BIG IDEA:
DEATH DEVOURS WHEN THE HELPLESS REJECT THEIR HELPER
INTRODUCTION:
Trent Butler: Guilt eventually brings the death sentence even from a God of compassion and salvation.
J. Andrew Dearman: Chapter 13 is the second of two historically oriented prophetic lessons in 11:12–13:16 (MT 12:1–14:1). The first and last verses of this section frame the presentation with references to guilt and death. Ephraim’s past, present, and future are briefly indicated in 13:1–3, with a historical résumé in vv. 4–8 that demonstrates why YHWH is angry with the people. Their destruction is at hand; their leaders cannot save them (vv. 9–11). The people’s rebellious folly and YHWH’s righteous anger together signal a deadly disaster for Israel (vv. 12–16 [MT 13:12–14:1]).
Lloyd Ogilvie: The final stage of the sin of pride and arrogance is to be helpless yet unwilling to cry out for God’s help. Throughout Israel’s history God identified Himself as the Helper. The patriarchs, prophets, priests, and psalmists discovered that He was the only reliable help in trouble. Adversity was a constant recall to trust the Helper and say with the psalmist, “Behold, God is my helper” (Ps. 54:4). Israel’s darkest day came, however, when the people sank to the lowest levels of willful independence in which they no longer could admit their helplessness or call on God as their Helper. Life tumbled in, destruction was imminent, human helpers had failed. And yet, the people were helpless to confess their helplessness. The persistent refusal of God’s help became a habitual pattern. They could no longer say and live the assurance that, “God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble” (Ps. 46:1).
Hosea 13 captures the plight of the helpless people of the northern kingdom and the final pleas of the rejected Helper of Israel. The end had almost come during the years of 724 and 723 B.C. Hosea’s prophetic ministry was drawing to a close. What he had predicted was happening. The people had not heeded his message. The repeated opportunities to realize their helplessness without God did not break their bonds of self-sufficiency, but tightened them. Their arrogance was reinforced with each escape from calamity. Their survival led to further sin rather than to God.
Meanwhile the Helper waited to help. In this chapter of Hosea, we feel His pain and anguish over a helpless people addicted to independence from Him. For me, the key verse of this chapter is verse 9,
“O Israel, you are destroyed, but your help is from Me.”
An exposition of this chapter in the context of a helplessness made more helpless by an inability to cry for help enables us to deal with our contemporary manifestations of this malady. Many of our listeners are on the edge of addiction to self-help. Some have resisted God’s help so long that they have fallen into the greatest need of all—of not knowing they have a need. Those who are not yet at this point may still be open to realize the drift into the addiction. And surely we all know people whose helplessness has reached the stage of refusing to ask for God’s help.
Robin Routledge: This begins a new section. However, while introducing some new terms, it also repeats earlier themes, and appears to summarize Ephraim’s failure and the devastating effect of divine judgment. There is, too, a possible reprise of the possibility of resurrection (13:14; cf. 6:2). This summary then prepares the way for the call to repent and the further message of hope in chapter 14. As an overview of the sin of the northern kingdom, it is probably set close to the fall of Samaria. However, sin is continuing and judgment is still future, suggesting that the kingdom has not fallen yet.
The passage is framed by references to Ephraim’s guilt (ʾāšam) and its consequences (vv. 1, 16), indicating that this is a major emphasis. Themes repeated from earlier passages include worshipping idols (ʿāṣāb, v. 2; cf. 4:17; 8:4; 14:8), and especially the calf-idol (cf. 8:5–6), the failure of kings and leaders (vv. 10–11; cf. 5:1; 7:3–7; 8:4; 10:3), Ephraim’s early promise in the days of the exodus, followed by ingratitude (vv. 4–6; cf. 9:10; 11:1–2), and the description of coming judgment as an attack by a wild animal, in particular a lion (šaḥal, v. 7; cf. 5:14). Ephraim’s transience is also described in the same terms as the people’s ḥesed (v. 3; cf. 6:4).
I. (:1-3) PROMULGATION OF IDOLATRY LEADING TO DESTRUCTION – HOLISTIC SUMMARY
H. D. Beeby: In the first three verses the prophet addresses Ephraim and recollects a time of exaltation when Ephraim could command fear merely by speaking.
Lloyd Ogilvie: The first three verses of Hosea 13 review the progressive dependence on substitute help rather than Yahweh that led into an addiction to independence from Him. . .
The syncretism of worshiping the Lord and Baal eventually descended into a singular loyalty to Baal. Ephraim became helpless to extricate themselves from dependence on the cult. The people no longer called for help from the Lord. . .
Over the years I have discovered that it is not just problems but a realization of the potential of what God wants done that brings us to authentic confession of our helplessness and a new trust in Him.
But each step of the way we face the danger of taking the credit ourselves or in seeking the approval and accolades of people or in human measurements of success. Whatever causes us to forget that God is our only help and hope must consistently be recognized as a false idol and torn from its throne.
A. (:1) Past: History of Idolatry
“When Ephraim spoke, there was trembling.
