▼ The textual problems in Hosea are virtually unparalleled in the OT. The Masoretic Text (MT), represented by the Leningrad Codex (c. a.d. 1008), which served as the basis for both BHK and BHS, and the Aleppo Codex (c. a.d. 952), are textually corrupt by all accounts and have a multitude of scribal errors. Many medieval Masoretic mss preserve textual variants that differ from the Leningrad and Aleppo Codices. The Qumran materials (4QXII^c,d,g) contain numerous textual variants that differ from the MT; unfortunately, these texts are quite fragmentary (frequently in the very place that an important textual problem appears). The textual tradition and translation quality of the LXX and the early Greek recensions (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) is mixed; in some places they are inferior to the MT but in other places they preserve a better reading. The textual apparatus of BHK and BHS contains many proposed emendations based on the ancient versions (Greek, Syriac, Latin, Aramaic) that often appear to be superior readings than what is preserved in the MT. In numerous cases, the MT readings are so difficult morphologically, syntactically, and contextually that conservative conjectural emendations are necessary to make sense of the text. Most major English versions (e.g., KJV, ASV, RSV, NEB, NAB, NASB, NIV, TEV, NKJV, NJPS, NJB, NRSV, REB, NCV, CEV, NLT) adopt (either occasionally or frequently) textual variants reflected in the versions and occasionally adopt conservative conjectural emendations proposed in BHK and/or BHS. However, many of the textual problems in Hosea are so difficult that the English versions frequently are split among themselves. With this in mind, the present translation of Hosea must necessarily be viewed as only preliminary. Further work on the text and translation of Hosea is needed, not only in terms of the NET Bible but in Hosea studies in general. The text of Hosea should be better clarified when the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project completes work on the book of Hosea. For further study of textual problems in Hosea, see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:228–71.

▼ Heb “The word of the Lord which was to Hosea.” The words “This is” are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

▼ Heb “in the days of” (again later in this verse). Cf. NASB “during the days of”; NIV “during the reigns of”; NLT “during the years when.”

▼ Heb “Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, kings of Judah.”

▼ Joash is a variation of the name Jehoash. Some English versions use “Jehoash” here (e.g., NIV, NCV, TEV, NLT).

▼ Heb “Jeroboam son of Joash, king of Israel.”

▼ The construct noun תְּחִלַּת (t^ekhillat, “beginning of”) displays a wider use of the construct state here, preceding a perfect verb דִּבֶּר (dibber, “he spoke”; Piel perfect 3rd person masculine singular) rather than a genitive noun. This is an unusual temporal construction (GKC 422 #130.d). It may be rendered, “When he (= the Lord) began to speak” (cf. ASV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, TEV, and most other modern English versions, all of which are similar). This time-determinative was not correctly understood by the LXX or by the KJV: “The beginning of the word of the Lord.”

▼ The preposition בְּ (bet) on בְּהוֹשֵׁעַ (b^ehoshea’) is an instrumental use of the preposition (BDB 89 s.v. בְּ III.2.b): “by, with, through Hosea” rather than a directional “to Hosea.” This focuses on the entire prophetic revelation through Hosea to Israel.

▼ Heb “the Lord.” This is redundant in English, so the pronoun has been used in the translation (cf. TEV, NLT).

▼ Heb “to Hosea.” The proper name is replaced by the pronoun here to avoid redundancy in English (cf. NIV, NCV, NLT).

▼ Heb “Go, take for yourself” (so NRSV; NASB, NIV “to yourself”). In conjunction with the following phrase this means “marry.”

▼ Heb “a wife of harlotries.” The noun זְנוּנִים (z^enunim) means “prostitute; harlot” (HALOT 275-76 s.v. זְנוּנִים). The term does not refer to mere adultery (cf. NIV; also NCV, TEV, CEV “unfaithful”) which is expressed by the root נַאַף (na’af, “adultery”; HALOT 658 s.v. נאף). The plural noun זְנוּנִים (z^enunim, literally, “harlotries”) is an example of the plural of character or plural of repeated behavior. The phrase “wife of harlotries” (אֵשֶׁת זְנוּנִים, ’eshet z^enunim) probably refers to a prostitute, possibly a temple prostitute serving at a Baal temple.

▼ Heb “and children of harlotries.” However, TEV takes the phrase to mean the children will behave like their mother (“your children will be just like her”).

▼ Heb “the land.” The term “the land” is frequently used as a synecdoche of container (the land of Israel) for the contained (the people of Israel).

