Biblical Studies

Interpretation and potential textual emendation of “offer the fruit of our lips” in Hosea 14:3 (English 14:2)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

If rendered somewhat ‘literally,’ the last line of Hosea 14:3 [Eng 14:2] reads something like, “And we will restore [shalom] the bulls // our lips.” Nonetheless, the only English translation that seems to preserve (something like) this reading is the KJV: “So we will render the calves of our lips.” The average, cursory reading of this line easily hints that something is askew, that either this Hebrew text has somehow been corrupted or misread, or, some interpretive explanation needs to be provided to make sense of this seemingly odd line. It is the goal of this paper to investigate this matter.

Significant factors are at play in this exegetical issue. (1) Should פָרִ֖ים be rendered as derived from פַּר (bull) or emended to פְּרִים (fruit)? (2) How do פָרִ֖ים and שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ relate to each other and the preceding verb, וּֽנְשַׁלְּמָ֥ה? A sampling of emerging views, as represented by both English translations and commentators, follows. As cited, (1) the KJV retains a more literal reading of the MT. In this view, פָרִ֖ים serves as the direct object of וּֽנְשַׁלְּמָ֥ה. פָרִ֖ים שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ is taken as a construct chain. But what this rendering would mean is difficult to determine. (2) Seemingly the most popular view, well represented by the RSV (cf. YLT, NASB, HCSB[?], NIV; NLT[?]), “And we render the fruit of our lips,” is simply to emend פָרִ֖ים, derived from פַּר (bull), to פְּרִים (fruit). In support of this emendation is the LXX’s reading, καρπὸν χειλέων ἡμῶν (“fruit of our lips”) (cf. the Peshitta). With this rendering, the interpretive question is, To what does “fruit of our lips” refer? Garrett (271) suggests this refers to “simply one’s words or what one says.” This understanding makes good sense of the immediately previous lines which call for the people to return with words, presumably words of repentance. But note, against both views #1 and #2 is the fact that פָרִ֖ים is absolute form, not construct. As such, to understand פָרִ֖ים שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ as a construct clause is odd. On the other hand, Wolff (231) argues that this final ם is an “enclitic ם” and “an archaic Canaanite case ending.” (3) Some preserve פָרִ֖ים, as derived from פַּר (bull), but understand Hosea’s mere “our lips” (שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ) to be a rather terse way of expressing things like (a) “the offering of our lips” (ASV), (b) “the praise of our lips” (NET; cf. NLT), (c) “the vows of our lips” (ESV). According to sub-views a and b, and in contrast to view #1, פָרִ֖ים does not serve as the direct object of וּֽנְשַׁלְּמָ֥ה, but that for which “___ of our lips” (שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ) serves as a substitute. In other words, this “___ of our lips” (שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ) is offered as if they were bull offerings. Against this view, Garrett (271) notes, “This interpretation suffers from the fact that the notion of offering one’s ‘lips’ as ‘bulls’ makes for a very harsh metaphor.” On the other hand, sub-view c proposes that “___ of our lips” (שְׂפָתֵֽינוּ) is the direct object of וּֽנְשַׁלְּמָ֥ה and פָרִ֖ים is a modifier. For example, according to the ESV, the bull-offerings complete “the vows of our lips.”

In conclusion, it seems best to emend פָרִ֖ים, derived from פַּר (bull), to פְּרִים (fruit). This decision has manuscript support in both the LXX and Peshitta and the interpretive support of the context, namely the call to repent with words (cf. “fruit of our lips”). This emendation does not alter the consonantal text either, adding credibility to this option. In contrast, view #1 seems to make little sense. And view #3, and its various sub-views, seem to stretch the grammar beyond its legitimate bounds. View #2 is therefore preferred.

The meaning of “Ephraim is shepherding the breeze” in Hosea 12:2 (English 12:1)

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

In Hosea 12:2 Hosea accuses Ephraim of רֹעֶ֥ה ר֨וּחַ. This language is clearly poetic and figurative. And as with any figurative language, the exegete does well to investigate the meaning of the figure so as to determine the original author’s intended effect in using such language.

