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 is typical, Hosea uses much imagery in chapter 7 to convey his message. For example, in 7:8 Hosea depicts Ephraim (representative of Israel) as a cake that has been left in the oven unturned and, (implied) as a result, is burnt. In order to understand this rebuke, the interpreter does well to investigate this imagery and to try to determine its specific function and meaning in this verse.

עֻגָה is used seven times in the Hebrew Bible. In its six other occurrences (Gen 18:6; Ex 12:39; Num 11:8; 1 Kgs 17:13; 19:6; Ezek 4:12) עֻגָה is used in narrative (or in Ezek 4:12, instruction for a sign-act) to refer to actual bread-cakes. Hosea 7:8 is the only metaphorical use of עֻגָה. So, in terms of investigating the metaphorical use of עֻגָה, intertextuality is of no help here. However, some assistance comes from the immediate context. From 7:4 onward, Hosea has been using the image of a baker and his oven to represent Israel’s sin, specifically her adulterous practice (v.4) and the intrigue of conspirators (vv.6-7). It would seem that the עֻגָה imagery is related to this baking imagery. If so, those interpretations that satisfactorily handle this relationship should be given more weight. Then again, maybe this metaphor should be understood more so in terms of the following verses (see Dearman). McComiskey (108) states, “There is no contextual warrant for assuming that the oven motif extends to this section.” Either way, it’s worth noting that up until this point the baker has left the dough to itself until it leavens (related to adultery; v.4) and then slept as the oven’s fire increases (related to the conspirators’ intrigue; vv.6-7). Finally, Ephraim is said to be mixed (v.8; a cooking reference?), his strength eaten (v.9; related to the cake imagery?), and in the midst is the עֻגָה imagery (v.8). How is it to be understood? Garrett (170), who understands the sleeping baker to be the inattentive leaders susceptible to intrigue (symbolized by the increasing fire; v.6), argues that the unturned cake speaks of the leaders’ neglect of their duties, i.e., not turning their ‘cake.’ Maybe similarly (a shared implication of inactivity), Wolff (126) understands the metaphor as focusing on the result of an unturned cake—it will burn. But he sees the point of the metaphor as being to indicate Israel’s need to repent, not the leaders’ neglect. Dearman (206) understands the metaphor to refer to a “half-baked cake.” He interprets this metaphor in terms of its relation specifically to 7:8-16—international relations (not 7:3-7—internal intrigue). He concludes that the metaphor, depicting an inedible cake resulting from bad cooking, depicts Israel’s diplomatic situation. Likewise, Andersen and Freedman (466) state that this burnt cake represents Israel’s political folly. McComiskey states that the (implied) burned condition of this cake depicts Israel as “partially burned by its relations to Egypt and Assyria.”

In conclusion, although it seems necessary to relate this cake imagery to the baking imagery of 7:3-7, nonetheless, seeing a shift from internal to international affairs in v.8 (e.g., Ephraim is mixed with the nations, etc.), one should ultimately interpret אפרים היה עגה בלי הפוכה as referring to Israel’s international situation (the topic of 7:8-16). As such, Israel’s international condition is depicted here as a sorry state. Maybe one resulting from neglect (unturned; cf. the baker’s inactivity); but that is probably not the primary point here.

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.

---

Israel was guilty of relying on foreign powers instead of YHWH for her rescue and security. And in Hosea 7 God rebukes Israel for such unfaithfulness. As the final clause of the reproof, Hosea says, ז֥וֹ לַעְגָּ֖ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם (“This is their derision in the land of Egypt”). This brief paper will investigate the meaning and possible interpretations of this phrase.

Of primary significance in this discussion are three issues: (1) What is the referent or use of מִצְרַיִם (Egypt)? (2) The meaning of לַעַג in this particular use. And (3) the antecedent of זוֹ (this); what is Israel’s לַעַג in the land of Egypt? First, as noted in a previous exegetical paper, מִצְרַיִם (Egypt) is often used to refer to Assyria. As stated in that paper, “Hosea uses Egypt as a redemptive-historical paradigm for God’s dealing with and relationship to Israel.” So, just as Israel spent time in captivity in Egypt, Israel would be captive in Assyria. This is a sarcastic reversal of the Exodus motif found throughout Hosea (cf. 8:13; 9:3; 11:5) (Dearman, 215). As McComiskey (117) states,

“The use of Egypt to depict the impending Assyrian captivity is part of the larger philosophy of history that permeates the thought of many Old Testament writers. To them history could and would be repeated [cf. Deut 28:68]. … Hosea makes use of this motif in several places in his prophecy, for to him Egypt stands for the place of captivity.”

