The conjunction Therefore introduces what Yahweh will do in response to the sins of Israel mentioned in the previous verse (see comments on 2.6).

I will take back my grain in its time, and my wine in its season… means that what Yahweh once gave to Israel he will take away from Israel. The Hebrew expression for I will take back is literally “I will return and I will take.” The Hebrew verb for “return” is the same one used in 2.7, where the woman returns to her husband. Here the LORD returns and takes from his wife Israel, which is an opposite move. It may be hard to retain this wordplay in translation. NET Bible has “go back” in 2.7 and “take back” here. The same Hebrew words are used for grain and wine as in 2.8. The possessive pronoun my is used with each of these crops, emphasizing that they never came from Baal in the first place, but from the LORD, in contrast with the woman’s thoughts in 2.5. Drought seems to be implied as the means of destroying these crops (see 2.3). In its time and in its season refer to the time when grain is harvested and when grapes are gathered and their juice pressed out for making wine. Good News Translation combines these two phrases, saying “at harvest time.” Again, the translator has to consider the literary genre that is used to translate this text. In poetry a certain element of repetition is acceptable in many languages.

And I will take away my wool and my flax: The Hebrew verb for take away means “to snatch,” implying the use of sudden force in grabbing the material away from the woman. New American Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh say “snatch away,” and Bible en français courant and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible translate “tear away.” This verb can also be understood to mean “rescue” (Andersen and Freedman), as if Yahweh is rescuing property that is rightfully his own. Either meaning is appropriate in this context.

My wool and my flax repeat the words used in 2.5. By referring back to things in 2.5 and 2.8, this prophecy demonstrates a feature of good Hebrew style in poetry: various parts of a poem are shown to relate to each other, almost like rhyming patterns of poetry in many Western languages.

Which were to cover her nakedness: Wool and flax would first have to be made into clothing to cover the woman, and some languages may need to specify this fact. The last two lines of this verse are another way of saying that Yahweh will strip her naked (see 2.3, 10).

A translation model for this verse is:

• Therefore I will take back
my grain when it is ripe,
and my wine when it is matured.
I will snatch my wool and my flax
used to cover her nakedness.

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 .

I will not punish your daughters when they play the harlot, nor your brides when they commit adultery: These two lines are directly related to the last two lines of 4.13, and the corresponding terms should be used again, unless the style of the receptor language demands variety. Good News Translation simply says “Yet I will not punish them for this” to avoid a repetition that is not good style in English prose. However, if poetry is appropriate here in the receptor language, repetition may be a genuine stylistic feature. Good News Translation adds the connector “Yet” to highlight the unexpected nature of these two lines. Other translations similarly begin with “But” (Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation, De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling). Normally such women should be stoned to death (Deut 22.20-21), but Yahweh makes the surprising statement that he will not punish them. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch implies that others will be punished instead by saying “But it is not they whom I will bring to an accounting!” Some commentaries recommend that these two lines should be rendered as a question (so New Living Translation), but we advise not doing this. The following lines make it clear that the real cause of the problem is with the men, the leadership (elders and priests) who are involved in prostitution.

For the men themselves go aside with harlots and sacrifice with cult prostitutes: The Hebrew expression rendered for the men themselves uses an emphatic third person plural masculine pronoun, showing sharp contrast with the daughters and daughters-in-law. It signifies that the real fault lies with the men, who have given a bad example by engaging in sex in pagan temples, where it was considered legitimate. For the women to engage in illegitimate sex was not to be regarded as a more serious sin. The translator will have to decide whether this pronoun refers to “the priests” (Bible en français courant, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible) or to the men of Israel in general (so Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible). Since the earlier verses show that the priests are responsible for the errors of the people, this pronoun can be understood as referring to the men of Israel, who have not been disciplined by the priests (so Jerusalem Bible with “everyone else”). However, the final line of this verse seems to suggest that the ones who are responsible for teaching the people, that is, the priests, are in view here. Some translations therefore use a second person plural pronoun here to avoid a shift in pronominal reference with the previous lines (so Good News Translation, De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling). If the receptor language has a second person plural masculine pronoun, it can be used here. Otherwise, “you, men” is a good solution.

