of Yahweh as just another baal indicates how inadequate their knowledge is. There may also be an implicit rebuke of the priesthood, who were responsible for making Yahweh known.
Verse 3 continues the theme of sin and judgment. Israel has rejected what is good (tôb). This may refer to Yahweh himself, to Israel’s behaviour in failing to act in the way they should as God’s people (cf. Deut. 12:28; Isa. 65:2; Jer. 6:16), or to the prosperity and blessing associated with their relationship with Yahweh (e.g. Deut. 26:11; 28:12; 30:15). All have been spurned by the people, and the consequence is pursuit by an enemy. This is a further example of the punishment corresponding to the crime. Rādap (‘to pursue’) refers to Israel’s vain pursuit of what is wrong (2:7; 12:1) and the failure to press on to know Yahweh (6:3). Here, appropriately, it also refers to Israel’s punishment. The unnamed enemy is probably Assyria.
In these verses, political and religious corruption are closely linked. Political appointments and worship of idols both represent human attempts to ensure security and blessing. But neither takes account of God, and so both will fail.
4. The reference to setting up northern kings and princes (8:4a) echoes 7:3–7 and probably reflects the political intrigues noted there. The appointment of kings is motivated by ruthless ambition, not divine call. Without my consent (niv) translates more literally as ‘not from me’. The parallel expression ‘I did not know [yādaʿ]’ indicates that this was without Yahweh’s acknowledgment and approval (cf. niv), rather than suggesting a lack of awareness (Macintosh 1997: 297; Dearman 2010: 216; Moon 2018: 144). Hosea may not have been against the northern monarchy per se (though see Cook 2004: 107–114). However, in its closing days it had little to commend it, and, as we have seen, Hosea linked hope for the future with a Davidic king (3:5).
Silver and gold are mentioned in the context of Baal worship in 2:8. Here they are explicitly linked with making idols (cf. 13:2). This obsession with idols has already been noted (4:17; cf. 14:8), but it is to no avail. To their own destruction (niv) may be translated ‘with the result that (they) will be cut off’. The subject in the mt is singular, but most English versions and commentators follow the lxx, where it is plural (‘they are destroyed’). This could then refer to the idols, to the silver and gold, or to the people. Some retain the singular, without changing the sense, and relate it to the calf-idol noted in the following verses (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 492), Israel’s wealth (Garrett 1997: 183) or Israel itself (Dearman 2010: 222). The effects are similar: Israel looks to other gods for prosperity and security, but they can offer neither, and everything that the people rely on, and even the nation itself, will be removed.
5–6. These verses focus on ‘the calf [ʿēgel] of Samaria’ (v. 5). An ʿēgel was a young bull, and, in the Ancient Near East, was a symbol of strength and fertility. Here it probably refers to the golden calf set up by Jeroboam I at Bethel (1 Kgs 12:28–29; cf. Hos. 10:5). Bethel had national prominence (cf. Amos 7:13), and Samaria here appears to stand for the whole of Israel.87 Jeroboam’s sanctuaries at Dan and Bethel were to provide people in the north with alternatives to Jerusalem, and the calf may originally have been associated with Yahweh, possibly as a pedestal, corresponding to the ark in the Jerusalem temple (Walton, Matthews and Chavalas 2000: 368; Hill and Walton 2009: 298–299). It appears, though, to have become linked with Baal, who is represented as a bull. Whatever the intention, this, like the calf constructed by Aaron in the desert (Exod. 32:4; cf. 1 Kgs 12:28), was considered the height of idolatry, and Jeroboam became known as the one who caused Israel to sin (e.g. 1 Kgs 14:16; 15:30; 16:26; 2 Kgs 3:3; 10:29). The calf seems to have become a symbol of the religion of the northern kingdom, and Israel’s continued reverence for it caused Yahweh’s anger (ʾap).
The first clause of verse 5 is unclear. In the mt, ‘your calf’ is the subject of zānaḥ (‘to reject’), but there is no object. As an intransitive verb zānaḥ may also mean ‘to be foul-smelling’, and Dearman (2010: 216) suggests: ‘your calf is wretched’ (cf. Macintosh 1997: 301–302). The nrsv repoints it as a passive: ‘Your calf is rejected’ (cf. Mays 1969: 113; Garrett 1997: 183). Some take Samaria as the object: ‘your calf has rejected you, Samaria’ (Moon 2018: 144). The niv, following the lxx, repoints the verb as an imperative: Throw out your calf-idol (cf. Wolff 1974: 132). A further suggestion is to take my anger as the subject of both clauses: ‘my anger has rejected . . . my anger burns’ (Lundbom 1975; Hubbard 1989: 147; Ben Zvi 2005: 165; though see Gruber 2017: 349–350). Most variations indicate the calf’s rejection by Yahweh (cf. esv: ‘I have spurned your calf’), and that seems the most likely sense. This rejection of the symbol of Israel’s fertility and prosperity corresponds to Israel’s rejection of what is good (v. 3). There is also a likely play on words: Yahweh rejects (zānaḥ) the calf-cult to which the nation has prostituted itself (zānâ).
The final part of verse 5 expresses Yahweh’s dismay over Israel’s lack of purity. This is linked with the cleanness necessary to come before God (Pss 26:6; 73:13; cf. Gen. 20:5). Despite calls to turn back to Yahweh, the people persist in idolatrous disobedience.
Verse 6 begins with ‘because from Israel’. Following the lxx, some take this with the last part of verse 5 and relate it to the people: They are from Israel! (niv; Wolff 1974: 132; Hubbard 1989: 147–148), maybe expressing hope that the people’s disobedience will not continue for ever because they are from Israel and have a higher call (Wolff 1974: 143). A more likely reading, though, is ‘because it [i.e. the calf] is from Israel’ (cf. nrsv, esv; Garrett 1997: 183; Macintosh 1997: 307; Dearman 2010: 216; Moon 2018: 144), emphasizing, with the rest of verse 6, the calf’s non-divine origins. It was made at Israel’s behest, not Yahweh’s. It was manufactured by a craftsman (cf. Isa. 40:19–20; Jer. 10:3, 9) and, contrary to what may have been said about it in the past (cf. Exod. 32:4; 1 Kgs 12:28) and to its present role at the centre of a corrupt worship system, it has no claim to be revered as a god (cf. 14:3). And as a mere human creation, it will be destroyed. The term describing the fate of the calf occurs only here in the Old Testament.88 It is commonly translated broken in pieces (niv, nrsv, esv; Wolff 1974: 132; Garrett 1997: 183; Dearman 2010: 216), though it may mean ‘given to the flames’ (cf. nrsv mg.; Moon 2018: 144, 146). By whatever means it comes about, the calf’s demise further emphasizes its lack of divinity and the futility of placing confidence in it.
7. The verse begins with a familiar proverbial idea: ‘you reap what you sow’. For Israel, though, the consequences are disproportionate. Sowing wind may suggest the emptiness and futility of looking elsewhere for help rather than to Yahweh. The result, corresponding to reaping the whirlwind (sûpâ), is that not only will the people not receive the help they seek, but they will face catastrophe. Sûpâ denotes a destructive wind associated with a storm and symbolizes disaster (e.g. Prov. 1:27; Isa. 21:1). It may also herald Yahweh’s coming in judgment (e.g. Isa. 29:6; 66:15; Jer. 4:13), and that may be the implication here.
The second part of the verse continues the agricultural imagery. Seed that is sown may grow, but the corn stalks will not produce grain. And if they do, the grain will be swallowed up (bālaʿ) by enemies. This logical inconsistency is a rhetorical device known as pseudosorites, which says that something will not happen, but even if it does, it will be negated by something else, and if that happens, something else will negate it, and so on (see Andersen and Freedman 1980: 393–394, 496–498; O’Connor 1987; Patterson 2010: 30–36) (cf. 9:11b–12). Again, the emphasis is on the futility of Israel’s actions. While this may point literally to the failure of the harvest, it also applies metaphorically to Israel’s attempts to ensure its own security by appointing kings, worshipping other gods and seeking help from surrounding nations, rather than looking to Yahweh. Because the idea of sowing wind seems strange, some understand prepositions – ‘they sow in the wind and will reap in a storm’ – and so take all of the elements in verse 7 to emphasize the futility of Israel’s efforts (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 496–497; Stuart 1987: 127; Garrett 1997: 184). The rhetorical impact is increased by using words that have similar sounds; for example, qāmâ (‘stalk’), qemaḥ (‘flour’), ṣemaḥ (‘stalk’).
8. Wordplay continues into verse 8, with a repetition of bālaʿ (‘to swallow up’). The nation will share the same fate as the grain, and will disappear among foreign peoples, notably Assyria. And, as a result of divine judgment, and maybe partly, too, due to its vacillating, pleading for help with one nation then another (cf. 7:11) and forming and breaking alliances, Israel has become worthless (literally, ‘a vessel without value’) on the international stage. The niv’s something no one wants is a paraphrase but it expresses the general idea (cf. Wolff 1974: 132; Stuart 1987: 127). Jeremiah uses the same expression to refer to Moab (Jer. 48:38), and to Jehoiachin, who was taken into a foreign land following the first Babylonian attacks on Judah (Jer. 22:28).