▼ Heb “prostitution.” The adjective “spiritual” is supplied in the translation to clarify that apostasy is meant here. The construction זָנֹה תִזְנֶה (zanoh tizneh, infinitive absolute + imperfect of the same root) repeats the root זָנַה (zanah, “harlotry”) for rhetorical emphasis. Israel was guilty of gross spiritual prostitution by apostatizing from Yahweh. The verb זָנַה is used in a concrete sense to refer to a spouse being unfaithful in a marriage relationship (HALOT 275 s.v. זנה 1), and figuratively meaning “to be unfaithful” in a relationship with God by prostituting oneself with other gods and worshiping idols (Exod 34:15; Lev 17:7; 20:5, 6; Deut 31:16; Judg 8:27, 33; 21:17; 1 Chr 5:25; Ezek 6:9; 20:30; 23:30; Hos 4:15; Ps 106:39; see HALOT 275 s.v. 2).

▼ Heb “from after.”

▼ Heb “so he went and took” (וַיֵּלֶךְ וַיִּקַּח, vayyelekh vayyiqqakh; so NAB, NRSV).

▼ Heb “to him.” The referent (Hosea) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

▼ Heb “I will visit.” The verb פָּקַד (paqad, “to visit”) has a very broad range of meanings: (1) “to pay attention to; to look at” (a) favorably: to look after; to provide for; to care for; (b) unfavorably: to seek vengeance for; to punish for; (2) militarily: (a) “to muster; to enroll”; (b) “to inspect; to review”; (3) leadership: (a) “to rule over; to oversee”; (b) Hiphil: “to appoint an overseer” (see BDB 823 s.v. פָּקַד; HALOT 955-58 s.v. פקד). In this context, the nuance “to punish” or “to take vengeance” (see 1b above) is most appropriate. Cf. KJV, ASV “I will avenge”; NAB, NASB, NRSV “I will punish.”

▼ Heb “house” (so NAB, NRSV); NCV “family”; CEV “descendants.”

▼ The plural form of דָּם (dam, “blood”) refers to “bloodshed” (BDB 196 s.v. דָּם 2.f). This is an example of a plural of abnormal condition (GKC 400 #124.n). The plural is used to represent natural objects which are found in an unnatural or abnormal condition. The plural is used because the natural object is normally found as a whole or in one unit, but in the abnormal condition the object is found in many parts. Normally, blood is contained as a whole within the body. However, when a brutal murder occurs, blood is shed and literally spilled all over the place. Cf. NIV “the massacre”; TEV, CEV, NLT “the murders.”

▼ Heb “I will visit the bloodshed of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu.”

▼ Heb “the kingdom of the house of Israel” (so NAB, NASB, NRSV). This has been simplified in the translation for stylistic reasons.

▼ The proper name יִזְרְעֶאל (yizr^e’e’l, “Jezreel”) sounds like יִשְׂרָאֵל (yisra’el, “Israel”). This phonetic wordplay associates the sin at Jezreel with the judgment on Israel, stressing poetic justice.

▼ Heb “In that day” (so NIV; NAB, NRSV “On that day”).

▼ Heb “I will break the bow” (so NAB, NRSV). The phrase “break the bow” (וְשַׁבָרְתִּי אֶת־קֶשֶׁת, v^eshavarti ’et-qeshet) is figurative. The term קֶשֶׁת (qeshet, “bow”) frequently refers to the warrior’s weapon (2 Sam 22:35; Ps 18:35; Job 20:24; Hos 2:20; Zech 9:10; 10:4). The reference to the warrior’s bow is a synecdoche of specific (bow) for general (military weaponry or power; see HALOT 1155 s.v. קֶשֶׁת 3). The noun קֶשֶׁת is used figuratively for “power” several times (e.g., Gen 49:24; 1 Sam 2:4; Jer 49:35; Job 29:20; Ps 37:15; BDB 906 s.v. 1.e).

▼ Heb “Then he said”; the referent (the Lord) does not appear in Hebrew, but has been specified in the translation for clarity. Many English versions specify the speaker here (KJV “God”; ASV “Jehovah”; NASB, NIV, NRSV “the Lord”).

▼ The negative particle לאֹ (lo’, “no, not”) and the root רָחַם (rakham, “compassion”) are repeated in 1:6, creating a wordplay between the name Lo-Ruhamah (literally “No-Pity”) and the announcement of divine judgment, “I will no longer have pity on the nation of Israel.”

▼ Heb “house”; cf. TEV, NLT “the people of Israel.”

▼ The particle כִּי (ki) probably denotes cause (so NCV, TEV, CEV) or result here (GKC 505 #166.b; BDB 473 s.v. כִּי 3.c).