He exalted himself in Israel,
But through Baal he did wrong and died.”
Trent Butler: In the days of the judges, Ephraim tried to assert leadership and strength before the other tribes (Judg. 8:1). Again under King Jeroboam II, Ephraim as the Northern Kingdom expanded its territory and influence (2 Kgs. 14:26–27). In those days Ephraim’s voice caused other tribes or other nations to tremble in terror. Hosea depicts a different Ephraim, a dead Ephraim. What caused the death of this tribe and nation? They were guilty in their love affair with Baal and suffered its punishment (Hos. 4:15; 5:15; 10:2).
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Ephraim quickly established itself as one of the most powerful tribes, and that standing became a political reality when the northern tribes separated themselves from Judah and Benjamin and established a separate kingdom (1Ki 12). Israel often was stronger than Judah, so its political and military preeminence might be the exaltation that is meant here. The word usually translated as “tremble” (retēt) in the English versions is a hapax legomenon.
J. Andrew Dearman: With regard to Israel’s settlement in the promised land, Macintosh has proposed that v. 1 concerns the circumstances of the formation of the breakaway kingdom of Israel under Jeroboam I and the advancement of Baal veneration under the Omride dynasty. . .
A historically based reading of v. 1 seems required initially by the vocabulary itself, however difficult it may be to identify one or more portions of the national history with it. Hosea’s hearers are told that Ephraim’s previous acts had brought guilt upon them and even death. The summary is intended to explain to them why the prophet offers judgment in the current historical hour. On the other hand, its terseness paints with a broad brush and almost certainly depends on material elsewhere in Hosea or used elsewhere by him in oral presentation. It is intended to underscore what has been claimed elsewhere in more detail. Thus, of the suggestions noted above, perhaps that of Macintosh is preferable, for it sets the national history in the monarchical period broadly in the context of self-aggrandizement and idolatry.
Duane Garrett: Hosea already looks upon Ephraim as “dead,” that is, as having passed into history and with no more hope of recovery or return. The single thing to which he attributes Ephraim’s fall, moreover, is the cult of Baal. For Hosea the apostasy, crime, and immorality of the people stemmed from this one fundamental deviation from God’s Torah.
James Mays: The indictment begins with a reference to the time when Ephraim’s position within Israel was so superior that even his speaking provoked apprehension and trembling among the rest of the tribes. Hosea generally uses “Ephraim” as a name for the contemporary northern state, a synonym for Israel; for that reason a tradition from the lore about the tribe, Ephraim, can be applied to the whole nation. References to Ephraim’s pre-eminence appear in such texts as the blessing of Jacob on Ephraim and Manasseh (Gen. 48) and in Judg. 8:1-4. Joshua (Josh. 24:30) and Jeroboam I (I Kings 11:26; 12:20) were Ephraimites. Whether Hosea knows some other tradition of Ephraim’s early superiority, or refers to these, cannot be learned for the text. He simply makes the point that the people whom he now calls Ephraim are pitiful by comparison with the tribe whose name they bear. Their decline and fall is the consequence of worshipping Baal (the singular appears also in 2:8 and possibly 9:10). The fertility cult of Canaan was the source of Ephraim’s guilt and death. The basic covenant requirement of Israel’s relation to Yahweh was its rigorous exclusiveness. Yet since coming to the land Israel had worshipped Baal (9:10). Hosea sees Ephraim’s present condition as the effect of guilt that invokes the death sentence upon itself. After 733 the nation was decimated in territory and population; its wounds and weakness were symptoms enough that it was already in the realm of death.
B. (:2) Present: Persistence in Idolatry
“And now they sin more and more,
And make for themselves molten images,
Idols skillfully made from their silver, All of them the work of craftsmen.
They say of them, ‘Let the men who sacrifice kiss the calves!’”
M. Daniel Carroll R.: The text abruptly shifts to the present (“and now”). Israel’s unacceptable worship (and, consequently, national life) continues in the historic sin. . .
Kissing the image of the deity evidently was part of baʿal ritual (1Ki 19:18). What we have, then, is a quotation of the people that reveals their involvement in these activities (Macintosh, 522–24).
H. D. Beeby: There may be in 13:2 a build-up of sarcastic irony. The people sin far more than their primitive forefathers because their culture and technology and craftsmanship enable them to make bigger, better, and more beautiful idols than their competitors. Their industry has now prospered: “No need to import consumer goods. We now make everything ourselves. Look, none of your cheap and nasty idols whose heads may drop off. Only the best! Feel the quality! Solid silver and, mind you, made by experts. Oh yes, we’re a developed nation.”
Trent Butler: Craftsmen, people whose skills and resources should be dedicated to the Lord, instead dedicate them to false gods and worship what they have created.
Some translations avoid mention of human sacrifice, but we must not back away from the horrendous statement of the text. Human sacrifice was a problem for Israel, especially in desperate days (Judg. 11:30–40). The practices clearly violated God’s law (Lev. 20:2–5). Israel’s love affair turned deadly. They took over not only reverence for Baal as shown by kissing the calf representations of Baal. They also followed other pagan practices—the most horrible of which Hosea condemns here.