9–10. Verse 9 refers again to Israel seeking help from Assyria. In 7:11, the general term hālak (‘to go’) is used. Here, ‘to go up’ (ʿālâ) is more geographically specific, suggesting that this may refer to a particular embassy, northwards to Assyria, maybe by Menahem or Hoshea.89 The wordplay linking ʾeprayim (Ephraim) and pereʾ (wild donkey) has already been noted,90 and it is likely that they should be taken together here: ‘Ephraim is a wild donkey, wandering alone’ (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 501; Stuart 1987: 127; Garrett 1997: 185; Dearman 2010: 226). This may suggest stubbornness: Israel insists on following its own path (Eidevall 1996: 133–135). Or it may indicate that, for all its efforts to secure the support of other nations, Israel remains friendless (cf. v. 8).
In most translations, turning to Assyria is related to seeking after lovers (e.g. niv, nrsv, esv), echoing the imagery of earlier parts of the book.91 The translation, though, is not straightforward. The verb tānâ is usually translated ‘to hire’ (esv), implying that, rather than selling herself (cf. niv, nrsv) and receiving a prostitute’s pay (cf. 2:12), Israel must now pay for the attention of her lovers (Hubbard 1989: 149; Garrett 1997: 186; Dearman 2010: 229). This emphasizes again how worthless the nation has become. Another possibility is to understand tānâ as ‘to recount’ (cf. Judg. 5:11; 11:40). This might suggest celebrating relationships with other nations (Macintosh 1997: 316; Moon 2018: 146), thus highlighting further Israel’s false confidence in Assyrian help.
Tānâ is repeated in verse 10. The lovers whom Israel seeks to hire, or whose help it celebrates, are the nations to whom it looks for security. Those efforts, though, will come to nothing. Yahweh will gather (qābaṣ) the people. And, while qābaṣ is often associated with deliverance from exile (e.g. Isa. 43:5; 60:4; Jer. 23:3; 29:14; Ezek. 11:17), here the context suggests rather that it refers to assembling them for judgment (cf. Isa. 44:11; Joel 3:2; Mic. 4:12; Zeph. 3:8).
The mt in the second part of verse 10 is unclear, and commentators note a range of emendations. The expression melek śārîm may be translated ‘king of princes’ (cf. niv: mighty king), referring to the Assyrian ruler (Mays 1969: 114, 112; Hubbard 1989: 150; Macintosh 1997: 319, 321; Moon 2018: 145, 146–147). Others read it as ‘kings (and) princes’ (nrsv, esv; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 501; Garrett 1997: 186; Dearman 2010: 226) and relate it to Israel’s leadership (cf. 8:4). In the former case, the ‘burden’ is probably the tribute exacted by Assyria (Macintosh 1997: 319), though may include oppression more generally. In the latter, it may again be the tribute under which Israel’s kings and princes suffer (esv; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 501; cf. Dearman 2010: 226), or the burden imposed on the people by its kings and princes – though that, too, may be exacerbated by the need to raise revenue to pay Assyria (cf. 2 Kgs 15:19–20) (Garrett 1997: 185).92 The nature of the suffering is also debated. Some take mĕʿāṭ as a verbal form, ‘to become few’, indicating Israel’s decline: They will begin [wayyāḥēllû] to waste away (niv; Garrett 1997: 185). Others translate mĕʿāṭ as ‘soon’ and repoint wayyāḥēllû to wayyāḥîlû (‘they will writhe’) (nrsv, esv; cf. Wolff 1974: 133; Dearman 2010: 226; though see Moon 2018: 146). Whatever the precise translation, though, the emphasis is on the impact of the judgment that will overtake Israel through the failed policies of its leaders and, ultimately, through Assyria.
11. As in 8:4, Hosea moves from condemning Israel’s politics to attacking its religious practices. A literal translation of verse 11 is: ‘because Ephraim has increased [rābah] altars for sinning, they have become altars for sinning’ (cf. esv). It seems best to take this as ironic: the altars set up to deal with sin have simply provided more opportunities for sinning (niv, nrsv):93 each new altar was a means of extending Ephraim’s corrupt worship practices (cf. 4:7). The verb rābah also occurs in verse 14, in relation to Judah increasing fortifications. But the multiplied effort of both kingdoms is futile and counterproductive.
12. This points to the people’s disregard for Yahweh’s written instruction, and includes an indictment of the priests, who have failed to teach the people as they should (cf. 4:4–10; Mal. 2:6–9). Indeed, it appears that Israel’s religion has become so corrupted by false worship that what is set out in the law and should be intrinsic to Israel’s covenant faith is now considered ‘strange’ (zār). This term also occurs in relation to the priests’ illegitimate children (5:7) and to foreigners (7:9; 8:7). The implication is that Israel has turned so far away from Yahweh that his instruction is now alien to them. The reference to many may be a foil to the reference to the increased number of altars: Israel already has enough of what it needs to meet Yahweh’s requirements.
13. The second word of this verse, habhābay, occurs only here, and its translation is uncertain (see Nicholson 1966). The niv links it with ‘to give’ and takes it with ‘they sacrifice’: they offer sacrifices as gifts to me (cf. esv; Stuart 1987: 127; Moon 2018: 147). It is probably better, though, to relate habhābay to ʾāhab (‘to love’). This may underlie the nrsv translation ‘choice sacrifices’, suggesting sacrifices that the people mistakenly think are acceptable (Garrett 1997: 187). Or it could be translated: ‘they love sacrifice’ (Dearman 2010: 232).94 This is accompanied by eating the meat of the offerings, and some extend ‘love’ into this next clause, suggesting that they also love meat (cf. Mays 1969: 114; Wolff 1974: 133; Hubbard 1989: 152–153). This appears to have become the primary reason for sacrifice; they appear to be concerned to please God but are more motivated by their greed.
The verb rāṣâ (‘to be pleased with’) is often associated with the acceptability of sacrifices (e.g. Lev. 1:4; 7:18; 22:23; Ps. 51:16; Mic. 6:7). Here, though, it probably relates to the acceptance of the people (cf. Jer. 14:10, 12; Ezek. 20:40–41). Sacrifice was intended to bring divine favour by dealing with sin. However, despite Israel’s efforts, Yahweh is not pleased and, instead, will remember and punish the nation’s sin. That punishment will involve a return [šûb] to Egypt,95 which points to coming exile in a foreign land.
14. The apparent change of focus in verse 14, and the reference to Judah, has prompted suggestions that it is part of a Judean redaction, though that is not necessary (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 511–512; Dearman 2010: 233–234).96 It continues the theme of sin and judgment, with the indictment that the people have forgotten (šākaḥ) Yahweh (cf. 2:13; 4:6; 13:6) and engage instead in building projects, which are probably aimed at flaunting their wealth and providing security.97 There may be an intentional contrast between Israel forgetting Yahweh, and Yahweh remembering Israel’s sin in the previous verse.
Yahweh here is referred to as Israel’s Maker. This title relates primarily to the establishment of the nation98 and, with the reference to returning to Egypt in the previous verse, recalls the exodus. Yahweh has made this people for himself and entered into a covenant with them. But they have forgotten him! The result will be judgment, in the form of divine fire (cf. Ezek. 39:6; Amos 1 – 2) which will destroy the fortifications in which the people have put their confidence.
1–2. As noted, the context for this oracle may be the feast of Tabernacles, which included gathering the produce from threshing-floors and winepresses (v. 2; cf. Deut. 16:13). Threshing-floors were the place where grain was separated from the crops by crushing the stalks. This might be done by hand, or more usually by a cow or ox walking over the stalks (cf. Deut. 25:4). Winepresses were used to crush the newly harvested grapes, ready to make wine. Hosea begins by challenging the exuberant celebrations that usually accompanied the feast, as the people rejoiced in God’s provision.99 Rejoicing at the harvest was common across the Ancient Near East, though the reference to other nations here may be a specific indictment of Israel’s syncretistic worship and attribution of Yahweh’s blessing to other nations’ gods. A successful harvest would give the impression that Yahweh was blessing the people, and the prophet wants to dispel such false confidence.100 The nation has been unfaithful (zānâ; cf. 1:2; 2:5; 3:3; 4:10–15; 5:3), and what they have received, rather than being a sign of divine blessing, is no more than the pay given to a prostitute (cf. 2:7, 12).101 Consequently, Israel’s celebrations will be short-lived. Yahweh’s judgment will remove material signs of prosperity (cf. 2:7), and the produce of threshing-floors and winepresses will not meet the people’s needs. The term translated fail can also mean ‘deceive’, probably referring to the self-deception that material blessings are a sign of divine favour.
3–5. In verse 3, judgment is further linked with exile. Remain translates yāšab (‘to live, dwell’), which occurs in Deuteronomy in connection with occupying the land (e.g. Deut. 12:29; 17:14; 19:1). This is, though, God’s land, and the people may live in it only for as long as they are obedient to him (e.g. Deut. 11:31–32; 30:20); the consequence of sin is, therefore, expulsion from it. Exile in Assyria is again viewed metaphorically as a return (šûb) to Egypt (cf. 8:13). There is also wordplay using similar-sounding terms: instead of continuing to dwell (yāšab) in the land, they will return (šûb) to a place of foreign oppression.
Eating unclean food may be ironic: the people have defiled the land and its produce and so will be exiled to Assyria, where all food is unclean (Garrett 1997: 191). Or it may link with verse 4 and relate to the people’s inability to bring acceptable offerings (cf. 8:13) (Dearman 2010: 238–239; Moon 2018: 157). They have failed to do so in the land God has given and so they will be removed to a place where such sacrifices cannot be offered. In both cases, the punishment corresponds to the crime. Verse 4 notes two kinds of offering – drink offerings of wine (cf. Num. 28:7; 2 Sam. 23:16) and animal sacrifices – though these probably represent the whole sacrificial system, which will not be effective in exile.
