And I will punish her for the feast days of the Baals: For the Hebrew verb rendered punish, see 1.4. The feast days of the Baals is literally “the days of the Baals.” The phrase can mean “the times” when Israel worshiped Baal (so Good News Translation). But in this context “the festival celebrations” of worship are more likely meant (compare 2.11). Although there was only one pagan god called Baal in Canaanite religion, there were many shrines with their own names and statues of Baal, for example, Baal of Peor (Num 25.3) and Baal of Carmel (1 Kgs 18.19). These different Baals should probably be seen as local manifestations of the one deity called “Baal.” The Hebrew text uses the plural “Baals” here (also in 2.17 and 11.2), while in 2.8 the singular “Baal” occurs. Good News Translation uses the singular consistently, perhaps to avoid the idea that there were many gods named “Baal.” However, given the fact that different manifestations of Baal were identified in the Old Testament, it is possible that Hosea uses the term to refer to (manifestations of) foreign deities in general. Therefore a translation containing a plural form is recommended, such as “images of Baal” (New Living Translation) or “Baal idols” ( NET Bible).

When she burned incense to them: Incense is usually the gum of certain plants which, when burned, produces a smoke that smells like perfume. Incense is used in worship, where the rising smoke is considered a symbol of prayer. However, the Hebrew verb rendered burned incense can also mean “to produce smoke [by making a burnt offering],” so Jerusalem Bible renders this clause as “when she burnt offerings to the Baals” (similarly Bible en français courant, Bible de Jérusalem, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Either sense is acceptable in this context.

And decked herself with her ring and jewelry: Decked herself may be rendered “adorned herself” ( NET Bible). Her ring and jewelry may refer to jewelry worn in worship (see Exo 33.4) or to jewelry worn by prostitutes (see Ezek 23.40). The Hebrew word for ring may refer to a nose ring or earrings made out of gold. The Hebrew word for jewelry is a generic term for ornaments worn on any part of the body. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch (1982) does not specify what was worn by rendering this line and the next one as “that she adorned herself for her lovers.”

And went after her lovers may imply that she participated in processions leading into the shrines of the pagan gods and moving about within the shrines. But the more likely meaning in this context is that she pursued these gods like a prostitute seeking men (see 2.5, 7).

And forgot me is literally “and me she forgot.” The word order in Hebrew puts emphasis on the pronoun me. Bible en français courant keeps this emphasis by saying “and me, she has forgotten me.” This clause is in the final position of the verse, which gives it a special connotation of sorrow and disappointment. Good News Translation moves it near the beginning of the verse to give it emphasis in English, and because forgetting Yahweh precedes worshiping other gods. However, the special effect of the unusual order of events in the original text can no longer be recognized in Good News Translation.

Says the LORD: The usual Hebrew word for speaking is not used here; instead says renders a noun meaning “utterance,” “declaration,” or “statement.” The formula here introduces a formal declaration, or pronouncement, from God, emphasizing that it is an authoritative and important message. The prophets used this formula to show that what was spoken was a divine utterance. Here it marks the end of a section of the discourse. Although the discourse itself continues in the next verse, a clear change of attitude begins there. Some translations indicate the formulaic nature of this expression by using a different format for it (see the model below).

A translation model for this verse is:

• I will punish her for the celebrations she dedicated to the Baal images,
in which she devoted burnt offerings to them
and adorned herself with rings and [other] jewelry.
And me? She has forgotten me.
-The LORD speaks-

Quoted with permission from Dorn, Louis & van Steenbergen, Gerrit. A Handbook on Hosea. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2020. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

A band of drunkards, they give themselves to harlotry: This verse contains many textual uncertainties. According to Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, the Hebrew text of the first line can be understood in the following two ways: “Their drunken orgy has ceased, (they have indulged enough in prostitution)” and “The drunken orgy of those who have indulged in prostitution has ceased.”

The phrase a band of drunkards is based on several emendations of the Hebrew and is not closely related to the context. Good News Translation says “After drinking much wine” (similarly New International Version, New American Bible), which expresses the Hebrew and makes sense. Bible en français courant is similar, but understands the beginning of this verse as continuing from the end of 4.17, saying “Let them 18 complete their orgies.” However, it seems equally possible to follow the interpretation of Good News Translation, that after ending their drinking they go on to prostitution. This is Hebrew Old Testament Text Project‘s preferred understanding of the Hebrew (a {B} decision).