J. Andrew Dearman: Who in their right mind would increase activities associated with their demise, as if the description of “death” at the hands of Baal in the previous verse was not enough to convince hearers of the continuing threat posed by idolatry? In his sarcasm Hosea draws on the essentials of the first two commandments of the national covenant (Exod. 20:3–6; Deut. 5:7–10), both of which are violated by the description of Israelite religious practices here in Hos. 13:1–2.
Duane Garrett: Under the leadership of the priests and the royal house, the people treat the images as the proper objects of worship and even debase themselves by kissing calves (referring to calf-idols and not to the actual animals).
Biblehub: This act of kissing is a sign of allegiance and reverence, showing how deeply ingrained idolatry had become in Israelite society. The calves symbolize a false representation of God, leading the people away from true worship. This idolatry is a direct affront to the worship of Yahweh and serves as a type of the ultimate rejection of Christ, who is the true image of God (Colossians 1:15).
Allen Guenther: A taunt by some worshiper of the Lord captures their sin in vivid color:
Sacrificers of people;
They kiss calves.
God intended animals for sacrifice, people to love and care for. Idolatry has perverted the nation; they have lost their sense of values.
C. (:3) Future: Transitory Passing Away of the Nation – 4 Metaphors
“Therefore, they will be like the morning cloud,
And like dew which soon disappears,
Like chaff which is blown away from the threshing floor,
And like smoke from a chimney.”
Allen Guenther: Therefore (13:3) shifts the reader’s attention to the future judgment. In the previous prophetic speech unit (12:10-14), the people were described as without substance. Here their transient and hollow existence occupies four scenes. . . The progress is from the valley mist, to the dew deposited on the ground but quickly evaporated by the summer sun, to the dried chaff of autumn, and finally to the indoor winter fire, foreshadowing judgment. . . Those who trust in the God beyond nature need no idols. They have evidence of the reality of their God in life experiences. The national deliverance from Egypt vindicates those who trust in him.
Trent Butler: The prophetic therefore introduces a prediction of disaster, a warning of judgment to come. Israel appeared on the historical scene as an ephemeral entity, vanishing as quickly as morning mist or early dew. The nation came and went like chaff blowing in the wind or smoke escaping through a window.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Because of its idolatry, the nation has no future. It will pass away. The ephemeral nature of Israel’s existence is described using four metaphors: morning mist, dew, chaff, and smoke. The first two also appear in 6:4, where they portray the shallow commitment of Israel toward God. In 14:5 the metaphor of dew has a different connotation. There God’s love is as refreshing as the dew. The chaff (e.g., Isa 17:13; 41:15) and smoke (Isa 51:6) are symbols of transitoriness.
II. (:4-8) PERVERSION OF GOD’S GRACIOUS PROVIDENCE LEADING TO DESTRUCTION – HISTORICAL REVIEW
A. (:4) Testimony of God’s Loyal Love to Israel from the Time of the Exodus
“Yet I have been the LORD your God Since the land of Egypt;
And you were not to know any god except Me,
For there is no savior besides Me.”
H. D. Beeby: Whatever the particular reason for repeating it here, the statement is Hosea’s central creed. This is his theological, religious, moral, social, cultural starting point. This is where he begins and what he comes back to: election at the time of the Exodus. Even when he intends the horrors of vv. 7–8, this is where he must begin, because for a prophet of Israel there is nowhere else to begin. Israel’s history begins here; their raison d’etre begins here; their philosophy begins here. Above all Israel’s security, identity, and very existence are inseparable from God’s choosing them and saving them out of Egypt. If ever Israel were inclined to ask “Why is there Israel and not no-Israel,” the answer could only begin with “I am the LORD your God from the land of Egypt …”
Trent Butler: Israel had no history without God. But they had turned away from him. Having abandoned him as their God, they should expect their history to end.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: In this context, it serves to contrast what has been said of Israel with Yahweh’s constancy. He has always been with them, and he has always been the same. The fact that Yahweh alone has been Israel’s God means that they should know that there is no other whom they should obey or to whom they must turn. This conviction (and demand!) is foundational to the covenantal relationship and is fundamental to the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:2–3; Dt 5:6–7). The belief that Yahweh alone can save Israel has enormous implications for national foreign policy. Instead, political leaders are turning to Assyria and Egypt for help instead of trusting him (see esp. 14:3).
Duane Garrett: This allusion to the husband and wife analogy allows Hosea to develop a final portrait of the denouement of the fertility cult. Metaphorically, Israel’s adultery produced a child to whom she cannot properly give birth (v. 13, see comments); on a much more gruesome and literal level, the pregnant mothers in Israel will be ripped open by Assyrian soldiers (v. 16). Mother Israel had sought to obtain children through gods other than Yahweh, and the results were catastrophic.