The bread of mourners suggests food associated with death, and so considered unclean.102 It may also include an oblique reference to the exile as a form of national death (cf. 6:2) (Dearman 2010: 239). In exile, food will only be to sustain life:103 it will not be acceptable for offerings and will not enter Yahweh’s house (bêt yhwh). Bêt yhwh is the same expression as in 8:1. It may refer to the temple (cf. niv), though in a passage applied to Ephraim it seems better to take it, as in 8:1, as a reference to the land of Israel (Dearman 2010: 240; Moon 2018: 157).104 The people in exile will be cut off from the land, and so from opportunities to offer appropriate sacrifices. This is further highlighted in verse 5, where the reference may be to the impossibility of the general observance of festivals (cf. niv). The term, though, is singular, so may relate more specifically to the feast of Tabernacles (cf. 12:9).
6. Instead of celebrations, the people will face disaster. When the Babylonians invaded Judah, people fled to Egypt, including to Memphis (Jer. 44:1). And, given the false confidence placed in Egypt, it is likely that Israelites might flee there to escape the destruction of an Assyrian invasion. However, they will be gathered up and will die there, among its graveyards, which include the significant burial ground at Saqqara. Joseph did not want his bones left in Egypt (Gen. 50:25), but that will be Israel’s fate. And what remains in Israel, including their tents and the silver they treasure, perhaps a reference to idols (cf. 2:8; 8:4), will become overgrown. The pairing of briers (qimmôś) and thorns (ḥôaḥ) also occurs in Isaiah 34:13 to describe once-occupied land that has become desolate and uninhabitable.
7–9. Verse 7 begins straightforwardly, with a further announcement of divine judgment. The repeated verb is in the perfect tense, indicating that these days ‘have come’ (nrsv, esv). This is an example of the ‘prophetic perfect’, where imminent events (cf. niv) are referred to as though they have already occurred. The repetition of days here may correspond to the repetition of day in verse 5, suggesting that celebration will give way to judgment (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 532). The parallel of ‘recompense’ and ‘punishment’ (nrsv, esv) indicates that that judgment is wholly deserved. The next phrase, Let Israel know, is sometimes emended to ‘Israel cries’ (nrsv; cf. Wolff 1974: 150; Stuart 1987: 139–140), though that seems unnecessary. Let Israel know probably relates to the previous announcement: Israel will understand that the days of judgment are upon them (Mays 1969: 128; Hubbard 1989: 158; Moon 2018: 155). Andersen and Freedman (1980: 515) link it with what follows in verse 9, and place the reference to prophets in parentheses, though that seems less likely.
The niv reverses the order of the remaining two parts of verse 7. The next part in the mt translates literally as ‘the prophet (is) foolish; the man of the spirit (is) mad’. In 4:5, Hosea condemns prophets alongside priests, and this might continue that condemnation of prophets who remain oblivious to coming judgment (Dearman 2010: 243–244; Ben Zvi 2005: 199). Odell (1996) regards all references to prophets in Hosea as negative; however, her arguments are not convincing, and several texts appear to regard the prophetic role positively (6:5; 9:8; 12:10, 13). It seems more likely, therefore, that 9:7 reflects the words of the people or religious leaders who are attacking Hosea (Mays 1969: 129; Wolff 1974: 156–157; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 532; Seow 1982: 221; Hubbard 1989: 158–159; Achtemeier 1996: 77–78). The parallel expressions ‘prophet’ and ‘man of the spirit’ emphasize the close link between the Spirit and prophetic inspiration.105 The characterization of prophets as mad is evident elsewhere (cf. 2 Kgs 9:11; Jer. 29:26) and may be related both to the strange behaviour that sometimes accompanied their message106 and to its frequently unacceptable content. The sign-act of Hosea’s relationship with Gomer and his announcement of impending doom both fit this category. The rest of verse 7 may continue the people’s criticism of Hosea (Moon 2018: 155), though, more likely, it gives the reason for their reaction. It is their great sin (ʿāwōn),107 and their great hostility towards Yahweh, that results also in hostility towards the one who reminds them of their true condition (Wolff 1974: 157; Stuart 1987: 146; Hubbard 1989: 159).
The mt of verse 8 reads: ‘Ephraim watches/stands guard with my God, the prophet (is) a fowler’s snare over all his ways, hostility (is) in the house of his God.’ Moon (2018: 155, 158) takes this as a continuation of the words of Hosea’s opponents, who exalt Ephraim’s position and accuse Hosea of causing trouble. Macintosh (1997: 354–355) regards ‘prophet’ as a gloss and takes ‘to stand guard’ in the sense of ‘confront’: ‘Ephraim stands in confrontation with my God.’ It seems better, though, to link ‘prophet’ with watchman (cf. Ezek. 3:17; 33:7): The prophet, along with my God, is the watchman over Ephraim (niv; cf. nrsv, esv; Hubbard 1989: 159–160; Dearman 2010: 236). This sets out a positive view of what a true prophet, like Hosea, should be: standing with God and watching over the people. The second part of the verse may refer to Ephraim (cf. Macintosh 1997: 354–355). ‘A fowler’s snare’ (nrsv, esv) may indicate coming judgment (cf. 7:12), and hostility, repeated from 9:7, may indicate Yahweh’s hostility towards Israel or Israel’s hostility towards God. More likely, though, both refer to the continuing opposition to the prophet as he seeks to fulfil his God-given calling. The house of his God should be understood as a reference to the land of Israel (cf. 8:1; 9:4). The prophet is rejected in the very place where God’s word should be welcomed, giving a further indication that Israel is unfit to remain in the land.
Verse 9 re-emphasizes the depths of Israel’s corruption. The days of Gibeah probably refers to the incident of the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19. The conclusion there is that ‘Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt’ (Judg. 19:30), and, because the tribe of Benjamin stood by the perpetrators of the crime, it resulted in its near annihilation (Judg. 20).108 Israel’s sin will have similar consequences. The reference to Gibeah may also be linked to 5:8, which is probably set in the context of the Syro-Ephraimite war and so also relates to internecine conflict. And if there is a link between Hosea and the Levites,109 the mistreatment of the Levite might have resonated with Hosea’s own experience. The final lines of verse 9 repeat the statement in 8:13 and point again to the inevitability of divine punishment.
This section continues the theme of judgment on an unfaithful people. Israel claims to know God (8:2) and goes through the motions of religious observance. The people may believe they are doing what God requires, but it is empty ritual. Israel has been called into a covenant relationship with Yahweh (8:1) which should be expressed in faithful obedience. Yet they do not acknowledge him in their political decisions, they look to other things for security and their worship is tainted with idolatry. In all this they have lost sight of the God who made them, they disregard his requirements and they reject his messages of correction. As a result, they are unfit to live in the land, here referred to as Yahweh’s house, and will be removed to a place of exile, where festivals will no longer be celebrated and sacrifices no longer offered. These privations correspond to the discipline referred to earlier (cf. 2:11; 3:4). The aim there, however, is eventual restoration, and although 8:1 – 9:9 focuses primarily on judgment, further passages will refer again to the hope of return and renewal.
Going through the motions of worship, losing sight of God as the source of blessing, putting trust in other things, excluding God from decisions and disregarding his requirements in everyday life are not limited to Israel. Within the Christian community there is the same danger of moving God to the sidelines, of forgetting who he is, what he has done and what the proper response to him should be. And sometimes, being given up to the choices they make and having a glimpse of life without God’s provision may be necessary to bring wanderers to their senses. However, such is the love of God in Christ that he always provides a way back.
This section contains a series of examples with a common theme: Israel’s early but unfulfilled promise (cf. 2:15). The view of Israel’s past, though, is not all positive, and further episodes from Israel’s history are invoked to demonstrate that the current apostasy is not new.
The analysis adopted here divides these verses into three sections (9:10–17; 10:1–10; 10:11–15). Many include 10:9–10 in the third section (Wolff 1974: 182; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 560; Eidevall 1996: 155; Garrett 1997: 212; Macintosh 1997: 383; Ben Zvi 2005: 205). While there are no compelling arguments either way, including the verses in the second section preserves the pattern of each beginning with a simile or metaphor (Hubbard 1989: 169; Dearman 2010: 258; Moon 2018: 169–170).
These sections include agricultural imagery, giving continuity with the harvest theme in 8:1 – 9:9, and they follow a similar rhetorical pattern: what Israel was and has become (though see the comment on 10:1), and the judgment that will follow. Other points of continuity with the previous section include further pseudosorites (9:11–12, 16; cf. comment on 8:7), and references to Israel’s ‘princes’ (9:15, esv; cf. 8:4), God’s house (9:15; cf. 9:4, 8), multiplying altars (10:1; cf. 8:11), the doomed calf-idol (10:5; cf. 8:5) and sowing and reaping (10:12; cf. 8:7). There are links, too, to earlier parts of the book, with mention of Gilgal (9:15; cf. 4:15), Gibeah (10:9; cf. 9:9; 5:8) and the use of the derogatory term Beth Aven for Bethel (10:5; cf. 4:15).
