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 significance of the triple reference to Lebanon in Hosea 14

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.

Nowhere in the book of Hosea is Lebanon mentioned, that is, until chapter 14 where it is mentioned three times in short sequence. The observant and reflective interpreter immediately asks, Why this sudden, threefold reference to Lebanon? It will be the goal of this paper to investigate some possible answers to that question and to provide a tentative conclusion.

The primary questions in this exegetical issue are, (1) For what was the Lebanon region known? What was distinctive about Lebanon? What was its notoriety? What characteristics of Lebanon does Hosea have at his “disposal” as he forms this simile? And (2) what association(s) with Lebanon is Hosea actually drawing upon in these similes? In answer to the first question, the most obvious answer is that the Lebanon region was famous for its trees, its cedars. For example, from Lebanon came Hiram of Tyre’s supply of wood that he donated to Solomon for the building of the temple (1 Kgs 5:1-12). And as Stuart (215) notes, “Labanon’s slopes, moistened almost continuously by dew, were places of lush growth year round.” As such, Andersen and Freedman (644) interpret Hosea’s simile use of Lebanon as restricted to agricultural produce—the crocus of Lebanon, the olive of Lebanon, and the wine of Lebanon. Therefore, they conclude that the point of these three similes is to impress Lebanon as a fabulous, eschatological paradise. Similarly, Stuart (215) notes that “prosperity is associated with or expressed via abundant plant life especially in three OT loci: in the covenant restoration blessings (e.g., Deut 30:9 [32:2; 33:13-16]), in the wisdom literature (e.g., Song of Solomon) and in a host of prophetic predictions of restored covenantal blessings (e.g., Amos 9:13-14; Mic 7:14; Isa 55:13 [Jer 33:13; Joel 3:17]).” And, in particular, the reference to Lebanon has specific parallels in prophetic predictions (e.g., Isa 35:2; 60:13). But nonetheless, one could express this eschatological hope and blessing in many possible ways. So, why the sudden reference to Lebanon? In answering this question, Garrett (277-278) provides a helpful observation. To quote him at length serves well. He notes, the Lebanon region was famous for its forest and import of trees.

But the region also had another export to Israel—the cult of Baal. It was the Tyrian princess Jezebel, daughter of the priest-king Ethbaal, who brought into Israel a missionary force of the priests of Baal and who established shrines to him (1 Kgs 16:31–33). It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Israelites would have associated Baal with Lebanon.  He was the god who came out of the mountains of the north… It was a place of deep roots, or fragrances, and of fine wine. In this, we should see an allusion to the putative benefits of Baal. … Allusions to Lebanon in this text, therefore, imply that all of the good things that Israel thought to get from Baal will finally come from Yahweh.

In short, in addition to what commentators like Andersen, Freedman, and Stuart note, Garrett understands this sudden reference to Lebanon, with all of its Baal-cult associations, to serve as a backhanded rebuke.

In conclusion, as many commentators note, Hosea’s reference to Lebanon and his accompanying expectation of a great produce is associated, as it is in other parts of scripture, with eschatological blessings and prosperity. However, in addition, Garrett seems to provide a satisfactory explanation for the unexpected, sudden reference to Lebanon.

“Seven Vital Truths About a Culture of Prayer” by Daniel Henderson

Kirk E. Miller

Culture of Prayer

This past week I attended Basics Conference with leaders from my church. I wanted to share something from that conference that I found particularly helpful.

The following is one of the breakout sessions offered. (I didn’t attend this specific presentation. They rotated the break-out sessions; and I happened to attend it at a different time and location. But the material should be the same.) It’s presented by Daniel Henderson and entitled “Seven Vital Truths About a Culture of Prayer.” I found it very helpful for thinking through practical ways of facilitating times of prayer in church and developing a “culture of prayer” in one’s church.

See video here.

See audio here.

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).

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.