Hosea 8:6-14

6. From Israel was it also [“is even this”] What? Evidently the calf of Hosea 8:5. In its establishment Jehovah had no part; it is the work of Israel; therefore the former has cast it off. To join this clause more closely with 5a, 5b is transposed by some so as to stand before Hosea 8:5; Hosea 8:5 c is explained as a later gloss. Since the idol is made by human hands it can be no God (R.V.) These words imply that the people identify the image with the deity. To show its impotence it will be broken to pieces.

Under the figures of sowing, growing, and reaping (compare Hosea 10:12-13) the prophet pictures once more, in Hosea 8:7, the destruction of Israel. “Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Galatians 6:7).

Wind A picture of vain, unprofitable conduct. The harvest will be whirlwind Not only will they derive no benefit from their conduct, it will result in actual destruction. Of the sentences following G.A. Smith says, “Indeed, like a storm Hosea’s own language now sweeps along, and his metaphors are torn in shreds upon it.”

It hath no stalk R.V., “he hath no standing grain.” The figure differs slightly from the preceding. Israel is pictured as sowing corn, but it withers before the stalk develops. A.V. is to be preferred.

The bud [“blade”] shall yield no meal Even if the stalk forms it will yield no grain from which meal might be made. Should it bring forth grain Israel will not be benefited, for strangers shall seize it. Nothing but disappointment and ruin is ahead of the nation.

In Hosea 8:8-11 the prophet, in a sense, corrects himself. In Hosea 8:7 he has said that the destruction is sure to come, but as he looks upon the nation he sees that ruin is already present, and he cries out in agony,

Israel is swallowed up Foreigners have already begun to devour the nation (Hosea 7:8-9); complete destruction is only a question of time.

Now shall they be Better, R.V., “now are they”; the prophet is describing a present situation.

A vessel wherein is no pleasure [“none delighteth”] A worthless vessel. Its resources have been sapped (Hosea 7:9) by greedy nations; now it is cast aside like a vessel for which there is no further use (Jeremiah 22:28; Jeremiah 48:38). In illustrating this phrase, Thomson speaks of the readiness with which pottery is cast away in the East: “The coarse pottery of the country is so cheap that even poor people cast it away in contempt, or dash it to pieces on the slightest occasion.”

What has caused this condition of affairs? Their own stubbornness. 9. They were determined to mingle among the nations, and these proved their destruction. Of the nations one is singled out.

Gone up to Assyria For assistance (Hosea 7:11).

A wild ass alone by himself To be taken with the preceding words; it is a description of Israel’s foreign policy. The point of comparison is obstinacy (Genesis 16:12; Job 39:5-8). Wild asses ordinarily move in droves, but sometimes a single animal, resisting the gregarious instinct, will run away and thus expose itself to danger.

Israel has been warned again and again, but resisting all warnings is determined to have its own way, whatever the consequences.

Ephraim hath hired lovers Literally loves. In the Hebrew there is a play upon words, the original for wild ass and for Ephraim being similar in sound. The reference is apparently to the gifts sent by Ephraim (Israel) to secure the friendship of Assyria or Egypt (Hosea 7:11; Hosea 12:1). LXX. has a different reading, but it is no improvement over the Hebrew. Various emendations have been proposed; for example, “Ephraim gives love gifts,” which requires but a very slight alteration. To restore the parallelism, as in Hosea 7:11; Hosea 12:1, some read “Egypt” in the place of “Ephraim”: “To Egypt they give love-gifts.” The thought is not altered by these emendations.

Of Hosea 8:10 it has been said, “No single word of this entire verse is of certain meaning.” As a result translations have been many and emendations not a few. The most recent commentators, Marti and Harper, relieve the situation by rejecting the verse as a later gloss, but for this there are no adequate reasons. For 10a, unless the text is changed, the interpretation suggested by the English versions, especially R.V., “though they hire among the nations,” seems the most satisfactory. Though they may succeed to some extent in gaining the support of the nations, Jehovah cannot permit the present policy to continue, for its continuation would frustrate completely the purpose of Jehovah for Israel.

Now will I gather them Israel, not the nations. Israel is to be gathered in like a flock, which is put in the fold to prevent the wandering of the sheep. They are to be put under restraint, their reckless negotiations are to be interrupted. Thus Jehovah may yet be able to teach Israel his ways. What the method of restraint will be is not stated, but the next sentence indicates that the prophet has in mind an exile. Hosea 8:10 b is even more difficult.

And they shall sorrow a little for the burden of the king of princes R.V., “and they begin to be diminished by reason of the burden of the king of princes.” Margin, R.V., goes back to A.V. With either translation the sense seems to be that Israel, when under restraint, will suffer from the burdens imposed by the king of princes the king of Assyria (compare Isaiah 10:8). In the inscriptions the Assyrian kings frequently call themselves “king of kings.” The translations do not agree as to the derivation of the verb; A.V. derives it from a verb to sorrow, to be sick, to suffer pain, while R.V. traces it to a verb begin, to which Von Orelli gives the additional meaning, release, relieve. As the form is written in the great majority of the Hebrew manuscripts the translation of R.V. is to be preferred. The policy of oppression practiced by the conquerors will diminish the prosperity and numbers of Israel. Why “begin”? A smoother reading, requiring but few changes in the original, is afforded by LXX.:” and they shall cease for a little while from the anointing of a king and of princes.” While the exile lasts they will be compelled to be without their own rulers (Hosea 3:4; compare Hosea 13:10). This threat is exceedingly appropriate here, and it is quite probable that LXX. has preserved the original text. What contrast to the ease with which they now place kings upon the throne! (Hosea 8:4.)