This section has repeated elements. Verse 10 notes Israel’s early promise followed by failure at Baal Peor. Judgment is then presented using a pseudosorites (vv. 11–12).110 There is another reference to what Israel was (v. 13), followed by the prophet’s interjection (v. 14). Verse 15 notes Israel’s further failure at Gilgal, which is followed by judgment, again using a pseudosorites (v. 16). The passage ends with a second prophetic interjection (v. 17).
10. Yahweh found (māṣāʾ) Israel like . . . grapes in the desert, and the people’s ancestors who came out of Egypt were like ‘early figs’ (bikkûrâ). The desert is an unlikely place to come across choice fruit but it would be a pleasant surprise for a traveller who found it. For Hosea (as for Jeremiah) the desert is where Israel’s relationship with Yahweh began, and this suggests that in those days Israel was a source of delight to Yahweh (cf. 2:15).111 Bikkûrâ is related to bĕkōr (‘firstborn’), which is also applied to Israel (Exod. 4:22) (Ben Zvi 2005: 200; Dearman 2010: 251). This may be a further allusion to Israel’s early status, and it provides a link to 11:1–11. That delight, though, soon turned to anger.
The reference to Baal Peor recalls the incident in Numbers 25:1–9, when Israelite men became involved in sexual immorality (zānâ) with Moabite women and were seduced into worshipping the ‘Baal of Peor’. This had immediate consequences, resulting in the deaths of thousands of Israelites, and had also a lasting impact (Josh. 22:17). There ‘they dedicated [nāzar] themselves to shame [bōšet]’ (mt). ‘Shame’ is sometimes associated with Baal (cf. Jer. 11:13), and Baal worship is clearly in view here (cf. niv: they consecrated themselves to that shameful idol). Nāzar is also used in connection with those set apart as Nazirites by making a vow (Num. 6:1–21), and Israel’s dedication to Baal may have involved a specific cultic act by which the people ‘yoked themselves to the Baal of Peor’ (Num. 25:3). Consequently, Israel became ‘like the one they loved’ (so niv, nrsv, esv; Macintosh 1997: 360; Dearman 2010: 250; Moon 2018: 161). The mt text could also be repointed to read ‘like their lover’ (Mays 1969: 131; Stuart 1987: 148), or, possibly, ‘like the one who loved them’ (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 536; Hubbard 1989: 165), without substantially changing the meaning. All emphasize the same problem: Israel’s continuing involvement with Baal results in the people sharing his detestable qualities. The references to Baal and zānâ in Numbers 25 have clear resonance in Hosea’s day, indicating that Israel’s current spiritual condition is nothing new and that drastic action (cf. Num. 25:7–8) is necessary to avert an even greater catastrophe.
11–12. Glory (v. 11) contrasts with shame (v. 10). It may refer to Ephraim’s honoured status, or to its strength, which may be related to its population (cf. vv. 11b–12a) (Wolff 1974: 166; Hubbard 1989: 165; Macintosh 1997: 365–367). This will quickly disappear. More likely, taken with 12b and in contrast to the shame associated with Baal, glory should be taken to refer to Yahweh and his presence among the people (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 542; Garrett 1997: 200; Dearman 2010: 252). Because of Israel’s sin, Yahweh will fly away from them (cf. 5:6, 15; Ezek. 10:18–19).
The people attributed fertility to Baal. Yahweh’s withdrawal will leave them in no doubt where fertility really lies. This has already been emphasized in relation to crops (e.g. 8:7; 9:2; cf. 2:9). Here it is seen in the inability to have children. This is highlighted in a pseudosorites in verses 11b–12a. There will be no birth, pregnancy or conception; and even if children should be born and brought up, parents will be bereaved of them (cf. v. 16b). Yahweh’s withdrawal in 12b echoes 11a and with the pseudosorites forms a chiasm. The people experience woe because of the departure of the one who is the true source of their life.
13–14. The second part of verse 13 points to Ephraim’s impending fate: the nation’s children will be brought to the slayer. This may continue the idea of the deaths of children and the corresponding infertility of the nation. Andersen and Freedman (1980: 538; cf. Hubbard 1989: 168) see a further reference to child sacrifice (though see on 4:2). More likely, it is a wider reference to the deaths of Ephraim’s people at the hands of Assyria, which will result in the loss of hope for future generations.
The first part of the verse is less clear. It points again to Ephraim’s early potential: planted in a meadow. A difficulty is the translation of ṣôr. This usually refers to Tyre (as niv) and suggests a comparison (Garrett 1997: 201; Moon 2018: 161): Ephraim’s beginnings had all the promise exhibited by Tyre (cf. Isa. 23:8; Zech. 9:3), but now, like Tyre, they face destruction. It may be better, though, to link ṣôr with an Arabic term for ‘palm tree’ (as nrsv, esv; cf. Hubbard 1989: 166; Macintosh 1997: 370; Ben Zvi 2005: 200; Dearman 2010: 250). Ephraim was planted in a fertile place, but, despite Yahweh’s care, the nation has become unfruitful (cf. Isa. 5:1–4).112 The picture of fertile beginnings contrasts starkly with the nation’s infertility and its imminent demise.
In verse 14, the prophet speaks. Reference to wombs that miscarry and dry breasts echoes the theme of infertility and contrasts with the promise of fruitfulness made to Joseph, Ephraim’s father (Gen. 49:25). The prophet’s interjection may subvert a common prayer for fertility. Its significance, though, is not clear. Some see it as intercession: better for children not to be born than that they face the horrors to come (Mays 1969: 134–135; Wolff 1974: 166; Macintosh 1997: 372; Moon 2018: 164). Others see it as a prayer against Israel (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 544; Stuart 1987: 153), agreeing with the divine pronouncement.
15. The verse begins with a verbless sentence: ‘all their evil, in Gilgal’. This continues the theme of unfulfilled promise. At Gilgal, Israel first ate the fruit of the land, and celebrated the Passover as an indication of what was a new beginning (Josh. 5:10–12). However, in Hosea’s day Gilgal was linked with Bethel as a centre of corrupt worship (4:15; cf. 12:11), and there may have been other recent events associated with Gilgal that are unknown to us. It was also the place where Israel’s first king, Saul, was anointed and rejected (1 Sam. 11:14–15; 15:10–23), and the reference to rebellious leaders may be linked with that (cf. 13:11). Hosea may have seen Saul as representative of the failed northern monarchy (Ben Zvi 2005: 202). Whether or not that was the case, for Hosea, disobedient rulers continue to play a significant part in the nation’s troubles. And it may be that Gilgal, like Adam (6:7), was linked with political intrigue and rebellion.
Whatever the precise crimes associated with Gilgal, their effect is tragic: I hated them and I will no longer love [ʾāhab] them. The relationship that began well has now broken down. As a result, the people will be expelled from Yahweh’s house, which, as in 9:8 (cf. 8:1; 9:4), refers to the land of Israel. As well as this being a stark statement of judgment, there may be allusions here to the marriage metaphor in the first part of the book. The term śānaʾ (‘to hate’) is used in the context of marriage breakdown (Deut. 21:15–17; 22:13; 24:3) and may include the wife being sent out of the husband’s house (Deut. 24:3). Gāraš (‘to drive out’) may also mean ‘to divorce’ (Lev. 21:7, 14; 22:13) (Dearman 2010: 256–257). Also, although the Hebrew term is different, I will no longer love them echoes the name Lo-Ruhamah (1:6). This emphasis on judgment should not be watered down. Nevertheless, there is hope that that name will be reversed, that the relationship will be restored, and that Yahweh will again show love to his people (2:23; 3:1; 14:4).
16–17. Verse 16 repeats the judgment of infertility and includes ironic wordplay on the similarity of the name Ephraim to fruit (pĕrî).113 The idea of a withered root suggests a return to an agricultural metaphor. The pseudosorites emphasizes that the nation will be barren, but even if children are born, Yahweh will kill them. The reference to cherished [maḥmād] offspring may correspond to their treasures [maḥmād] of silver (9:6). By setting their affections on the wrong things, the people will lose what is truly precious to them.
Verse 17 is a further prophetic interjection, reiterating earlier themes. Despite calls for them to listen (e.g. 4:1; 5:1), the people and its leaders have not obeyed Yahweh; so, because they have rejected him and his word, he will reject them (cf. 4:6). The result, as noted already several times, will be expulsion from God’s land. They have strayed (nādad) from Yahweh (7:13), so now they will be taken into exile and will ‘wander’ (nādad) among the nations.
1–2. Here Israel is referred to as a spreading [bôqēq] vine. The meaning of bôqēq is debated. It may mean ‘laid waste’ (e.g. Nah. 2:2), and several commentators describe Israel here as a ‘damaged vine’ (Garrett 1997: 204; Macintosh 1997: 383–384; Moon 2018: 166). However, taken with the second part of the verse, which suggests increase, the sense seems to indicate past fruitfulness, and some link it instead with an Arabic term indicating fertility (cf. lxx; see also niv, nrsv, esv; Wolff 1974: 170; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 547; Hubbard 1989: 170–171; Dearman 2010: 258). It is possible, though, that there is an intentional double meaning (Stuart 1987: 157; Ben Zvi 2005: 207; Lim and Castelo 2015: 162): Israel was fruitful but, because of its misuse of divine blessing, it is also profoundly damaged. In the next phrase, the verb, šāwā, means ‘to be like, suitable’, suggesting the translation ‘fruit suitable for him [lô]’ (Stuart 1987: 157; Ben Zvi 2005: 207; Moon 2018: 166). This could be interpreted negatively or positively: a damaged vine producing damaged fruit or a luxuriant vine producing abundant fruit. Some take it instead to mean ‘to yield’, and lô is translated as ‘his/its’ (nrsv, esv) or for himself (niv). This suggests that Israel used the fruit for its own purposes, which may include furtherance of the Baal cult.