They give themselves to harlotry renders an emphatic verbal expression in the Hebrew, which is literally “to commit prostitution they commit prostitution.” It means they engage in harlotry completely, with utter abandon. Here their “prostitution” is probably not cultic sex but the nonreligious sexual immorality that is often associated with drunkenness. For this whole line New American Bible has “When their carousing is over, they give themselves to harlotry.”

They love shame more than their glory: This line in Hebrew also has textual problems. Both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation follow the Septuagint, assuming that its translators had a more accurate Hebrew text before them. However, research has indicated that this may not be true. Here some of the Hebrew can make sense, and our comments will follow the preference of Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (a {B} decision). The Hebrew is literally “they have loved they love the shame of her shields.” The verb for “love” is used twice. It seems best to assume that this is another intensive verbal expression, which means “they utterly love.” Instead of glory, the Hebrew text has “shields.” One interpretation is that the “shield” was a recognized metaphor for a leader or a prince, so it is possible to think of the Hebrew for this line as saying “they loved utterly the shame of their princes [or, leaders].” In other words, just as the priests have led the people astray, so their chiefs have given them an evil example, and they love to follow them into such wickedness.

However, a better interpretation is that, instead of “shields,” this is an example of northern Hebrew, where the word meant “gifts.” Thus the Hebrew can be understood as “they love very much the shame of her gifts.” Instead of speaking in a general way about how the Israelites love to engage in prostitution, the text calls attention to their gifts to the prostitutes, as a poetic symbol for the entire sinful act.

If possible, translators should match the word for shame here with that used in 4.7, and the expression for harlotry should reflect that used in 4.10. This will help the reader see the connection between sections B-c (4.7-11) and B-c′ (4.15-19).

This entire verse can be seen as a continuation of the words of the LORD addressing the people of Israel, so the third person plural pronouns can be replaced with second person pronouns in agreement with the preceding verses (see the model below).

A translation model for this verse is:

• Barely recovered from your hangover,
you rush to the harlots.
You are fond of the disgrace of their gifts.

Quoted with permission from Dorn, Louis & van Steenbergen, Gerrit. A Handbook on Hosea. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2020. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

On the day of our king: Most translations interpret this phrase as a celebration in connection with the king, although the Hebrew text is not explicit about it. It literally says “Day of our king,” without a preposition or definite article. The context does not make clear what kind of celebration might be intended. It could be his birthday or his coronation (which is very possible within the given historical setting). Good News Translation translates “On the day of the king’s celebration,” which is a good model to follow. Other possibilities include “On their king’s festal day” (New English Bible) and “On the day [or, When] the king prepared a feast.” Bible en français courant (1982) says “When one celebrated their king,” using a French idiom. New Jerusalem Bible is similar: “At the holiday for our king.” The Hebrew text has our king, but since Yahweh is the speaker (through the mouth of the prophet), it may be necessary to say “the king” (Good News Translation). Some scholars claim that the context (with some textual support) leads to the translation “their king” (Contemporary English Version, New English Bible), but the basis for this decision is unconvincing.

The princes became sick with the heat of wine: This line may be understood in two ways, depending upon the meaning given for the Hebrew word rendered heat. Recent studies indicate that it is a northern Israelite term for “poison.” Some may argue that “poison” refers figuratively to the evil effects that result when someone drinks too much of the alcohol found in wine. But there was so much assassination and political fighting going on in the northern kingdom of Israel at the time, that the idea of “poison” added to the wine is a genuine possibility. In any case, two interpretations are possible. According to the first interpretation, which is the usual one, this line means the king’s officials became drunk. The Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Peshitta follow this interpretation. In some cultures the link between heat and “drinking too much” is not uncommon. In that case a more literal translation will do. It is important though to use the right idiom. According to the second interpretation, which is the more recent one, heat should be translated as “poison.” The king’s officials became sick from the poison in the wine.