James Mays: Yahweh begins by proclaiming his own identity as the election-God of Israel (“your God”), who is known to his people definitively through the deliverance from Egypt (11:1). This formula of self-presentation was used in Israel’s covenant cult as an introduction to the proclamation of Yahweh’s will for his people (Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6) and comes as near as any element of the tradition used by Hosea to stating the central article of his theology. In the decalogic formulations the formula established the right of Yahweh as God of the Exodus and covenant to set his policy for the life of Israel. Here it is the basis for the assertion of Yahweh’s exclusive role as God of Israel. Indeed, v. 4b is a narrative form of the first commandment. Israel is to have no other God than Yahweh because no other deity has participated in its history. “Know” means “experience the benefits and presence of another”. The “helper” (mosia’, “saviour”) is the one who acts in the time of peril to deliver the people from danger. Israel’s history is revelation that Israel has no other God and that there is no other helper for them. This assertion that Israel is exclusively dependent on Yahweh is in Hosea’ situation a polemic against all other forces to which Israel looked for deliverance: the king and his princes (13:10; cf. I Sam. 10:18f.), military power (14:3), and idols (14:3; 13:2).
B. (:5-6) Tragedy of Israel’s Unfaithfulness
- (:5) Divine Provision in Difficult Times
“I cared for you in the wilderness,
In the land of drought.”
Duane Garrett: The point is that even in the wilderness God so cared for them it was thought they were living in their own pasture land.
John Goldingay: Yahweh’s acknowledging them (v. 5) is an aspect of the rationale for acknowledging Yahweh, to which v. 4 referred. The verb works both ways in Hosea (2:8, 20 [10, 22]; 5:3–4; 6:3; 8:2; 9:7; 11:3). The mutuality in God’s relationship with his people includes his acknowledging them in the sense of recognizing who they are and taking action to see that their needs are met, and their acknowledging him in the sense of recognizing who he is and relying on him rather than on other resources. With God as the subject, the verb appears elsewhere in a sense overlapping with “care for” and “choose,” as here (e.g., Amos 3:2). Ephraim needed Yahweh to acknowledge it in the sense of looking after it on the way through the wilderness, given the conditions there.
- (:6) Disloyal Forgetfulness in Prosperous Times
“As they had their pasture, they became satisfied,
And being satisfied, their heart became proud;
Therefore, they forgot Me.”
John Goldingay: And Yahweh did so, quite extravagantly (v. 6), so that the Ephraimites were full (Exod. 16:8, 12). But being full can lead to elation and thus to disregarding God or putting God out of mind (Deut. 8:11–14). It’s what happened (cf. Hosea 2:13 [15]). “Luxurious living is . . . risky and difficult to manage, and is, as it were, a slippery path to apostasy from God.” Blessing Yahweh safeguards against putting Yahweh out of mind (Deut. 8:10), but Ephraim has not done so. Experiencing God’s provision easily leads to a happiness that issues in putting God out of mind.
H. D. Beeby; God’s gifts became grounds for rebellion. The nurture in the wilderness led o to the gift of land, of milk, honey, vineyard, and pasture. But this wasn’t Israel’s downfall. The proper response of gratitude, which would have strengthened the knowledge of God and therefore the assurance of security and identity, was not forthcoming. Rather they gave thanks to themselves and to the nonexistent Baals, and finally they forgot God. They travelled the easy road from knowledge to forgetfulness, and as night follows day their doom was sealed; for in their case forgetfulness was not a foible –it was death.
Trent Butler: Israel took everything they could get from God. Once these cattle raisers found grazing ground for their animals, they had everything they wanted. They could dispense with the God who provided those needs. They became proud. The result was predictable. Their proud hearts forgot God. They had no desire for intimacy with the Lord. They became self-sufficient.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Ideally, Israel’s and Yahweh’s knowing would have mirrored and complemented each other. The proper response always and now at this crucial juncture in history should have been gratitude and devotion to the one true God. But provision brought pride and satisfaction self-reliance (v.6). This danger of arrogant forgetfulness is a recurring theme in Deuteronomy (e.g., Dt 6:10–12; 8:7–14; 31:20; 32:15–18).
C. (:7-8) Transition from God as Caring Shepherd to Ferocious Predator
“So I will be like a lion to them;
Like a leopard I will lie in wait by the wayside.
8 I will encounter them like a bear robbed of her cubs,
And I will tear open their chests;
There I will also devour them like a lioness,
As a wild beast would tear them.”
M. Daniel Carroll R.: If v.3 assembled four metaphors to describe how perilous was Israel’s future, these two verses use five metaphors to underscore the power and ferociousness of Yahweh in his judgment. . . The verbs are equally robust: lurk, attack, tear open, devour, and mangle.
J. Andrew Dearman: There is a logic to the train of thought in vv. 4–8 that Hosea’s first hearers would recognize, namely the activity of the shepherd. As Israel’s divine shepherd, YHWH knew Israel in the wilderness and cared for his flock in the land of drought. One of the tasks of a shepherd in a wilderness area is to protect the flock from predators. David’s response to Saul, that he had killed both lion and bear in the protection of his father’s flock, makes just this point (1 Sam. 17:34–35). The frightening element here is that YHWH has changed from defender of the flock to predator. His theriomorphic portrayal is a way to represent judgment to come in the historical process. The actual predator will be Assyria. Indeed, Hosea’s choice of verb in v. 7b may be a clever wordplay on the name Assyria. The leopard will keep watch, ʾāšûr, a term that sounds virtually identical to ʾaššûr, “Assyria.”