Whatever the precise translation of the first part of the verse, the second part gives the overall sense of the indictment: increased fruit led to a corresponding increase in altars (cf. 8:11), and the more prosperous the land, the more ornate the sacred stones. Altars and sacred stones or pillars could feature in the legitimate worship of Yahweh (see on 3:4). In this context, however, they are associated with Baal (cf. v. 2): the more Yahweh prospered them, the more they lavished on false worship.
Verse 2 notes that the people’s sin is deep-seated; it stems from their hearts (cf. Deut. 6:5; 29:18). Most translations take ḥālaq from a root meaning ‘to be smooth or slippery’ and refer to hearts that are false or deceitful (niv, nrsv, esv). Ben Zvi (2005: 209) suggests a pun relating to Jacob, who was both ‘smooth’ (Gen. 27:11) and duplicitous. Consequently, the people must bear their guilt and the punishment it brings. This includes breaking down the altars and sacred stones that have become the object of Israel’s affection.114
3–4. In verse 3, the prophet repeats the words of the people. King (melek) here may refer to Yahweh, with the statement reflecting their unwillingness to recognize Yahweh and their turning instead to Baal (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 553; Achtemeier 1996: 85–86). However, in Hosea, melek generally appears in the context of political leadership, and so more likely refers to the human monarch. Then (niv) is better translated ‘now’ (nrsv, esv), and the reference to having no king could suggest that this was written after the fall of Samaria. It may be better, though, to take it as anticipating coming judgment, which would include living without a king (3:4; cf. 10:7, 15; 13:10–11). As they experience divine judgment the people will become painfully aware of their failure to ‘fear’ (yārēʾ) Yahweh, a term which includes awe and reverence and which is closely associated with obedience to Israel’s covenant obligations (e.g. Deut. 6:2; 10:12–13; 17:19; 31:12; cf. Hos. 4:6; 8:12). They will be equally aware of the failure of their kings to protect them from their enemies, both militarily and by giving the spiritual leadership that would have ensured God’s continued blessing.
In verse 4, the prophet resumes his indictment. The catalogue of sins may be an ironic answer to the question what could [the king] do for us? (Mays 1969: 140; Stuart 1987: 161; Macintosh 1997: 395). However, the switch in person from ‘he’ to ‘they’ suggests that this is now aimed at the people and gives examples of the duplicity noted in verse 2. The opening phrase reads literally, ‘they speak words’ (cf. niv, They make many promises; see Dearman 2010: 258), suggesting that what the people say is empty. This is elaborated in what follows: ‘swearing falsely, making covenants’. This may relate to the people’s covenant relationship with Yahweh, which they show no intention of honouring. It may also have a wider application – to relationships within society, perhaps between king and people, to international treaties, and possibly to their unworthy commitment to other gods. The result is dysfunction within society. The niv’s lawsuits (cf. nrsv) translates mišpāṭ (‘justice, judgment’). ‘Justice’ fits the context better. What should be a hallmark of the nation has become corrupted. The imagery is of fields that have been ploughed in preparation for sowing, but what emerges is poisonous weeds.
5–6. References to the king (v. 3) lead to further mention of the calf-idol. The plural (mt) may be a plural of ‘majesty’, indicating the reverence given to the calf, or it may refer more generally to the calf-cult. The calf appears to have a close association with Israel’s monarchy115 and, as the references to Samaria here and in 8:5 indicate, with the nation as a whole. It was situated at Bethel, which is again referred to derogatively as Beth Aven. Here we see the calf-idol being taken as spoil to Assyria, and the general understanding is that the inhabitants of Samaria fear for its fate (cf. niv; Stuart 1987: 161–162; Hubbard 1989: 174–175; Macintosh 1997: 400–401; Dearman 2010: 265; Moon 2018: 171).116 Fear (gûr), though, may also suggest the people’s reverence for the calf (Pss 22:23; 33:8) (Wolff 1974: 175; Garrett 1997: 209) which now proves futile. The reference to ‘mourning’ probably further illustrates the concern of the people. Some, though, take it with rejoiced (gîl, niv) to suggest cultic activities associated with Baal worship which will no longer be possible (Moon 2018: 171). Others read ‘to be distressed’ instead of ‘to rejoice’ (cf. nrsv; Mays 1969: 138; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 556; Hubbard 1989: 174; Macintosh 1997: 399) and take mourning and distress as the response to the loss of the calf. Priests (niv) translates kōmer, which in the Old Testament refers to those who lead idolatrous worship (cf. 2 Kgs 23:5; Zeph. 1:4). If there is a close connection between Hosea and Levites,117 it may allude to non-levitical priests (Dearman 2010: 265).
Though the precise translation here is elusive, the emphasis on reverence for the calf-idol, which has been at the centre of Israel’s idolatrous worship (cf. 8:5), is clear. That reverence is further highlighted in what may be an ironic reference to the calf’s ‘glory’ (niv: splendour). In 9:11, it was noted that Israel’s glory, probably referring to Yahweh’s presence among the people, would be removed. Now, the calf-idol, to which the people looked instead of acknowledging Yahweh, will also depart (gālâ). The language here is reminiscent of 1 Samuel 4:21–22 where, following the capture of the ark by the Philistines, Phineas’s wife names her child ‘Ichabod’, declaring, ‘The Glory has departed from Israel.’118 The term gālâ may also be translated ‘to go into exile’ (niv; see e.g. Isa. 5:13; Amos 5:5; 6:7; 7:11). Like the idol they worship, the people will also soon be taken into exile in Assyria. There may also be wordplay here between the similar-sounding words gālâ and gîl.
The calf, unable to save itself, will be taken to Assyria as tribute for the great king (v. 6; cf. 5:13), a reference to either Shalmaneser V or Sargon II.119 Ironically, the thing in which the nation gloried will bring only national disgrace and humiliation. Foreign alliances (niv) translates ʿēṣâ (‘plan, advice’), but this is too restrictive. Israel’s plans included seeking foreign alliances, and these have brought international humiliation (cf. 8:8), but its internal political intrigues and the hostility between north and south have also brought disgrace. Another possibility is to take ʿēṣâ to mean ‘tree’ (cf. Jer. 6:6) and to see it as a further reference to the calf: however ornate, the calf is nothing more than a piece of wood (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 558; Hubbard 1989: 175). Some make the link with the calf clearer and emend the mt to read ‘his idol’ (nrsv, esv; Mays 1969: 138). Whatever the precise translation, this emphasizes that Israel’s confidence in things other than Yahweh will come to nothing and result only in shame.
7–8. Some interpret Samaria’s king (v. 7) as the calf-idol (cf. v. 3) (Mays 1969: 142; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 558; Hubbard 1989: 175). It seems more likely, though, that it is a reference to the human king (Stuart 1987: 162–163; Macintosh 1997: 407–408; Ben Zvi 2005: 217; Dearman 2010: 266–267) who, like the idol with which he was closely associated, will perish. Twig (niv) translates qeṣep. This usually refers to divine anger, though here it is widely viewed either as a small piece of wood, carried helplessly by the current, or as the foam on the water that quickly disappears.120
Verse 8 returns to the Baal cult and signals the destruction of Bethel, here mockingly referred to as Aven (niv mg.; cf. 4:15; 10:5).121 Judgment is directed particularly at the high places (bāmôt), referring to the altars in and around Bethel where false worship, including possible fertility rites, took place (see on 4:13). These are described as the sin of Israel, emphasizing their central place in the nation’s corrupt practices, and they will be destroyed. Their being overrun by thorns and thistles indicates neglect and dereliction (cf. 9:6). That specific pairing, though, occurs only here and as part of the cursing of the ground following Adam’s sin (Gen. 3:18). There is a close relationship between that curse and the return to chaos resulting from the undoing of creation (cf. 4:3) (cf. Routledge 2014b), and because of its sin, the nation will feel the impact of both.
The final part of the verse indicates despair. In the face of impending judgment, the people cry out for the mountains and hills to fall and cover them (cf. Luke 23:30; Rev. 6:16), either to hide the shame of their actions or to avoid the horrors of coming judgment.
9–10. In verse 9, Hosea returns to the theme of the sin of Gibeah (cf. 9:9). The name ‘Gibeah’ (gibʿâ) means ‘hill’, and this may provide an intentional link with verse 8 (Hubbard 1989: 176). There you have remained translates ‘they stood there’, which may allude to the Benjamites who stood alongside the perpetrators of the crime against the Levite’s concubine (Judg. 20:13–16). More probably it indicates the adoption of the same sinful mindset that characterized the people of Gibeah and Benjamin and persists to the present day (cf. niv, nrsv). The final part of the verse in the mt reads: ‘war will not overtake the evildoers [bĕnê ʿalwâ;122 literally, ‘children of wickedness’] in Gibeah’. As a simple statement (Sweeney 2000: 107–108; Lim and Castelo 2015: 165) this does not fit the context of judgment in Hosea, or Judges 20. Consequently, it is usually taken as a question: Will not war . . . overtake [them]? (niv, nrsv; Mays 1969: 143; Dearman 2010: 259; Moon 2018: 167); though it may be understood rhetorically, ‘surely war will overtake them’ (Wolff 1974: 179; Macintosh 1997: 411), or ironically: ‘(they think that) war will not overtake them’ (Garrett 1997: 213). In the mt, ‘evildoers’ is included in verse 9 (niv, esv; Wolff 1974: 178; Macintosh 1997: 411; Lim and Castelo 2015: 165; Moon 2018: 167). The possible reference to war against evildoers may, further, recall the battle against the perpetrators of evil (bĕnê bĕlîyaʿal) in Judges 19:22; 20:13 (Sweeney 2000: 108; Lim and Castelo 2015: 165). This possible allusion is less clear if ‘evildoers’ is read with verse 10 (nrsv; Mays 1969: 143; Garrett 1997: 313; Dearman 2010: 259), though the sense of the passage remains: evildoers will be punished.