Go aside with harlots is parallel with sacrifice with cult prostitutes in order to define in shocking terms what the men have been doing. Harlots were the women offering illegitimate sex outside the pagan temples, while cult prostitutes offered sex as worship inside the pagan temples. It is possible to understand these parallel lines to mean “You are really going aside with harlots when you go with those temple women!” But they may also mean that the men had sex with both kinds of women.

The Hebrew verb translated go aside is very likely a northern Israelite dialect expression meaning “offer, extend.” It is therefore parallel in meaning with the Hebrew verb for sacrifice in the next line, and it will be good to use a similar term. One model for these two lines with this sense is “for it is you, men, who make offerings with the harlots and you sacrifice with the temple prostitutes.” Since some Israelites would be acquainted with both the northern and the southern dialects of Hebrew, it is also possible that this was a wordplay. Then the verb for go aside would have the double meaning of “going off” with harlots, and “making offerings” with them. However, it is rare that such wordplays can be reproduced in the language of a translation.

The Hebrew word for cult prostitutes is literally “holy women,” but it denotes, of course, women who were involved with sex in a regular way in the pagan temples. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch (1982) says “temple-girls.” The Hebrew verb for sacrifice has a generic sense, but here the context specifies that it is done together with cult prostitutes, implying that a cultic sex act is involved.

As explained in GNT’s footnote, intercourse with temple prostitutes at pagan shrines was thought to ensure fertility of the fields, of the herds, and of the women. Such idolatry and immorality showed a lack of spiritual and moral understanding. It may be necessary to include a footnote similar to the one in Good News Translation.

And a people without understanding shall come to ruin: This line is a proverb corresponding to the one in 4.11, so that these two proverbs mark boundaries from one section of discourse to another. It is possible that the prophet has composed these as new proverbs, but Good News Translation and Bible en français courant assume that this one is known and make explicit that it is a proverb by introducing it with “As the proverb says.” NET Bible is less explicit by beginning with “It is true.” A people refers to any identifiable grouping of people according to geography, heritage, nationality, or other criterion. The Hebrew expression for without understanding (that is, “who do not understand”) comes from the wisdom literature of the Old Testament. It refers to the opposite of having wisdom; that is, having no insight, no appreciation for the meaning of knowledge and information, unable to make sense of the world around them and of their experiences. The Hebrew verb for come to ruin is a general term for the opposite of succeeding, and in fact includes the idea of destruction. It literally means “be thrust down or away,” but for proverbs most languages use generic terms rather than specific ones, unless specific terms are used in a way that implies that the proverb is suitable for a wide range of applications.

A translation model for this verse is:

• But I will not punish your daughters for their prostitution,
or your daughters-in-law for their adultery.
Because it is you, men, who go off with prostitutes,
and who sacrifice with temple prostitutes.
The saying is true: “A people without wisdom will be ruined.”

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 .

When I would restore the fortunes of my people (literally “when I return the returning of my people”) is translated “when I returned the captivity of my people” in King James Version, but the Hebrew expression here applies to any situation where God restores his people from an experience of evil to a favorable condition. It refers to a general reversal of adverse circumstances (see also Jer 29.14; 30.3; Joel 3.1). Bible de Jérusalem says “when I restore my people,” and New American Bible has “When I would bring about the restoration of my people.”

When I would heal Israel: This line is parallel to the previous one. It uses the metaphor of restoring the sick nation of Israel to health. Good News Translation combines and reverses the order of these two lines: “Whenever I want to heal my people Israel and make them prosperous again.” In this translation the parallelism in the grammatical structures of the two lines is hard to recognize, so it is not recommended for a translation that wants to show the poetic structure of the Hebrew text.

If the imagery heal Israel cannot be used in this context in the receptor language, the translator may use nonfigurative language, such as “liberate Israel from its trouble” or “remove Israel’s difficulties from her.”