Biblical authors employ figures of speech in order to convey a message more vividly. The effectiveness of such figures lies in a common trait between the figure and the reality to which the figure is applied. Therefore, when analyzing a figure of speech, the exegete’s goal is (a) to determine what aspect of the figure is at focus and (b) how this communicates something about the reality to which the figure refers. In this case, Ephraim is said to be רֹעֶ֥ה ר֨וּחַ. Several factors are involved in this exegetical issue. (1) What is the meaning of רָעָה in this particular incident? (2) What is the meaning of רוּחַ here? (3) How does אֶפְרַ֜יִם רֹעֶ֥ה ר֨וּחַ relate to its parallel line, וְרֹדֵ֣ף קָדִ֔ים כָּל־הַיּ֕וֹם? And (4) how does this figure of speech relate to the rest of the verse, which speaks primarily of making a covenant with Assyria? These four questions should provide a framework for examing this exegetical issue. (1) The meaning of רָעָה. רָעָה can mean to feed or to shepherd, to pasture, to let graze. Many English translations translate this participle as “feeds” (ASV, KJV, NASB, ESV, NET, NIV, NLT). But one has to ask, what does it mean to feed on the wind? McComiskey answers this question by arguing that it refers to a stupid animal biting at the wind (198). The RSV, on the other hand, renders רֹעֶ֥ה as “herds” (cf. the HCSB’s “chases”). Garrett (235) notes that רָעָה “can mean to ‘feed on’ in the sense of cattle grazing on the land, but it means to ‘shepherd’ when used of a human.” And since nothing in the context indicates Ephraim has taken on a cattle identity, he concludes that “shepherd” is the meaning here. The parallel verb רָדַף seems to support the idea of shepherding. In this case, Ephraim would be accused of trying to control something that is beyond its control. Wolff (149, 206) and Stuart (185) (and seemingly the YLT) understand the root of the participle to be רעה, to befriend, which fits the consonantal text. This would make sense of the parallel with וְרֹדֵ֣ף קָדִ֔ים כָּל־הַיּ֕וֹם, where both lines would refer to making covenant with Assyria which is depicted here as a scorching wind (see issues 3 and 4). (2) The meaning of רוּחַ. רוּחַ can refer to the wind, the Spirit of YHWH, a human spirit, breath, etc. Given the parallel with קָדִים (east-wind), wind seems to be the best sense here. (3) The relationship to the parallel line, וְרֹדֵ֣ף קָדִ֔ים כָּל־הַיּ֕וֹם. As many commentators note, קָדִים was a miserable, intensely hot dry desert wind. And, as Stuart (191) says, only a suicidal fool would pursue it. Or, as Garrett (235) says, “In modern terms Israel is playing with fire.” The question is, should אֶפְרַ֜יִם רֹעֶ֥ה ר֨וּחַ be understood primarily as meaning something equivalent to this parallel line, or should it be understood as carrying a more unique nuance? (4) Relationship to the rest of the verse. As one examines the rest of the verse, one easily realizes that this figure of speech serves as language for unapproved and foolish covenant-making with Assyria.

In conclusion, this author thinks it is best to interpret the verb as רעה, to befriend. This makes the best sense of the parallel between אֶפְרַ֜יִם רֹעֶ֥ה ר֨וּחַ and וְרֹדֵ֣ף קָדִ֔ים כָּל־הַיּ֕וֹם and the verse at large. Ephraim befriends the wind. Specifically, she pursues a wind that only scorches her in the end. And what this refers to practically speaking is Ephraim’s covenant-making with Assyria. To shepherd the wind is another reasonable explanation. But this rendering would convey more the idea of Ephraim lacking control, whereas the parallel line (וְרֹדֵ֣ף קָדִ֔ים כָּל־הַיּ֕וֹם) refers more to the destructive nature of this covenant-making. Thus, רעה should be taken as to befriend. In short, אֶפְרַ֜יִם רֹעֶ֥ה ר֨וּחַ refers to Ephraim’s harmful covenant making.

An examination of the OT use of “wait” (קוה) in Hosea 12:7 (English 12:6) as it relates to waiting on God

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

In Hosea 12:7, Hosea exhorts his listeners to וְקַוֵּ֥ה אֶל־אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ תָּמִֽיד (And wait for your God continually). But what exactly does this mean, to wait for God? Wait for God to do what? And what does this state (or action?) of waiting exactly entail for those who are to do it? Similar language is used throughout scripture. And here Hosea employs it as a central feature of Israel’s repentance. Therefore, any student of the Bible does well to investigate the use of such language throughout scripture. This paper in particular will examine the OT use of the word קוה as it relates to this concept of waiting upon God.

