Following the hopeful conclusion to the second section of the book, the prophecy returns to the repeated cycle of sin, judgment and promise. As in 4:1, it includes Yahweh’s charge (rîb) against the people (12:2). The opening verses (11:12 – 12:1) may be seen to introduce the whole of the final section of the book, though the reference to deceit (11:12; 12:7) links them more specifically with the historical references to Jacob in 12:2–12 and the verses may, therefore, serve as an introduction to both (Ben Zvi 2005: 246). As with the metaphors in the preceding chapters, references to the patriarch set the current problems of the nation in the context of past promise and failure. The references to Jacob are ambiguous (Eidevall 1996: 187). They point to his deceit, though if that was the primary consideration, other instances could have been noted. The encounter at Bethel (12:4) and his serving for a wife (12:12) appear more positive.
12. In the first part of the verse, Ephraim and Israel are parallel, indicating the northern kingdom. Lies (cf. 7:3; 10:13) and deceit (mirmâ) probably relate to the people’s double-dealing, both with one another and with Yahweh, as well as to the self-deception of putting trust in other things, rather than in him. These ‘surround’ Yahweh (cf. 7:2), suggesting that they both pervade the life and worship of the people and separate them from him.
The translation of the second part of the verse is uncertain. A key term, rād, is usually related to rûd (‘to wander, roam’). The nrsv understands this positively: in contrast to Israel, ‘Judah still walks with God [ʾēl] and is faithful to the Holy One [qĕdôšîm]’ (cf. esv; Mays 1969: 159–160; Emmerson 1984: 113–116; Sweeney 2000: 118; Dearman 2010: 295–297; Lim and Castelo 2015: 200–201). Qĕdôšîm could refer to Yahweh, as a plural of intensity, though may be translated ‘holy ones’, possibly referring to the religious circles with which Hosea identified (Wolff 1974: 209–210; Achtemeier 1996: 97) or to the divine council (Emmerson 1984: 113–116). This then relates to the current situation, where Israel will fall but Judah will survive. Others view Judah negatively (cf. 12:2) and take rûd to imply that Judah wanders away from God (cf. Jer. 2:31). Another suggestion is that rād refers instead to seeking to gain mastery over God (Macintosh 1997: 473–474; Moon 2018: 190), which may be related to Jacob, striving with God (12:3). In this case, ‘faithful’ qualifies qĕdôšîm (cf. niv, the faithful Holy One). It is possible, too, that ʾēl and qĕdôšîm refer to other gods, further emphasizing Judah’s defection (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 593, 603; Hubbard 1989: 199–200; Garrett 1997: 230–231). On balance, though, the more positive picture of Judah seems preferable.
12:1. This verse refers to seeking foreign alliances, which is an exercise in futility: ‘shepherding [rāʿâ] the wind,1 and pursuing the east wind’ (mt). The east wind is associated with the dry desert heat that brings discomfort (Jon. 4:8) and withers crops (Gen. 41:6, 23, 27) and so may represent divine judgment (13:15; cf. Hab. 1:9). This suggests that the people’s futile search is for something that will ultimately do them harm. Sins also include the multiplication (cf. 8:11, 14; 10:1; 12:10) of lies (cf. 7:13) and violence/‘destruction’ (šōd), which will rebound in corresponding judgment (cf. 7:13; 9:6; 10:14).
The verse again condemns Israel’s attempts to secure help from Assyria and Egypt (cf. 7:11). The treaty (bĕrît) with Assyria is probably a suzerain–vassal treaty between Shalmaneser V and Hoshea (2 Kgs 17:3), though could relate to an earlier agreement between Tiglath-Pileser III and Menahem (2 Kgs 15:19). The oil sent to Egypt was likely to have been olive oil (cf. niv), offered by Hoshea to enlist Egyptian support for his rebellion against Assyria (2 Kgs 17:4).
2. Yahweh again brings a charge (rîb; cf. 4:1), which includes Judah. Despite problems with the reference to Judah, it seems reasonable to take it as original.2 And, while Jacob may more specifically refer to Israel, both kingdoms share the failings of their common ancestor. The consequence, which repeats the language of 4:9, will be repayment (šûb) in divine punishment for their attitudes and actions.
3–5. Verse 3 notes two significant incidents from the life of Jacob, both linked with name-giving. Jacob (yaʿăqōb) is associated with ʿāqab (Gen. 25:26), which can mean ‘to grasp by the heel’ (cf. niv), with the idiomatic sense of ‘to cheat, supplant’. Jacob was born grasping his elder brother Esau’s heel, and later, as a man (literally, ‘in his strength [ʾôn]’), he demonstrated the appropriateness of the name by cheating Esau of his birthright and blessing and usurping his place as Isaac’s heir (Gen. 27:36). Hosea’s many references to lies (see on 10:13) suggest that Israel is Jacob’s true son. There may also be an allusion to internecine conflict, also a significant issue for Hosea (see comments on 5:8; 6:9; 9:9; 10:10). The second incident is Jacob struggling (śārâ) with God (ʾĕlōhîm) at Peniel, and being renamed Israel (yiśrāʾēl) (Gen. 32:28).
The incident at Peniel is picked up in verse 4, though variations from the Genesis account suggest that Hosea may have had access to different Jacob traditions (Good 1966b: 137–151; McKenzie 1986: 311–322; Whitt 1991: 18–43). Differences include Hosea’s reference to an angel (malʾāk), which parallels ʾĕlōhîm (v. 3; cf. Gen. 48:15–16). And, while Jacob insists on receiving a blessing (Gen. 32:26), there is no specific mention of weeping and seeking favour. Sweeney (2000: 122) suggests that it is the man defeated by Jacob who pleads for favour, though that seems unlikely. The language of weeping and the request for favour is used, though, when Jacob meets Esau (Gen. 33:4, 8), and it is possible that the four lines in verses 3–4a have a chiastic structure: the first and last refer to Jacob’s relationship with Esau, while the middle two are parallel references to the encounter at Peniel (Holladay 1966: 53–64; cf. Garrett 1997: 239). Jacob’s reunion with Esau may then serve as a model for the humility required, in Hosea’s day, to end the conflict between north and south.