The Hebrew verbs in these two lines may refer to something the LORD wants to do for his people, but does not do it (so Good News Translation), or they may refer to something he has done for them (so Wolff, who has “Whenever I restored the fortunes of my people, Whenever I healed Israel,” with the following two lines in the past tense). Translators are free to select either understanding of the text, because the Hebrew form of the verbs can be understood either way.

In 6.11b–7.1 Revised Standard Version follows the Hebrew and uses four terms for the Israelites: my people, Israel, Ephraim, and Samaria. For Israel and Ephraim as synonymous terms, see the comments on 4.17. Samaria was the capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel, but here it refers to the whole nation. Since these terms all refer to the same people, Good News Translation begins with “my people Israel” and then refers to them with third person plural pronouns (“them,” “their,” and “they”) to make it clear that the same people are involved in the successive clauses. In the lament expressed here, the pronoun my shows God’s personal relationship with the people. It is important to retain this possessive pronoun. The use of these four terms reflects the Hebrew style of mentioning all possible terms in parallel lines, and at the same time it implies a feeling of anguish and frustration on God’s part for his beloved people. If this variation in terminology is well understood in the receptor language, we suggest keeping it.

The corruption of Ephraim is revealed, and the wicked deeds of Samaria: These two parallel lines begin with the Hebrew waw conjunction, which may be rendered “then” (King James Version). Corruption and wicked deeds render general Hebrew terms used in parallel to introduce the specific evils mentioned later in the verse. The word translated corruption carries the idea of deliberately twisting or bending away from what is right to what is wrong. It is frequently used to emphasize the burden of guilt that results from wrong deeds (see 5.5, where it is rendered “guilt”). Here the deeds themselves are in focus. The predominant connotations in the English word corruption relate to fraudulent financial behavior. This is not the meaning of the Hebrew word in this context. It refers to an intentional breach of the rules. It is traditionally translated “iniquity” (English Standard Version) or “guilt” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). The latter sense is not recommended here, because of the parallel expression wicked deeds in the next line.

The Hebrew word for wicked deeds appears to be a plural noun, but in the dialect of northern Israel it would be considered singular, a collective noun. The difference is not great, just as in English there is little practical difference between wicked deeds and “wickedness” (Good News Translation). Translators should feel free to follow whatever form is normal in their language and fits well in this context.

The verb is revealed is implied in the line and the wicked deeds of Samaria. This verb has the same Hebrew root as the one for “uncover” in 2.10. In the wider context of the book of Hosea the use of this verb matches well with the theme of unfaithfulness that runs throughout the book. This verb raises the question “To whom?” The context of 7.2 (“their deeds … are before my face”) shows that Israel’s sin is revealed to Yahweh. So Good News Translation has “all I can see is their wickedness and the evil they do,” and Jerusalem Bible says “I am confronted by the guilt of Ephraim and the wickedness of Samaria.” New American Bible is more impersonal with “The guilt of Ephraim stands out, the wickedness of Samaria.” Good News Translation‘s rendering is a functional way of expressing total disappointment with all their deeds, among which no good deed is regarded as a reason for helping them. An alternative interpretation is that their sins are no longer hidden, but come out in the open and are seen by everyone (so New International Version, NET Bible, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling).

The conjunction for (ki in Hebrew) introduces the specific sins being referred to by the more general terms just mentioned.

They deal falsely (literally “they make deception”) is still somewhat generic, although this English expression usually refers to deceitful business practices. In line with the main theme of the book: they act unfaithfully. People cannot depend upon one another’s honesty or faithfulness. Good News Translation says “They cheat one another,” and Jerusalem Bible has “deceit is their principle of behaviour.”

The thief breaks in, and the bandits raid without: These next two crimes are, first, within the home, and second, outside, showing that no place is secure. The thief breaks in is made more specific in Good News Translation‘s “they break into houses and steal,” since this contrasts better with what goes on outdoors. The Hebrew word for bandits is rendered “robbers” in 6.9 (see comments there). Bandits are a band of people who raid, that is, rob travelers of their possessions. The Hebrew words for thief and bandits (literally “raiding gang”) are singular, but the second one obviously refers to a group of people. Bible de Jérusalem and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible use a French singular for both “the thief” and “the bandit,” but some languages may prefer a plural for both (see the model below).