He stretched out his hand with mockers is rather obscure. The Hebrew here can be understood to say “his hand drew mockers.” Some scholars believe hand refers figuratively to power, in this case the power of the wine; for example, Wolff says “whose power enchants the mockers,” and Mays has “whose power draws the scorners.” Another interpretation is that the officials invite disloyal people to join in the drinking; for example, NET Bible says “they conspire with evildoers.” However, the Hebrew pronouns for he and his are singular, which makes the NET Bible translation less credible. These pronouns probably refer to the king (as made explicit in Good News Translation). He stretched out his hand is then a gesture indicating that the king joined in companionship with mockers. The mockers were people present who spoke in derision about the drunkenness of their leaders, but these people were undoubtedly the very ones who plotted to overthrow the king when he and his officials were drunk. New Jerusalem Bible says “while he accepts the homage of people who laugh at him,” and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “He gave his hand to the traitors.” A translation that makes clear the probable meaning of this line is “the king included in his celebration those mockers who plotted against him.”

The Hebrew text separates what happened to the princes from what the king did. Good News Translation joins them, assuming that became sick … wine implies drunken celebration, and that stretched out his hand similarly refers to joining in that celebration. Good News Translation says “they made the king and his officials drunk and foolish with wine.” This model misses the idea that the king extended his friendship to traitors, so we do not recommend it.

In this verse many translations use the present tense (New International Version, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible), either to indicate the historic present, or to indicate that this is what regularly occurs. Other translations use the past tense, relating a specific incident in the past (Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Assassinations did occur regularly, and this account can be understood as referring to either repeated incidents or a single past incident. Translators are free to select the tense that is appropriate for their own language.

Translation models for this verse are:

• During the festivities of the king
they fired up the officials with wine,
while the king joined those who laughed at him.

• During the coronation of the king
they made the officials sick with wine,
and the king colluded with his mockers.

Quoted with permission from Dorn, Louis & van Steenbergen, Gerrit. A Handbook on Hosea. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2020. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse is one of the most difficult in Hosea. Particularly the first two lines are subject to debate. Do they link to the last half of 9.7 or are they linked with the last half of this verse? The lack of clarity is further caused by the way the text reflects an argument between Hosea and the Israelites. It is not certain whether any of these words, or all of them, were spoken by the people or by the prophet.

Our interpretation favors the prophet as speaker. It does not seem normal for the writer to record much speech of a prophet’s opponents without clearly identifying the speakers. A literal translation of the Hebrew for this verse is:

A watchman [or, spy] Ephraim
with [or, on] my God a prophet
a trap of a fowler on all his paths
hatred in the house of his God.

Some ways of relating these terms to each other are as follows:

(1) New English Bible places the last words of 9.7 at the beginning of this verse, starting with “With great enmity….” However, nothing is gained by doing this, so we do not recommend it.

(2) One can understand Ephraim (that is, the people of Israel) to be the watchman or “spy,” as does Hebrew Old Testament Text Project (which gives an {A} rating to the Hebrew text, but not necessarily to its translation): “Ephraim acts as a spy on my God.” “A prophet” can then be read at the beginning of the next line, as in King James Version: “but the prophet is a snare of a fowler in all his [Ephraim’s] ways” (similarly New English Bible). But Hebrew Old Testament Text Project‘s translation hardly makes sense in this context.

(3) Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has a rendering based on a somewhat different interpretation: “You people of Ephraim, you turn against my God! You place traps against me, his prophet, where I go and [where I] stand; even in the house of my God I am not safe.” In this interpretation, the prophet is not the fowler’s trap to the people, but he is being trapped by the people. The problem with this interpretation is that the Hebrew preposition for “with [or, on]” is not found elsewhere after the verb meaning “to spy on, lie in ambush for,” and the sense and the Hebrew rhythm favor taking “prophet” with the first half of the verse.

(4) Einheitsübersetzung gets around the problem of the preposition by assuming that Ephraim considers itself as standing “with my God,” and thus has one of the better renderings of the first two lines: “Ephraim, the people of my God, lie in wait for the prophet.” However, none of these renderings seems to fit the context well.