The mt of verse 4 begins with the expression yāśar ʾel, which may deliberately play on the name Israel (yiśrāʾēl). It is usually taken to describe Jacob’s struggle (śārâ) with the angel. The preposition ʾel (‘towards’) is used unusually here, and some emend it to ʾēl (‘God’), providing a closer play on yiśrāʾēl. This gives either ‘he struggled with God and overcame the angel’ (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 593), or, taking yāśar from śārar (‘to rule, lord it over’; cf. Num. 16:13; Judg. 9:22; Isa. 32:1; Prov. 8:16), ‘he lorded over God and prevailed with an angel’ (Hubbard 1989: 203–204; cf. Ackroyd 1963: 248, 250).3 While variations are not significantly different, ‘he struggled with the angel and prevailed’ seems preferable (Garrett 1997: 237; Dearman 2010: 295; Moon 2018: 190).
The final part of verse 4 refers to God’s encounter with Jacob at Bethel. It is not clear who found whom, though the verb, māṣāʾ, is the same as in 9:10, where Yahweh is the subject. Genesis records two such incidents: one before Peniel and one after Jacob’s meeting with Esau (Gen. 28:10–22; 35:5–14). Hosea’s other references to Bethel (or Beth Aven) are condemnatory (4:15; 5:8; 10:5, 15). This suggests that Bethel as a meeting place between God and Jacob is a further example of early promise which now stands in marked contrast to what Bethel has become: the home of the calf-idol (cf. 10:5) and the centre of Baal worship. The term translated with him (ʿimmānû) generally means ‘with us’ (esv). The former is possible, though there may also be an intentional link between Jacob and those descended from him.
In verse 5, the God who appeared to Jacob at Bethel is identified as Yahweh (cf. Gen. 28:13). The divine name ʾĕlōhê haṣĕbāʾôt is usually translated ‘God of hosts’ (cf. nrsv).4 The lxx frequently translates it ‘God Almighty’ (cf. niv), though in English versions that is usually the translation of ʾēl šāddāy (cf. Gen. 35:11). In the second part of the verse, ‘Yahweh’ is described as a memorial name (zēker). This comes from the verb ‘to remember’ (cf. 8:13; 9:9) and is specifically associated with the revelation of the divine name to Moses (Exod. 3:15; cf. Hos. 12:13). Its similarity to the title in Amos 4:13 suggests that the title ‘Yahweh, God of hosts’ may be formulaic, possibly a doxology. Significantly, it emphasizes God’s power over people and events, and that this is the One with whom Israel has to do.
6. A key element in Jacob’s encounter with God at Bethel is the promise that Yahweh will keep (šāmar) him and enable him to return (šûb) (Gen. 28:15, 20–22). The same terms appear here in 12:6. God’s commitment to Jacob offers hope to his descendants. They, though, must respond to the often-repeated call for Israel to return (šûb) to God (cf. 6:1; 14:1–2).5 The mt reads, literally, ‘return with your God’, and may include the sense of ‘return with the help of your God’ (Mays 1969: 161; Macintosh 1997: 491; Moon 2018: 190). As part of what it means to return, Israel must maintain (šāmar) (cf. 4:10) love (ḥesed)6 and justice (mišpāṭ). These are both associated with the covenant, and are currently lacking, but with God’s help may be restored (cf. 2:19). The call to wait for . . . God always implies continuing trust and expectancy (cf. Isa. 25:9; 33:2; 40:31), and so contrasts with putting confidence in other things. This may also be related to Jacob’s experience of holding on to God’s promises over a significant period (Gen. 49:18).
7–9. These verses return to Ephraim’s sin. The first word of verse 7 is kĕnaʿan (‘Canaan’), though because Canaanites were noted as traders, the word also came to mean ‘merchant’ (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 615; Dearman 2010: 309). However, continuing the links with Israel’s past, it may carry a double meaning: Israel’s dishonesty makes them no different from the Canaanites, whose practices they continue to follow (Macintosh 1997: 494; Moon 2018: 196). Dishonest [mirmâ] scales (Prov. 11:1; Amos 8:5; Mic. 6:11) symbolizes fraudulent business practice, while mirmâ also provides a link with Jacob (Gen. 27:35). Loves to defraud suggests that oppressing and exploiting the weak is something Israel has come to enjoy. Another possibility, ‘defrauds a loved one’ (cf. Andersen and Freedman 1980: 617; Hubbard 1989: 207), may allude further to the tension between Jacob and Esau.
In verse 8, Ephraim declares that he is rich and has become wealthy (literally, ‘found [māṣāʾ] wealth [ʾôn] for myself [lî]’). This probably relates historically to Israel’s prosperity under Jeroboam II, and further indicates that the people have lost sight of the true source of blessing. It also continues the allusion to Jacob. God found (māṣāʾ) Jacob at Bethel (v. 4), and Jacob, ‘in his strength [ʾôn]’,7 struggled with God (v. 3). The remainder of the verse is best understood as a spurious claim that, in the acquisition of wealth,8 Ephraim has done nothing wrong (ʿāwōn) so as to be guilty of sin (ḥēṭĕʾ). This includes a play on words:
I have found [māṣāʾ] wealth [ʾôn] for myself [lî]
They have not found [māṣāʾ] iniquity [ʿāwōn] in me [lî]
Verse 9 gives Yahweh’s response to Ephraim’s boasting. Everything they have and are has come through him. ‘I am the Lord your God from the land of Egypt’ (nrsv; cf. 13:4)9 echoes the frequently repeated statement ‘I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt’ (cf. Exod. 20:2; Lev. 25:38; Deut. 5:6; Ps. 81:10). This emphasizes the distinctive nature of the relationship between God and his people, established through the Sinaitic covenant. It was Yahweh who brought the people into Canaan, and for all their boasting it was he, not they, who enabled them to prosper there. But they do not acknowledge Yahweh, and have instead taken on the characteristics of Canaan. As a result, they will be taken back to a time before the settlement had its adverse effects. The reference to living in tents points particularly to the exodus. The ‘appointed festival’ (nrsv) may be the feast of Tabernacles (cf. 9:5), when the people constructed booths to recall the days in the desert. The Hebrew expression is ‘appointed days’ or ‘days of the assembly’, and this is sometimes taken to refer to the wider exodus period (Wolff 1974: 215; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 618; Hubbard 1989: 208; Macintosh 1997: 499). In either case, the return to that time points to a new exodus, which, as noted in 2:14–20, will have a very different outcome.