▼ The verb נָשָׂא (nasa’, “to take away”) frequently denotes “to forgive” meaning to take away sin (BDB 671 s.v. נָשָׂא 3.c). The construction נָשׂא אֶשָּׂא (naso’ ’esa’, “I will certainly take away,” infinitive absolute + imperfect of the same root) repeats the root נָשָׂא for rhetorical emphasis, stressing the divine resolution not to forgive Israel.

▼ The phrase “their guilt” does not appear in Hebrew, but is supplied in the translation for clarification. The ellipsis of the accusative direct object of נָשׂא אֶשָּׂא (naso’ ’esa’, “I will certainly take away”) is an example of brachyology. The accusative “guilt” must be supplied frequently with נָשַׂא (see BDB 671 s.v. נָשָׂא 3.c; e.g., Num 14:19; Isa 2:9; Ps 99:8). Many recent English versions simplify this to “forgive them” (e.g., NASB, NIV, NCV, NRSV, TEV, NLT).

▼ Heb “house”; cf. NCV, TEV, NLT “the people of Judah.”

▼ The word order in this line is rhetorical, emphasizing the divine decision to withhold pity from Israel but to bestow it on Judah. The accusative direct object, which is introduced by a disjunctive vav (to denote contrast), appears before the verb: וְאֶת־בֵּית יְהוּדָה אֲרַחֵם (v^e’et-bet y^ehudah ’arakhem, “but upon the house of Judah I will show pity”).

▼ Heb “by war” (so NAB, NRSV, TEV); KJV, NASB, NIV “battle.”

▼ These military weapons are examples of the metonymy of adjunct (the specific weapons named) for subject (warfare).

▼ The preterite וַתִּגְמֹל (vatigmol, literally, “and she weaned”) functions in a synchronic sense with the following preterite וַתַּהַר (vattahar, literally, “and she conceived”) and may be treated in translation as a dependent temporal clause: “When she had weaned…she conceived” (cf. KJV, ASV, NASB, NRSV). Other English versions render this as sequential with “After” (NAB, NIV, TEV, NLT).

▼ Heb “Then he said”; the referent (the Lord) has been specified in the translation for clarity. As in v. 6, many English versions specify the speaker here.

▼ The independent personal pronoun אַתֶּם (’attem, “you”) is a plural form, referring to the people of Israel as a whole. To make this clear TEV translates this as third person: “the people of Israel are not my people” (cf. CEV, NLT).

▼ The pronominal suffix on the preposition לָכֶם (lakhem, “your”) is a plural form, referring to the people of Israel as a whole.

▼ The MT reads לֹא־אֶהְיֶה לָכֶם (lo’-’ehyeh lakhem, “I will not be yours”). The editors of BHS suggest emending the text to לֹא־אֱלֹהֵיכֶם (lo’-’elohekhem, “I will not be your God”). The emendation creates a tighter parallel with the preceding אַתֶּם לֹא עַמִּי (’attem lo’ ’ammi, “you are not my people”). Because of a lack of external evidence, however, the reading of the MT should be retained.

▼ Heb “I am not yours.” The divine name “God” is supplied in the translation for clarity even though the reading of the MT is followed (see previous [V] note). Almost all English versions (including KJV, ASV, NASB) supply “God” here.

▼ This is an allusion to Yahweh’s promise to Moses אֶהְיֶה עִמָּךְ (’ehyeh ’immakh, “I will be with you”; Exod 3:12, 14). In effect, it is a negation of Exod 3:12, 14 and a cancellation of Israel’s status as vassal of Yahweh in the conditional Mosaic covenant.

▼ Beginning with 1:10, the verse numbers through 2:23 in the English Bible differ by two from the verse numbers in the Hebrew text (BHS), with 1:10 ET = 2:1 HT, 1:11 ET = 2:2 HT, 2:1 ET = 2:3 HT, etc., through 2:23 ET = 2:25 HT. Beginning with 3:1 the verse numbers in the English Bible and the Hebrew Bible are again the same.

▼ The vav prefixed to וְהָיָה (v^ehaya) functions in an adversative sense: “however” (see R. J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax, 71, #432).

▼ Heb “sons” (so NASB); KJV, ASV “the children”; NAB, NIV “the Israelites.”

▼ Heb “in the place” (בִּמְקוֹם, bimqom). BDB 880 s.v. מָקוֹם 7.b suggests that בִּמְקוֹם (preposition בְּ, bet, + noun מָקוֹם, maqom) is an idiom carrying a concessive sense: “instead of” (e.g., Isa 33:21; Hos 2:1). However, HALOT suggests that it functions in a locative sense: “in the same place” (HALOT 626 s.v. מָקוֹם 2b; e.g., 1 Kgs 21:19; Isa 33:21; Hos 2:1).