Hosea 8:11 introduces the justification for the threat of judgment, which is repeated in 13b. The substitution of a cold, formal ceremonial for obedience to the divine requirements is responsible for the downfall. The present text is made somewhat cumbersome by the presence of the first “for sinning,” or “to sin.” To remove the difficulty some read in its place “to make atonement,” which requires but a slight change in the vocalization of the verb form. Ephraim made the altars for purposes of atonement, but their purposes have become perverted. This is an improvement, but it is more likely that the first “for sinning” has come into the text through the carelessness of a copyist, whose eyes lighted accidentally upon the end of the second part of the verse, and that it should be omitted. With this omission the verse may be translated, “For though Ephraim made many altars, they have become to him altars for sinning.” The common notion was that the offering of sacrifice was sufficient to win the divine favor; the more numerous the altars the greater the divine pleasure. This false notion the prophet attacks (Isaiah 1:11 ff.; Amos 5:21 ff.); the altars have only increased Israel’s guilt. How? Hosea 4:12 ff., supplies the answer.

Hosea 8:12 also is full of difficulties. The translation itself is uncertain. R.V. differs from A.V. only in reading “the ten thousand things” instead of “the great things”; the latter is in accord with the Masoretic suggestion, the former follows the Hebrew text; in this R.V. is preferable. For “my law” LXX. and Vulgate read “my laws,” which is probably original. To get this reading no change in the consonantal text is required. The translation of the tenses also is uncertain; LXX. and Vulgate have the future, Targum and Peshitto the past. The first, verb in Hebrew is an imperfect, which expresses a variety of ideas but always implies incompleteness, Here the verb might be rendered, (1) “I did write” (and am writing still); (2) “I will write”; (3) “I am writing,” or “I am wont to write”; (4) “I did write repeatedly”; (5) it might be hypothetical, “Were I to write,” or (6) concessive, “Though I wrote,” or “Though I should write.” Which of these is the proper translation? Naturally, commentators disagree. To the present writer the choice seems to lie between (5) and (6), and of these (6) seems the more probable; and of the two possible renderings the former seems more in accord with the context. If this translation is accepted the whole verse will read: “Though I wrote for him the ten thousand of my laws, they were counted as strange things,” or “as those of a stranger.” The misconduct of Israel is not due to ignorance; Jehovah gave instruction continuously, but his laws were considered as something foreign, and therefore of no authority. Ten thousand or myriads is not to be understood literally; it simply means a great number. On law see comment on Hosea 4:6. The passage certainly implies the existence of written laws, but it does not prove the existence of the entire Pentateuchal legislation. On the contrary, the context seems to indicate that the laws did not deal to any great extent with the ceremonial or with sacrifice; of these Hosea speaks very lightly. He seems to emphasize rather the moral and civil legislation, such as is found, for example, in Exodus 21-23.

In Hosea 8:13 the prophet returns to the religious practices.

They sacrifice flesh for the sacrifices of mine offerings, and eat it R.V., “As for the sacrifices of mine offerings, they sacrifice flesh and eat it.” The latter follows the Hebrew text more closely. The word translated “mine offerings” occurs only here; its meaning is not quite certain, though it comes probably from a root to give. Sacrifices of mine offerings is ordinarily interpreted as equivalent to my sacrificial offerings, and, unless we assume a corruption of the text, this is the best interpretation. These sacrifices, consisting of flesh, are offered, but Jehovah does not care for them, since the right disposition is wanting and the givers neglect the weightier matters. Therefore “the only positive result is that the sacrificer has the luxury of a dinner of fresh meat” (compare Hosea 4:8). The whole is a condemnation of the heartless religious practices. The measure is full. The blood of the sacrificial animals cannot blot out their sins; he will remember them and will proceed to execute the judgment, which will take the form of an exile.

They shall return to Egypt The house of their former bondage. The mention of Egypt could not but suggest the sufferings of the early Israelites, but it is hardly correct to regard Egypt here as “merely a type of the land of bondage” (Keil), and thus to interpret the reference as a “poetic expression for captivity in general.” The prophet undoubtedly intended the words to be understood as predicting an exile in Egypt (compare Hosea 9:3; Hosea 9:6; Hosea 11:5). The Israelites appealed, now to Assyria, now to Egypt; these very nations will prove the ruin of Israel (compare Isaiah 7:18; Isaiah 11:11, etc.).

Hosea 8:14 sums up the cause of it all.

Israel hath forgotten his Maker This is the root of all evil (see on Hosea 2:20), but especially of the false policy which could see help only in human defenses, and which led them to seek help among the surrounding nations and build temples Better, with R.V., “palaces,” or “castles,” in parallelism with fenced [“fortified”] cities The building of palaces and fortified cities, as such, is not condemned by the prophet. What he does condemn is the fact that in these, and these alone, the people put their trust, to the absolute disregard of Jehovah. The latter will vindicate himself by utterly destroying the human defenses.

Fire War (as in Amos 1:4 to Amos 2:5). Hosea 9:14 b seems to be dependent upon Amos (Amos 1:4; Amos 1:7, etc.), who prophesied about twenty years earlier. Hosea might, therefore, have been acquainted with the words of the earlier prophet. Most modern commentators consider Hosea 8:14 an addition. The reasons for this opinion are summed up by Harper: (1) The reference to Judah is not called for; (2) the style resembles that of Amos rather than that of Hosea; (3) the natural conclusion of the discourse is in Hosea 8:13, hence Hosea 8:14 only weakens the climax; (4) the thought of Jehovah as Israel’s Creator is unexpected in Hosea’s time; (5) the verse is superfluous in the strophic system. Whether or not these reasons are conclusive against Hosea’s authorship of Hosea 8:14 each one must decide for himself.