Duane Garrett: The meaning of these lines is self-evident; what is surprising is that Yahweh describes himself in such ferocious, bestial terms. Here again we face Hosea’s willingness to use language and metaphor that is surprising if not inappropriate to our ears. We should not assume that these similes were acceptable or unremarkable to Hosea’s audience, notwithstanding the willingness of other prophets to use similar language (e.g., Amos 3:4,8; 5:19). To hear God described as beastly in his brutality—devouring human flesh like a vicious carnivore—is jolting. The purpose of such a depiction is to cut through the foggy notion of an indulgent God that their theology and ritual had given them and so awaken the audience to the reality of divine fury.
Robin Routledge: The imagery here, of being torn apart by wild animals, is relentless. Yahweh, who was their Saviour, will become their destroyer; their shepherd will attack the flock as a predator. In this, there appears to be progression (Eidevall 1996: 197–199). The reference to a lion (šaḥal; cf. 5:14) alerts people to the threat: Yahweh has become their enemy. That threat intensifies with the leopard lurking (šûr) by the path, waiting to pounce. Then there is a ferocious attack, this time of a she-bear separated from her cubs, who rips open the chest cavity and exposes the heart. Finally, what is left is devoured by a lioness (lābîʾ) and torn apart by wild animals, emphasizing the completeness of the destruction.
Biblehub: The repetition of animal imagery reinforces the theme of unavoidable and violent judgment. Wild beasts in the ancient world were seen as uncontrollable and dangerous, much like the consequences of Israel’s disobedience. This phrase serves as a stark warning of the chaos and destruction that result from forsaking the covenant with God. The tearing apart signifies not just physical destruction but also the disintegration of the social and spiritual fabric of the nation.
III. (:9-11) PERVERSION OF MONARCHY LEADING TO DESTRUCTION —
HELPLESS LEADERS
A. (:9) Rejection of Divine Help by the Helpless
“It is your destruction, O Israel,
That you are against Me, against your help.”
Trent Butler: God had revealed himself as Israel’s helper since patriarchal times (Ps. 37:40). Now, facing the desperation of Assyrian attacks, Israel stood against the only one who could help. Therefore, Israel would be destroyed.
J. Andrew Dearman: The chilling claim is that Israel’s helper is now the agent of the people’s demise.
B. (:10-11) Rhetorical Questions Highlighting the Futility of Trusting Human Leaders
- (:10) Misplaced Trust in Human Leaders
“Where now is your king That he may save you in all your cities,
And your judges of whom you requested,
‘Give me a king and princes ‘?”
Allen Guenther: Israel’s king has become the primary symbol of national hope. In a few carefully chosen lines, God unscrolls the sorry history of the monarchy in the Northern Kingdom. The nation resented the insecurity of depending on leaders (judges) whom God chose. So under Samuel, they petitioned for a king “like other nations” (1 Sam. 8; 12). Such a leader would be able to fight their battles and provide security for the people (cf. 1 Sam. 8:20). In that respect, their request was a rejection of God as King.
Still, the monarchy was a gracious gift, a concession to serve a people of little faith. Once established, it would continue if and only if the people and king obeyed God (1 Samn. 12:14-15). Disobedience would set God’s hand against his people. The history of the monarchy, particularly in the north, was one long decline. Apparently, at the time this prophecy was spoken, Israel’s king had been assassinated or deposed: Where now is your king? The removal of the king was God’s way of showing the futility of trusting in human resources. That was the act of the One against whom the nation had taken its stand.
J. Andrew Dearman: The ineffectual, if not corrupt, government includes rulers or officials and not just the king himself. Hosea employs the three primary political categories for administrative rule: king (melek), ruler or judge (šōpēṭ), and prince or official (śār). The fate of cities is at stake, indicating a strong threat. The description of governmental failure would fit the presence of a strong external threat to national identity such as Assyria in which the extended royal family and its associates were unable to secure the nation’s sovereignty.
Derek Kidner: Yet God made room for kingship and put it to noble use, as He still does with our bright ideas – or in spite of them. What He could not bless was the arrogance that gave rise to it and the power-struggles that exploited it. We have already seen its corruption in Hosea’s day (7:3-7), and the utter disillusion that marked its downfall (10:3: ‘a king, what could he do for us?’). The process by which God took these kings ‘away in (His) wrath’ was of their own choosing: a string of assassinations and coups from within, and the punitive might of Assyria from without, in reprisal for repeated acts of treachery.
- (:11) Monarchy Changes Attributed to God’s Wrath
“I gave you a king in My anger,
And took him away in My wrath.”