▼ The predicate nominative, “You are…,” is supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons.

▼ Heb “sons” (so KJV, NASB, NIV).

▼ Heb “sons” (twice in this verse, so NASB); KJV, ASV “children”; NIV, NRSV, TEV “people.”

▼ Heb “head” (so KJV, NAB, NRSV).

▼ Alternatively, “gain possession of the land” (cf. NRSV) or “rise up from the land” (cf. NIV). This clause may be understood in two ways: (1) Israel will gain ascendancy over the land or conquer the land (e.g., Exod 1:10; cf. NAB “come up from other lands”) or (2) Israel will be “planted” in the land (Hos 2:24–25; cf. NLT “will…plant his people”).

▼ Or “For” (so NASB); NCV “because”; TEV “Yes.”

▼ Heb “Say to….” The imperative אִמְרוּ (’imru, Qal imperative masculine plural) 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.

▼ The suffixes on the nouns אֲחֵיכֶם (’akhekhem, “your brother”) and אֲחוֹתֵיכֶם (’akhotekhem, “your sister”) are both plural forms. The brother/sister imagery is being applied to Israel and Judah collectively.

▼ 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!”

▼ The suffix on the noun אִמְּכֶם (’imm^ekhem, “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.

▼ The particle כִּי (ki) introduces a parenthetical explanatory clause (however, cf. NCV “because”).

▼ 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.

▼ The dependent volitive sequence of imperative followed by vav + jussive (רִיבוּ, rivu followed by וְתָסֵר, v^etaser) 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.

▼ Heb “put away her adulteries from her face.” The plural noun זְנוּנֶיהָ (z^enuneha, “adulteries”) is an example of the plural of repeated (or habitual) action: she has had multiple adulterous affairs.

▼ Heb “[put away] her immoral behavior from between her breasts.” Cf. KJV “her adulteries”; NIV “the unfaithfulness.”

▼ 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).

▼ Heb “her sons.” English versions have long translated this as “children,” however; cf. KJV, ASV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT.

▼ The word order is rhetorical: the accusative וְאֶת־בָּנֶיהָ (v^e’et-baneha, “her sons”) is moved forward for emphasis.

▼ Heb “sons of adulteries”; KJV “children of whoredoms.”

▼ The word order is rhetorical: the construct clause בְנֵי זְנוּנִים (v^ene z^enunim, “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.

▼ Heb “I will go after” (so KJV, NAB, NIV, NRSV).

▼ 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).

▼ Heb “my drinks.” Many English versions use the singular “drink” here, but cf. NCV, TEV, CEV “wine.”

▼ 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”).

▼ Heb “I will hedge up her way”; NIV “block her path.”

▼ Heb “I will wall in her wall.” The cognate accusative construction וְגָדַרְתִּי אֶת־גְּדֵרָהּ (v^egadarti ’et-g^ederah, “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.”

▼ The disjunctive clause (object followed by negated verb) introduces a clause which can be understood as either purpose or result.

▼ Heb “her paths” (so NAB, NRSV).

▼ Heb “overtake” (so KJV, NAB, NASB, NRSV); NLT “be able to catch up with.”

▼ 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.

▼ 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 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.

▼ 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.

▼ Or “because it was better for me then than now” (cf. NCV).

▼ Or “For” (so KJV, NASB); or “But” (so NCV).

▼ The phrase “until now” does not appear in the Hebrew text, but is supplied in the translation for the sake of clarity and smoothness.

▼ Heb “she does not know” (so NASB, NCV); or “she does not acknowledge.”

▼ The 1st person common singular independent personal pronoun אָנֹכִי (’anokhi, “I”) is emphatic, since the subject of this verbal clause is already explicit in the verb נָתַתִּי (natatti, Qal perfect 1st person common singular: “I gave”).

▼ 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.

▼ 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 person feminine singular would be called for; in the interest of literary consistency this has been supplied in some English translations (e.g., NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT).

▼ Heb “for Baal” (so NAB, NIV, NRSV); cf. TEV “in the worship of Baal.”

▼ 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 386-87 #120.d, h): אָשׁוּב וְלָקַחְתִּי (’ashuv v^elaqakhti) means “I will take back.”

▼ Heb “in its time” (so NAB, NRSV).

▼ Heb “in its season” (so NAB, NASB, NRSV).

▼ The words “which I had provided” are not in the Hebrew text, but are supplied in the translation for stylistic reasons; cf. NIV “intended to cover.”