10. As if to highlight the need for a new start, Hosea resumes his indictment of Ephraim. The emphasis here, and in verse 13, is on the divinely appointed role of prophets within the life of the nation (cf. 9:7–8). While the prophetic word may be challenged, particularly by those who object to the message, true prophets do not speak on their own authority. Yahweh speaks to them. He multiplies their visions (ḥāzôn);10 and that is the basis of the parables, similes and metaphors (dāmâ) which are then applied to the life of the nation.11
11. This may be an example of the prophetic comparisons described in the previous verse (Coote 1971: 397–401; Hubbard 1989: 209; Macintosh 1997: 504) in relation to Gilead and Gilgal. The first part of the verse may be translated, ‘if Gilead (is) evil, they have surely become worthless’ (Mays 1969: 166; Garrett 1997: 244; Macintosh 1997: 504; Dearman 2010: 296). Gilead’s sin (ʾāwen) has already been noted (see on 6:8). Gilgal, too, has been criticized, as a corrupt cultic centre (4:15) and maybe also as a base for political insurrection (see on 9:15). Here the criticism appears to relate to the sacrifice of bulls as part of illicit cultic rites. Some altars were, essentially, piles of stones (gal), and Gilgal’s altars will become as useless as the piles of stones cleared from the field before ploughing. There is also a possible further allusion to Jacob. After Jacob fled from Laban, Laban caught up with him in Gilead (Gen. 31:23), and the two men made a covenant, and set up a gal as a witness (Gen. 31:46–50).
12–13. Hosea now returns explicitly to the story of Jacob fleeing to Aram and working for a wife (v. 12; cf. Gen. 27 – 29), and he links this with the exodus (v. 13). Though some see an abrupt shift in focus here, there are common themes running through these verses, and they can be linked to what precedes as further examples of prophetic comparisons.
Jacob was forced to seek sanctuary in a foreign country. There, he worked to marry Rachel. Although the niv has only one reference to wife, there are two in the mt: ‘Israel served for a wife and for a wife he guarded sheep’ (nrsv, esv). This may suggest service for two wives (e.g. Andersen and Freedman 1980: 620). More likely, though, it emphasizes that, having been deceived by Laban, he did double service for Rachel, who has particular significance as Ephraim’s grandmother. Nevertheless, God gave Jacob the upper hand, and eventually he brought his bride back to the land of promise. Israel, too, had sought refuge, in Egypt, and also became subject to hard labour. But Yahweh, through Moses his prophet, rescued his people, and Yahweh also brought his bride back to the Promised Land.
While some of the comparisons noted are between Jacob and the nation descended from him, significantly the idea of going into a foreign land to bring back a wife parallels Jacob with Yahweh, and echoes themes in chapters 1–3. That link is reinforced by the double reference to šāmar. Most English versions refer to Jacob serving for Rachel by ‘tending [šāmar] sheep’ (v. 12). And Yahweh, through a prophet, cared for (šāmar) Israel (v. 13). The term for sheep, though, is lacking in the mt, and it may be better to take šāmar to suggest devotion (cf. 4:10). Macintosh (1997: 508) gives the alternative translation: ‘to a wife [i.e. Rachel] he devoted himself’, thus paralleling Yahweh’s devotion to Israel. The prophet on this occasion may again be Moses, who guided the people through the desert, or possibly one more associated with the settlement, maybe Samuel or Elijah. The twofold reference to ‘prophet’ matches the twofold reference to ‘wife’ and may further the comparison between Jacob’s devotion to Rachel and Yahweh’s devotion to Israel. In addition, by omitting the names of key figures, Hosea also emphasizes the role of prophets in general within the life of the nation (cf. 9:8; 12:10).
14. The prophet here returns to condemnation, using ideas that echo verse 2, including a further reference to šûb in the context of bringing Ephraim’s sin back on him. Despite Yahweh’s care, Ephraim has provoked him to bitter anger. The sins noted are bloodshed (dām; cf. 1:4; 4:2; 6:8) and showing contempt for Yahweh, which includes bringing him dishonour by forgetting him and turning to other gods. Yahweh’s authority to judge is emphasized in the description Lord (ʾādôn). This may, more generally, refer to a ‘master’, but though Hosea uses the term only here, it is related to Yahweh over four hundred times throughout the Old Testament.
These verses compare and contrast Ephraim/Israel with Jacob. Israel shares Jacob’s deceitfulness: deceiving others, and also deceiving themselves into thinking that they are better than they are, and able to solve their own problems without Yahweh (cf. 11:12 – 12:1; 12:7–8). There are, though, more positive aspects. Despite Jacob’s deceitfulness, God met with him at Bethel and entered into a relationship with him there. Bethel has since become a centre of corrupt worship, but things didn’t begin that way, and the people may still return to God (12:6) and trust him as Jacob did. The reference to Jacob serving for, and being devoted to, a wife and bringing her back to the Promised Land is also linked with Yahweh’s care for Israel, and recalls the metaphor of Israel as Yahweh’s bride in chapters 1–3. And, again, there is the suggestion of a return to the desert (12:9; cf. 2:14–15): Yahweh remains committed to his people and wants to restore the love and commitment of earlier days (cf. Rev. 2:4–5).