The niv translation When I please (v. 10) reflects the mt bĕʾawwātî (cf. esv; Macintosh 1997: 414; Moon 2018: 167). The lxx reads instead, ‘I have come’, suggesting the emended term bāʾtî (cf. nrsv; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 560; Stuart 1987: 165; Hubbard 1989: 178; Garrett 1997: 213; Dearman 2010: 259). The main emphasis, though, is clear. Just as Benjamin was punished by the tribes of Israel, so now Yahweh will gather the nations against Israel. The plural appropriately describes the Assyrian army, which included people from different nations.
The use of the term yāsar (‘to discipline, teach’; cf. 7:12) indicates that the purpose of Yahweh’s action is corrective. The second verb, ʾāsar (‘to bind’), sounds similar. It emphasizes that the people are bound by their iniquity and face inevitable judgment. The double sin may be the crime historically associated with Gibeah and the present iniquity, which includes engaging in internecine conflict against Judah.
11–12. The contrast between past obedience and present sin continues in a further metaphor. The first part of verse 11 translates as ‘Ephraim, a trained heifer, loving to thresh’. The first finite verb in the mt (ʿābar) is past tense, suggesting, again, a contrast between an idealized past, in which Israel is portrayed as an animal prepared and willing to thresh grain (cf. nrsv, esv), and the nation’s present condition as a stubborn heifer (4:16). Heifer translates ʿeglâ, the same term used in 10:5 for the calf-idol. This may reflect the close connection between the calf-idol and the nation, and this, too, contrasts with Israel’s earlier faithfulness to Yahweh. The verb ʿābar means ‘to pass by’. The niv emends the mt to read: ‘put a yoke on’ (Mays 1969: 144; Stuart 1987: 165; Garrett 1997: 214). Some interpret ‘pass by’ in the sense of ‘to spare’ (nrsv, esv), suggesting that in the early days Israel’s compliance made a yoke unnecessary. However, in the context of the reference to the heifer’s ‘fair neck’, it may be better understood as taking note of Israel’s early potential (Wolff 1974: 179; Eidevall 1996: 160; Macintosh 1997: 417–418; Lim and Castelo 2015: 165; Moon 2018: 175).
The second part of verse 11 refers to Yahweh harnessing (rākab) Ephraim for a more arduous role. Threshing was a relatively easy task, and the animal was allowed to eat grain as it worked (Deut. 25:4). Going forward, Israel and Judah will be called upon to plough and harrow, to break up and flatten the hard ground, in preparation for planting seeds. This change may reflect Israel’s current sinful condition, which requires increased discipline and correction (cf. 4:16; Jer. 31:18) (Hubbard 1989: 180–181; Achtemeier 1996: 90). More likely, this still refers to Israel’s past, and to the increased responsibility of life in the Promised Land (Wolff 1974: 185; Emmerson 1984: 84; Eidevall 1996: 160–161; Macintosh 1997: 421–422; Moon 2018: 175). The contrast with those early expectations appears in verse 13. Some take Judah as part of the later redaction (Mays 1969: 144; Emmerson 1984: 83–86; Macintosh 1997: 418–419).123 In relation to the nation’s early history, though, a reference to both kingdoms is appropriate (Wolff 1974: 185; Dearman 2010: 271; Moon 2018: 176).
Verse 12 continues the theme of breaking up ground ready for sowing and reaping, though with the order reversed. The Hebrew expression suggests preparing ground that has not yet been cultivated, reinforcing the view that this reflects Israel’s new life in the Promised Land. The key qualities expected of Israel are righteousness (ṣĕdāqâ) and unfailing love (ḥesed). This pairing also occurs in the list of bridal gifts in 2:19 and reflects the essence of Israel’s covenant relationship with Yahweh. These go hand in hand with ‘seeking Yahweh’, which indicates dependence on him rather than on Baal. And, just as ploughing, sowing and reaping is futile without the divine provision of rain, as the people play their part Yahweh will respond by a corresponding blessing of righteousness (ṣedeq),124 which includes justice and right behaviour within society and also salvation in the face of oppressive nations (cf. Isa. 45:8–9).
13–15. The first part of verse 13 continues the agricultural metaphor, emphasizing again how Israel, throughout its history, has failed to live up to early expectations (cf. 8:7). Instead of sowing righteousness, they have ploughed wickedness (rešaʿ);125 instead of ḥesed, they have reaped evil (ʿawlâ); and instead of enjoying the land’s good fruit, the people feed on deception (kāḥaš). This is a frequent theme for Hosea126 and indicates an endemic problem of Israelite society. It includes the self-delusion of placing trust elsewhere than in Yahweh, and that is picked up in the next part of the verse.
The rest of the passage (vv. 13b–15) focuses on warfare. The nation is charged with putting trust in military might and in its own plans (v. 13b). This begins: ‘because you have trusted in your way [derek]’. This may refer to Israel pursuing its own policies (Macintosh 1997: 425; cf. Dearman 2010: 270; Moon 2018: 174). Some, following the lxx, amend ‘way’ to ‘chariots’ (Wolff 1974: 181; Stuart 1987: 165–166), to correspond with warriors. Andersen and Freedman understand it in the sense of ‘power, dominion’ (1980: 569; cf. niv, nrsv; Hubbard 1989: 183; Ben Zvi 2005: 222). This may relate to the rebellions against Assyria by Pekah and Hoshea,127 both of which led to the severe reprisals noted in verse 14. Or it may be a more general indictment of what was a common problem for God’s people: trust in their military capabilities and alliances rather than in Yahweh (cf. 1:5; 8:14; cf. Isa. 22:8–11; 31:1; Jer. 5:17).
As a result of the nation’s preparations, war will come, and the fortresses in which the nation trusted will be destroyed (v. 14a). The horror of coming warfare is emphasized by likening it to the destruction of Beth Arbel by Shalman, which included the slaughter of mothers and children (v. 14b). This atrocity must have been well known in Hosea’s day, but it is unknown to us. Beth Arbel may be a town in Gilead, east of the Jordan. Suggestions for the identity of Shalman include Shalmaneser III, who defeated Israel in the ninth century bc and is depicted receiving tribute from Jehu on the Black Obelisk (841 bc; COS 2.269); and Salamanu, a Moabite ruler mentioned in Tiglath-Pileser III’s Annals (COS 2.289). It is also possible that this refers to Shalmaneser V’s reprisals against Hoshea (Moon 2018: 176–177; cf. Ben Zvi 2005: 219), though if it was part of the invasion culminating in the fall of Samaria, it must have taken place early in the campaign.
While the precise details surrounding Beth Arbel are unclear, the horrors described are clear enough. So, too, is the warning that Bethel will face the same fate (v. 15a). In the mt the verbs are past tense and are generally viewed as prophetic perfects (cf. lxx; Hubbard 1989: 184; Macintosh 1997: 431). Judgment on Bethel is because of its ‘great wickedness’ (nrsv; rāʿâ). Israel’s wickedness is a familiar theme (cf. 7:1–3; 9:15). Here, the reference to the cultic site of Bethel suggests that the primary focus is Baal worship (cf. 4:15; 10:5–6, 8) which, though centred on Bethel, infects the whole nation (cf. 10:8).128 The loss of Israel’s king (v. 15b) has been anticipated (10:3, 7) and here completes the picture of devastation. ‘Dawn’ (nrsv, esv) was, traditionally, when battles began, and suggests the speed of the demise of king and nation.
The simile and metaphors in 9:10 – 10:15 highlight Israel’s early promise. They look back to the exodus, to where Yahweh’s covenant relationship with Israel began, and note Israel’s failure to live up to early expectations. Despite all Yahweh has done for them, instead of trusting him they put confidence in other things, including military power, political institutions and foreign alliances. And they persist in their devotion to other gods. The severity of divine judgment emphasizes the seriousness of sin. Judgment will result in the loss of the things that are dear to the people and which they depend on, including the fertility of the land, military strongholds and the calf-idol dedicated to Baal. The imminent Assyrian invasion will also bring about the deaths of precious offspring and put the future of the nation in jeopardy.
The struggles of everyday life, when other things press in and become priorities, can lead to the loss of the early excitement of relationship with God. So, for example, Jesus similarly challenges the church at Ephesus: they have forsaken the love they had at first and need to return to the way things were (Rev. 2:4–5).
Hosea 11:1–11 fits with the general pattern in the previous verses of Israel’s unfulfilled calling. However, the imagery becomes more intense, and the portrayal of Israel as God’s child reintroduces the tender familial relationship between God and his people. Consequently, it may be viewed as a separate section (Wolff 1974: 193; Stuart 1987: 176; Dearman 2010: 274). It complements the picture of God as husband and, as with that metaphor, also contains the hope of restoration beyond judgment. This passage also concludes the second major part of the book.
