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.

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.

---

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.