Biblehub: So in My anger I gave you a king —
This phrase reflects God’s response to Israel’s demand for a king, which is recorded in 1 Samuel 8. The Israelites desired to be like other nations, rejecting God as their direct ruler. This request displeased God, as it demonstrated a lack of faith and trust in His leadership. The granting of a king, starting with Saul, was a concession to their demands, but it was done in anger because it represented a rejection of God’s ideal plan for His people. The historical context shows that Israel’s monarchy often led to idolatry and disobedience, which ultimately resulted in divine judgment.and in My wrath I took him away —
This part of the verse refers to God’s judgment upon the kings of Israel, particularly the removal of Saul as king due to his disobedience (1 Samuel 15:26-28). It also foreshadows the eventual downfall of the monarchy and the exile of the people. The phrase highlights the consequences of Israel’s rebellion and the seriousness of divine wrath. The removal of kings can be seen as a type of Christ, who is the ultimate King that God provides, contrasting with the flawed human kings. This also connects to the broader biblical theme of God’s sovereignty and justice, as seen in the removal of leaders who fail to uphold His covenant.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: The northern kingdom began with a lack of faith and now will fall because of rebellion. The last decades of its existence were a sad spectacle of political chicanery and ambition, a debilitating series of assassinations and poor policy decisions. Hoshea was the last in that line. In his sovereign judgment, Yahweh will now terminate Israel’s royal establishment.
Alternate View:
Duane Garrett: The sense of Yahweh’s answer, however, is ironic. “I will give you a king—in my wrath” means that God will indeed send them a king but not the king that they expect. The king God will send is the ruler of Assyria, who comes as their conqueror. “And I will take (a king)—in my rage” means that God will remove the sitting Israelite monarch from his throne.
IV. (:12-16) PUNISHMENT NOW INESCAPABLE —
HOPE DESPITE JUDGMENT
A. (:12-13) Summary of Judgment
- (:12) Catalog of Sins Demanding Punishment
“The iniquity of Ephraim is bound up;
His sin is stored up.”
H. D. Beeby: In vv. 12 and 13 the direct address to Israel changes to the third person and we leave behind the kings and princes. Nevertheless, the continuity is there. God’s indictment of Israel continues. What has changed is that we have moved from the particular to the general: from sins of idolatry, sins of complacence and pride, sins of the sinning kings, to “sin” and “iniquity” (or “guilt”). The verses form a kind of summary.
M. Daniel Carroll R.: Israel’s punishment has been recorded and sealed as on a scroll; it is like a legal document that is preserved. God will not forget what Israel has done (8:13; 9:9); the penalty must be paid (Wolff, 227–28; Mays, 180).
J. Andrew Dearman: At the present time the consequences of Ephraim’s iniquity have not yet shown themselves. Perhaps behind Hosea’s comparison we can catch something of his detractors among the people. They insist that their actions are not necessarily iniquitous (cf. 12:8 [MT 9]), and in any case have not yet shown the disastrous consequences that Hosea has announced.
Duane Garrett: The only clear analogy to this verse is the seventh vision of Zechariah (Zech 5:5–11), in which the prophet sees a container that is said to contain the “iniquity in all the land.” When the cover is removed, he sees a woman named “Wickedness” sitting in the container. Angels then seal the container and carry it off to “Shinar” (Babylonia) where a “house” will be built for it. This text is itself subject to various interpretations, but it is fairly certain the idea is that the evil of Israel must be returned to the land of their exile, to a pagan people who would venerate Wickedness as a goddess. That is, the return of exiles to Judah and the building of a temple for Yahweh has as its counterpart the return of iniquity to Babylonia and the building of a temple for her.
John Goldingay: At the moment the waywardness and wrongdoing are bound (v. 12), like a sealed scroll whose contents will eventually be revealed (Isa. 8:16), like water held in a cloud or dam that will eventually burst (Job 26:8), like a woman inescapably pressed and distressed as she prepares to give birth (Jer. 49:22, 24), or like a town besieged by an enemy (1 Kings 8:37). They are hidden away like someone kept safe from trouble (Ps. 27:5) and like the punishment of the wicked (Job 21:19).
Robin Routledge: The emphasis here is on the inevitability of judgment. The language may reflect the practice of binding together important documents, or other items of value, and sealing them for secure storage (Isa. 8:16; cf. Jer. 32:14) (Macintosh 1997: 542). In this case, it results in a permanent and inescapable record of Ephraim’s culpability.
- (:13) Childbirth Pains Expressing Unfulfilled Hopes – Failure in Time of Crisis
“The pains of childbirth come upon him;
He is not a wise son,
For it is not the time that he should delay at the opening of the womb.”
M. Daniel Carroll R.: The picture throughout is of an agonizing birthing process that never comes to fruition. It is symbolic of the prolonged torment that awaits Israel (Macintosh, 543–45). The unwise son clause is a parenthetical statement that explains why: The nation, the son of Yahweh (cf. 11:1), does not exhibit the godly wisdom that would have generated proper moral behavior, religious discernment, and political prudence.
