¹tn Heb “Say to….” The imperative Wrm=a! (’imru, Qal imperative mpl) functions rhetorically, as an example of erotesis of one verbal form (imperative) for another (indicative). The imperative is used as a rhetorical device to emphasize the certainty of a future action.
²sn The suffixes on the nouns <k#yj@a& (’akhekhem, “your brother”) and <k#yt@oja& (’akhotekhem, “your sister”) are both plural forms. The brother/sister imagery is being applied to Israel and Judah collectively.
³tn Heb “Plead with your mother, plead!” The imperative Wbyr] (rivu, “plead!”) is repeated twice in this line for emphasis. This rhetorical expression is handled in a woodenly literal sense by most translations: “Plead…plead!” (NRSV) or “Contend…contend!” (NASB).
⁴sn The suffix on the noun <k#M=a! (’immékhem, “your mother”) is a plural form (2 mpl). The children of Gomer represent the “children” (people) of Israel; Gomer represents the nation as a whole.
⁵tn The particle yK! (ki) introduces a parenthetical explanatory clause.
sn The reason that Hosea (representing the Lord) calls upon his children (representing the children of Israel) to plead with Gomer (representing the nation as a whole), rather than pleading directly with her himself, is because Hosea (the Lord) has turned his back on his unfaithful wife (Israel). He no longer has a relationship with her (“for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband”) because she abandoned him for her lovers.
⁶tn The dependent volitive sequence of imperative followed by vav + jussive (Wbyr], rivu followed by rs@t*w+, vétaser) creates a purpose clause: “so that she might turn away.” Purpose clauses in contemporary English are frequently translated by an English infinitive, and that has been followed in the translation for stylistic reasons.
⁷tn Heb “put away her adulteries from her face.” The plural noun h*yn\Wnz+ (zénuneha, “adulteries”) is an example of the plural of repeated (or habitual) action: she has had multiple adulterous affairs.
⁸tn Heb “[put away] her immoral behavior from between her breasts.”
⁹tn Heb “and kill her with thirst.” The vav prefixed to the verb (h*yT!m!h&w~, vahamittiha) introduces a purpose/result clause: “in order to make her die of thirst” (purpose) or “and thus make her die of thirst” (result).
¹⁰tn Heb “her sons.”
sn The word order is rhetorical: the accusative h*yn\B*-ta#w+ (vé’et-baneha, “her sons”) is thrown forward.
¹¹tn Heb “sons of adulteries.”
sn The word order is rhetorical: the construct clause <yn]Wnz+ yn}b= (v^ene z^enunim, “sons of adulteries”), which functions as the predicate nominative, is thrown forward, before the independent personal pronoun hM*h@ (hemma, “they”), which functions as the subject, to focus on the immoral character of her children.
¹²tn Heb “I will go after.”
¹³sn This statement alludes to the practice of sexual rites in the Canaanite fertility cult which attempted to secure agricultural fertility from the Canaanite gods.
¹⁴tn Heb “my drinks.”
¹⁵tn The deictic particle yn]n+h! (hinni, “Behold!”) introduces a future-time reference participle that refers to imminent future action: “I am about to.”
¹⁶tn Heb “I will hedge up her way.”
¹⁷tn Heb “I will wall in her wall.” The cognate accusative construction Hr*d@G=-ta# yT!r+d^g*w+ (v^egadarti ’et-g^ederah, “I will wall in her wall”) is an emphatic literary device. The 3fs 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.” It is handled variously: “I will make a wall” (KJV), “I will build a wall” (TEV), “I will build a wall against her” (RSV, NRSV, NASB), “I will wall her in” (NIV).
¹⁸tn The disjunctive clause (object followed by negated verb) introduces a purpose/result clause.
¹⁹tn Heb “her paths.”
²⁰tn Heb “overtake.”
²¹tn In the Hebrew text the accusative direct object pronoun <t*a) (’otam, “them”) is omitted/elided for balanced poetic parallelism. The LXX supplies aujtou" (autous, “them”); but it is not necessary to emend the MT because this is a poetic literary convention, not a textual problem.
²²tn Heb “I will go and return.” 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 §§120.d, h). The Hebrew phrase hb*Wva*w+ hk*l=a@ (’elkhah v^e’ashuvah, “I will go and I will return”) connotes, “I will return again.” As cohortatives, both verbs emphasize the resolution of the speaker.
²³tn Heb “to my man, the first.”
²⁴tn Or “because it was better for me then than now.”
²⁵tn Or “For”; or “But.”
²⁶tn The phrase “until now” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity and smoothness.
²⁷tn Heb “she does not know”; or “she does not acknowledge.”