One further key element here, which picks up on earlier statements, is the role of God’s prophets (12:10, 13) in guarding and guiding the life of the nation. The people have been brought into a covenant relationship with Yahweh, and he continues to care for them, despite their failures. A key role of prophets was to call the people back to their covenant obligations. For Israel in Hosea’s day, this emphasizes the importance of listening to God’s representatives. For the church, it points to the continuing importance of being open to, and guided by, God’s Word.
This begins a new section. However, while introducing some new terms, it also repeats earlier themes, and appears to summarize Ephraim’s failure and the devastating effect of divine judgment. There is, too, a possible reprise of the possibility of resurrection (13:14; cf. 6:2). This summary then prepares the way for the call to repent and the further message of hope in chapter 14. As an overview of the sin of the northern kingdom, it is probably set close to the fall of Samaria. However, sin is continuing and judgment is still future, suggesting that the kingdom has not fallen yet.
The passage is framed by references to Ephraim’s guilt (ʾāšam) and its consequences (vv. 1, 16), indicating that this is a major emphasis. Themes repeated from earlier passages include worshipping idols (ʿāṣāb, v. 2; cf. 4:17; 8:4; 14:8), and especially the calf-idol (cf. 8:5–6), the failure of kings and leaders (vv. 10–11; cf. 5:1; 7:3–7; 8:4; 10:3), Ephraim’s early promise in the days of the exodus, followed by ingratitude (vv. 4–6; cf. 9:10; 11:1–2), and the description of coming judgment as an attack by a wild animal, in particular a lion (šaḥal, v. 7; cf. 5:14). Ephraim’s transience is also described in the same terms as the people’s ḥesed (v. 3; cf. 6:4).
1–3. As in previous sections, the nation’s early history is contrasted with what it has become. Mention of Ephraim’s significance in Israel (v. 1) may indicate that this refers to the tribe of that name, which was prominent in the north. Ephraim, though, came to represent the whole of the northern kingdom, and that is its primary significance in relation to the coming judgment. The term rĕtēt (v. 1) occurs only here in the Old Testament and is usually translated in the sense of ‘trembling’.12 This is usually taken to reinforce the tribe’s significance: ‘When Ephraim spoke, (there was) trembling’ (nrsv, esv; cf. niv; Hubbard 1989: 213–214; Moon 2018: 202). In the context, this seems the most likely understanding. There are, though, several suggested variations: ‘when Ephraim spoke in agitation’ (Dearman 2010: 316); ‘when Israel spoke disruption’ (Macintosh 1997: 518); or, taking Yahweh as the subject, ‘[Yahweh] has spoken terror against Ephraim’ (Stuart 1987: 186; cf. Andersen and Freedman 1980: 624; Yee 1987: 249). Alongside Ephraim’s prominence there may be an indication, too, of his pride (cf. 12:8). The guilt incurred ‘through Baal’ may be a further reference to Baal Peor (9:10) or to the secession of the northern tribes under Jeroboam I, which led to setting up calves at Dan and Bethel and hence to greater involvement with Baal worship (cf. 2 Kgs 17:16), particularly under Ahab and Jezebel (Macintosh 1997: 520). As a result, the nation died (mût) – that is, it became as good as dead (Dearman 2010: 319), because of its liability to the judgment that would result in its eventual demise.
Verse 2 notes that Ephraim continues to sin (ḥāṭāʾ; cf. 4:7; 8:11; 10:9) through Baal worship, which has persisted and grown. Idols translates massēkâ, the same term used for the golden calf in the desert (Exod. 32:4, 8). Here it is singular (cf. nrsv) and probably refers to the calf-idol in Bethel (cf. 1 Kgs 12:28; Hos. 10:5). The related term, images (ʿāṣāb), occurs frequently in Hosea (see Context above) and is combined with silver in 8:4. Though made by skilled craftsmen (cf. 8:6; Isa. 40:20), these images are still only the work of human hands. The final part of verse 2 is unclear. The niv and esv take the expression zōbḥê ʾādām (‘sacrificers of people’) to indicate human sacrifice (Wolff 1974: 219; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 624; Yee 1987: 249–250; Hubbard 1989: 215). However, if this was practised it would likely have received more direct condemnation (Emmerson 1984: 147–148; see also on 4:2). Another possibility is to take ādām with what follows: ‘men kiss calves’ (cf. nrsv; Mays 1969: 171; Emmerson 1984: 148–149; Stuart 1987: 198; Dearman 2010: 316). It may be better, though, to take the expression to mean ‘people who sacrifice’ (Moon 2018: 202; cf. Macintosh 1997: 522): ‘they (are) saying to them, “people who sacrifice kiss calves.”’ Kissing is a mark of devotion to Baal (1 Kgs 19:18) and may have accompanied the offering of sacrifices. As with many passages in Hosea, the precise translation is uncertain. The text does, though, clearly indicate Ephraim’s continuing attachment to Baal.
The consequences of that attachment are emphasized in verse 3. Two pairs of similes emphasize the transience of those who worship worthless idols (cf. Jer. 2:5).13 Mist and dew quickly evaporate in the heat of the day (cf. 6:4); chaff and smoke disappear when caught in a swirling wind. Ephraim’s sin means that the nation will not survive long.