The raiding may happen anywhere outdoors, although the Hebrew expression for without (in the sense of “outside”) is sometimes used more narrowly, as in Good News Translation‘s “in the streets.” A more general expression for the outside is preferred here, for example, “in the streets and roads” or “outdoors.” The contrast between indoors and outdoors is made clear in New American Bible: “thieves break in, bandits plunder abroad.”

A translation model for 6.11b–7.1 is:

• Whenever I want to reverse the destiny of my people,
whenever I want to heal Israel,
then Ephraim’s iniquity is uncovered,
Samaria’s wickedness is exposed.
For they are cheating,
thieves are breaking into houses,
and mobs are robbing outdoors.

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 continues the threat of future punishment, but it also explains further the threat of the previous verse. In particular, this verse expands on the last two lines of 9.3.

To make clear that the Israelites will be in exile, Good News Translation begins this verse with “In those foreign lands,” which is not in the Hebrew text but is implied in the context supplied by the previous verse. Since this verse immediately follows the statement on Egypt and Assyria, it is not necessary to have this addition.

They shall not pour libations of wine to the LORD; they shall not please him with their sacrifices: The Israelites will not be able to bring wine offerings and other sacrifices to Yahweh in the lands of exile, because there will be no altars to Yahweh there. It is not completely certain how they pour libations of wine (Good News Translation “make wine offerings”), since the Hebrew expression here can refer to wine poured out on the ground before Yahweh at the place of sacrifice, or on the altar, or on the sacrifice itself (see Exo 29.40; Lev 23.13; Num 15.5, 7, 10). A libation was never offered alone, but always in connection with another sacrifice. It seems best to say “pour out sacrifices of wine.”

Please expresses the usual meaning of the Hebrew verb in the second line, but a related verb in old South Arabic means “bring,” and this meaning is followed by Good News Translation and some recent commentators because it fits the context well. Either meaning is possible. Since the meaning “be sweet” or “please” occurs in similar passages in the Old Testament (for example, Jer 6.20; Mal 3.4), it may be better to follow Revised Standard Version by rendering the second line as “and their sacrifices will not please him” (similarly New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Wolff). New Jerusalem Bible has “and their sacrifices will not win his favour.”

The Hebrew term for sacrifices is the same general term used in 3.4 and 8.13 (see comments there).

Their bread shall be like mourners’ bread: Instead of Their bread (lachmam), the Hebrew text has “to [or, for] them” (lahem). Hebrew Old Testament Text Project rather strongly supports the Hebrew text with no change (a {B} decision), since there is no evidence from early manuscripts or ancient versions to support the emendation. Moreover, the text does make sense with no changes. It is literally “like bread of mourners to them,” which may be expanded to “[their bread will be] like mourners’ bread to them.” Here bread refers broadly to “food” (Good News Translation), as in 2.5.

King James Version follows the Hebrew punctuation by taking sacrifices with this line, saying “their sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread of mourning.” But the Hebrew rhythm favors taking sacrifices with what precedes, and this line division is followed by Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, and most modern translations, including the New King James Version (New King James Version ). A problem with taking sacrifices with what precedes is that this line that follows is left without a clear subject, according to the present Hebrew. New English Bible supplies the demonstrative pronoun “that” as its subject, referring to the wine and sacrifices just mentioned: “that would be mourners’ fare for them.” This solution is preferable, since there is no compelling reason to deviate from the Hebrew text. De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling offers yet another solution: a rearrangement of the lines in this verse. This line and the next one are placed at the beginning of this verse, so that they automatically connect with the last line of 9.3: “It is like bread in a funeral home: whoever eats it becomes unclean.”

All who eat of it shall be defiled: In exile the Israelites’ food will be ceremonially unclean and will defile those who eat it, just as food touched by mourners at a funeral is unclean, according to Num 19.22. The food in exile will be unclean because the first fruits and the firstborn domestic animals will not be dedicated to Yahweh (see comments on 9.3).