²⁸tn The 1cs independent personal pronoun yk!n{a* (’anokhi, “I”) is emphatic, since the subject of this verbal clause is already explicit in the verb yT!t^n` (natatti, Qal perfect 1cs: “I gave”).
<sup>29</sup>tn The phrase “that it was I who” does not appear in the Hebrew text here, but is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity.
<sup>30</sup>sn The third person plural here is an obvious reference to the Israelites who had been unfaithful to the Lord in spite of all that he had done for them. To maintain the imagery of Israel as the prostitute, a third feminine singular would be called for; in the interest of literary consistency this has been supplied in some translations (cf. NLT).
<sup>31</sup>tn Heb “for Baal.”
<sup>32</sup>tn Heb “I will return and I will take.” The two verbs joined with vav conjunction form a verbal hendiadys in which the first verb functions adverbially and the second retains its full verbal sense (GKC §§120.d, h): yT!j=q^l*w+ bWva* (’ashuv v<sup>e</sup>laqakhti) means “I will take back.”
<sup>33</sup>tn Heb “in its time.”
<sup>34</sup>tn Heb “in its season.”
<sup>35</sup>tn The words “which I had provided” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.
<sup>36</sup>tn Heb “to cover her nakedness.”
sn This announcement of judgment drips with irony and forcefully communicates poetic justice: the punishment will fit the crime. The Israelites were literally uncovering their nakedness in temple prostitution in the Baal fertility cult rituals. Yahweh will, in effect, give them what they wanted (nakedness) but not in the way they wanted it: Yahweh will withhold the agricultural fertility they sought from Baal which would lead to nakedness from impoverishment.
<sup>37</sup>tn The particle hT*u^ (’attah) often refers to the imminent or the impending future: “very soon” (BDB 774 s.v. hT*u^ 1.b). In Hosea it normally introduces imminent judgment (Hos 2:12; 4:16; 5:7; 8:8, 13; 10:2).
<sup>38</sup>tn Heb “her lewdness.”
<sup>39</sup>tn Heb “out of my hand.”
<sup>40</sup>tn Heb “my wages.”
<sup>41</sup>tn Heb “I will turn them.”
<sup>42</sup>tn Heb “the beasts of the field” (also in v. 18).
<sup>43</sup>tn Heb “the days of the Baals, to whom she burned incense.”
<sup>44</sup>tn The vav prefixed to a nonverb (yt!a)w+, vé’oti) introduces a disjunctive contrastive clause, which communicates a strong rhetorical tenor.
<sup>45</sup>tn The accusative direct object pronoun yt!a)w+ (vé’oti, “me”) is emphatic in the word order of this clause, emphasizing the heinous inappropriateness of Israel’s departure from the Lord.
<sup>46</sup>tn The participle h*yT#p^m= (méfatteha, Piel participle ms + 3fs suffix from ht*P*, patah, “to allure”) following the deictic particle hN}h! (hinneh, “Now!”) describes an event that will occur in the immediate or near future.
<sup>47</sup>tn Following the future-time referent participle (h*yT#p^m=, méfatteha) is a string of perfects introduced by vav consecutive that refer to future events.
<sup>48</sup>tn Heb “Valley of Achor,” so named because of the unfortunate incident recorded in Josh 7:1-26 (the name is explained in v. 26).
<sup>49</sup>tn Heb “door” or “doorway.” Unlike the days of Joshua, when Achan’s sin jeopardized Israel’s mission and cast a dark shadow over the nation, Israel’s future return to the land will be marked by renewed hope.
<sup>50</sup>tn Heb “as in the days of her youth.”
<sup>51</sup>tn Heb “as in the days when.”
<sup>52</sup>tn Heb “And in that day.”
<sup>53</sup>tc The MT reads ya!r+q=T! (tiqr<sup>e</sup>’i, “you will call”; Qal imperfect 2fs). The versions (LXX, Syriac, Vulgate) all reflect an alternate Vorlage of yl! ar*q=T! (tiqra’ li, “she will call me”; Qal imperfect 3fs followed by preposition l=, lamed, + 1cs pronominal suffix). This textual variant undoubtedly arose under the influence of yl! ya!r+q=T! (tiqr<sup>e</sup>’i li) which follows. Most English translations follow the reading of the versions.
<sup>54</sup>tn Hosea plays on the terms vya! (’ish) and lu^B^ (ba’al) here. The term yv!ya! (’ishi, “my man, husband”) is a title of affection (Gen 2:23; 3:6, 16) as the counterpart to hV*a! (’ishah, “woman, wife”). The term yl!u=B^ (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.
