New English Bible omits this verse, although the Hebrew clearly includes it. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project and Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament definitely include it (an {A} decision, meaning there is no significant doubt), so the verse should be included. It should be noted though that the verse interrupts the flow of events by bringing in the situation of Judah. In the parallel conditions in 1.4 and 1.9 this does not happen. This is not a reason to omit the verse. New Jerusalem Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh put it in parenthesis. The significance of these parentheses may escape the reader. It may be better to present the verse as a paragraph of its own.

But renders the Hebrew waw conjunction, which is usually translated “and.” Here it marks the contrast between the fates of Israel and Judah, so But is a good connector.

I will have pity on the house of Judah: Yahweh promises that he will treat the southern kingdom, Judah, with love and compassion, in contrast with his treatment of Israel. The translation of have pity should be consistent with the rendering in 1.6. Similarly, the translation of house should be the same as in 1.6. Good News Translation renders the house of Judah as “the people of Judah.”

And I will deliver them by the LORD their God: The expression for deliver should be appropriate for rescue from an enemy army, since the last part of the verse refers to such enemies. The form of the Hebrew verb rendered deliver makes it possible to translate it “make … victorious” or “give … victory” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). As in 1.2, Yahweh is speaking but refers to himself in the third person by saying the LORD their God. Many languages will require a first person reference to God here; for example, Good News Translation says “I, the LORD their God,” and the Dutch common language version (Bijbel in Gewone Taal) has “I am the Lord, their God.”

I will not deliver them by bow, nor by sword, nor by war, nor by horses, nor by horsemen: Yahweh implies that he will rescue Judah by some other means than by war or the weapons of war. The text does not state what the means are, nor should the translator suggest an answer. In some languages it may be necessary to say “I will rescue them by some other means than…” or “I will not rescue them by … I will rescue them some other way.” If deliver them is translated “give them victory,” the preposition by is better expressed as “with” or “through.” Bow, sword, horses, and horsemen are used to carry out warfare. The prophet is using a rhetorical device, listing the instruments of war in order to give the picture of war, but mentioning war itself in the center of these things listed. Good News Translation uses normal English style by rendering this clause as “but I will not do it by war—with swords or bows and arrows or with horses and horsemen.” “War” is mentioned first, then the items of warfare. The bow is known almost universally as a hunting weapon and as a tool of warfare. Good News Translation adds “and arrows” because the two are commonly mentioned together in English style, and because the arrows are implied, since bows are useless without them. The sword was most likely an instrument with a sharp cutting edge as well as a sharp point for piercing. In some cultures the spear is better known as an instrument of war. Good News Translation joins horses with horsemen, saying “horses and horsemen.” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch combines the five terms into three: “weapons, horses and riders.” We do not recommend this if the language uses instruments of war as metonyms for war.

Translation models for this verse are:

• But I will have mercy on the nation of Judah, and I, the LORD their God, will save them, not through warfare, not through bows, spears, horses, or horsemen.”

• But I will pity the people of Judah and give them victory. I am the LORD their God. I will not give them victory through bow, sword, war, horses, or horsemen.”

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 .

There is swearing, lying, killing, stealing, and committing adultery; they break all bounds: The Hebrew construction here is literally “To swear and to lie and to kill and to steal and to commit adultery they break out.” The series of crimes are in an infinitive form that shows that past activity continues into the present, but this construction does not express a performer of the crimes. The crimes just “break out” (New Revised Standard Version), apparently indicating that they flourish. The infinitives function as nouns. There is a clear reference here to words used in the core document of the covenant, the Decalogue (Exo 20.1-17). Three of the Hebrew words here occur in the Decalogue: the words for killing, stealing, and committing adultery. The words for swearing and lying are clearly associated with it: do not use the name of Yahweh in vain, and do not give false testimony.

The Hebrew word for swearing can refer either to a curse or an oath. The context implies that it is done sinfully. Good News Translation assumes it is an oath by saying “They make promises and break them.” Wolff believes it means cursing others, and this involves the improper use of God’s name (Exo 20.7). Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch (1982) follows this sense with “One misuses God’s name to curse others.” The context may help us to determine which meaning is intended. Since it is put against the backdrop of the Decalogue, using the name of Yahweh in vain by invoking his name is the most likely meaning.

Lying refers both to telling lies in court (perjury, false witness) and to telling lies in business. New English Bible renders swearing and lying as a unit, saying “oaths are imposed and broken.”

Killing refers to premeditated murder (Exo 20.13).

Stealing usually refers to taking things by stealth (Exo 20.15), including breaking into a home to get things. It may also include stealing a person, not in the modern concept of kidnaping, but to keep as a wife, or to sell as a slave.