For their bread shall be for their hunger only; it shall not come to the house of the LORD: The food of the exiles will be for themselves alone, not for Yahweh. In Israel many sacrifices were feasts, because part of the sacrifices was offered to Yahweh and part was eaten by the those who offered the sacrifices and their family (see, for example, 1 Sam 1.4-5). In exile the Israelites will not be able to offer sacrifices to Yahweh at the Temple in Jerusalem. In these two lines some translations make explicit the idea that the Israelites’ food will be sufficient only for satisfying their hunger, with not enough for the Temple sacrifices; for example, Einheitsübersetzung says “Yes, their bread will be enough only for their own hunger, none of it comes to the house of the Lord.” However, the more realistic interpretation is that they will use the food only for themselves, first, because they are too far from Jerusalem to be able to offer sacrifices, and second, because the food itself is unclean. For renders the Hebrew word ki, which is more likely an emphatic marker (“Yes” in Einheitsübersetzung) or a contrastive connector (“But” in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) here.

The logical progression of the last four lines of this verse makes the best sense only for those who understand the cultural background of Israelite sacrifices. By restructuring these lines in reverse order, their meaning can become clear immediately, with no further note or comment:

They will not be able to bring their food to the house of the LORD as an offering;
it will be defiled—good only for satisfying their hunger.
All who eat of it will therefore [also] be defiled,
as if it were food eaten at a funeral.

A translation model for this verse is:

• There you will not be able to offer wine to the LORD,
neither will you satisfy him with your sacrifices.
Food will be like mourners’ food for you,
whoever eats it will become unclean.
Indeed, it will only be good to satisfy your hunger,
but it will not come into the house of the LORD.

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 .

The Good News Translation footnote warns us that there are serious problems for understanding the Hebrew text of this verse. The Hebrew text may be presenting images from farming that are used poetically to describe Yahweh watching over Israel from childhood. But alternative interpretations are possible. In this verse translators must decide whether the figures compare Israel to a child, as in the preceding verses, or to a cow, as in 4.16 and 10.11. Since the text is using farm images, the cow image is more likely. But at the same time, these images describe poetically how one brings up a child. In a country where loving care was applied both to cattle and to raising children, the same idioms may have developed for both.

I led them with cords of compassion, with the bands of love: Instead of cords of compassion, the Hebrew text reads “cords of a man” (King James Version) or “ropes of humankind” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). These two lines fit with the figure of Israel as a cow that is guided by cords and bands. To strengthen this image the word “reins” can also be used in English. The receptor language may have similar terminology to make the imagery more readily understood. Good News Translation takes the literal “cords of a man” to be a figure for human “affection” as something that binds one person to another. Bands of love is then simply a figure for “love.” So Good News Translation‘s translation of these two lines fits with the figure of Israel as a child, but of course the original image of comparison with a cow is lost. The ability to keep the cattle imagery largely depends on the receptor culture. In societies where cattle play a central role, the imagery may be easily understood. If so, we recommend keeping the imagery of cords and bands. It makes the translation more vivid than Good News Translation‘s nonfigurative rendering.

And I became to them as one who eases the yoke on their jaws, and I bent down to them and fed them: This imagery is consistent with the cattle metaphors that are employed in this verse. The picture here seems to be as follows: When it is time to feed the cow, the yoke is removed so the cow can be fed. Yahweh claims to both lift the yoke and feed Israel.

Who eases the yoke on their jaws follows the standard Hebrew text. But a yoke is not on the jaws of an animal, but on its neck and shoulders. The Hebrew word for yoke resembles the word for “baby” or “child.” This word has the same consonants, but a different vowel mark. Good News Translation, New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible follow this reading of “baby” or “child.” It is supported by some recent commentators and fits with the figure of Israel as a child. This figure has the advantage of continuing the figure of a child, as used in the preceding verses. But again, this may have been a play on words by which God uses the word yoke, which resembles the Hebrew word for “child,” so that people will think about caring for a child. The original readers or hearers would have had no problem understanding this play on words. But a wordplay is usually very difficult to express in another language. In any case, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends the Hebrew text by reading “yoke” (a {B} decision). Hebrew Old Testament Text Project understands that farmers lift up the yoke in order to let the cattle chew easily, because then the jaws are free to move. If translators follow the other reading, a possible model for lines three and four is “I showed them the same tenderness as a person who picks up a child and holds it to his cheek.” Here “cheek” has been substituted for the jaw of the animal.