4–6. These verses again recall the exodus. The opening expression of verse 4, which is identical to 12:9a, emphasizes the relationship between God and his people and his commitment to them from the time they left Egypt. The next part of the verse echoes the second commandment (Exod. 20:3). However, consistent with what is a significant theme for Hosea, it refers to knowing or acknowledging (yādaʿ),14 rather than ‘having’, no other God. Israel’s whole history testifies to there being only one God and one Saviour (cf. Isa. 43:11; 45:21). Here the reference is probably to the idealized honeymoon period in the wilderness (cf. 2:15; Jer. 2:2). The theme continues in verse 5. The mt reads, ‘I knew you [yādaʿ] in the desert’ (cf. esv; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 624; Eidevall 1996: 196; Garrett 1997: 258; Macintosh 1997: 528; Dearman 2010: 316). Following the lxx, yĕdaʿtîkā (‘I knew you’) is frequently emended to rĕʿîtîkā (‘I shepherded/fed you’) (nrsv; cf. niv; Mays 1969: 173; Wolff 1974: 221; Stuart 1987: 198; Moon 2018: 202), though the mt fits the context and continues the marriage metaphor. It also fits with the emphasis on yādaʿ (‘to know’) throughout the book. The sense, though, may not be too different; yādaʿ implies a caring relationship, which enabled the people to survive the inhospitable desert.
When I fed them (v. 6) translates literally as ‘according to their pasture’ and makes the shepherding imagery explicit. There is also the return of a familiar theme. Divine provision led to the people being satisfied, which, in turn, led to complacency and self-reliance (literally, ‘they lifted up their heart’). And with that, they forgot (šākaḥ) Yahweh (cf. 2:13; 8:14), the opposite of acknowledging him as the true source of their blessings (cf. 2:8; 11:2–3).
7–8. Because the people have forgotten Yahweh and failed to acknowledge him as their God and Saviour, they will face judgment. The imagery here, of being torn apart by wild animals, is relentless. Yahweh, who was their Saviour, will become their destroyer; their shepherd will attack the flock as a predator. In this, there appears to be progression (Eidevall 1996: 197–199). The reference to a lion (šaḥal; cf. 5:14) alerts people to the threat: Yahweh has become their enemy. That threat intensifies with the leopard lurking (šûr) by the path, waiting to pounce. Then there is a ferocious attack, this time of a she-bear separated from her cubs, who rips open the chest cavity and exposes the heart. Finally, what is left is devoured by a lioness (lābîʾ) and torn apart by wild animals, emphasizing the completeness of the destruction.
9. The mt of verse 9 is terse and has given rise to various translations. Three seem most likely: ‘I will destroy you, Israel, for (you were) against me, against your helper’ (cf. niv, esv; Moon 2018: 203); or, following the lxx, some read: ‘I will destroy you, Israel; who will help you?’ (cf. nrsv; Mays 1969: 176; Wolff 1974: 221; Stuart 1987: 199); a third possibility reads the verb as a noun: ‘your destruction, Israel, is from me, from your helper’ (Macintosh 1997: 535; Dearman 2010: 317). All of these continue the theme that the one who was Israel’s helper has now become its destroyer. The first makes explicit the people’s ingratitude for what God has done, and may fit the context better.
10–11. The prophet returns here to his criticism of the failure of Israel’s king and leaders, and their false confidence in their ability to resolve the crisis in the nation. The opening term, ʾĕhî, is usually translated Where . . . ? (see also 13:14) (cf. lxx). Save (v. 10) translates yāšaʿ and may be an ironic play on the name of Israel’s last king, Hoshea (hôšēaʿ), which derives from it. The reference to cities implies a military threat, and the verse emphasizes the impotence of the king and other political leaders, referred to as rulers (šōpēṭ; cf. 7:7) and princes (śār; cf. 3:4; 5:10; 7:3, 5, 16; 8:10; 9:15), to avert the coming disaster. These, though, were what the people asked for and on whom they continue to rely.
Verse 11 appears to refer to Israel’s request for a king (1 Sam. 8:5, 19–20), which Hosea may have linked with the northern monarchy (see on 9:15). Yahweh viewed this as a rejection of his kingship and symptomatic of Israel’s wider failure to acknowledge him (1 Sam. 8:7–8), and it was in anger (ʾap; cf. 8:5; 11:9; 14:4) that he gave them what they wanted. The corresponding removal of the king in wrath (cf. 5:10) may refer to Saul’s rejection, though while that may be in the background, it more likely points to the imminent demise of Hoshea and of the northern kingdom.
12. Ephraim’s sin, referred to as ʿāwōn and ḥaṭṭāʾt, has been catalogued throughout the book.15 The emphasis here is on the inevitability of judgment. The language may reflect the practice of binding together important documents, or other items of value, and sealing them for secure storage (Isa. 8:16; cf. Jer. 32:14) (Macintosh 1997: 542). In this case, it results in a permanent and inescapable record of Ephraim’s culpability.
13. There seems to be two related metaphors here. One portrays Ephraim’s desperate situation as that of a woman in labour whose pain in the end is futile and will result in a stillbirth. The second emphasizes Ephraim’s foolishness (cf. 7:11). Labour pains indicate that the time for birth is near, but Ephraim is oblivious to the signs and refuses to leave the womb. Consequently, the nation cannot survive (cf. v. 14). The imagery suggests that if the people did heed the warnings and respond to Yahweh, there might be the possibility of new life. But they will not listen.
14. There is here a double reference to ‘Sheol’ (šĕʾôl). The niv usually translates šĕʾôl as grave (Harris 1961), though it is better understood in the sense of ‘underworld’ (Merrill 1996; Johnston 2002: 74–75; Routledge 2008b: 24) and, more particularly, the place of those who die under divine judgment or outside God’s blessing (Johnston 2002: 79–83; Levenson 2006: 67–81; Routledge 2008b: 29–30). Sheol, here, is paralleled with death (māwet) and is set in the context of Ephraim’s imminent demise (cf. 13:1).
