The meaning of the imagery in Hosea 13:12 – “The transgression of Ephraim is being bundled up; his sin is being stored up”

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.

Is Hosea 13:14 a positive (salvation) or negative (judgment) oracle?

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).