Hosea 2:2-7
Konteks2:2 Plead earnestly 1 with your 2 mother
(for 3 she is not my wife, and I am not her husband),
so that 4 she might put an end to her adulterous lifestyle, 5
and turn away from her sexually immoral behavior. 6
2:3 Otherwise, I will strip her naked,
and expose her like she was when she was born.
I will turn her land into a wilderness
and make her country a parched land,
so that I might kill 7 her with thirst.
2:4 I will have no pity on her children, 8
because they are children conceived in adultery. 9
2:5 For their mother has committed adultery;
she who conceived them has acted shamefully.
For she said, “I will seek out 10 my lovers; 11
they are the ones who give me my bread and my water,
my wool, my flax, my olive oil, and my wine. 12
2:6 Therefore, I will soon 13 fence her in 14 with thorns;
I will wall her in 15 so that 16 she cannot find her way. 17
2:7 Then she will pursue her lovers, but she will not catch 18 them;
she will seek them, but she will not find them. 19
Then she will say,
“I will go back 20 to my husband, 21
because I was better off then than I am now.” 22
Hosea 2:16
Konteks2:16 “At that time,” 23 declares the Lord,
“you will call, 24 ‘My husband’; 25
you will never again call me, 26 ‘My master.’ 27
Hosea 2:19-20
Konteks2:19 I will commit myself to you 28 forever;
I will commit myself to you in 29 righteousness and justice,
in steadfast love and tender compassion.
2:20 I will commit myself to you in faithfulness;
[2:2] 1 tn Heb “Plead with your mother, plead!” The imperative רִיבוּ (rivu, “plead!”) is repeated twice in this line for emphasis. This rhetorical expression is handled in a woodenly literal sense by most English translations: NASB “Contend…contend”; NAB “Protest…protest!”; NIV “Rebuke…rebuke”; NRSV “Plead…plead”; CEV “Accuse! Accuse your mother!”
[2:2] 2 sn The suffix on the noun אִמְּכֶם (’immékhem, “your mother”) is a plural form (2nd person masculine). The children of Gomer represent the “children” (i.e., people) of Israel; Gomer represents the nation as a whole.
[2:2] 3 tn The particle כִּי (ki) introduces a parenthetical explanatory clause (however, cf. NCV “because”).
[2:2] sn The reason that Hosea (representing the
[2:2] 4 tn The dependent volitive sequence of imperative followed by vav + jussive (רִיבוּ, rivu followed by וְתָסֵר, vétaser) creates a purpose clause: “so that she might turn away from” (= “put an end to”); cf. NRSV “that she put away”; KJV “let her therefore put away.” Many English translations begin a new sentence here, presumably to improve the English style (so NAB, NIV, TEV, NLT), but this obscures the connection with the preceding clause.
[2:2] 5 tn Heb “put away her adulteries from her face.” The plural noun זְנוּנֶיהָ (zénuneha, “adulteries”) is an example of the plural of repeated (or habitual) action: she has had multiple adulterous affairs.
[2:2] 6 tn Heb “[put away] her immoral behavior from between her breasts.” Cf. KJV “her adulteries”; NIV “the unfaithfulness.”
[2:3] 7 tn Heb “and kill her with thirst.” The vav prefixed to the verb (וַהֲמִתִּיהָ, vahamittiha) introduces a purpose/result clause: “in order to make her die of thirst” (purpose) or “and thus make her die of thirst” (result).
[2:4] 8 tn Heb “her sons.” English versions have long translated this as “children,” however; cf. KJV, ASV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT.
[2:4] sn The word order is rhetorical: the accusative וְאֶת־בָּנֶיהָ (vé’et-baneha, “her sons”) is moved forward for emphasis.
[2:4] 9 tn Heb “sons of adulteries”; KJV “children of whoredoms.”
[2:4] sn The word order is rhetorical: the construct clause בְנֵי זְנוּנִים (vÿne zÿnunim, “sons of adulteries”), which functions as the predicate nominative, is moved forward, before the independent personal pronoun הֵמָּה (hemma, “they”) which functions as the subject, to focus on the immoral character of her children.
[2:5] 10 tn Heb “I will go after” (so KJV, NAB, NIV, NRSV).
[2:5] 11 sn This statement alludes to the practice of sexual rites in the Canaanite fertility cult which attempted to secure agricultural fertility from the Canaanite gods (note the following reference to wool, flax, olive oil, and wine).
[2:5] 12 tn Heb “my drinks.” Many English versions use the singular “drink” here, but cf. NCV, TEV, CEV “wine.”
[2:6] 13 tn The deictic particle הִנְנִי (hinni, “Behold!”) introduces a future-time reference participle that refers to imminent future action: “I am about to” (TEV “I am going to”).
[2:6] 14 tn Heb “I will hedge up her way”; NIV “block her path.”
[2:6] 15 tn Heb “I will wall in her wall.” The cognate accusative construction וְגָדַרְתִּי אֶת־גְּדֵרָהּ (vÿgadarti ’et-gÿderah, “I will wall in her wall”) is an emphatic literary device. The 3rd person feminine singular suffix on the noun functions as a dative of disadvantage: “as a wall against her” (A. B. Davidson, Hebrew Syntax, 3, remark 2). The expression means “I will build a wall to bar her way.” Cf. KJV “I will make a wall”; TEV “I will build a wall”; RSV, NASB, NRSV “I will build a wall against her”; NLT “I will fence her in.”