Two further parallel terms, ‘ransom’ (pādâ; cf. 7:13) and ‘redeem’ (gāʾal) (cf. Hubbard 1996a; 1996b), imply rescuing from need, usually by making a payment, and recall Hosea buying back Gomer. In Isaiah, gāʾal frequently refers to Yahweh as Israel’s Redeemer (e.g. Isa. 41:14; 43:14; 44:6; 48:17) and, like pādâ, it is associated with the exodus (Exod. 6:6; 15:13). In 13:14, the mt reads: ‘I will ransom them . . . I will redeem them’. However, in the light of the later emphasis on judgment, I will have no compassion [nōḥam] (niv), literally: ‘Compassion is hidden from my eyes’ (nrsv),16 these are sometimes taken as questions suggesting a negative answer: ‘Shall I ransom them . . . shall I redeem them . . . ?’ (nrsv; Mays 1969: 178; Wolff 1974: 221; Stuart 1987: 199; Macintosh 1997: 546; Dearman 2010: 317). In that case, the parallel expressions Where, O death, are your plagues? Where, O [Sheol], is your destruction? are understood as invitations to these powers to carry out their destructive work.17 It may be better, though, to see them as a taunt (cf. 13:10; Deut. 32:37; Isa. 36:19; Jer. 2:28), emphasizing the impotence of death and Sheol compared with Yahweh’s power to save (Garrett 1997: 264; cf. 1 Cor. 15:55). The earlier expressions are then translated as in the mt: ‘I will ransom them . . . I will redeem them’ (cf. niv; Andersen and Freedman 1980: 625; Hubbard 1989: 221–222; Garrett 1997: 264–265; Moon 2018: 210). The sense is, then, that Yahweh wants to deliver his people but is frustrated by their intransigence (cf. 7:13). This leads to the withdrawal of divine compassion and to further threats of judgment (vv. 15–16). In the light of Israel’s impending demise, redemption from death and Sheol should probably be understood as a reference to national resurrection (cf. 6:2).18
15. In the first part of the verse there appears to be a play on the words ʾeprayim (‘Ephraim’) and pārāʾ (‘to thrive, be fruitful’).19 The mt bēn (‘son’) is generally emended to bên (‘among’), and some also emend ʾaḥîm (‘brothers’) to ʾāhû (‘rushes’) (Mays 1969: 179; Stuart 1987: 199; Garrett 1997: 266). This gives either: even though he thrives among his brothers (niv, esv; Dearman 2010: 317), maybe reflecting Ephraim’s pre-eminence (13:1), or ‘although he flourishes among the rushes’ (cf. nrsv), representing Ephraim as a flourishing plant. However, divine judgment, in the form of the hot east wind that blows from the desert (cf. 12:1), described also as a wind (rûaḥ) from Yahweh, will dry up Ephraim’s water supply and bring its prosperity to an end. This probably refers metaphorically to Assyria. Plundering the nation’s treasury suggests a less-metaphorical reference to impending invasion, which continues in the following verse.
16. This verse, which echoes 13:1, concludes the final section of judgment. Samaria here represents the whole of the northern kingdom. However, references to Samaria are relatively few (cf. 7:1; 8:5–6; 10:5, 7), and its mention here may indicate that the siege of the city by Assyria has already begun. The reason for judgment is that the people have incurred guilt (5:15; 10:2; 13:1), because of their rebellion against God. This is the only reference to rebellion in Hosea, but it aptly characterizes Israel’s sin as rejecting divine authority and offering allegiance to, and putting trust in, other things. The rest of the verse describes the horror of the Assyrian invasion, which is characteristic of warfare in the Ancient Near East (cf. 2 Kgs 8:12; 15:16). Hubbard (1989: 224) suggests that, if the east wind in verse 15 is a metaphorical reference to Assyria, the further reference to Ephraim’s spring being dried up may also point to the deaths of the nation’s children (cf. 9:13–14, 16).
The passage begins and ends by emphasizing what the nation was and what it has become because of its failure to acknowledge God. As we see throughout the book, the people have forgotten him, and continue to worship false gods and to put their trust in themselves, their leaders and their military strategy. Through his activity in the nation’s history, Yahweh has demonstrated that he alone is their God and Saviour, but the people do not recognize what he has done, and compound their guilt by attributing those blessings to other things. Characterizing this as rebellion emphasizes its seriousness. The people may claim to be devout, but they are, in fact, in wilful defiance of God. This failure to properly appreciate what God has done, and the danger of complacency and self-reliance, remain, albeit at different levels, issues for God’s people today.
As a result of Ephraim’s sin, judgment is inevitable, and will result, effectively, in the death of the northern kingdom. That, though, is not the final word. Yahweh can redeem his people even from death (13:14), opening the possibility of national resurrection and restoration. This, together with 6:2, probably influenced the development of the Old Testament hope of resurrection to life beyond the grave (Levenson 2006: 203–204, 214). It is used in the New Testament (1 Cor. 15:55) to emphasize Christ’s ultimate victory over death, which he shares with believers who put their trust in him.
This section concludes the prophecy and picks up on vocabulary and themes from elsewhere in the book (Dearman 2010: 334; Moon 2018: 218). It is made up of three parts. The first (vv. 1–3) calls Israel to return (šûb) to Yahweh and sets out, in a form resembling a liturgy, what the people need to say to express true repentance. The second (vv. 4–8) gives Yahweh’s response: repentance opens the way for national healing and restoration. The postscript (v. 9) contains wisdom themes encouraging the reader to learn from Hosea’s message. This is widely viewed as editorial (Mays 1969: 190; Wolff 1974: 239; Macintosh 1997: lxxii, 583; Moon 2018: 221–222).20 However, it too uses Hosean language21 and is consistent with the thought of the prophecy, and may have been added by Hosea or a disciple (Stuart 1987: 219; Garrett 1997: 281).
As a summary, this passage is probably relatively late in Hosea’s ministry. Some date it after the fall of Samaria (Moon 2018: 207–208; cf. Macintosh 1997: 559). It may be better to place it, like the previous section, just before Samaria fell. However, the judgment announced throughout the prophecy is now inevitable, and the promise of restoration is projected into the more distant future.