Committing adultery involves breaking the marriage relationship by sexual intercourse with another person (Exo 20.14). It does not include fornication, which is sexual intercourse between unmarried people, but if a precise term is not available in the receptor language, a word that also includes fornication will do.

All of the above crimes show how the Israelites were not faithful to each other in their community life. Most of the crimes were punishable by death in certain circumstances, according to Israel’s ancient laws.

They break all bounds renders a single Hebrew verb that involves a metaphor. It is as if the people were breaking through a figurative wall or boundary of moral decency, as in an outburst of evil. Good News Translation translates this verb without a figure of speech, saying “Crimes increase.”

And murder follows murder is literally “and blood touches upon blood,” referring to the way one bloody murder is hardly finished when another one occurs. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch says “bloodshed is the order of the day.”

A translation model for this verse is:

• Cursing, lying, murdering, stealing, and committing adultery flourish;
and one bloodbath follows after another.

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 a smooth transition from 5.14 to 6.1, but it stands apart from both the preceding verse and the following one. Therefore it seems proper to make it a separate paragraph (so Good News Translation). The departure of the lion becomes Yahweh’s own departure from his people as he waits for them to repent and then seek him. The hope for their repentance, in turn, leads into the statement of repentance in 6.1. The metaphor of the lion is gradually fading away and no longer should remain the central picture in this verse.

I will return again to my place: My place may at first seem to refer to the Temple in Jerusalem as Yahweh’s “place” (so Contemporary English Version). But according to some scholars, his heavenly dwelling is more likely the intended place (see 1 Kgs 8.30), where he can remain out of contact until they repent. Bible en français courant renders this line as “I will return to my home” (similarly Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). Good News Translation says “I will abandon my people,” which gives a result of the action but not the action itself. Wolff takes this line as the last part of the lion metaphor: the lion withdraws to his place of hiding. NET Bible follows this interpretation with “Then I will return again to my lair.”

Until they acknowledge their guilt is literally “until they become guilty.” One interpretation for this clause is that Yahweh waits for them to commit a sin so that they will want to bring him a sacrifice, and that will be the moment of reconciliation. But they are already guilty, so most commentators favor the meaning that they become burdened with their guilt. The Hebrew verb here occurs in 4.15 (see comments there).

And seek my face: See the comments on the similar expression “seek the LORD” in 3.5 and 5.6. Here it again means to worship Yahweh, including offering a sacrifice for guilt.

And in their distress they seek me: This line is parallel to the previous one. In their distress is another way of speaking about them feeling their guilt. Andersen and Freedman note that it is more logical for them to feel their distress before realizing they are guilty. Good News Translation includes something of this idea by saying “until they have suffered enough for their sins” and then repeating the idea with “Perhaps in their suffering.” The word “Perhaps” makes explicit the sense of hope that is included in the tense of the Hebrew verb here. They seek me is a parallel way of saying seek my face, but the Hebrew verb for seek in this line includes the idea of doing it early, at dawn, implying eagerness to find Yahweh. Some believe this involved a dawn liturgy. Most translators will be able to express only the central ideas of these terms, as in Good News Translation with “come looking for me” and “will try to find me.” It probably is more important to retain the thought of seeking a God who has departed than to include the idea of worship. The two Hebrew verbs for seek were terms used in two different parts of the country. The first was commonly used in Judah, while the second was commonly used in Israel. Used together they seem to emphasize God’s hope that all the people will eagerly and truly seek God in repentance.

Saying is not in the Hebrew text, but Revised Standard Version believes this verse introduces chapter 6, so saying is therefore implied. Translators may or may not include a similar expression, as they determine the best form for this transitional verse. See especially the comments on 6.1.

A translation model for this verse is:

• I will go back to my place
until they realize their guilt.
Then they will seek me.
When they are distressed,
they will search for me.

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 have spurned your calf, O Samaria: Spurned renders the same Hebrew verb used in 8.3. Yahweh responds to Israel spurning what is good by himself spurning their calf-idol. Instead of I have spurned, the Hebrew text reads “He has spurned” (see Revised Standard Version footnote). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh follows the Hebrew with “He rejects” (similarly Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). However, the Hebrew form of this verb is debated. Two ancient versions understood it as passive: “Your calf, O Samaria, is spurned.” Hebrew Old Testament Text Project gives this reading a {B} rating, so there is some doubt about it. Wolff suggests the imperative: “Throw away your calf, O Samaria!” (similarly New International Version, New American Bible, Bible en français courant). This reading is supported by the way the Septuagint understood the Hebrew text. New English Bible uses the verb “stink,” which does not fit the context well. It seems best to think of this Hebrew verb either as passive, or as active as in the Revised Standard Version footnote, assuming that the prophet has again switched between first and third person when referring to God as speaker. In either case, it then is legitimate to translate with a functional equivalent, as in both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, clearly indicating Yahweh as the agent. In any case, the term used here should show that this action relates to 8.3, where Israel “spurned the good.”