J. Andrew Dearman: The issue at hand is to portray the culpability of Ephraim, not awareness of fetal senses or lack thereof. Just as Jacob can be typified in the circumstances of birth (12:3a [MT 4a]), so too can Ephraim. More to the point is the potential danger of childbirth, including especially recognition that once labor begins, a proper sequence of actions is necessary for safe delivery. Ephraim is unwise because he does not present himself at the opening of the womb at the proper time.
Duane Garrett: Ephraim’s travail is worse than even normal labor, for (translating literally) “at the proper time it will not ‘stand’ at the cervical opening.” While the meaning of “stand” in this context is conjectural, the most logical supposition is that this is a breech delivery. In everyday life, standing is the posture one assumes prior to walking; in the Israelite language of childbirth, therefore, “standing” would seem to describe a fetus coming into position to be born, when it turns and drops down into place prior to coming out the birth canal. Similarly, we can surmise that the phrase “unwise child” had a technical meaning in Israelite midwifery for a fetus that was not properly turned or in some other sense was not ready for birth. . .
The text means that Ephraim is like a woman going into labor whose child is breech, such that both the mother and child are likely to die. In Hosea’s metaphor both the institutions of Israel (the mother) and her child (the people) are doomed. This is the final end of the fertility cult.
Allen Guenther: When it comes to the time of crisis (birth, 13:13), the nation cannot take the appropriate step of repenting and throwing herself in a new dependence on God. The people and their leaders are incapable of changing course. Having come to full term, this child remains in the womb. Hope has vanished.
B. (:14) Salvation Promised with Ultimate Defeat of Death = the Last Enemy
“Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol?
Shall I redeem them from death?
O Death, where are your thorns?
O Sheol, where is your sting?
Compassion will be hidden from My sight.”
Derek Kidner: [Follows NIV rendering instead]
I will ransom them from the power of the grave;
I will redeem them from death.
Where, O death, are your plagues?
Where, O grave, is your destruction?
I will have no compassion (NIV).
Is this a ringing challenge to ‘the last enemy’, signalling his doom, or is it (as some would urge) nothing but the last nail in Israel’s coffin? The NIV translation, above, agreeing with the New Testament (1 Cor. 15:54f.) and with the older versions as far back as the pre-Christian LXX, takes it as a great affirmation, one of the greatest in Scripture. That is, it treats the opening couplet of this verse as a straight promise, exactly as it is written; a promise to be unfolded by our Lord’s great ‘ransom’ saying in Mark 10:45. Sadly, the modern trend is to turn it into a question expecting the answer No, and thereby to make the rest of the verse merely a call for the weapons of death to do their worst against Israel.
So it needs to be pointed out that the Hebrew of 14a does not use the interrogative prefix, but has the form of a plain statement. Sometimes, to be sure, the context of a verse compels us to read a statement ironically or with an interrogative inflexion, and this is why the present verse has suffered this treatment in some recent versions, for the surrounding gloom is certainly profound. But what has been forgotten is that one of the outstanding features of this book is its sudden changes of tone from the sternest of threats to the warmest of resolves-most famously in 11:8. . .
The ‘compassion’ which God withholds in the final line is, of course, withheld not from the victims of death and the grave, but from this pair of tyrants themselves. Cf. the personifying of them in Revelation 20:14, ‘Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.’ In less pictorial terms, God promises the utter end of death and its dominion, with no question of His modifying that resolve.
H. Ronald Vandermey: The Lord digresses from the scene of judgment and in verses 13-14 reminds Israel that restoration, not retribution, is the goal of His sovereign plan for Israel.
Anthony Petterson: The wider context shows that the Lord will not deliver Israel from death, but salvation will come on the other side of judgment. God will have no compassion on his rebellious people when the Assyrian army comes with all its destructive might to Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom (cf. 1:6).
Lloyd Ogilvie: A space is made between these four clauses and the fifth, “I will have no compassion,” thus connecting it to the thought of verse 15. . .
The essential test of the meaning is in answer to the question, “What did God intend when He inspired these words to be spoken through the prophet Hosea?” I take verse 14 to be another of those startling flashes of hope following the grim reality of judgment we have observed throughout Hosea’s prophecy (as in Hos. 11:8 — “How can I give you up, Ephraim?”). In the case of the nation of Israel, God promises life beyond the death of the Assyrian invasion and destruction, the exile, and suffering. God has plans for His people. There will be a new beginning beyond their deserved death and grave.
But added to that, I sense God serving notice on death as the last enemy. The astounding promise has the ring of a prophetic Messianic hope. And, indeed, from our perspective, it has been fulfilled in Christ’s defeat of death and His victorious resurrection.
Gary Smith: The argumentation in 13:4–16 is that Israel will die. Thus, if Hosea is consistent, one would think this verse is not offering hope. However, at the end of each of the other verdicts in this lawsuit (6:4; 11:8–9), God is overcome with love and refuses to totally destroy his people. This is the same passion that refused to give up on Israel and destroy them like Admah and Zeboiim (11:8). Hosea 13:14 seems to be a similar bold refusal on God’s part to completely reject his people. This taunt of death is based on his redemptive power to overcome the curse of death (13:14a). Death will not defeat God’s plans for his people.