[2:6] 16 tn The disjunctive clause (object followed by negated verb) introduces a clause which can be understood as either purpose or result.
[2:6] 17 tn Heb “her paths” (so NAB, NRSV).
[2:7] 18 tn Heb “overtake” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV); NLT “be able to catch up with.”
[2:7] 19 tn In the Hebrew text the accusative direct object pronoun אֹתָם (’otam, “them”) is omitted/elided for balanced poetic parallelism. The LXX supplies αὐτους (autous, “them”); but it is not necessary to emend the MT because this is a poetic literary convention rather than a textual problem.
[2:7] 20 tn Heb “I will go and return” (so NRSV). The two verbs joined with vav form a verbal hendiadys. Normally, the first verb functions adverbially and the second retains its full verbal sense (GKC 386-87 §120.d, h). The Hebrew phrase אֵלְכָה וְאָשׁוּבָה (’elkhah vÿ’ashuvah, “I will go and I will return”) connotes, “I will return again.” As cohortatives, both verbs emphasize the resolution of the speaker.
[2:7] 21 tn Heb “to my man, the first.” Many English translations (e.g., KJV, NAB, NRSV, TEV) take this as “my first husband,” although this implies that there was more than one husband involved. The text refers to multiple lovers, but these were not necessarily husbands.
[2:7] 22 tn Or “because it was better for me then than now” (cf. NCV).
[2:16] 23 tn Heb “And in that day”; NLT “In that coming day.”
[2:16] 24 tc The MT reads תִּקְרְאִי (tiqrÿ’i, “you will call”; Qal imperfect 2nd person feminine singular). The versions (LXX, Syriac, Vulgate) all reflect an alternate Vorlage of תִּקְרָא לִי (tiqra’ li, “she will call me”; Qal imperfect 3rd person feminine singular followed by preposition לְ, lamed, + 1st person common singular pronominal suffix). This textual variant undoubtedly arose under the influence of לִי תִּקְרְאִי (tiqrÿ’i li) which follows. Most English versions follow the reading of the MT (KJV, ASV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT, CEV), but some follow the ancient versions and read the 3rd person (“she”, so NAB, NCV, TEV).
[2:16] 25 tn There are wordplays on the terms אִישׁ (’ish) and בַּעַל (ba’al) here. The term אִישִׁי (’ishi, “my man, husband”) is a title of affection (Gen 2:23; 3:6, 16) as the counterpart to אִשָּׁה (’ishah, “woman, wife”). The term בַּעְלִי (ba’li, “my lord”) emphasizes the husband’s legal position (Exod 21:3; Deut 22:22; 24:4). The relationship will no longer be conditioned on the outward legal commitment but on a new inward bond of mutual affection and love.
[2:16] 26 tc The MT reads תִקְרְאִי לִי (tiqrÿ’i li, “you will call me”; Qal imperfect 2nd person feminine singular followed by preposition לְ, lamed, + 1st person common singular pronominal suffix). The versions (LXX, Syriac, Vulgate) all reflect an alternate Vorlage of תִקְרְא לִי (tiqrÿ’ li, “she will call me”; Qal imperfect 3rd person feminine singular followed by preposition לְ + 1st person common singular pronominal suffix). This textual variant is related to the preceding textual issue (see preceding tc note).
[2:16] 27 sn There is a wordplay on the terms בַּעְלִי (ba’li, “my master”) and הַבְּעָלִים (habbé’alim, “the Baals”) which are derived from the root בַּעַל (ba’al, “master; lord”). This wordplay is especially effective because the term בַּעַל can refer to one’s husband and is also the name of the Canaanite storm god Baal. Referring to a spouse the term normally means “husband; master.” It was a common, ordinary, nonpejorative term that was frequently used in an interchangeable manner with אִישׁ (’ish, “husband; man”). Due to its similarity in sound to the abhorrent Canaanite fertility god Baal, the repentant Israelites would be so spiritually sensitive that they would refrain from even uttering this neutral term for fear of recalling their former idolatry. The purpose of the exile is to end Israel’s worship of Baal and to remove syncretism.
[2:19] 28 tn Heb “I will betroth you to me” (so NIV) here and in the following lines. Cf. NRSV “I will take you for my wife forever.”
[2:19] 29 tn The preposition בְּ (bet), which is repeated throughout 2:19-20 [21-22], denotes price paid (BDB 90 s.v. בְּ III.3; e.g., Ezek 3:14). The text contains an allusion to the payment of bridal gifts. The
[2:20] 30 tn The vav consecutive on the suffix conjugation verb וְיָדַעַתְּ (véyada’at, “then you will know”) introduces a result clause (cf. NASB, CEV).
[2:20] 31 tn Or “know.” The term יָדַע (yada’, “know, acknowledge”) is often used in covenant contexts. It can refer to the suzerain’s acknowledgment of his covenant obligations to his vassal or to the vassal’s acknowledgment of his covenant obligations to his suzerain. When used in reference to a vassal, the verb “know” is metonymical (cause for effect) for “obey.” See H. Huffmann, “The Treaty Background of Hebrew ya„daà,” BASOR 181 (1966): 31-37.
[2:20] 32 tc The MT reads יְהוָה (yÿhvah, “the