<sup>55</sup>tc The MT reads yl! ya!r+q=t! (tiqr<sup>e</sup>’i li, “you will call me”; Qal imperfect 2fs followed by preposition l=, lamed, + 1cs pronominal suffix). The versions (LXX, Syriac, Vulgate) all reflect an alternate Vorlage of yl! ar+q=t! (tiqr<sup>e</sup>’ li, “she will call me”; Qal imperfect 3fs followed by preposition l= + 1cs pronominal suffix). This textual variant is related to the preceding textual issue (see preceding textual note).
<sup>56</sup>sn Hosea plays upon the terms yl!u=B^ (ba’li, “my master”) and <yl!u*B=h^ (habbé’alim, “the Baals”) which are derived from the root lu^B^ (ba’al, “master; lord”). This wordplay is especially effective because the term lu^B^ 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 vya! (’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.
<sup>57</sup>tn The vav consecutive prefixed to yt!r)s!h&w~ (vahasiroti) “I will remove” (vav consecutive + Hiphil perfect 1cs) introduces an explanatory clause.
<sup>58</sup>tn Heb “the Baals.” The singular term lu^B^ (ba’al) refers to the Canaanite god Baal himself, while the plural form <yl!u*B=h^ (habbé’alim) refers to the manifestations of the god (i.e., idols; BDB 127 s.v. lu^B* II.1).
<sup>59</sup>tn Heb “from her mouth.”
<sup>60</sup>tn Heb “they will no longer be mentioned by their name.”
<sup>61</sup>tn Heb “And in that day.”
<sup>62</sup>tn Heb “I will break.”
<sup>63</sup>tn Heb “bow and sword and warfare.” The first two terms in the triad hm*j*l=m!W br#j#w+ tv#q#w+ (v<sup>e</sup>qeshet v<sup>e</sup>kherev umilkhamah, literally, “bow and sword and warfare”) are examples of synecdoche of specific (bow and sword) for general (weapons of warfare). However, they might be examples of metonymy (bow and sword) of association (warfare).
<sup>64</sup>tn Heb “and I will cause them to lie down in safety.”
<sup>65</sup>tn Heb “I will betroth you to me,” here and in the following lines.
<sup>66</sup>tn The preposition B= (bet), which is repeated throughout 2:19-20 [21-22], denotes price paid (BDB 90 s.v. B= III.3; e.g., Ezek 3:14). Hosea alludes to the payment of bridal gifts. The Lord will impute the moral character to Israel that will be necessary for a successful covenant relationship (contra to 4:1).
<sup>67</sup>tn The vav consecutive on the suffix conjugation verb T=u^d^y`w+ (véyada’at, “then you will know”) introduces a result clause.
⁶⁸tn Or “know.” The term ud^y` (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.
<sup>69</sup>tc The MT reads hw`hy+ (y^ehvah, “the Lord”); however, many Hebrew mss read yn]a* yK! (ki ’ani, “that it is I”), as also reflected in the Latin Vulgate.
⁷⁰tn Heb “And in that day.”
⁷¹tn The verb hn`u*, (’anah) which is used throughout 2:23-24, is related to the root I hn`u* (’anah), “to answer, listen attentively, react willingly” (BDB 772 s.v. 1.b; HALOT 852 s.v. hnu 3.b).
⁷²tn Heb “and they.” The plural pronoun is used because it refers back to the term translated “sky,” which is a dual form in Hebrew.
⁷³tn Heb “Jezreel.” The use of the name lau#r+z+y] (yizré’e’l, “Jezreel”) creates a powerful three-fold wordplay: (1) The proper name lau#r+z+y] (“Jezreel”) is a phonetic wordplay on the similar sounding name la@r*c=y] (yisra’el, “Israel”): God will answer Israel, that is, Jezreel. (2) The name lau#r+z+y] (“Jezreel”) plays on the verb ur^z` (zara’, “to sow, plant”), the immediately following word: h*yT!u=r^z+W (uzéra’tiha, vav + Qal perfect 1cs + 3fs suffix: “I will sow/plant her”). This wordplay creates a popular etymology for lau#r+z+y] meaning, “God sows/plants,” which fits well into the agricultural fertility imagery in 2:21-23 [2:23-25]. (3) This positive connotation of lau#r+z+y] (“Jezreel”) in 2:21-23[23-25] reverses the negative connotation of lau#r+z+y] (“Jezreel”) in 1:4-5 (bloodshed of Jehu in the Jezreel Valley).
⁷⁴tn Heb “for myself.”
⁷⁵tn The Hebrew text, carrying out the reference to the son born in 1:8-9, uses the third masculine singular pronoun here; some English translations use third plural (“they”) in keeping with the immediate context, which refers to reestablished Israel (cf. NASB, NIV).
⁷⁶tn The words “You are” do not appear in the Hebrew text, but are implied. It is necessary to supply the phrase in the translation to prevent the reader from understanding the predicate “my God” as an exclamation.