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

April 30, 2014December 4, 2022Kirk 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.

Notes on Jordan Ballor and Stephen Long on Theology and Economics

April 16, 2014Kirk E. Miller 1 Comment

Last night I went to a lecture and responding lecture hosted by the Carl F.H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. The lecture, presented by Jordan Ballor, was entitled “Theology and Economics: A Match from Heaven?” The response came from Stephen Long.

“Carl Henry Was Right” by Richard Mouw

April 15, 2014September 23, 2025Kirk E. Miller

Carl F H. Henry proposed 5 principles to guide the church on social issues:

The Bible is critically relevant to the whole of modern life and culture—the social-political arena included.
The institutional church has no mandate, jurisdiction, or competence to endorse political legislation or military tactics or economic specifics in the name of Christ.
The institutional church is divinely obliged to proclaim God’s entire revelation, including the standards or commandments by which men and nations are to be finally judged, and by which they ought now to live and maintain social stability.
The political achievement of a better society is the task of all citizens, and individual Christians ought to be politically engaged to the limit of their competence and opportunity.
The Bible limits the proper activity of both government and church for divinely stipulated objectives—the former, for the preservation of justice and order, and the latter, for the moral-spiritual task of evangelizing the earth.

From Richard Mouw, “Carl Henry Was Right.”

Christ’s Resurrection as the Accomplishment of God’s Faithfulness to His Creation (Vinoth Ramachandra)

April 15, 2014April 13, 2023Kirk E. Miller

Elsewhere I’ve written about this subject–the significance of Christ’s resurrection as inaugurated eschatology, the bursting of the new creation into the midst of this fallen creation in the person of Jesus Christ who is the resurrected new creation “pioneer” of sorts. But, I’m currently reading Ramachandra’s Faiths in Conflict?; and he summarizes this concept quite well. So, I thought I’d share his thoughts here. If it’s worth saying, it’s worth saying more than once and in more than one way by more than one person, right?

Resurrection, for all first-century Jews, was bound up with the hope of the kingdom of God, of God’s vindication of his people Israel before their pagan enemies and the renewal of his disfigured world.

Resurrection, then, was corporate… public, and physical. … The age to come would be a renewed space-time world in which the righteous dead would be given new bodies in order to inhabit a renewed earth. Thus, the resurrection of the dead – the righteous to eternal life and the wicked to destruction – marked the consummation of the human drama. It spelt the triumph of Israel’s God who was also the universal Creator and Judge of all humanity. Resurrection, marked the dawn of a new world order, the final and supreme manifestation of God’s justice, mercy and power in history.

…

But … the early Christians proclaimed that the resurrection had occurred in Jesus before the day of resurrection for all. … In the resurrection of Jesus, God not only gives a glimpse and pledge of the new creation, but he announces the dawn of that new creation before its promised fulfillment. Here is a foretaste of the future age in the present.

…

Resurrection [specifically the general resurrection inaugurated in Christ’s resurrection, the “first-fruits” of the general resurrection, to use Pauline language] is a fresh creative act of God in which he displays his faithfulness to his creation by raising it to new life in his presence beyond death and decay. Resurrection, then, is the Creator’s final act of faithfulness to his creation…

Continue reading →

“What Can Miserable Christians Sing?” (Carl Trueman)

April 15, 2014November 25, 2017Kirk E. Miller

In Carl R. Trueman’s book The Wages of Spin: Critical Writings on Historical and Contemporary Evangelicalism, he included a chapter entitled,”What Can Miserable Christians Sing?”

The answer to that question, Trueman answers, is the Psalms and specifically the Psalm’s model of lamentation.

Of this short chapter Trueman states,

This little piece which took minimal time and energy to author has garnered more positive responses and more touching correspondence than anything else I have ever written. It resonated with people across the Christian spectrum, people from all different church backgrounds who had one thing in common: the understanding that life has a sad, melancholy, painful dimension which is too often ignored and sometimes even denied in our churches.

He describes his purpose for writing as

to highlight what I saw as a major deficiency in Christian worship, a deficiency that is evident in both traditional and contemporary approaches: the absence of the language of lament. The Psalms, the Bible’s own hymnbook, contains many notes of lamentation, reflecting the nature of the believer’s life in a fallen world. And yet these cries of pain are on the whole absent from hymns and praise songs.

He sums up the thrust of that chapter as follows:

There is nothing in the typical book of hymns or praise songs that a woman who has miscarried a baby, or a parent who has just lost a child to cancer, can sing with honesty and integrity on a Sunday.

The desperation and heartache of such moments are things which we instinctively feel have no place in a religion where we are called on to rejoice in the Lord always. Yet there is a praise book which taps such emotions and gives the broken-hearted honest words with which to express their deepest sorrows to God.

It’s called the book of Psalms; and its recovery as a source of public praise in the Christian church can only help the church overcome its innate triumphalism and make room for the poor and the weak.

In short, he says, in the Psalms “one finds divinely inspired words which allow the believer to express their deepest pains and sorrows to God.”

Continue reading →