Plead with your mother, plead: Yahweh speaks to the people of Israel as if Hosea were speaking to his three children. The Hebrew pronoun for your is plural. Good News Translation has made the addressees explicit by beginning with “My children.” The suggested context here is that of a court case in which the mother is on trial. The children represent the people of Israel. The mother represents the nation of Israel in this allegory. However, we do not recommend making this explicit in the translation. Biblia Dios Habla Hoy and Bijbel in Gewone Taal make it explicit that Yahweh is speaking by beginning this verse with “The Lord says.” In 2.1-13 the wife is spoken to directly only in 2.6 in the Hebrew.

Plead translates a Hebrew word usually associated with a legal trial. In the present context this verb denotes a confrontation in the setting of a court case, so it is better rendered “Accuse” (Contemporary English Version) or “Make complaint against.” The father is asking his children to confront their mother by taking legal action against her in court. Traduction œcuménique de la Bible renders this line as “Take legal action against your mother, take legal action against her,” and New Jerusalem Bible has “To court, take your mother to court!” The repetition of the imperative Hebrew verb here makes the appeal to the children to accuse their mother more compelling. It is not stated whether the children are to do so together with their father or independently. Most commentators assume that they are to join their father’s action. However, this is not likely if the parents are divorced (see the comments below).

For she is not my wife, and I am not her husband: These two lines are usually interpreted as a statement of divorce. It is placed within the larger sentence as a parenthetical statement. So it seems to be a statement of what has already occurred, not a statement that the divorce is taking place at this moment. Moreover, the issue of divorce is not the main topic of the allegory. The statement symbolizes that the covenant between God and Israel has been broken by Israel’s unfaithfulness. If they are no longer husband and wife, this may be the reason Hosea (representing Yahweh) asks the children, the people of Israel, to bring the formal accusation against their mother, the morally decayed nation of Israel. The former husband would no longer do so, for he is no longer legally related to the woman. Instead, Hosea now represents the one who executes punishment in 2.3. Some scholars believe a divorce has not occurred, since Gomer would then not be permitted to return to her husband (see 2.7). Thus Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch (1982) translates these lines as “For she acts as if she were not my wife and I were not her husband.” The Hebrew text does not support this rendering, so it is not recommended. Hosea and Gomer were definitely separated and most likely divorced, according to this formal statement of divorce. It must be remembered that, just as Hosea and Gomer were divorced, so also God eventually rejected Israel. They were taken into captivity in Assyria, and they never returned. The “divorce” was final, in that case.

Instead of the conjunction for, Good News Translation uses the connector “though” to render the Hebrew particle ki. For expresses a causal relationship, while “though” indicates a contra-expectation. Depending on the context, the Hebrew word can be translated both ways, but in view of the explanation in the preceding paragraph, we recommend a causal connector, such as for or “because.”

The Hebrew text uses independent pronouns for she and I to sharpen the contrast between the husband and the wife. The Hebrew phrases for not my wife and not her husband clearly resemble the combination of negatives in 1.9. They are grammatically identical. We suggest choosing a translation that visualizes this resemblance.

That she put away her harlotry from her face and her adultery from between her breasts: Even though they are divorced, the husband continues to try to change what his wife is doing, and this is the reason for the courtroom scene. The purpose for confronting her is expressed in these two lines, which are parallel lines of poetry. The Hebrew verb form rendered that she put away may be translated “And let her put away” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), which introduces an independent clause. Revised Standard Version understands it as introducing a purpose clause, which is also possible. The main problem with this solution is the fact that the purpose clause should be linked with the first line in this verse. Because of the parenthetical statement in between, it may be difficult to see the connection. A slight rearrangement of clauses can resolve this problem (see the second translation model below). Since these two lines are parallel in Hebrew, the verb put away is implied in the second line (a case of ellipsis). If ellipsis is a poetic device in the receptor language, it should be kept here.

Her harlotry from her face possibly refers to cosmetics, decorations, or jewelry that would advertise her as a prostitute. Her adultery from between her breasts is a way of referring to the physical position of the men with whom she commits adultery; she should stop accepting them. Some translations interpret this expression to refer to the same kinds of jewelry or signs as those on her forehead, assuming that it adds no further information as a parallel expression. Thus Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch (1982) renders these two lines as “She should remove from her face and from her breast the decoration, which is a reminder that she has broken her faithfulness with me.” Either interpretation is valid. The Hebrew poet may have implied both of them.

