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.

---

Although Hosea 9:4 contains various difficulties, its individual phrases are relatively easy to translate and interpret compared to many parts of the book of Hosea. However, when viewed as a whole, the situation described in 9:4 is quite difficult to determine. A few things are clear in this verse; but how they relate is not. This problem is compounded by those aspects of the verse that are not clear. Central to a proper understanding 9:4 appears to be the meaning of כְּלֶ֤חֶם אוֹנִים֙ לָהֶ֔ם. In an endeavor to shed light on the meaning of 9:4 as a whole, this paper will seek to examine briefly various factors related to the meaning ofכְּלֶ֤חֶם אוֹנִים֙ לָהֶ֔ם  in its present context.

Several issues are involved here. Unsurprisingly, they are interconnected, which makes matters quite complicated. (1) כְּלֶ֤חֶם אוֹנִים֙ לָהֶ֔ם is a verbless clause. A being verb seems implied. But (2) this leaves the question, what is the referent of the כְּ‍ preposition? All that is explicitly said here is, [something] is like mourners’ bread. But what is that something? Could this be the people, their sacrifices, or something else (e.g., their bread—unstated [McComiskey, 140])? (3) How does זִבְחֵיהֶ֗ם fit into the syntax of this verse? Does it function as the referent of the כְּ‍ preposition, cf. the ASV and KJV translation: “Their sacrifices shall be unto them the bread of mourners”? Or, does זִבְחֵיהֶ֗ם belong with the preceding clause (cf. most modern translations)? (4) How does this metaphor relate to the surrounding clauses? (a) This issue requires determining what the surrounding clauses mean, cf. does ערב mean to please (McComiskey, 140)or to enter (i.e., to enter to make an offering; Andersen and Freedman, 140); what does נֶפֶשׁ mean (e.g., oneself, one’s desires [McComiskey, 140], one’s throat [Wolff, 155; Stuart, 140]); and what is the referent of בֵּ֥ית יְהוָֽה (e.g., the temple, the land)? (b) It requires presenting a sensible explanation of the relationship of כְּלֶ֤חֶם אוֹנִים֙ לָהֶ֔ם to the surrounding clauses. (5) What is the historical background behind this metaphor? Without necessarily identifying specifics, two options seem possible based on to what Hosea has referred: (a) an unproductive harvest (Garrett, 191-192) and/or (b) expulsion from the land (Stuart, 143). This fifth issue is important because it informs not only many other aspects of this verse but also how mourners’ bread functions as a good metaphor for the situation being described. In other words, in order to understand the metaphor, one does well to understand the historical referent of the metaphor. And, last but not least, (6) what is mourners’ bread and what is its significance (see Num 19:11-22; Deut 26:14; Ezek 24:17)? Unlike the other issues, the answer to this question is quite clear. It also sheds much light on the other issues. Those in mourning were considered unclean due to contact with the dead. Therefore, their bread was unclean and all who ate it were likewise unclean (cf. כָּל־אֹכְלָ֖יו יִטַמָּ֑אוּ). It was suitable only for unclean mourners (cf. כִּֽי־לַחְמָ֣ם לְנַפְשָׁ֔ם), not offerings at the worship (cf.לֹ֥א יָב֖וֹא בֵּ֥ית יְהוָֽה).

In conclusion, any acceptable interpretation must make sense of all of these factors both coherently and satisfactorily. This author’s tentative interpretation is as follows: In God’s judgment, the people will become exiled (v.3). As a result, they will no longer be able to make offerings to God (v.4a). The people’s food will be food that is literally unclean (v.4b; cf. v.3), and hence like mourners bread. Consequently, it will be food used purely for eating (v.4a) seeing it is unfit as an offering to God (v.4c). In sum, their food source will be like mourners’ bread— (1) unclean, (2) unfit for worship, and (3) only suitable to be eaten by those who are unclean (e.g., mourners).

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 9:6 Hosea states, כִּֽי־הִנֵּ֤ה הָֽלְכוּ֙ מִשֹּׁ֔ד. One’s understanding of the syntactical function of כִּֽי directly affects one’s understanding of the following two phrases—מִצְרַ֥יִם תְּקַבְּצֵ֖ם and מֹ֣ף תְּקַבְּרֵ֑ם—(and vice versa) and consequently one’s understanding of this entire half-verse. Therefore, one does well to investigate this matter—the syntactical function of כִּֽי in Hosea 9:6.

A significant factor involved in this exegetical issue is the syntactical function of the מִן preposition in מִשֹּׁ֔ד. Many translations suggest (1) an ablative function, i.e., away from destruction (ASV; ESV; HCSB; NET; NIV). But others suggest (2) a causal function, i.e., because of destruction (YLT; KJV; NASB). The potential differences in meaning are escaping (ablative) destruction, fleeing on account of (causal) destruction, or going [into exile] because of (causal) destruction, i.e., God’s judgment. With the ablative use, כִּי could have a concessive, conditional, of temporal function. Or similarly, כִּי would function asseveratively while הִנֵּה would carry the conditional function; cf. 1 Sam 9:7 (Stuart, 140). In this case (view #1), despite escaping destruction (temporarily), they will nonetheless experience destruction in captivity (מִצְרַ֥יִם תְּקַבְּצֵ֖ם מֹ֣ף תְּקַבְּרֵ֑ם), i.e., even if you escape destruction, it will get you eventually. However, with an ablative use of מִן, הָֽלְכוּ֙ מִשֹּׁ֔ד could be understood as somewhat coterminous with מִצְרַ֥יִם תְּקַבְּצֵ֖ם, i.e., (view #2a) they will escape destruction by going to Egypt. In this case, כִּי would have something like a causal use. As McComiskey states, “כִּי (for) gives the reason for the statement couched in the terms of the rhetorical question in verse 5 by connoting proximate causation” (141). Likewise, with a causal use of מִן, this verse would mean something quite similar, i.e., (view #2b) they flee because of destruction and are gathered by Egypt, their refuge from destruction. Again, in this case, כִּי would function causally. But finally, with a causal use of מִן, this verse could be understood as referring to exile (view #2c), i.e., they go [into exile]; in other words, they are “gathered” by Egypt. Garrett argues for view #2a. He states that “the particle הִנֵּה points to reality and virtually excludes a concessive meaning” (196). In support, he notes several other uses of כִּי הִנֵּה which mean “for behold” (Judg 13:15; Isa 3:1; 26:21; 60:2; 65:17–18; 66:15; Jer 1:15; 8:17; 25:29; 30:3, 10; 34:7; 45:5; 46:27; 49:15; 50:9; Joel 4:1 (Eng. 3:1); Amos 4:2).