If one understands the prophet as the watchman of Ephraim, or the one who lies in wait against Ephraim, other problems arise. Revised Standard Version replaces the vowel of the Hebrew preposition ʿim meaning “with” or “on,” so that it is ʿam, meaning “people,” thus Revised Standard Version has the people of my God. However, there is no evidence to support this emendation, and it seems best to understand that the prophet is “with my God.” This phrase is still open to different interpretations: is the prophet on the side of God, in his presence, or in the service of God? New International Version tries to adjust the grammatical relationships of the words in the first two Hebrew lines: “The prophet, along with my God, is the watchman over Ephraim.” English Standard Version is similar with “The prophet is the watchman of Ephraim with my God,” and so is New Jerusalem Bible; “The watchman of Ephraim is with my God: it is the prophet.”

The major problem in the last two lines of the verse is determining who is the fowler (that is, hunter of birds), who has hatred, and who is affected by the hatred. If the people were speaking, this would be their complaint against the prophet working in a skillful way to trap them and to stir up hatred. But earlier they had called the prophet a fool and a madman, and therefore they would not now say he had such skills. So it is more likely that the prophet is the speaker. The easiest interpretation and one that fits well in the context is that he is suffering at the hands of the people. Other prophets (for example, Amos and Jeremiah) met opposition from the people such as that which Hosea faced.

Is the house of his God the Temple, or is it the whole land of Yahweh, namely Canaan? In favor of the interpretation “the land of his God” ( NET Bible) is the fact that the Hebrew word usually translated house does seem to mean “land” in 8.1 and 9.15. On the other hand, several factors favor the literal meaning here, “in the house [sanctuary] of his God.” These factors are: (1) that this literal meaning makes a good climax, “wherever I go, and even in the Temple”; (2) the Hebrew expression in 9.15 is different, literally “my house”; and (3) in 9.4 “the house of the LORD” clearly means the Temple. However, it seems that Hosea did not regard the sacrifices of the northern kingdom of Israel as proper, so he may have never even entered the sanctuary there.

Based on the above discussion, we suggest the following revision of the literal translation:

The watcher over Ephraim
is with my God—the prophet!
A fowler’s snare is on all his paths;
there is hatred in the house [or, land] of his God.

In this revision “the prophet” is in an emphatic position at the end of the second line, identifying “The watcher” as the prophet. He is responsible for Ephraim, and he is on the side of God or in his service. Just as he serves as an adversary against the people of Ephraim in his responsibility as watcher for them, so they serve as adversaries against him, first as a trap wherever he goes, and then hating him all over Yahweh’s very own land, or in Yahweh’s very own house.

We turn now to several other details for the translation of this verse.

The image of the prophet as a watchman over God’s people is not uncommon in the Old Testament (see, for example, Isa 56.10; Jer 6.17; Ezek 3.17; 33.1-9). Good News Translation understands the function of the watchman as someone who is “to warn” the people.

As often before, Good News Translation uses “Israel” instead of Ephraim (see comments on 4.17).

The pronoun my refers to Hosea and the pronoun his to the prophet, but since Hosea is the prophet, some languages may prefer to use only first person pronouns (see the model below).

A fowler’s snare refers to a trap set for birds. Here it is an image for the traps the Israelites set for Hosea. Good News Translation makes this clear by rendering a fowler’s snare is on all his ways as “wherever I go, you try to trap me like a bird.”

The literal last line and hatred in the house of his God does not make clear who is hating whom. Good News Translation makes it clear that the Israelites are hating the prophet Hosea: “Even in God’s Temple the people are the prophet’s enemies.”

For the Hebrew phrase rendered the house of his God, we need to look at the chiastic structure of the book of Hosea. At this point, which is section B′-a of our outline, this phrase resembles the Hebrew name Bethel, meaning “house of God.” It seems like this phrase is a play on words for keeping in mind Bethel, the city where the northern kingdom had its temple, or “house of God.” The name “Bethel” occurs in the Hebrew text of 10.15, which is in the corresponding section B′-a′ (10.11-15). An accurate translation of the Hebrew here may resemble the house of his God in order to make the basic meaning clear to the reader. Those translations that use footnotes may want to inform the readers that this expression is a play on words with the name of the city Bethel. To actually use the name “Bethel” in the translation would not be accurate, even though the prophet may have had this city in mind as the background place in which all this happened.

As noted above, the pronoun his in the phrase his God refers to Hosea. Since he is the speaker, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch says “my God.” Many translations omit this pronoun (New Living Translation, Revised English Bible, Bijbel in Gewone Taal).