Good News Translation avoids the details of these two lines, in which the figures of speech may be unclear, and gives the basic meaning: “Plead with her to stop her adultery and prostitution.” What is gained in clarity is lost in poetic and stylistic artistry. We advise translators to weigh such issues in deciding the various translation options.

Translation models for this verse are:

• To court! Take your mother to court!
For she is not my wife,
I am not her husband.
Let her remove the symbols of prostitution from her face,
the signs of adultery from between her breasts.

• Accuse your mother!
She is not my wife
and I am not her husband.
Accuse her,
so that she removes her whorish looks
and her harlotry between her breasts.

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 .

Verse 8 gives the second accusation of God against the priests in this section. The Hebrew tense of the verbs here reflects their habitual actions. The verse has two parallel lines. They feed corresponds with they are greedy, and the sin of my people corresponds with their iniquity.

They feed on the sin of my people: This idiomatic expression will make little sense to most readers. The Hebrew word for sin also means “sin offering.” The priests were given portions of every sin offering to eat, so that they made part of their living in this way (see Lev 6.25-30). Thus the more people sinned, the more sacrifices would be brought, and the more the priests would eat. Bible en français courant says “They live off the sacrifices offered by my guilty people,” and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “They fatten themselves from the sin offerings of my people.” Some scholars try to determine whether the prophet meant “sin” or “sin offering,” since the Hebrew noun here has either meaning. In this context both meanings may be intended: the priests want people to sin to force them into bringing more sin offerings so that they have more to eat. It may be helpful to make this explicit in the translation (see the model below).

Similarly, they are greedy for their iniquity means that the priests desire that the people sin and make themselves guilty. The result will be more profit for the priests! They are greedy is literally “they lift up their soul/life/throat,” which is a good Hebrew expression for describing people who yearn for something, for example, food, destruction (Pro 19.18), or the LORD (Psa 143.8). Does the receptor language have a good figurative expression to convey this meaning? The Hebrew text actually has “his soul/life/throat,” but many Hebrew manuscripts and the ancient versions have the plural pronoun “their.” In view of the plural subject this makes sense. Their iniquity refers to the moral stain or guilt that marks the people who have sinned.

This verse therefore shows how perverse the priests have become. They are eager to have the people sin and thereby become guilty, so that they will have to bring sacrifices for sin to the priests, from which the priests will have plenty to eat.

A translation model for this verse is:

• They make my people sin, so they can eat their offerings.
They long for their offenses.

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 contains a foundational statement. Yahweh is not interested in any form of worship based on automatic ritual. He is interested in attitudes. This theme occurred earlier in 4.15 and 5.6. This verse has parallels with 1 Sam 15.22, where Samuel says, “Has the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Surely, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.”

For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice: This line is quoted by Jesus on two occasions (Matt 9.13; 12.7). For renders the Hebrew word ki. But this verse does not give a reason for what is said in verse 5. Here ki is an emphatic particle, so it is better translated “Indeed” or “Surely,” or the emphatic nature of God’s requirement may be expressed in some other way. Good News Translation does this with “What I want from you” in verse 5, and that expression fits well here. Other possible ways to begin this verse are “What gives me delight is…” and “What I take pleasure in is….” Normal priestly expectations were that sacrifices would cause Yahweh to be delighted, but something else is far more important.

Steadfast love (Good News Translation “constant love”) renders the Hebrew word chesed, translated “love” in verse 6.4. New International Version and King James Version say “mercy,” which is less satisfactory. As in 6.4, the emphasis here is on people being dependable, being faithful to God and to one another. If it is necessary to state who the object of such love is, it should be Yahweh rather than people, since the next line is parallel and focuses on God as well.

The knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings: For the knowledge of God, see the comments on 4.1 and 6.3. Good News Translation uses the verb “know” rather than the noun knowledge because a verb is more vivid than a noun, although in this parallel structure it may be better to use a noun in both lines. Good News Translation has “me” rather than God because he is speaking here. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch renders this phrase as “recognize who I am and what I want.”

Not sacrifice and rather than burnt offerings are parallel and complement each other. The Hebrew word for sacrifice refers to any offering of a slaughtered animal, which part of could be eaten sometimes, while the word for burnt offerings refers to an animal sacrifice that was burned completely on the altar, except for the skin (see Lev 1.3-17). This technical difference should not prevent the translator from combining the two terms into one, if restructuring calls for it. Revised English Bible renders burnt offerings as “whole-offerings,” which emphasizes that the entire animals were offered to the LORD. This offering also symbolized that the individual was wholly surrendering to the LORD in personal devotion. Other possible models are “sacrifices burnt whole” and “sacrifices of complete burning.”