Interestingly, קוה only occurs in the poetic and prophetic books. The only exception is Gen 49:18 where it occurs in Jacob’s blessing to Dan. Israel proclaims לִֽישׁוּעָתְךָ֖ קִוִּ֥יתִי יְהוָֽה (For your salvation I wait, YHWH). The לְ preposition here has a quasi-datival function and indicates the ‘interest’ of קוה, i.e., the waiting is for salvation. And presumably, with יהוה as the direct address, this salvation is to be accomplished by YHWH. As Garrett (241) notes, “The verb קוה, usually in the piel stem, is a favorite of Isaiah, where it means to wait patiently for some good thing, and it is almost always used of the faithful waiting on God’s salvation” (see 8:17; 26:8; 51:5; 59:9, 11; 60:9). For example, in Isa 5 (see vv.2, 4, 7), YHWH waits for or expects good fruit (i.e., justice) from His vine, Israel. In Isa 64:2 קוה has the idea of to expect, i.e., בַּעֲשׂוֹתְךָ֥ נוֹרָא֖וֹת לֹ֣א נְקַוֶּ֑ה (“When you did awesome things for which we did not wait”). For Isaiah, this waitful anticipation often relates to a longing for YHWH’s salvation. For example, Isa 25:9 anticipates a day (בַּיּ֣וֹם הַה֔וּא) of salvation for which Isaiah waits. In Isa 33:2 God Himself is that thing for which His people wait (לְךָ֣ קִוִּ֑ינוּ). Again, salvation is what is longed for; but interestingly, here YHWH Himself is called to be that salvation. Hence, they wait for YHWH, their salvation. Jeremiah too uses קוה to refer to the anticipation of something good (see 13:16; 14:22). In 8:15 and 14:19 he refers to the vain waiting for peace that was never realized. Lam 3:25-26 commends waiting (קוה) and seeking or pursuing (דָּרַשׁ) YHWH, namely His salvation. This verse is significant in qualifying this concept of waiting on YHWH as something active, not passive. It is an active longing for Him to bring about salvation. The poetic literature is also replete with this language. For example, Prov 20:22 exhorts the reader to wait for YHWH (קַוֵּ֥ה לַֽ֝יהוָ֗ה). Why? Because it is YHWH who brings about salvation (וְיֹ֣שַֽׁע לָֽךְ). Ps 25:5 also refers to waiting on YHWH who is the psalmist’s salvation. Ps 27:14 parallels waiting on YHWH with taking courage (וְיַאֲמֵ֣ץ לִבֶּ֑ךָ) while 37:34 parallels it with keeping YHWH’s way (וּשְׁמֹ֬ר דַּרְכֹּ֗ו)—both very active concepts. Finally, in Hos 12:7 Hosea calls for his audience toוְקַוֵּ֥ה אֶל־אֱלֹהֶ֖יךָ תָּמִֽיד (“And wait for your God continually”) as a central feature of their repentance; and this waiting is parallel to keeping hesed and justice (חֶ֤סֶד וּמִשְׁפָּט֙ שְׁמֹ֔ר).

In summary, various conclusions can be noted from this brief survey of the OT use of קוה as it relates to waiting on God. First, קוה carries a sense of anticipation. It is waiting for something; and that something has not yet arrived. Second, salvation is often that thing for which one is waiting. And YHWH is implied or stated as being the one who brings about that salvation. At other times, it is YHWH Himself who is that thing for which one waits. In these cases, YHWH Himself is understood to be the people’s salvation, i.e., He is the one who will accomplish their salvation. Third, this waiting is not a passive concept. This waiting involves repentance, keeping hesed and justice (Hos 12:7), pursuing God (Lam 3:25-26), strengthening one’s heart (Ps 27:14), and keeping YHWH’s way (37:34).