1–3. In verses 1–2a, the repeated call is for Israel to return (šûb) to Yahweh (cf. 6:1; 12:6). The result is expressed in two further occurrences of šûb: Yahweh’s anger will turn away (v. 4) and the people will dwell again in his shade (v. 7).22 The expression the Lord your God also appears in 12:9 and 13:4, where it specifically recalls the exodus, and the covenant relationship may be in view here. Israel, then, might refer to the whole nation (cf. 11:1), though the primary focus is still on Ephraim (v. 8). The second part of verse 1 notes the problem. The niv’s Your sins have been your downfall is more literally translated, ‘you have stumbled [kāšal] because of your iniquity [ʿāwōn]’ (nrsv). The same two terms also appear together in 5:5, again indicting the nation. Kāšal points, further, to the failure of the religious leaders in 4:5, and ʿāwōn is frequently used to refer to the people’s sin.23
Alongside the call to return, verse 2a includes two further imperatives, Take and Say. These are now plural, perhaps emphasizing their significance for the whole nation. Take words with you may refer to renewed vows of penitence and obedience, some of which is elaborated in the next part of the verse. Worshippers should not come before Yahweh empty-handed (e.g. Exod. 23:15; 34:20; Deut. 16:16), and as the people return, they need to bring an appropriate offering: in this case, an expression of true repentance.
Verses 2b–3 outline what the people’s prayer should include. This begins with two imperatives, addressed to Yahweh. The first is an appeal for him to forgive (nāśāʾ; cf. 1:6) all their sin (ʿāwōn), or, considering the unusual construction, to forgive their sin ‘completely’ (Stuart 1987: 210; Garrett 1997: 269). The second, ‘accept that which is good’ (nrsv), appears to be a recognition that the people need to present what pleases Yahweh rather than the false worship associated with Baal.24
The final part of verse 2 is problematic. The mt reads: ‘we will offer [šālēm] bulls [pārîm], our lips’. This is sometimes taken to suggest that that penitential prayer is as effective as the sacrifice of bulls (Macintosh 1997: 563; McComiskey 1998: 228–230). Lim (Lim and Castelo 2015: 219) suggests that it refers to bringing bulls that have been promised. Most, though, following the lxx, read pĕrî (‘fruit’) instead of pārîm, and take the fruit of our lips as a further reference to the words they will bring (Garrett 1997: 271; Dearman 2010: 335). Taken with šālēm, which includes the idea of repayment, this may refer to the fulfilment of vows, including making good on their covenant commitment. Such prayer, though, should not be seen as replacing animal sacrifices where they are offered sincerely and not superficially or as part of a syncretistic cult (cf. 6:6) (Routledge 2009).
Verse 3 picks up the theme of the people’s past failure to depend on Yahweh and instead trusting in other things. The prophet has already emphasized Assyria’s inability to give Israel the help it needs (5:13). The reference to not riding on horses indicates that they will no longer rely on military strength (cf. 1:5, 7; 10:13–14),25 though there may also be an oblique reference to Egypt, whose support is associated with horses (Isa. 31:1) (Dearman 2010: 339; Moon 2018: 220). The people will also renounce idolatry; they will no longer worship what their hands have made (cf. 8:4; 13:2). The final line refers to Yahweh as the true source of strength. In particular, he is the one in whom compassion (reḥem) may be found, reversing the name of Gomer’s second child, Lo-Ruhamah (1:6; cf. 2:1, 23). Orphans are among the weakest in society and are the object of Yahweh’s special care (e.g. Deut. 10:18; Pss 10:18; 68:5). And there is the added sense that Israel, who has become fatherless by rejecting the covenant relationship that brought the nation into Yahweh’s family (cf. 11:1), may still know his fatherly compassion.
4. Yahweh will respond to Israel’s prayer of repentance in the previous verses. First, he will offer the healing (rāpāʾ) they need (cf. 6:1; 7:1; 11:3) and can find nowhere else (cf. 5:13). Israel’s waywardness (mĕšûbâ; cf. 11:7) leads to judgment. This is described as wounding (e.g. 5:14; 6:1; 13:8), and so healing indicates restoration. There may also be the sense that only Yahweh’s healing can bring about the spiritual change that will enable Israel to return. Second, he will love (ʾāhab) Israel, freely. Yahweh’s love for Israel is noted on several occasions (e.g. 3:1; 11:1, 4).26 Freely translates nĕdābâ. This often relates to freewill offerings (e.g. Exod. 35:29; Lev. 22:18) and indicates something given willingly, spontaneously and generously (Exod. 36:3; Ps. 68:9). The final line of verse 4 notes that Yahweh’s anger (ʾap; cf. 8:5; 11:9; 13:11) has turned away (šûb). This is another play on words: as Israel returns (šûb) to Yahweh, so his anger turns (šûb) from them.
5–7. Restoration will also bring renewed fruitfulness. These verses are held together by the repeated comparison with Lebanon, which was noted for the fertility of its soil and richness of its vegetation (cf. Ps. 72:16). Garrett (1997: 277–278) suggests further that Lebanon’s fertility may have been associated with Baal, and that in the future what Israel expected from Baal will come from Yahweh.27
In verse 5, Yahweh is likened to the dew (ṭal) that watered the land during the dry summer. Because the dew evaporated in the heat of the day, it is also used to describe both Israel’s fickleness (6:3) and its transience (13:3). Here, though, Yahweh’s blessing brings the spiritual and physical refreshment that will enable renewal and restoration. The result is that Israel will blossom like the lily (šûšan). This may refer to the nation’s future glory. However, unlike flowers, and in sharp contrast to the withered roots in 9:16, Israel’s roots will become ‘like (the trees of) Lebanon’ (esv),28 ensuring stability and permanence.