1–4. These verses point to Yahweh’s love for Israel, whom he describes as my son (v. 1). Like the marriage metaphor, this emphasizes Yahweh’s deep familial ties to his people,129 and the further reference to Egypt again links this with the exodus (cf. Exod. 4:22; see also Jer. 31:9, 20). The description of Israel as a child (naʿar) suggests youth (cf. 2:15; Jer. 2:2) and points to Israel’s vulnerability and dependence in those early days. The mt, ‘from Egypt I called [qāraʾ] my son’, is generally taken to indicate a divine summons to come out of Egypt (niv, nrsv, esv; cf. Stuart 1987: 174; Hubbard 1989: 187; Macintosh 1997: 436; Dearman 2010: 275; Moon 2018: 179). Alternatively, giving ‘from Egypt’ a temporal sense (cf. 12:9; 13:4) and taking qāraʾ with ‘my son’, this could mean ‘from (the time he was in) Egypt I called (him) my son’ (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 574). The former is more likely, though a double meaning, linking deliverance from Egypt with election as Yahweh’s son, may be intentional (Yee 1987: 217; Eidevall 1996: 168–169; Ben Zvi 2005: 233).
Matthew 2:15 quotes the end of verse 1 (out of Egypt I called my son) in relation to Jesus’ flight to Egypt. Some link this with what was in the past regarded as a somewhat flexible use of Scripture by Matthew (McCasland 1961), though that view is no longer widely held. Others suggest that the text has intentional messianic significance (Sailhamer 2001; cf. Lim and Castelo 2015: 171–172). It is true that the call to sonship is linked with the Davidic king (cf. Ps. 2:7), and already by the eighth century bc David was associated with messianic hope (cf. Routledge 2008a: 281–282). However, it is unlikely that the description of Israel as Yahweh’s son has direct messianic connotations. It is better to see this as typological: Matthew notes a correspondence between the narrative of Israel and the life and ministry of Jesus, and points to him as the ideal Israel (see on 6:2; see also McCartney and Enns 2001; Hamilton 2008; Kirk 2008; Kwakkel 2011). As indicated earlier, this correspondence is observed retrospectively and is not implicit within the original text.130
The beginning of verse 2 in the mt reads: ‘the more they called to them, the more they went from them [literally, ‘from their faces’]’. The nrsv, following the lxx, emends this to: ‘The more I called them, the more they went from me’ (emphasis added; Mays 1969: 150; Wolff 1974: 190; Stuart 1987: 174; Dearman 2010: 275; Moon 2018: 179). If the mt is retained, it may refer to the call of prophets (cf. 9:8; 12:10) to the people (McComiskey 1998: 184). The niv translates as a passive: the more they were called, the more they went away from me, without specifying from whom the call came. Others emend only the second part: ‘the more they went from me’. Andersen and Freedman (1980: 577; cf. Hubbard 1989: 187) link this to the Baal Peor incident (cf. 9:10), when Moabite women called to Israel and so drew them away from Yahweh. It is probably better to follow the lxx in both cases. The key role of the prophets in delivering Yahweh’s message means that there is, perhaps, not much difference between the mt and the lxx in its practical outworking. However, the lxx preserves the intimacy of the relationship between father and child (which generally does not require an intermediary), and highlights Israel’s perversity: the more Yahweh, as loving father, sought to draw the people to him, the more they turned away. This is evident particularly in their sacrificing to the Baals and burning incense to images (pāsîl), a term applied to false gods in Deuteronomy 7:5, 25; 12:3. The verbs suggest continuing activity: what happened at Baal Peor (cf. 9:10) has continued to the present day. Lim and Castelo (2015: 169–170) note a possible link between references to coming out of Egypt and worshipping images, and the opening of the Decalogue (‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me . . . You shall not bow down to them or worship them’ [Exod. 20:2–3, 5]). The language is not precise but, as in 4:2, the allusion may be intentional (cf. 4:2).131
Verse 3 begins emphatically: It was I, Yahweh not Baal, who cared for Ephraim, which here appears to represent the nation as a whole. I . . . taught . . . to walk (niv) translates the unusual term tirgaltî, which is probably linked with regel (‘foot’). It may suggest the idea of going ahead, and so of giving guidance (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 574; Eidevall 1996: 170–171; Dearman 2010: 275; cf. Hubbard 1989: 188). Several, though, support the picture of a father teaching his child to take his first steps (nrsv, esv; Mays 1969: 150; Stuart 1987: 174; Garrett 1997: 223). The next phrase, taking them by the arms (cf. esv; Stuart 1987: 174; Hubbard 1989: 188; Garrett 1997: 223), or, possibly, ‘taking them up in my arms’ (cf. nrsv; Mays 1969: 150; Wolff 1974: 191; Macintosh 1997: 441; Kakkanattu 2006: 52; Dearman 2010: 275; Moon 2018: 179), continues that theme. Reference to God’s arm(s) indicates divine protection (cf. Exod. 6:6; 15:16; Kakkanattu 2006: 53–54) and may suggest picking the child up when he stumbles. The reference to healing (rāpāʾ) might, further, suggest tending to cuts and bruises.132 Healing may also point to the deliverance at the exodus and the experience of divine grace and protection in the desert (cf. Exod. 15:26), or, possibly, to forgiveness following the sin noted in verse 2 (cf. O’Kennedy 2001: 463–464). This also repeats the significant theme that, for all Yahweh’s blessings, Israel does not realise (yādaʿ) what he has done (see on 2:8).
There is debate about whether verse 4 continues the parent–child metaphor or changes to the training of a farm animal (cf. 10:11). The latter is based on the mt, which includes ʿōl (‘yoke’): ‘I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws’ (esv; Eidevall 1996: 172–174; Garrett 1997: 224; Dearman 2010: 275; Moon 2018: 275). However, a yoke is not placed on the jaws,133 and this, with the parent–child imagery in the previous verses, has led some to emend ʿōl to ʿul (‘infant’): I was like one who lifts a little child to the cheek (niv; cf. nrsv; Mays 1969; 150; Wolff 1974: 191; Hubbard 1989: 188–189; Kakkanattu 2006: 57–63).134 I led them [māšak] with cords of human kindness, with ties of love [ʾahăbâ] could relate to training an animal, but could also refer to the gentle application of restraint to a child. And the same terms, māšak and ʾahăbâ, appear together in a similar context in Jeremiah 31:3. While both interpretations are possible, the emendation is minor, and it is reasonable to see this as a continuation of the parent–child metaphor.
The term translated human kindness (niv, nrsv) is ʾādām (‘man, human’). This may suggest that any restraint imposed by the cords is humane, and some refer to ‘cords of friendship’ (Macintosh 1997: 445; Moon 2018: 179). Or it may indicate that the restraint is administered by human beings (Dearman 2010: 284) – for example, the prophets.
The final section continues the theme of Yahweh’s loving care. Bent down translates nāṭâ, which frequently has the sense of inclining towards (e.g. Josh. 24:23; Judg. 9:3; 1 Kgs 11:2; Pss 17:6; 40:1; Jer. 7:24). Following the parent–child imagery, it may suggest the idea of the divine father reaching out to attend to the needs of his child, though it could also refer to feeding a farm animal. Nāṭâ is also used of Yahweh’s ‘outstretched’ arm (e.g. Exod. 6:6; 7:5; Deut. 5:15), again recalling the exodus. The reference to feeding may relate specifically to the miraculous supply of food and water during Israel’s time in the desert period, though also, more generally, to his continued provision in the Promised Land (cf. 2:8).
5–7. It is possible to read the beginning of verse 5 as a negative: ‘They shall not return [šûb] to the land of Egypt’ (esv). Macintosh (1997: 450) sets this in the context of Hoshea’s ineffective appeal to Egypt, which resulted in control by Assyria. The exodus theme of the passage, though, suggests that the reference is to captivity in Egypt. Others take it to imply that, instead of going back to Egypt, Israel faces a new exile in Assyria (Garrett 1997: 225; Macintosh 1997: 450; Dearman 2010: 276). However, other verses state the opposite (8:13; 9:3; cf. 11:11). Another suggestion is to replace lōʾ (‘not’) with lō (‘to him’) and link it with verse 4 (‘bent down to him’) (cf. nrsv; Mays 1969: 150; Wolff 1974: 191). It seems better, though, to read the text rhetorically: Will they not return . . . ? (niv) or ‘surely they will return’ (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 574; Hubbard 1989: 190; Moon 2018: 179). Because Israel refuses to repent (šûb), the deliverance of the exodus will be reversed, and the people will again face oppression in a foreign land, though now it will be Assyria that rules over them. The correspondence is again evident: Israel will not return to Yahweh, and so must return to captivity.135
Verse 6 notes the havoc associated with the coming judgment. The military threat from Assyria is indicated by the reference to a sword, which appears to be the subject of the following three verbs, all indicating coming destruction. Flash translates a form generally thought to be from the verb ‘to whirl’, and that whirling blade will bring devastation to Israel’s cities. The second verb is best translated ‘destroy’. The object (bad) is unclear, though the parallel with ‘diviners’ in Isaiah 44:25 (cf. Jer. 50:36) suggests that it could be corrupt religious leaders (cf. niv, nrsv; Mays 1969: 150; Stuart 1987: 174; Hubbard 1989: 191; Eidevall 1996: 176). Bad may also be translated ‘pole’ (Exod. 25:14), hence ‘bars of their gates’ (esv; Dearman 2010: 276); ‘branch’ (Ezek. 19:14), referring to trees (Moon 2018: 182) or ‘villages’, as branches of cities (Macintosh 1997: 452–453); or ‘boasting’ (Isa. 16:6; Wolff 1974: 192; Garrett 1997: 226). Andersen and Freedman (1980: 585) suggest a reference to military personnel. The third verb means ‘to devour’ (cf. 2:12; 5:7; 7:7, 9; 8:14). Its object may be Israel’s plans (niv; Hubbard 1989: 192; Garrett 1997: 226), which include seeking help from Egypt and so failing to trust Yahweh. Alternatively, judgment is because of those plans (cf. nrsv, esv; Wolff 1974: 192; Stuart 1987: 174; Macintosh 1997: 452; Moon 2018: 180) and will fall on those religious leaders at the heart of the political system who influence the foolish schemes of the nation’s rulers. Again, though the precise translation is not certain, the message of judgment, and the underlying concern that the people and their leaders are placing their confidence in other things, is clear.