The meaning of the imagery in Hosea 13:12 – “The transgression of Ephraim is being bundled up; his sin is being stored up”

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

In Hosea 3:12, Hosea says, צָרוּר֙ עֲוֹ֣ן אֶפְרָ֔יִם צְפוּנָ֖ה חַטָּאתוֹֽ (“The transgression of Ephraim is being bundled up. His sin is being stored up”). But what exactly does Hosea mean by this sin being צרר (“wrapped up”) and צָפַן (“treasured” or “stored”)? Is this intended to convey some negative idea or a positive concept? And how does the context influence one’s understanding of this imagery? Unfortunately, as Andersen and Freedman (637) note, “The connection of 13:12 with its context is not easy to trace;” and “neither of the adjacent verses seems to throw light on it.” Furthermore, given the abstract nature of sin (חַטָּאת) and iniquity (עָוֹן), what could it possibly mean to pack them up and hide them away? The exegete does well to investigate these matters. Therefore, this paper will examine the meaning of this imagery employed in Hosea 3:12.

Andersen and Freedman (637-638) suggest that this imagery could refer to leaving sin concealed, i.e., Israel not admitting her guilt. Nonetheless, they prefer a different interpretation. Noting the potential background of storing away precious manuscripts in caves, they suggest understanding the verbs (צרר and צָפַן) as having to do with storing something for safekeeping and the nouns (עָוֹן and חַטָּאת) as referring to idols—Israel’s specific sin. However, as Garrett insightfully comments, “It is not likely that the text means that the Israelites have been concealing their guilt [or their idols], since the fertility cult that Yahweh condemns was a very public part of Israelite life” (262). Stuart (206) understandsצָרוּר֙ עֲוֹ֣ן אֶפְרָ֔יִם as meaning something like, “The payback of the long history of Israel’s disloyalty is still ‘on hold,’ as it were” and צְפוּנָ֖ה חַטָּאתוֹֽ as meaning that “this sin [specifically Israel’s idolatry and polytheism mentioned in vv.2-6] has been noted and will not be forgotten or forgiven until punished.” Wolff (227-228) insists that this imagery must be understood in light of the context of the previous verses which list a long chain of national transgressions. Citing Isa 8:16, he argues that the background of this language is the binding, sealing (צרר), and preserving (צָפַן) of legal documents. The meaning: Israel’s “guilt … remains in effect, as though it were laid away in a nonrevisable legal record….” Thus, v.12 relates to the litany of sins and judgment that immediately precede. Similarly, McComiskey (223) comments on this imagery, “We must think of Ephraim’s guilt as having been sealed, all of it carefully kept in store.” It denotes the ultimacy of Hosea’s doom-statement. In contrast to these interpretations stands Garrett (262-263). In light of what he sees as a parallel with Zech 5:5-11, Garrett interprets Hosea as essentially saying that the evil of Israel must be contained and removed, which is accomplished in her exile—an act of judgment, yet also an act of grace in this sense. But this interpretation seems dubious and strained.

In closing, it seems best to understand this imagery as a way of expressing Israel’s impending doom. The couplet is best understood as expressing one unified idea. And, if Wolff is correct about the legal document background, the idea here is that Israel’s guilt is not forgotten or dismissed but demands a punishment which is as sure as an irreversible legal document.

Is Hosea 13:14 a positive (salvation) or negative (judgment) oracle?

Kirk E. Miller

The following was a short exegetical essay for Dr. Eric Tully’s Advanced Hebrew Exegesis of Hosea course at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School.

Please note: I use the Hebrew Bible’s chapter and verse references below, which can at times be different than what one will find in our English translations.

As Stuart (207) states, “The understanding of the couplet and triplet which comprise v 14 hinges on how one interprets ambiguous Hebrew clauses.” Namely, that which is ambiguous is whether Hosea intended 3:14 to be understood as containing a promise of salvation or merely a declaration of judgment. Determining the meaning of this verse is important for understanding this passage at large as well as understanding Paul’s use of this language in 1 Cor 15:55.