▼ Heb “to cover her nakedness” (so KJV and many other English versions); TEV “for clothing.”

▼ This announcement of judgment is extremely ironic 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 caused by impoverishment.

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

▼ Heb “her lewdness” (so KJV, NIV); NAB, NRSV “her shame.”

▼ Heb “out of my hand” (so NAB, NASB, NRSV); TEV “save her from my power.”

▼ Heb “my wages.” The words “for prostitution” are not in the Hebrew text but are supplied for clarity; cf. CEV “gave…as payment for sex.”

▼ Heb “I will turn them”; the referents (vines and fig trees) have been specified in the translation for clarity.

▼ Heb “the beasts of the field” (so KJV, NASB); the same expression also occurs in v. 18).

▼ Heb “the days of the Baals, to whom she burned incense.” The word “festival” is supplied to clarify the referent of “days,” and the word “idols” is supplied in light of the plural “Baals” (cf. NLT “her images of Baal”).

▼ The vav prefixed to a nonverb (וְאֹתִי, v^e’oti) introduces a disjunctive contrastive clause, which is rhetorically powerful.

▼ The accusative direct object pronoun וְאֹתִי (v^e’oti, “me”) is emphatic in the word order of this clause (cf. NIV “but me she forgot”), emphasizing the heinous inappropriateness of Israel’s departure from the Lord.

▼ The participle מְפַתֶּיהָ (m^efatteha, Piel participle masculine singular + 3rd feminine singular suffix from פָּתָה, patah, “to allure”) following the deictic particle הִנֵּה (hinneh, “Now!”) describes an event that will occur in the immediate or near future.

▼ Following the future-time referent participle (מְפַתֶּיהָ, m^efatteha) there is a string of perfects introduced by vav consecutive that refer to future events.

▼ Heb “Valley of Achor,” so named because of the unfortunate incident recorded in Josh 7:1–26 (the name is explained in v. 26; the Hebrew term Achor means “disaster” or “trouble”). Cf. TEV, CEV “Trouble Valley.”

▼ Heb “door” or “doorway”; cf. NLT “gateway.” 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.

▼ Heb “as in the days of her youth” (so NAB, NIV, NRSV).

▼ Heb “as in the day when” (so KJV, NASB).

▼ Heb “And in that day”; NLT “In that coming day.”

▼ The MT reads תִּקְרְאִי (tiqr^e’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 (tiqr^e’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).

▼ 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.

▼ The MT reads תִקְרְאִי לִי (tiqr^e’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 (tiqr^e’ 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 [V] note).

▼ There is a wordplay on the terms בַּעְלִי (ba’li, “my master”) and הַבְּעָלִים (habb^e’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.

▼ The vav consecutive prefixed to וַהֲסִרֹתִי (vahasiroti) “I will remove” (vav consecutive + Hiphil perfect 1st person common singular) introduces an explanatory clause.

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

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

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

▼ Heb “And in that day” (so KJV, ASV).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

▼ Heb “for myself.”

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

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

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

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

▼ The MT vocalizes אֲהֻבַת (’ahuvat) as a construct form of the Qal passive participle and takes רֵעַ (rea’) as a genitive of agent: “who is loved by רֵעַ.” However, the ancient versions (LXX, Syriac, Vulgate) all vocalize אֲהֻבַת as an absolute form of the Qal active participle, and take רֵעַ as the accusative direct object: “who loves רֵעַ.” The English translations consistently follow the MT. The editors of BHS suggest the revocalization but with some reservation. For discussion of the vocalization, see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:230.

▼ Heb “a woman who is loved by a companion” (אִשָּׁה אֲהֻבַת רֵעַ, ’ishah ’ahuvat rea’). The substantival participle אֲהֻבַת (“one who is loved”) is in apposition to אִשָּׁה (“a woman”). The genitive noun רֵעַ (“companion”) functions as the agent of the preceding construct noun: “who is loved by a companion” (אֲהֻבַת רֵעַ). Cf. NAB “a woman beloved of a paramour”; NRSV “a woman who has a lover.”

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

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

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

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

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

▼ The LXX reads “a homer of barley and a measure of wine,” a reading followed by some English translations (e.g., NRSV, NLT).

▼ Heb “a homer of barley and a lethech of barley.” A homer was about 5 bushels (180 liters) and a lethech about 2.5 bushels (90 liters).

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

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

▼ Heb “David their king”; cf. NCV “the king from David’s family”; TEV “a descendant of David their king”; NLT “David’s descendant, their king.”

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

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

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