The key indictment in verse 7 is that the people are determined to turn from me (cf. nrsv, esv). A more literal translation is ‘they are hung up [tālāʾ] in their turning [mĕšûbâ] from me’. Tālāʾ here points to being firmly attached to something (Wolff 1974: 192; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 574; Stuart 1987: 174; Yee 1987: 221; Hubbard 1989: 192; Eidevall 1996: 177). It may, though, indicate something unstable (Macintosh 1997: 455), and as part of Deuteronomy’s covenant curses it refers to a precarious future (Deut. 28:66), one that ‘hangs by a thread’ (Craigie 1976: 352) or ‘hangs in the balance’ (McConville 2002: 399; Moon 2018: 180). It may be that both ideas are present here. Because the people are firmly attached to ways that lead them away from Yahweh, their future has become uncertain. Mĕšûbâ is derived from šûb, continuing the prophet’s play on the term: the people refuse to repent (šûb) and instead embrace apostasy (mĕšûbâ).
The rest of verse 7 is difficult. There is a recurrence of qārāʾ (‘to call’; cf. 7:11; 11:1–2) and the subject is probably the people, or, possibly, prophets (Dearman 2010: 286–287). The object, ʿal (‘height’; cf. 7:16), may refer to Yahweh, ‘the Most High’ (niv, nrsv, esv; Moon 2018: 180). This suggests that the people call to Yahweh, or the prophets call the people back to Yahweh, but because of their insincerity (cf. 8:2) he will not respond and raise them up. Some emend ʿal to baʿal (Mays 1969: 150; Wolff 1974: 192; Stuart 1987: 174), or ʿal as it stands may be an ironic reference to Baal, whom the people view as the high god (Hubbard 1989: 192) but who cannot help them. Several commentators read ʿōl (‘yoke’) instead of ʿal, with the idea that the people are summoned to the yoke (cf. 11:4) which no-one will lift (Eidevall 1996: 177, following Yee 1987: 223). The precise translation may be uncertain, but the emphasis is on the impossibility of respite from impending judgment while Israel’s apostasy continues.
8–9. Following the message of judgment, we again see Yahweh’s compassion (niḥûmîm), which here relates to offering comfort or consolation (cf. Isa. 57:18; Zech. 1:13) (Moon 2018: 210–211). As in chapter 2, the familial ties between Yahweh and his people outweigh their apostasy and open the way for restoration.
Verse 8 comprises three parallel pairs. The first expresses Yahweh’s unwillingness to ‘give up’ Ephraim or ‘hand over’ Israel. The second contrasts this with the judgment that fell on Admah and Zeboyim, cities of the plain which were destroyed alongside Sodom and Gomorrah (Deut. 29:23). According to Deuteronomy, Israel’s apostasy will result in exile, and the impact on the land is likened to what happened to those cities. But this will not be annihilation, and Israel may be restored (cf. Deut. 30:1–6). This is explained in the third pair, which notes Yahweh’s change (hāpak) of heart (cf. 1 Sam. 10:9; Ps. 105:25; Lam. 1:20). This is not, though, vacillation. The term hāpak means ‘to overturn’, and the strong language reveals tension between divine judgment and compassion, and the upheaval in Yahweh’s heart as he contemplates the destruction of his people.136 There may also be an inner conflict between divine compassion and what the law requires for a rebellious son (Deut. 21:18–21) (cf. Lim and Castelo 2015: 171). Hāpak also refers to the overthrow of the cities of the plain (Deut. 29:23) and may be used intentionally: Yahweh’s heart, not Israel, is overthrown.
This unwillingness to make a full end of Israel is further emphasized in verse 9. Though Israel’s sin deserves it, Yahweh will not execute his fierce anger (ʾap; cf. 8:5). This idea may be repeated at the end of the verse, where ʿîr may be translated ‘city’ (niv; Hubbard 1989: 195–196; Garrett 1997: 227; Macintosh 1997: 463), though more likely it refers to ‘agitation’ and hence ‘anger’ (cf. nrsv, esv; Wolff 1974: 193; Stuart 1987: 174; Eidevall 1996: 179; Dearman 2010: 276). Šûb is usually translated as an auxiliary verb, meaning ‘again’: ‘I will not again destroy’ (nrsv, esv; cf. niv), suggesting no further judgment beyond the one already announced. An alternative is ‘I will not return to destroy’ (Wolff 1974: 193; Emmerson 1984: 40; Eidevall 1996: 179; Macintosh 1997: 463; Moon 2018: 180), continuing Hosea’s wordplay on šûb.137
Yahweh’s reason for not effecting his wrath is, I am God, and not a [human] – the Holy One among you (for a detailed discussion, see Dearman 2010: 291–292). The emphasis on the distinction between God and humanity (cf. Num. 23:19; Isa. 31:3) may suggest that Yahweh’s passion, unlike that of human beings, does not result in arbitrary outbursts of rage. It also indicates that Yahweh cannot be defined by metaphor (Mays 1969: 157–158; Eidevall 1996: 179–180). The portrayal of Yahweh as a father or husband, and even of one struggling with his emotions, may give us insights into his character, but he is not bound by those analogies and remains beyond any anthropomorphic representation of him. Here that freedom includes Yahweh’s capacity to show mercy as well as to judge (cf. Exod. 34:6–7). This may be evident, too, in the title Holy One, which is particularly prominent in the book of Isaiah. ‘Holy’ in the Old Testament describes the essential character of Yahweh (cf. Routledge 2008a: 105–106) and points to what sets him apart from humanity. It may be linked with judgment, but, as the ‘Holy One’, Yahweh also offers salvation and redemption (e.g. Isa. 10:20; 12:1; 43:3, 14; 48:17; 54:5). Here, too, Yahweh is among his people, in their midst. This emphasizes his commitment to them and his unwillingness to allow them to come to ultimate harm.138 Sin makes judgment inevitable. However, consistent with the character of a holy God, judgment is intended to discipline, not destroy, and beyond it lies the promise of restoration.
10–11. Some suggest that one or both of these verses are editorial (Macintosh 1997: 467–468). Nevertheless, they fit into the overall discourse of 11:1–11 (Moon 2018: 183). In particular, they form an inclusio with verses 1–2, tying the passage together. Those who went [hālak] away from Yahweh (v. 2) will now follow (literally, ‘go [hālak] after’) him (v. 10); those who were called ‘from Egypt’ (v. 1) but whose sin has led to their return there (v. 5) will again come from Egypt (v. 10) (Yee 1987: 214–217; Eidevall 1996: 166–167, 180).
Yahweh’s summons to the exiles will be like the roar of a lion (cf. Amos 1:2; 3:8), causing them to ‘tremble’ (ḥārad), as they did when Yahweh appeared on Mount Sinai (Exod. 19:16). Despite the tenderness of Yahweh’s relationship with his children, he remains God, and his call should strike fear, particularly among those who face exile because of their sin (cf. 3:4). In response to Yahweh’s call, people will come from the west (v. 10),139 as well as from Egypt and Assyria (v. 11). The reference to Egypt suggests the exodus and may be figurative, though Egypt was also a likely place of flight from the Assyrians, as it was later from the Babylonians (cf. 2 Kgs 25:26; Jer. 42:14; cf. Hos. 9:6). The reference to doves recalls the senseless fluttering between Egypt and Assyria (7:11). Here, though, that is reversed, as the people turn instead to Yahweh. I will settle them (niv) translates the Hiphil of yāšab (‘to dwell’), though, following the lxx, some prefer a slight emendation and read instead, ‘I will return [šûb] them’ (cf. nrsv; Stuart 1987: 174). This promise of restoration, followed by the statement declares the Lord, brings the section of the book that began at chapter 4 to a hopeful conclusion.
Here, as in the preceding sections, Israel fails to live up to early expectations. And, as before, the consequence is divine judgment. However, that judgment is tempered by grace, and there is also the hope of restoration. Like the prodigal in Jesus’ parable, the son, despite the father’s care, wanders away. But the hardship that accompanies judgment is educative; its purpose is to bring the people to their senses. The loving commitment of the divine parent will not finally let them go. This imagery gives a profound insight into the tension within Yahweh’s heart: between the judgment that Israel’s sin and rebellion demand, and the divine compassion that, for all their apostasy, will not give his people up. That tension is resolved ultimately in the cross, where judgment on sin falls, but where the way is open for sinners to be forgiven.