De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling offers a totally different solution, which is very defendable on the basis of the Hebrew text. It takes the calf as the subject of the verb, saying “Your calf rejects you, Samaria.” This translation also contrasts well with 8.3.

The Hebrew term for calf refers to a young bull in the prime of its youth, but still dependent upon its mother. In Canaanite myth and idol worship, such a calf was a prominent symbol for certain gods, especially Baal. This verse refers to a “calf-idol” (New International Version) for Yahweh. The Israelites had two such idols, one at Bethel and the other at Dan (see 1 Kgs 12.28-30; 2 Kgs 10.29). Here the one in Bethel is in view (10.5). They probably were made of wood, thinly covered with gold or with gold leaf. Some scholars think that each calf-idol was thought of as a throne or pedestal upon which the true and invisible God sat or stood, much as the Covenant Box in Jerusalem, with its “mercy seat” formed by two golden cherubim. While that may have been the original intention when the calf-idols were placed in position, this context and references elsewhere indicate that the people worshiped them as the deity (see 1 Kgs 12.28).

Good News Translation renders Samaria as “the city of Samaria” and assumes that the calf-idol was in that city. But 10.5 indicates that it was worshiped by the people of Samaria in Bethel. Therefore it is better to take Samaria as meaning “the country of Samaria” or “you people of Samaria” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch; similarly Bible en français courant). For Samaria as another name for the northern kingdom of Israel, see 7.1.

My anger burns against them: The Hebrew term for God’s anger is used for the first time in this book but occurs again (11.9; 13.11; 14.4). God’s burning anger regularly occurs in the context of Israel’s idolatry, and in Hosea it always occurs with the first person pronoun my. The figure of burning anger may be culture specific. If “burning anger” does not communicate the intended meaning in the receptor language, it may have to be translated with a different figure or with a nonfigurative expression, such as “I am very angry with them” or “I am furious with them” (Good News Translation). In some cultures the color “red” represents fierce anger. The pronoun them refers to the people of Samaria, that is, the Israelites. In the previous line God addresses them directly, but here he uses the third person for them. In some languages it may be better to use second person throughout this section for the Israelites (so Contemporary English Version) or third person (so Good News Translation).

How long will it be till they are pure…?: The Hebrew expression for How long is often used in laments (see, for example, Psa 6.3; 74.10), so a common lament form used by humans is now used by God himself. This is a rhetorical question, and the expected answer is “Never!” This question may also be rendered “Will they never be…?” There are places in the Old Testament where the Hebrew expression for How long can mean “forever” instead of introducing a question, and in this case, it could be connected with the previous line: “My anger burns against them forever.” However, because of the poetic structure of this verse, How long seems to be the better way to understand the Hebrew. Rhetorical questions, like other figures of speech, are specific to the receptor language. In some languages an emphatic statement is better here, for example, “They will always remain unclean!” Or a different kind of rhetorical question may be appropriate, for example, “Will they remain unclean forever?”

The Hebrew term for pure refers to innocence in the sense of freedom from guilt. This word also suggests ritual purity. In this context God views the Israelites as ritually unclean because of their idolatry, so Good News Translation has “How long will it be before they give up their idolatry?” Another possible model is “… before they are cleansed from the impurity of idol worship?” In this model both the impurity and the idolatry are made explicit. Bible en français courant (1982) has “How long will you be unable to remain without reproach?” New Jerusalem Bible says “How long will it be before they recover their innocence?” Another possible model is “Will they never become pure?” Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch (1982) uses expressive language: “Get busy, at last, to sweep out this rubbish!” However, this rendering seems to depart unnecessarily from the Hebrew text. New English Bible uses a strong statement, saying “Long will it be before they prove innocent,” but this lacks the desperation expressed by the use of the rhetorical question.

Revised Standard Version includes “in Israel” at the beginning of the next verse as part of this question, but it is better not to do so (see comments on 8.6).

A translation model for this verse is:

• People of Samaria, your calf-idol is rejected!
My anger is burning against them.
Will they ever reclaim their purity?

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 provides further description of the shame and disgrace mentioned in the previous verse and continues announcing the disasters that Israel will suffer.