The series of similes emphasizing future prosperity continues in verse 6. Fresh shoots indicate life and growth which, again, is in stark contrast to the picture of judgment (cf. 9:11–13; 13:15–16) that threatens to destroy the nation and its progeny and so take away future hope. Instead, Israel’s splendour (hôd) will be like that of the olive tree, which is noted for its foliage and valued for its oil. Again, this contrasts with the ‘glory’ (kābôd) that has been lost (cf. 4:7; 9:11). The verse concludes with a further comparison to Lebanon, whose lush vegetation results in a pleasing fragrance (rêaḥ; cf. Song 4:11).29 References to rêaḥ are frequent in the Song of Solomon (e.g. Song 2:13; 4:10–11; 7:8) (Yee 1987: 138–139; Hubbard 1989: 230–231; Garrett 1997: 274; Macintosh 1997: 572; Ben Zvi 2005: 297; Dearman 2010: 342), and Hosea’s possible allusions to love poetry may further reflect the relationship between Yahweh and his bride.
Verse 7 continues the theme of restoration. The translation, though, is debated. One issue is the referent of his shade. It may be Yahweh (Andersen and Freedman 1980: 647; Hubbard 1989: 231; Dearman 2010: 342), who is likened to a tree in verse 8 and is frequently described as providing shade for his people (e.g. Pss 36:7; 91:1; 121:5; Isa. 25:4; Lam. 4:20). Because this involves a change from first person (vv. 4–5) to third (v. 7) and then back to first (v. 8), some also emend the text to ‘my shade’ (nrsv, esv; Mays 1969: 184; Wolff 1974: 232). This then contrasts with the shade under which the people have prostituted themselves to Baal (cf. 4:13). Also, there may be a further allusion to love poetry (cf. Song 2:3). It may be better, though, to continue the thought of the previous verses and see a reference to Israel’s shade (cf. Ps. 80:8–11; Ezek. 17:23) (Stuart 1987: 216; Garrett 1997: 275; Macintosh 1997: 574; Moon 2018: 221). Under the shade of the restored nation, people will prosper. This may refer to the regathering of exiles,30 and might also indicate a future role for Israel in relation to other nations, who would also benefit from Israel’s renewed blessings (cf. Gen. 12:2–3; Isa. 2:2–4). The distinction between Israel’s and Yahweh’s shade is, though, perhaps not too great, since Israel’s restoration is wholly the work of Yahweh, and any future prosperity comes from him alone. And Eidevall (1996: 216–218) may be right in suggesting that the ambiguity is intentional. They will flourish like the corn (niv) may parallel they will blossom like the vine, highlighting Israel’s renewal (Stuart 1987: 211; Moon 2018: 216; cf. Garrett 1997: 275–276). Or it could be translated ‘they will grow grain’ (Mays 1969: 184; Wolff 1974: 232; Macintosh 1997: 573; Dearman 2010: 335). Both indicate an increase in produce, reversing the judgment in 8:7. The final line makes a further comparison with Lebanon. Fame translates zēker (‘memorial’; cf. 12:5), and here suggests renown or reputation. Lebanon was well known in the ancient world as a wine producer, and Israel’s fame will extend just as widely.
8. Verse 8 continues the theme of Yahweh’s provision and forms an appropriate conclusion to this section and to the book. The rhetorical question what more have I to do with idols [ʿāṣāb]? points to the end of Israel’s idolatrous worship (cf. 4:17; 8:4; 13:2; 14:3).31 The inclusion of more (mt, niv) suggests that, in the future, Yahweh’s provision will no longer be associated with Baal (cf. 2:8; 11:2–3), and he himself will no longer be regarded as just another ‘baal’ (cf. 2:16).32 In contrast to those idols, Yahweh affirms that he is the one who answers and watches over (šûr) them.33 In 13:7, šûr points to Yahweh as a leopard, stalking his prey. The sense here of watchful care (Macintosh 1997: 578–579; Dearman 2010: 343; Moon 2018: 216; contra Garrett 1997: 278–279) indicates another reversal of judgment. Yahweh is further described, uniquely in the Old Testament, as a luxuriant tree, providing Ephraim with fruitfulness.34 This imagery is frequently associated with fertility cults, and may again contrast Yahweh, the true source of provision, with those on whom the people have previously relied.35
9. This directly addresses the readers of the prophecy. Whether or not written by Hosea, it is consistent with the message of the book,36 and is an appropriate postscript, commending its message as one that will guide the wise and discerning in the ways of Yahweh. The language reflects wisdom traditions.37 The contrast between those who do and those who do not follow the right path is a common theme in wisdom texts (Prov. 10:29; 16:17; 21:8). It also recalls the choice set before the people in Deuteronomy (e.g. Deut. 30:15). Walking in Yahweh’s ways is another closely related Deuteronomic theme (Deut. 30:16; cf. 10:12; 11:22; 28:9), and the verse is also similar to Deuteronomy 32:29. It draws, then, on both wisdom and covenant traditions to encourage the discerning reader to choose the path of obedience to Yahweh, which leads to life. By contrast, those who rebel against him and his words will stumble and fall.
The opening chapters of the book emphasize Yahweh’s love for his bride, Israel, and that love is affirmed in these closing verses (cf. v. 4), which, apart from the warning in the final line, point to a hopeful future. The people have been unfaithful. They have failed to recognize Yahweh as the true source of life and blessings, and have turned to other things: to Assyria and Egypt; to their own political structures, plans and military strength; and, crucially, to idolatry and the worship of Baal. When Israel recognizes that these are futile and returns to Yahweh, with true repentance and full confession of sin, the way is opened for restoration and renewal, and for the possibility, too, of blessing for other nations.
The continuing relevance of Hosea’s message is emphasized in the final verse. The same message of divine love and faithful commitment, even towards those who turn away from God, is for all generations. It is tempting to turn away from God and put trust in other things, but they will fail. However, when we turn to God through Christ, we find that his loving commitment will not let us down. In him alone we can know forgiveness, restoration, blessing, true security and real hope for the future. And those who are wise will follow that path.