Biblehub: Where, O Sheol, is your sting? —
The “sting” of Sheol refers to the pain and fear associated with death and the grave. This imagery is used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:55 to describe the defeat of death through Christ’s resurrection. The absence of Sheol’s sting signifies the hope of eternal life and the removal of death’s hold over humanity, a central theme in Christian eschatology.
Alternative View:
M. Daniel Carroll R.: God’s plans cannot be thwarted by the destruction coming with the imminent war. The last line is an important reminder that the hope of national restoration does not eliminate the inevitability of judgment; rather, it assures Israel that punishment is neither Yahweh’s final dealing with Israel nor the voiding of their covenantal relationship. The juxtaposition of judgment and promise is found elsewhere in the book (e.g., 1:4–2:1; 3:1–5). . .
These sentences are four questions, all of which reveal the torment in the mind of God. He wrestles with his love for Israel and the necessity of judgment (cf. 6:4; 11:8). They are, in other words, questions without answers. In the end, however, Yahweh recognizes that wrath must come; compassion cannot void the judgment. The nation cannot evade ruin (Macintosh, 547–49; cf. Hubbard, 222).
C. (:15-16) Severity of Coming Judgment
- (:15) Like the Devastating Power of the East Wind
“Though he flourishes among the reeds,
An east wind will come,
The wind of the LORD coming up from the wilderness;
And his fountain will become dry,
And his spring will be dried up;
It will plunder his treasury of every precious article.”
J. Andrew Dearman: What Ephraim intended as political maneuvering will result in the desiccating wind of a victor from the east and the loss of the nation’s valuables.
John Goldingay: So for one last time Yahweh declares the intention to chastise. We know about the torrid east wind (v. 15b; see 12:1 [2]) coming from the wilderness to the east; only a fool chases it. It can destroy everything in its path. It is, literally, “a wind of Yahweh,” and that in two senses. It will be extraordinary, as if it conveys Yahweh’s force. And it actually will convey Yahweh’s force, because it comes as his agent. It will block up the water sources. But “fountain” is much more commonly a figurative expression for a wellspring of life (e.g., Ps. 36:9 [10]), and “spring” can also have this connotation (e.g., Isa. 12:3). And wind from the eastern desert is an image for the invader whom Yahweh brings, who comes from that direction (e.g., Isa. 21:1), even if approaching Israel from the north. The metaphor then becomes literal reality: Hosea is talking about someone who will come from the east to dry up the nation’s resources.
Gary Smith: Pools of water are emptied by evaporation and overuse by people, and even the springs fail to produce fresh water. As a result, the nation will be stripped of its treasures and will die. This may be interpreted as the loss of agricultural wealth in its storehouses (they will have to eat it all during the drought) or to the Assyrians’ raping of the land when the nation is conquered.
- (:16) Like the Barbaric Cruelty of Enemy Invaders
“Samaria will be held guilty,
For she has rebelled against her God.
They will fall by the sword,
Their little ones will be dashed in pieces,
And their pregnant women will be ripped open.”
H. D. Beeby: The instant threats, judgments, warnings, verdicts, and sentences are about to become actual. The east wind, the plague, the lion, the leopard, the bear are all about Samaria. The outcome of the imminent attack is so predictable that Hosea describes it in graphic and gruesome detail. As often in Hosea, past, present, and future are bound together in a causal bundle (vv. 1-3). The past is a history of rebellion; therefore the present generation of adults and children shall be slaughtered, and even the unborn are not exempt. There will be no future for guilty Israel. This time it is both root and branch destruction. The verse begins and ends with the common theme of Isael’s total responsibility for what will happen. Of the three causes – God, Assyria, an Israel – it is the last that is emphasized here. Samaria is guilty because they have rebelled. So the verse begins. And then at the end the theme of culpability returns only slightly disguised. What happens to their own unborn offspring is only what Isael themselves had chosen (v. 13) – death in the womb.
Gary Smith: The image of an abnormal childbirth (13:13) pictures Israel as a baby in the midst of the birthing process. The pressure of labor contractions is felt by this baby, but the child unwisely refuses to enter the birth canal. Apparently, Hosea sees Israel’s upcoming suffering as analogous to the suffering of this baby. Like the child, Israel is not wise, but has made sinful choices. Although nothing is said about the fate of the breached baby, the implication is that the child (and Israel) will tragically die rather than live. Israel stubbornly rejects the path of life.
Duane Garrett: Yahweh had already in the metaphor of the pregnant woman with the breech baby (v. 13) implied that both mother and child would die. What Yahweh had declared figuratively, the death of mother and child, Hosea now speaks of literally. The final outcome of the fertility cult is the carnage of babies and pregnant mothers throughout the country. The metaphor of Lady Israel and her three children, Jezreel, Lo-Ruhamah, and Lo-Ammi, has reached its denouement in a slaughter that is anything but literary and symbolic.