The adverb not in the phrase not sacrifice sounds like an absolute negative forbidding sacrificial worship. But the parallel expression rather than burnt offerings shows that not can be understood as a relative negative, meaning “more than.” However, the strong language here should not be weakened in translation.

A translation model for this verse is:

• This is what I want: Your loyalty, not sacrifice,
knowledge of God [or, me], rather than burnt offerings.

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 .

Although the discourse of chapter 8 continues as an overall unit, a subsection has clearly ended with verse 10, so at least a paragraph should begin here (so Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation). In verses 11-13 God complains that the Israelites do not take sin and his teachings seriously, even when they observe outwardly the sacrificial system. Verse 13 therefore announces God’s punishment. Some translators may wish to have a separate heading for verses 11-13. Jerusalem Bible uses “Against the outward show of worship.”

Because Ephraim has multiplied altars for sinning, they have become to him altars for sinning: According to 5.6 and 6.6, sacrifices without dedication and love are not acceptable to God. Here God says that for many Israelites the offerings “for removing sin” (Good News Translation) became an excuse, even an opportunity, “for sinning” (Good News Translation), since they knew even before committing a sin that they would have the means for removing the guilt.

The Hebrew word ki rendered Because can also be understood as an emphatic particle, so it may be translated “Indeed” or “Truly” (see comments on 8.6-7). Good News Translation expresses the emphasis by saying “The more … the more….”

As usual, Good News Translation identifies Ephraim as “the people of Israel” for clarity (see comments on 4.17). Altars are the tables or platforms on which people offer gifts or burn sacrifices to their gods. If there is no word for altars in a language, translators may say “tables [or, platforms] for sacrifice.” Sinning renders the most generic Hebrew term for “sin.” It refers to a wrongful act against God or against other people. The context makes it clear that God’s Law is the benchmark in this regard.

Revised Standard Version follows the Hebrew quite closely by repeating altars for sinning, but this repetition sounds strange and does not make sense. Some translations omit the first occurrence; for example, Moffatt says “Many an altar has Ephraim raised, altars that only serve for sin” (similarly Jerusalem Bible, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Zürcher Bibel). New International Version emends the Hebrew text of the first occurrence slightly, using different vowels, so that it reads “altars for sin offerings.” Good News Translation is similar with “altars … for removing sin.” This reading makes good sense and avoids the awkward repetition in the Hebrew (so also New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Einheitsübersetzung).

Wolff suggests that this verse consists of three lines, not two, with “Altars for sinning!” as the final line, using repetition to express surprise and shock over the situation (similarly Bible en français courant, De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling). This suggestion does not require emendation of the Hebrew text, which Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives a {B} rating. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch also retains the Hebrew without emendation, but expands the verse to make the impact explicit: “Oh, yes, Ephraim has multiplied its altars; but they only serve him for burdening himself with new failures [sins]; they are altars for sinning!”

Altars for sinning in the second line can be thought of, first, as altars that make it easy to sin because sacrificing is easy; second, as altars to gods other than Yahweh, thus involving the sin of idolatry; or third, altars at which worship involved temple prostitutes, and thus encouraging further sinning. It will be wise for translators to avoid a translation that would restrict itself to any one of these interpretations, since all of them may have been involved.

A translation model for this verse is:

• How many altars has Ephraim built!
But just for sinning!
Altars for sinning!

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 .

In the first part of this verse the farming imagery continues. God commanded goodness (10.12), but Israel practiced evil. In the Hebrew text of this verse the connections are not clear, since it has only one conjunction (rendered Because). Good News Translation makes the first connection clear by adding “But instead.” New International Version and New Living Translation also add “But.”

You have plowed iniquity: The verb plowed follows the Hebrew. This is the very first thing a farmer does if he wants to have a crop. So from the very beginning Israel has sinned. Plowing in Palestine is immediately followed by sowing. So Good News Translation and New International Version are justified in using “planted,” which is the figure used in English for beginning evil. Translators have to consider the understanding of plowed in the receptor culture and use a term that shows the earliest thing a farmer does to prepare for a crop. New Living Translation uses a slightly different agricultural verb, “cultivated.” The Hebrew word for iniquity has connotations of breaking the law, so “lawlessness” is a good translation option.