I bent down to them and fed them shows the action of a taller person bending over to feed those who are shorter or smaller. Fed them follows the Septuagint and makes good sense. Instead of a word meaning them, the Hebrew text has a word meaning “not,” which is the first word in the next verse, where some scholars believe it does not seem to make sense. Therefore they believe the word belongs at the end of this verse and change it to read “them,” which sounds like the Hebrew word for “not.” Hebrew Old Testament Text Project retains the Hebrew word meaning “not” in verse 5 (a {B} decision). After all, in this context of the verb fed, the pronoun them can be implied in Hebrew.

The following literal translation of this verse retains the text decisions of Hebrew Old Testament Text Project:

• With harness-cords for a human I led them,
with ties of love.
And I was to them as those lifting the yoke [from] upon their jaws.
And I bent down to him and fed [him].

A more natural model in English is:

• I guided them with reins of compassion,
with cords of love.
As someone lifting their yoke allowing them to eat,
I even stooped down to feed them.

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 verses 10-11 God continues to speak to Israel as if the nation is a single person. Both verses also continue to show the negative attitude that God expresses elsewhere toward kingship in Israel (see 8.4-10; 10.3-4, 7, 15).

Both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation show by their footnotes that this verse has several textual problems. Good News Translation greatly revises and simplifies this verse so that its general message is understood. But it cannot serve as a basis for translation.

Where now is your king…?: Instead of Where, the Hebrew text has “I will be” (Revised Standard Version footnote). In Hebrew both are written with the same three consonants, but in a different order. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project prefers Where (a {B} decision). The Septuagint, the Peshitta, the Vulgate, and most modern versions also follow this reading (for example, Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, New International Version, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling). Only King James Version and New King James Version follow the Hebrew text, which we do not recommend here. It does not make sense in this context.

The Hebrew adverb for now does not emphasize the present time, but more the present results of what Israel has done. It often combines with an interrogative and makes it sound somewhat taunting. Other possible translations of it in English are “then” ( NET Bible) or “so.” It can also be left untranslated, as in New International Version. The receptor language may have a specific expression to reflect this taunt; for example, Bible en français courant says “Your king, what has become of him?”

With this rhetorical question Yahweh is saying, “You may consider him to be your king, because you wanted a king. But he is not my king, for I have not asked for him nor chosen him” (compare 8.4). In Hebrew this question contains very few words, but the message is stronger that way.

To save you may be rendered “that he may save you” (New International Version). The king should save the people, but he fails to do so.

Where are all your princes, to defend you: In Revised Standard Version this line is parallel to the previous one. However, as the three Revised Standard Version footnotes on this line indicate, the Hebrew reads “in all your cities and your judges.” So the first two lines may be better understood by NET Bible as follows:

Where then is your king,
that he may save you in all your cities?

In the Hebrew text “your judges” is parallel to “your king” and begins a new line. The Hebrew word literally means “those who judge you,” but this word can also refer to rulers (as in the book of Judges). Since it is parallel to king in the first line, it more likely means “rulers” (New International Version, NET Bible) in this context.

Those of whom you said, “Give me a king and princes”: These two lines remind us of the request the Israelites made to Samuel when they asked for a king (1 Sam 8.4-9).

Give me a king and princes is a literal translation of the Hebrew. The Hebrew word for princes should be understood here in the more general sense of “leaders” or “government officials,” not necessarily the sons of the king (see comments on 3.4).

A translation model for this verse is:

• So where is your king now
to save you in all your cities?
Where are your rulers you asked for saying,
“Give me a king and leaders”?

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 .