However, Garrett (175) interprets Egypt as a metonymy of all surrounding gentile powers, seemingly missing the typological use of מִצְרַיִם here. Likewise, Stuart (124) and Wolff (128) see Egypt, a former political ally (v.11), as the agent mocking Israel who has gone into captivity elsewhere (presumably Assyria). However, typological ‘Egypt’ is better understood as designating the location (cf. בְּאֶ֥רֶץ with a locative בְּ) of Israel’s captivity which results in her mocking. This verse does not refer to Egypt as the agent of the mocking (contra. NLT, Garrett, Wolff, Stuart), however true that may have been. Second—the meaning of לַעַג. לַעַג is used seven times in the Hebrew Bible. In Ps 44:13-16 and 79:4 (cf. Ps 123:4) לַעַג is used to refer to mocking or taunting. The people themselves have become a לַעַג, meaning that their situation, their very existence, became a joke. To use an illustration, the idea would be something much like how the Detroit Lions became the “joke of the NFL” in the 2008-2009 season with their 0-16 record, except much less trivial. In Job 34:7, “Like our expression ‘water off a duck’s back,’ so he [Job] ‘drinks scorn [לַעַג] like water’ (cf. 15:16), that is, he is impermeable to criticism” (Alden, Job, 333). In sum, as Deut 28:37 predicted, Israel “shall become a horror, a proverb, and a byword among all the peoples where the Lord will lead you away” (ESV). Third—the antecedent of זוֹ (this). Stuart (124) states, “‘This’ (זוֹ) refers to the events predicted in the entire verse, not simply the death of the officials” (v.16). Likewise, McComiskey interprets the cause of their derision (זוֹ) as Israel’s impending doom. “The collapse of the nation will be a source of taunting on the part of their captors” (117). This seems to be the most natural understanding.

In conclusion, ז֥וֹ לַעְגָּ֖ם בְּאֶ֥רֶץ מִצְרָֽיִם is best understood as referring to the mocking and taunting of which Israel would be the brunt due to her exile in Assyria. First, מִצְרַיִם (Egypt) is used as a prophetic paradigm of future captivity in Assyria. Second, לַעַג expresses the ridicule Israel will experience. And third, ז֥וֹ refers to the cause of this ridicule, presumably her impending judgment, captivity in Assyria.

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 8:1, Hosea refers to a נֶשֶׁר over the יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית. Performing a quick search, one finds that יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית occurs 172 times (161 verses) in the Old Testament. In [almost(?)] every instance (if not every instance) in the OT, יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית refers to either the tent of meeting or the temple in Jerusalem. However, many interpreters object that the temple is out of view here. If so, what is the referent of יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית? Identifying the referent of יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית is significant for determining the meaning of this imagery (i.e., a נֶשֶׁר over the יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית) in 8:1 (see exegetical issue #2).

Garrett  (180-181) argues that, since elsewhere in the OT יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית always refers to a sanctuary dedicated to YHWH, Hosea is most likely referring to the temple here in 8:1. One has no reason not to assume so much. In contrast, Wolff (137) argues that יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית refers to the land as YHWH’s property. He argues for this conclusion based on (1) what he understands to be a parallel use of similar language in Hos 9:8 and 15, (2) the fact that Hose refers to the land as YHWH’s possession (2:10), specifically in terms of a בֵּ֣ית (Jer 12:7; Zech 9:8), and (3) ANE historical parallels: (a) Tiglath-pileser III refers to Israel as bit humria, (b) the use of “House of Omri” as a political expression, and (c) political entities such as Beth-Anath, Beth-Dagon, Beth-Horon, Beth-Olam listed in Egyptian records. Citing the work of E. Taubler, Biblische Studien: Die Epoche der Richter, Wolff concludes that בֵּ֣ית means “arable land” or “settled region” in these incidences. Andersen and Freedman (486) concur. They base their conclusion on (1) what they understand to be a parallel use in 9:4 and (2) their understanding that Hosea never directly refers to Jerusalem or its temple. Similarly, based on parallels in Hosea 9:8 and 15, McComiskey (119) also concludes that יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית does not refer to the temple; but he argues that the referent is the people or the nation. Dearman, on the other hand, combines the two—land and people together. Of course, Garrett (180-181) rebuttals that, given the use of יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית throughout the rest of the OT, such referents would be unusual.