Various interrelated factors are involved in this exegetical issue. (1) Are מִיַּ֤ד שְׁאוֹל֙ אֶפְדֵּ֔ם מִמָּ֖וֶת אֶגְאָלֵ֑ם questions or statements? If questions, then they would seem to be rhetorical questions denoting that, in fact, YHWH would not redeem Israel. However, the answer to these questions could be understood as purposefully unclear—either a positive or negative reply being possible. On the other hand, if statements, then they would be explicitly positive, promising redemption to Israel. Related to one’s conclusion regarding this first issue are the following issues. (2) Do the two statements אֱהִ֨י דְבָרֶיךָ֜ מָ֗וֶת אֱהִ֤י קָֽטָבְךָ֙ שְׁא֔וֹל serve as taunts or invitations for death and Sheol to bring their worst? And (3) how does this final clause נֹ֖חַם יִסָּתֵ֥ר מֵעֵינָֽ, which is clearly negative, relate to the previous two issues (#1 and #2)? (4) For what it’s worth, one might also consider Paul’s use of this verse in 1 Cor 15:55. Paul clearly attributes a positive meaning to these words. The question is, is he employing these words with their original meaning or is he demonstrating an ‘ironic’ use of this text? (5) Interestingly the Vulgate and KJV seem to understand אְֶהִי as a 1CS imperfect verb from היה. For instance, the KJV reads, “O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction.” If plausible, this suggestion would certainly add another factor to the discussion. Finally, (6) how does this verse relate to the surrounding context? Specifically, if this verse contains a positive salvation element, how does one handle its seeming incongruity with the surrounding judgment oracle? Stuart (200, 207) sees the context of judgment, especially the final clause, נֹ֖חַם יִסָּתֵ֥ר מֵעֵינָֽ, as decisive. Hence, he takes מִיַּ֤ד שְׁאוֹל֙ אֶפְדֵּ֔ם מִמָּ֖וֶת אֶגְאָלֵ֑ם as questions assuming a negative reply. He understands אֱהִ֨י דְבָרֶיךָ֜ מָ֗וֶת אֱהִ֤י קָֽטָבְךָ֙ שְׁא֔וֹל as “divine summons for the covenant punishments to commence” (cf. Mays, 182). On the other hand, Garrett (265) understands this verse to contain positive and negative oracles. In light of אֱהִ֨י דְבָרֶיךָ֜ מָ֗וֶת אֱהִ֤י קָֽטָבְךָ֙ שְׁא֔וֹל, which he understands as taunts and therefore positive, he insists that מִיַּ֤ד שְׁאוֹל֙ אֶפְדֵּ֔ם מִמָּ֖וֶת אֶגְאָלֵ֑ם  is best translated as statements and therefore expressing God’s determination to save Israel. In support of understanding אֱהִ֨י דְבָרֶיךָ֜ מָ֗וֶת אֱהִ֤י קָֽטָבְךָ֙ שְׁא֔וֹל as taunts he notes that “it is very common for ‘where’ [אְֶהִי] to introduce a taunt directed at an impotent enemy or god (Deut 32:37; Judg 9:38; 2 Kgs 18:34; 19:13; Pss 42:3, 10; 79:10; 115:2; Isa 19:12; 36:19; 37:13; Jer 17:15; Joel 2:17; Mic 7:10).” Regarding how his interpretation relates to the final clause (issue #3) and the surrounding context (#6), Garrett explains that this seeming incompatibility is part of Hosea’s rhetorical strategy: “The purpose of the strategy is to maintain the certainty of salvation in the ultimate plan of God while yet confronting Israel with the reality of their doom in a manner that does not allow for rationalistic evasion.” McComiskey (223-224) likewise understands מִיַּ֤ד שְׁאוֹל֙ אֶפְדֵּ֔ם מִמָּ֖וֶת אֶגְאָלֵ֑ם as statements of salvation promised and argues that it is not uncommon for Hosea to abruptly juxtapose oracles of salvation and judgment. And in support of interpreting מִיַּ֤ד שְׁאוֹל֙ אֶפְדֵּ֔ם מִמָּ֖וֶת אֶגְאָלֵ֑ם as a statement rather than a question, he notes that none of Hosea’s clauses composed of a preposition and an imperfect verb are interrogative (see 5:10; 7:4, 12, 14, 15).

In conclusion, it seems best to understand this verse as containing an explicit salvation oracle placed adjacent to an oracle of judgment for rhetorical purposes. Since אֱהִ֨י דְבָרֶיךָ֜ מָ֗וֶת אֱהִ֤י קָֽטָבְךָ֙ שְׁא֔וֹל  are likely taunts—it seems difficult to take them as summons of punishment—the first two clause are better understood as statements promising salvation despite impending destruction (cf. נֹ֖חַם יִסָּתֵ֥ר מֵעֵינָ).