In conclusion, view #2 (i.e., a causal use of כִּי) is found to be the most satisfactory. As Garrett notes, when used with הִנֵּה כִּי quite often means “for.” And as McComiskey notes, this view best explains the relationship between vv.5 and 6. However, this paper has not examined how best to understand the meaning of v.6, view #2a, b, or c.

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 10:7, Hosea provides a rather ambiguous simile—כְּקֶ֖צֶף עַל־פְּנֵי־מָֽיִם. Making matters worse, the referent of this simile is also obscure. But, to understand this verse, and to have a better understanding of this judgment oracle at large, the exegete does well to investigate this matter in detail.

Various “sub-exegetical issues” are involved in this larger exegetical issue. (1) The meaning of קֶצֶף. Although קֶצֶף everywhere else means wrath, many translations suggest twig or foam due to the language “on the face of the waters” (“wrath on the surface of the waters” makes little sense). But, if twig is the correct rendering here, this is an anomaly. In support of this understanding are the ancient versions. For example, the LXX reads φρύγανον (piece of dry wood). McComiskey also notes a form of the word in Joel 1:7 which means the splintering of a tree. (2) A part of understanding the significance of a metaphor or simile, or any comparison for that matter, is determining what characteristic(s) is shared by the compared elements. In this case, what attribute does a twig on the water have that Samaria’s king also has? Helpful in answering this question are two more questions: (a) what is known about twigs on the surface the water; and (b) what is known about this king of Samaria? Regarding question b, oftentimes thinking in the reverse direction of a given comparison (e.g., asking, How does the king of Samaria help us understand the twig, rather than just, How does the twig help us understand the king?) can be extremely insightful. These questions should set the agenda for this exegetical investigation. Garrett seems to get the meaning of the simile right when he says, “one thing that characterizes a stick on water, regardless of how rapidly the water moves, is that the stick is simply moved along with the water. That is, the stick is entirely subject to movements over which it has no control” (212). Using a contemporary idiom one might describe this as “being under the thumb” of another. The historical background of this simile may refer to exile or diplomacy. But, either way, the point of the metaphor seems to be a lack of control in these events, whatever they are. Hence, the events have a sense of inevitability. (3) What is the meaning of דּמה here? According to lexicons, דּמה can either mean something like to destroy, to be silent, or to be similar. Further, the NIV seems to suggest the idea of to float away here. McComiskey (169) suggests the idea of to cease, i.e., the cessation of the monarchy. Because this verb in many ways determines the meaning of one element of the comparison, its meaning is significant. And, unfortunately, given its ambiguity, כְּקֶ֖צֶף עַל־פְּנֵי־מָֽיִם does little to clarify the verb’s meaning. (4) How should one understand the clausal structure of this verse? In other words, should the verse be rendered (a) something like the YLT, “Cut off is Samaria! Its king is as a chip on the face of the waters,” where נִדְמֶ֥ה שֹׁמְר֖וֹן and מַלְכָּ֑הּ כְּקֶ֖צֶף עַל־פְּנֵי־מָֽיִם are seen as two separate clauses; (b) like the ASV, “As for Samaria, her king is cut off, as foam upon the water,” where is שֹׁמְר֖וֹן is understood somewhat like a nominative absolute, setting the context for the statement; or (c) something like the ESV, “Samaria’s king shall perish like a twig on the face of the waters,” which understands all of 10:7 as one clause withכְּקֶ֖צֶף עַל־פְּנֵי־מָֽיִם modifying the verb נִדְמֶ֥ה. These differences are significant because they change the referent of the comparison (in turn affecting issue #2). With view a the comparison is directly between the king and the twig. In views b and c the comparison is directly concerned with the king’s destruction (נִדְמֶ֥ה; or silence or similarity; cf. issue #3) and therefore only indirectly concerned with the king who is the subject of that verb. With just this short overview of the “sub-issues” involved, one can easily see how complex and convoluted an issue like this can become.

My own tentative conclusions are as follows. (1) Given the language “on the face of the waters,” the LXX rendering, and the parallel with Joel 1:17, it seems best to take קֶצֶף as “twig.” (2) Concerning the nature of the simile, Garrett seems correct to suggest the idea of being entirely subject to an external force, having no control over one’s movements. This likely refers to impending exile but may (also) refer to Samaria’s political situation. But, either way, it is interpreted as divine judgment. (3) The most natural way to understand the meaning of דּמה here appears to be to destroy. This fits the judgment oracle context. (4) Given the nature of the simile (issue #2), it seems best to understand the clausal structure of the verse as option a. It seems odd to describe destruction (דּמה) like a twig in the water; but to describe the king (and by extension, his people) as such is insightful and descriptive. In other words, their destruction isn’t like the twig (what would that even mean?); but due to their destruction, they themselves will be like that twig.