At the end of the day, Hosea’s language here (8:1) and in its supposed parallels (e.g., 9:4, 8, 15) may be too cryptic to make a definitive conclusion. Either way, Hosea is referring to something of YHWH’s possession; and the reader knows that this possession relates to Israel in some way because this is clearly an oracle of judgment upon Israel. However, if forced to make a tentative decision, this author would lean towards understanding יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית as referring to the land. In 9:15, when YHWH says, “I will drive them out of my house,” he clearly does not have “them” (the people) in view as the referent of “house.” גּרשׁ suggests the idea of expulsion, namely expulsion from the land, hence מִבֵּיתִ֖י = the land (9:15). I find the possible parallels with ANE records to be somewhat persuasive (Wolff). Further, that Hosea does not make mention of the temple would make such a reference here peculiar. Finally, to Garrett’s argument that elsewhere in the OT יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית is used [almost(?)] exclusively for God’s sanctuary: With such temple connotations in mind, Hosea may be purposely using יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית to draw on such connotations to paint his imagery of a נֶשֶׁר over the temple (there has to be some explanation for why Hosea used יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית instead the more typical ארץ). But whether the referent of יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית is the temple or not is another matter.

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.

---

A central aspect of studying poetry is determining the meaning and significance of imageries that are employed by an author. This is no less true for the task of the interpreter of Hosea. In 8:1, Hosea paints the picture of a נֶשֶׁר over the יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית. To understand Hosea’s message in 8:1, and how it relates to the entire judgment oracle that follows, the exegete does well to investigate this imagery.

This exegetical concern contains various issues that are interconnected. How one handles one issue affects how one handles the others; and how one handles them altogether amounts to one’s interpretation. These issues are as follows: (1) Does one resort to an emendation of the text; and if so, what is it? (2) Does נֶשֶׁר refer to an eagle or a vulture and how does this affect the nature of the imagery? (3) What is the referent of יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית (see exegetical issue #1). (4) Who is the bird—YHWH, the enemy? (5) How does this imagery relate to the imagery of the previous line—the blowing of a trumpet? With these factors, possible interpretations are seemingly endless. Only a few examples will be mentioned here. Garrett (181) provides an unusual interpretation. Based on his understanding that יְהוָ֑ה בֵּ֣ית refers to the temple, he suggests that 8:1a refers to a priest blasting a trumpet to scare off an unclean bird that has landed on the temple. Andersen and Freedman (485-86) argue for a very plausible textual emendation: moving the כ from the end of חִכְּךָ to the beginning of שֹׁפָר. The attraction with this is the resulting chiastic pattern. One would translate the text something like, “As the shofar is for the mouth, so the eagle is for the house of Yahweh.” Thus, the point of the dual imagery is to draw a comparison. In other words, just as the trumpet is for the mouth, so the bird of prey (signifying impending judgment) is for the house of Israel. The trumpet is an alarm and signals an invasion, the eagle a symbol of a foreign invader attacking (cf. Lam 4:19). Finally, Dearman (217; cf. Andersen and Freedman) makes a significant observation worth noting. He understands Hosea to be reversing the Pentateuchal imagery of Deut 32:10-12 (cf. Ex 19:4) where YHWH is depicted as an eagle protectively and caringly hovering over his people. This is supported by the reference to the violation of God’s covenant and law in 8:1b, which brings about covenant curses (implied). And interestingly, Deut 28:49 depicts these covenant curses (explicitly) as an eagle swooping down upon Israel.

In conclusion, in Hosea possible textual emendations are limitless and often quite speculative. We often don’t know where emendations are needed to recover the original reading; and, if we did, we often lack enough information to make decisions that are certain or even probable. Therefore, if the text can be understood as is, and unless compelling reasons exist, it seems best if possible to stick with the Masoretic Text. With that said, (based on the previous conclusions in the first exegetical paper) it appears that the best interpretation understands this imagery as referring to impending judgment. This fits with the coordinating trumpet imagery—sounding the trumpet as an alarm of judgment (cf. Hos 5:8). If referring to a vulture, the picture would likely be that of a vulture circling its prey, signifying imminent destruction of the nation. But more likely, given Dearman’s observations, this is an eagle and the imagery reverses that of Deut 32:10-12. The identity of the bird is likely intentionally ambiguous and seems to refer to YHWH working through human agency, e.g., the Assyrian army.