You have reaped injustice: Because Israel has started with evil, it now suffers from its own evil. Reaped renders the same Hebrew verb used in 10.12. It is a general term for cutting a plant in order to get what one needs from the plant. A related term in Arabic seems to give the sense of grasping several stalks together and cutting them at once, as when harvesting wheat, but it probably is better to use a general term for gathering a harvest. The Hebrew word for injustice refers to people being treated in an unfair manner, not according to the law. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “iniquity,” but that term is more general. Good News Translation‘s “its harvest” is not very clear. This rendering sounds rather neutral, while a clear negative idea is intended. According to this line, a result of Israel’s evil and lawlessness was that they now suffer from their own evil as they experience more and worse evil, especially in things that they may feel they do not deserve. But they do deserve it.

You have eaten the fruit of lies expresses the final part of the process of planting, reaping, and now eating. The Israelites have spoken lies, and now they experience worse trouble as a result. The text does not state to whom the lies were spoken. It could be both to God and to their neighbors. In view of the implied connections with the law in the preceding lines, this word could also refer to their covenant relationship. The Hebrew word for lies is rendered “treachery” in 7.3 (see comments there). Here it may be best to leave it as a general expression without saying exactly to whom or about what the lies were spoken. A term such as “deception” seems to be the best option.

Because you have trusted in your chariots and in the multitude of your warriors: These two lines are rightly taken by Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation as giving the reason for the attack threatened in the next verse, so they can be translated in a way that continues the sentence into that verse. Because translates the Hebrew word ki. Here it emphatically introduces some of the wrongs that Israel has done, leading to the result described in the next verse. However, this connector can also be taken as introducing the grounds for the behavior described in the preceding three lines (so NET Bible; see also the model below). If this is done, it is not necessary to start a new sentence here.

Instead of chariots, the Hebrew text has “way” (King James Version). Chariots (also Good News Translation, New Jerusalem Bible) follows the Septuagint, and this meaning seems to be a better parallel to warriors and seems to fit better with the context. However, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project favors the Hebrew text (a {B} decision, but not unanimous, according to Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament). Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament‘s understanding is that Israel was not known for its many chariots the way Egypt was, for example. Other commentators differ strongly with this view. Following the Hebrew, “your way” may refer to their political way of doing things. Another interpretation of the Hebrew word is “strength” (New International Version) or “power” (New Revised Standard Version). Along with trusting in their warriors, the Israelites were also trusting in their own “way” of doing things and in their own military strength, instead of trusting in God.

The Hebrew term for warriors refers to “mighty men,” who are more than just ordinary soldiers. However, not all languages are able to make such distinctions.

A translation model for this verse is:

• However, you have plowed lawlessness,
you have reaped injustice,
you have eaten the fruit of deception,
because you have trusted in your strength,
in your many mighty soldiers.

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 .

In this section God is clearly the speaker. Good News Translation makes this clear by beginning with the quote frame “The LORD says.” Some modern translations add such a statement, but most do not, since it is not in the Hebrew text. Translators will have to decide if such an introduction of the speaker is needed.

This verse begins with the Hebrew waw conjunction (literally “And”), which Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation omit. Some translations render it “But” (New International Version, NET Bible, English Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling) or “Yet” (New Revised Standard Version), since it introduces a contrast with the previous section that describes worship of other gods.

I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt: These words are exactly the same as those occurring in the first two lines of 12.9 (see comments there). It will be good to translate them here in the same way. These are the important words that establish the relationship between God and the people of Israel.

You know no God but me expresses the result of their rescue from Egypt. This may seem to be a strange statement, since the people had been worshiping other gods, false gods. But this statement shows that there is an eternal bond, a connection, between Israel and Yahweh that no one can change. The verb know here has connotations of “acknowledge” or “relate to” (see comments on 2.20). NET Bible expresses its sense well by saying “Therefore, you must not acknowledge any God but me.” New International Version is similar with “You shall acknowledge no God but me.” The exclusive relational aspect is emphasized in Bijbel in Gewone Taal: “I am the only God you are allowed to serve.” The Hebrew verb for know is also used to signify sexual relations between a man and his wife, as when “Adam knew Eve his wife” (Gen 4.1), so it links this passage with the personal story of Hosea and Gomer.

And besides me there is no savior is literally “and a deliverer there is none except me.” Good News Translation provides a good equivalent: “I alone am your savior.”

A translation model for this verse is:

• But I am the LORD your God,
ever since the time in Egypt.
You must know no other God, except me,
there is no other god who can save you.

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 .