Samaria’s king shall perish: As in 10.5, Samaria refers to the northern kingdom of Israel, not just its capital city. To interpret king as the person ruling Israel seems more natural and direct than to interpret it as a veiled reference to the bull-idol. Samaria’s king is literally “Samaria its king.” New International Version and New English Bible emend the text to read “Samaria and her king.” Hebrew Old Testament Text Project prefers the Hebrew text with an {A} rating.

The Hebrew verb for perish can mean “cease to exist,” “be cut off,” or “be destroyed.” Since the next line compares the event to the way a chip of wood is carried away by water, we may assume that Israel’s king was not killed, but that his effective reign was ended. In 2 Kgs 17.1-6 we read that King Hoshea, the last king of Israel, rebelled against Assyria and was put in prison during the last three years of his reign, during which time the Assyrians besieged the city of Samaria. The Israelites were then taken into captivity, but there is no further word about King Hoshea. Translators may find an expression that fits the picture of a king being no longer effective, without making clear just how that happened. Contemporary English Version says “the king of Samaria will be swept away,” which fits the imagery of the chip of wood carried away by water. Good News Translation has “Their king will be carried off,” but this translation seems to suggest that he was taken captive and exiled, which may be too explicit.

Like a chip on the face of the waters: The Hebrew word for chip occurs only here in the Old Testament. The word seems remotely related to the Hebrew verb meaning “cut off.” Most commentators and translators understand it to mean “chip of wood” (Good News Translation) or “twig” (New International Version, NET Bible). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “foam,” which also fits the context.

A translation model for this verse is:

• Samaria’s king will disappear,
like a twig floating on the waters.

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 .

Verses 12-13 emphasize how the people of Israel had a family history of life in other countries. Only verse 13 shows Yahweh at work in this history, but since these are parallel as historical events, it is implied that he was with Jacob also in verse 12, even in difficult times. The parentheses around verse 12 in Revised Standard Version are unnecessary. New Revised Standard Version has removed these parentheses. They might give readers the wrong idea that this verse is not a genuine part of the text.

This verse begins with the Hebrew waw conjunction (literally “And” [King James Version]), which is left untranslated in Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, and most other versions. In this verse there is a change in focus, so translators may insert a blank line (so Bible en français courant) or a paragraph break (so Good News Translation).

Jacob fled to the land of Aram: This line recalls Gen 27.41-45, which speaks about Jacob having to flee from his brother Esau. Good News Translation renders Jacob as “Our ancestor Jacob,” which makes it clear that this verse is not a statement about the entire tribe of Jacob, namely Israel, but of their ancestor. Translators will have to decide whether this is necessary in their version.

The Hebrew word for land in the phrase the land of Aram can refer to a country, but it is also used for an open field, which can be pastureland or even an area where wild animals live. This word comes from the same Hebrew root as the word for “field” in the previous verse, linking with the picture of the plowed fields that had stones preventing normal farming. Most translations will not be able to keep this link, since a word for a geographic land may be needed in this verse.

Aram was the land northeast of Israel. Although in history it had been part of “Mesopotamia” (Good News Translation), it seems better to follow Revised Standard Version here, which translates the Hebrew text literally. The land of Aram was the last stage of Abraham’s migration from the Chaldean town of Ur before he entered the Promised Land. So Jacob’s escape there was, in a sense, a turning back into history.

There Israel did service for a wife: Jacob’s other name, Israel, is used in this line. Good News Translation omits this name, probably to avoid confusion for readers who do not remember the full story about this new name given to him (see Gen 32.27-28).

Did service renders a Hebrew verb used for the hard work of both slaves and free people. Jacob was not a slave, but the thought here is that it was hard work. In Hebrew the word for “servant” comes from the same root as the verb used here. Good News Translation adds the idea that Jacob worked “for another man.” The other man that got the benefit of Jacob’s hard word was Laban (see Gen 29.15-30). Some languages may need a similar expression to show what kind of hard work this was. They may have one word that refers to hired labor.

For a wife is repeated in the next line. Translators will recognize this as a time when a wife could be bought and paid for with money or with labor that substituted for money. Jacob worked for fourteen years to marry Laban’s two daughters.

And for a wife he herded sheep: He herded sheep renders one Hebrew verb, literally “he guarded,” but in his context the original readers would know that he was watching over sheep. Most modern translations in English, French, Spanish, and German insert the word sheep. The need to include it depends on the receptor language. New International Version says “he tended sheep.”

A translation model for this verse is:

• Jacob, the ancestor of the people of Israel,
ran away to Aram.
He became a servant to get a wife,
and he cared for sheep to pay for her.

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 .