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 the final line of 4:4, Hosea specifies that God’s accusation is specifically directed against כֹּהֵן. However, what is the identity of this כֹּהֵן? Who is the referent? The purpose of this brief paper is to investigate this exegetical issue. Its importance is seen by the fact that the entire section of 4:4-10 is an accusation against כֹּהֵן. Hence, the details of 4:4-10 relate to the identity of this כֹּהֵן, and vice versa.

Three primary positions exist. (1) Many understand כֹּהֵן (singular) to be a “collective singular” referring to the priesthood (e.g., Garrett, Stuart). (2) Others understand Hosea to be addressing a specific priest. For example, Wolff represents this position: “The כהן addressed here is probably a high official of an important sanctuary” (77). And (3), several commentators understand כֹּהֵן (singular) to refer to a specific priest; but, nonetheless, understand this priest to be representative of the priesthood at large. For example, Dearman understands vv.4-6 as a direct address to a specific priest. Yet, since “in the context there will be further critique of priests [plural] and the priesthood…the singular address and the individual here may be representative in nature” (157). Several factors are involved in this exegetical issue. (1) Grammatically. Wolff, argues that “כֹּהֵן never has a collective meaning in the vocative” (77). If this is true, this observation would rule out a collective use in 4:4. (2) The use of both singular and plural references. Throughout 4:4-10, the priest is referred to with both singular and plural references. The variance occurs between both verbs and nominal forms. Garrett interprets the plural verbs in 4:7 as clarifying or assuming a collective singular use in 4:4-6 (118). Explaining how a singular use of כֹּהֵן could refer to the priesthood at large (collective singular) is much easier than explaining a 3^rd person plural as referring to an individual priest. Wolff, however, evades this predicament by seeing a shift in reference from a singular priest in vv.4-6 to priests (plural) in v.7 (80). But, noteworthy is the fact that Hosea uses a 3rd person, singular pronominal suffix on נַפְשֹֽׁו amidst and with 3rd person, plural verbs. This is likely a collective singular with the plural subjects of these verbs as its antecedent. This particular incident may shed light on the broader use of singulars in 4:4-10 referring to כֹּהֵן, i.e., collective use. However, de Regt notes that in Hosea “a brief change in grammatical person…frequently marks the beginning or end of a paragraph” (250). If this is true, determining whether the actual referent is individual or collective may be difficult to determine by merely usingperson alone. However, de Regt’s conclusion would mean that a shift in person does not mean a shift in referent (250), which some (e.g., Dearman, Wolff) propose. (3) Personal details. As Wolff notes, the mention of personal details such as the punishment of mother and sons favors a specific referent for כֹּהֵן (77). However, mother and children were already used metaphorically in chs. 1-3 to refer to Israel institutionally and the Israelites specifically. Further, even Wolff admits that these threats are “obscure” (80). (4) A parallel with נָבִיא in 4:5. Some commentators (e.g., Stuart, 77) understand this as a referent to the prophetic office (collective singular). Therefore, the parallel priest is also seen as collective. But this interpretation could be challenged. (5) A parallel with Amos 7:10-17. Many commentators recognize a parallel with Amos 7:10 in which Amos rebukes a specific priest, Amaziah. Similarly, Amos also threatened both children and wife (Wolff, 78). Depending on how exactly this parallel should is meant to be understood (if it is meant to be understood at all), one could argue that Hosea also has a specific priest in view (e.g., Wolff, 77). (6) The accusation. One might argue that such a devastating consequence, i.e., lack of knowledge among the entire people (4:6), is beyond the scope of one particular priest’s failure. If true, כֹּהֵן would need to be understood as either collective or representative.

In conclusion, I favor understanding the referent as either collective or representative, but more likely collective. The national (widespread) consequences of the failure of the כֹּהֵן seem incompatible with a specific referent. And the 3^rd person plurals along with the seeming collective singular pronominal suffix on נַפְשֹֽׁו lean towards a collective or representative use. I prefer a collective referent over a representative one because Hosea is speaking of a widespread problem; and the details he provides do not seem to require that a specific referent be in view.