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.