A translation model for this verse is:

• I, the prophet in the service of my God,
I am the watcher over you, Ephraim.
But in all my ways you try to trap me like a bird.
I encounter hostility in the house of my God.

Quoted with permission from Dorn, Louis & van Steenbergen, Gerrit. A Handbook on Hosea. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2020. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

After all the words of warning, threatening warfare and destruction on Israel, verses 8-9 are a statement of God’s continuing love for Israel, a total shift from the preceding verses. In translation this shift can be marked by a blank line (Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation) or a new paragraph (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch).

How can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I treat you like Zeboiim?: These four questions are rhetorical. The first and the third questions use the same Hebrew verb, which can mean “give,” “put” or “set,” depending upon the context. Revised Standard Version translates it give … up and make.

How can I give you up, O Ephraim? and How can I hand you over, O Israel? are parallel ways of saying the same thing. Yahweh owns, loves and protects Israel, yet it would be right for him to give Israel over to its enemies as a punishment. So he asks how he can force himself to do this. Give you up and hand you over refer to delivering them to someone else. Revised English Bible says “hand you over … surrender you.” However, the verb “surrender” implies that God has lost the battle and must therefore give up his people. The Hebrew verbs here do not carry this meaning unless the context calls for it, but they are simply verbs for giving, even as a gift. Good News Translation‘s “abandon” is not really accurate. It is not stated to whom God will give them, but we can assume it will be Israel’s enemies.

For the synonymous names Ephraim and Israel, Good News Translation uses only “Israel” (see comments on 4.17 and 5.3). We recommend keeping both names.

How can I make you like Admah? and How I can I treat you like Zeboiim? are two more parallel questions. Admah and Zeboiim were cities near the east side of the Dead Sea. Abraham had rescued them in his battle with Chedorlaomer (Gen 14), but we learn from Deut 29.23 that they were later included in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19). Together these cities have come to symbolize wickedness and subsequent destruction as a result of God’s wrath. The unspoken answer to these rhetorical questions is “I could not so destroy you.”

My heart recoils within me: In Hebrew thought the heart is the location of the intellect and the will, as well as the location of desires and emotions. Recoils renders a Hebrew verb meaning “overturn” or “change.” So this line in Hebrew can be interpreted in two ways. First, it may be an expression of deep emotions, as in Revised Standard Version. It shows God’s inner feelings of discomfort if he had to destroy Israel. God in his love draws back from such a complete and permanent destruction. Good News Translation follows this interpretation by saying “My heart will not let me do it!” Second, it may describe God’s change of mind, as in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh’s “I have had a change of heart,” and New International Version‘s “My heart is changed within me.” This second option matches well with the final line, which then gives the grounds for the change of mind. Whichever interpretation translators follow, translators should use an appropriate expression for heart. Not all cultures use this word when referring to the emotions or the mind.

My compassion grows warm and tender: The Hebrew noun for compassion comes from a root that means “have sympathy” or “be sorry.” Grows warm and tender renders one verb in Hebrew. This verb literally means “to become hot.” Here it expresses deep love and tenderness (compare Gen 43.30 and 1 Kgs 3.26, where it is rendered “yearned”). The Hebrew text also has a word meaning “all” or “together,” so New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh renders this line as “All My tenderness is stirred.” Good News Translation is a little more clear with “My love for you is too strong”—too strong, of course, to give Israel up to permanent destruction.

A translation model for this verse is:

• How can I give you up, Ephraim,
deliver you up, Israel?
How can I give you up like Admah,
treat you like Zeboiim?
I have had a change of heart,
all my compassion for you is burning.

Quoted with permission from Dorn, Louis & van Steenbergen, Gerrit. A Handbook on Hosea. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2020. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

We have here another example of Hebrew poetic structure, a so-called chiastic structure: Sheol … Death … Death … Sheol.

Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from Death?: In these two parallel lines, instead of speaking about Israel as a single person, the text now uses the plural pronoun them. In Good News Translation the shift to plural is made gradually by first identifying them as “this people.”

The Hebrew verb for ransom means to set someone free by paying a price of some kind, usually money (see comments on 7.13, where it is rendered “redeem”). The verb for redeem means almost the same thing, except that this word is often used when a relative, a next of kin, rescues someone, often by paying a price. And this word can refer to help from a relative when one is in any kind of difficult situation. Boaz was Ruth’s “redeemer.”

The Hebrew word for Sheol refers to the place of the dead which is located somewhere deep in the earth. So it is a place of darkness from which the dead will not return. Some cultures have their own way of referring to such a place. In other languages it may be clearer to say “the world of the dead” (Good News Translation) or “the grave” (New Living Translation).

The Hebrew text of these two lines has problems of interpretation, some of which are seen in the various modern translations. These lines may be translated literally as statements:

From the hand [or, power] of Sheol I will ransom them,
from death I will redeem them.

Because the previous verses and the next verses speak of God’s anger and judgment upon the people of Israel, most translations do as Revised Standard Version and render these lines as rhetorical questions (so New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible). Typical of rhetorical questions is that no answer is expected. In fact, rhetorical questions are often used as a way to emphasize a point. In this case, the LORD will do the opposite: he will not ransom or redeem the people. Good News Translation translates the lines as negative statements. If rhetorical questions are familiar in the receptor language, translators should use them here. New International Version is one of the very few modern translations that render these lines literally as positive statements. However, in view of the context, especially the last line of this verse (Compassion is hid from my eyes), we do not recommend this option.

Some scholars suggest that we have here a picture of Yahweh in agony over whether he can really punish his people, whom he has loved: “Can I really rescue them, or must I punish them?” In any case, the context of this verse favors translating these two lines as questions:

Shall I ransom them from the hand of Sheol?
Shall I redeem them from death?

O Death, where are your plagues? O Sheol, where is your destruction?: In these two parallel lines scholars differ as to whether the first Hebrew word of each line should be one meaning “Where” or “I will be” (Revised Standard Version footnote). Are these lines questions or statements? The Hebrew text has “I will be,” which Hebrew Old Testament Text Project favors (a {B} decision). Revised Standard Version follows the Septuagint and the Peshitta with its reading. As in verse 10, the Hebrew for “I will be” is changed to read “Where.”

If the Hebrew text is followed here, the sense of the first four lines is as follows: Shall I save them from Sheol and from Death? No! In fact, Death, I will be your plagues! Sheol, I will be your destruction! That is, God is ready himself to carry out the work of Sheol and Death with no help from these two. The Hebrew of lines three and four may therefore be translated as follows:

I will be your plagues, Death!
I will be your destruction, Sheol!

If the emended text in Revised Standard Version is followed, then these two lines should be rendered as rhetorical questions that invite Death and Sheol to bring on deadly diseases (so New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, English Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Good News Translation renders these questions as strong statements, which some languages may find helpful.

Both Death and Sheol are personified here. If possible, translators should keep this personification. If this is not possible, a model of these two lines that removes it is “I will allow them to be killed by diseases; I will imprison them in the world of the dead.”

The Hebrew word for plagues refers to diseases, illnesses, or similar things that cause many people in a community to die. The word for destruction in this context can refer to “pestilence” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) or to the result of it, that is, the death of many people.

In 1 Cor 15.55 these two lines are quoted as follows: “O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?” (King James Version). However, this quotation was taken from the Septuagint, which was more widely used and understood in those days by Paul’s audience than was the original Hebrew. In the New Testament it is therefore turned into an important word of comfort by Paul. But it is clearly not a word of comfort in this context.

Compassion is hid from my eyes: This figurative line emphasizes the idea that, although the Israelites are Yahweh’s own people, he will not have mercy on them any longer. The decision is final. The Hebrew word for Compassion refers to the way someone, such as a mother, feels the pain or sorrow that her child is experiencing. The imagery here does not mean that Yahweh will not see the suffering of his people, but that he will not have pity for them even if he sees their suffering. Good News Translation uses nonfigurative language, saying “I will no longer have pity for this people.” New American Bible keeps the imagery by saying “My eyes are closed to compassion.” This line serves as both a summary of the previous lines and an introduction to the message of verse 15.

A translation model for this verse is:

• Should I ransom them from the power of the grave?
Should I rescue them from death?
Death, where are your plagues?
Grave, where is your pestilence?
I no longer feel compassion.

Quoted with permission from Dorn, Louis & van Steenbergen, Gerrit. A Handbook on Hosea. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2020. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .