² tn The preposition בְּ (bet) on בְּהוֹשֵׁעַ (b^ehosheaʿ) functions instrumentally (BDB 89 s.v. בְּ III.2.b): “by, with, through Hosea,” rather than directionally: “to Hosea.” This use encompasses the entire prophetic revelation through Hosea to Israel.

¹ tn Heb “to him.” The referent (Hosea) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

¹ tn Hosea employs three preterites (vayyiqtol forms) in verse 13a-b to describe a past-time situation.

⁴ tn Heb “to Hosea.” The proper name is replaced by the pronoun here to avoid redundancy in English (cf. NIV, NCV, NLT).

² tn Heb “houses of ivory.” These houses were not made of ivory, but they had ivory panels and furniture decorated with ivory inlays. See P. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 139-48.

¹ tn Hosea uses the similar-sounding terms יָשֻׁבוּ יֹשְׁבֵי (yashuvu yosh^eve, “the dwellers will return”) to create a wordplay between the roots שׁוּב (shuv, “to return”) and יָשַׁב (yashav, “to dwell; to reside”).

¹ sn The term “lovers” is a figurative expression (hypocatastasis), comparing Jerusalem’s false gods and political alliance with Assyria to a woman’s immoral lovers. The prophet Hosea uses similar imagery (Hos 2:5, 7, 10, 13).

¹ tn Heb “and you will not be for” or “you will not come to belong to”; cf. NIV “be intimate with.” This is an uncommon and roundabout way of referring to sexual relations and perhaps refers to moving in with another man. “Another” is supplied from context, since she is clearly to live with Hosea. If it means she should not be intimate with any man, including Hosea, that could also picture the many days without a king mentioned in the next verse.

³ sn The reason that Hosea (representing the Lord) calls upon his children (representing the children of Israel) to plead with Gomer (representing the nation as a whole), rather than pleading directly with her himself, is because Hosea (the Lord) has turned his back on his unfaithful wife (Israel). He no longer has a relationship with her (“for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband”) because she abandoned him for her lovers.

¹ tc The textual problems in Hosea are virtually unparalleled in the OT. The Masoretic Text (MT), represented by the Leningrad Codex (c. a.d. 1008), which served as the basis for both BHK and BHS, and the Aleppo Codex (c. a.d. 952), by all accounts have a multitude of scribal errors. Many medieval Masoretic mss preserve textual variants that differ from the Leningrad and Aleppo Codices. The Qumran materials (4QXII^c,d,g) contain numerous textual variants that differ from the MT; unfortunately, these texts are quite fragmentary (frequently in the very place that an important textual problem appears). The textual tradition and translation quality of the LXX and the early Greek recensions (Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion) is mixed; in some places they are inferior to the MT but in other places they preserve a better reading. The textual apparatus of BHK and BHS contains many proposed emendations based on the ancient versions (Greek, Syriac, Latin, Aramaic) that often appear to be superior readings than what is preserved in the MT. In numerous cases, the MT readings are so difficult morphologically, syntactically, and contextually that conservative conjectural emendations are necessary to make sense of the text. Most major English versions (e.g., KJV, ASV, RSV, NEB, NAB, NASB, NIV, TEV, NKJV, NJPS, NJB, NRSV, REB, NCV, CEV, NLT) adopt (either occasionally or frequently) textual variants reflected in the versions and occasionally adopt conservative conjectural emendations proposed in BHK and/or BHS. However, many of the textual problems in Hosea are so difficult that the English versions frequently are split among themselves. With this in mind, the present translation of Hosea must necessarily be viewed as only preliminary. Further work on the text and translation of Hosea is needed, not only in terms of the NET Bible but in Hosea studies in general. The text of Hosea should be better clarified when the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project completes work on the book of Hosea. For further study of textual problems in Hosea, see D. Barthélemy, ed., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, 5:228-71.

¹ sn A quotation from Hos 6:6 (see also Matt 12:7). The statement both in the Hebrew text of Hosea and the Greek text of Matthew creates an apparent antithesis between mercy and sacrifice. Even among the church fathers, some understood this to be an absolute rejection of sacrifice by Jesus, and to signal the end of the sacrificial cult with the arrival of the new covenant. This interpretation is unlikely, however, both for Hosea and for Matthew. The LXX renders the Hebrew text of Hos 6:6 as comparative: “I want mercy more than sacrifice,” and this is probably closer to Hosea’s meaning (see the note at Hos 6:6). Such an understanding is also consistent with Jesus’ teaching elsewhere in Matthew (e.g. 5:18-24; 23:23-28). Obedience to the law is important, but even more important is to show mercy to those who are in dire need, as demonstrated by Jesus himself in his ministry of healing (alluded to in Matt 9:12 with the imagery of the physician, and in Matt 9:1-8 by the healing of the paralytic).

¹ sn The expression I will say ‘It is my people,’ and they will say ‘the Lord is our God’ is reminiscent of the restoration of Israel predicted by Hosea, who said that those who had been rejected as God’s people would be reclaimed and once more become his sons and daughters (Hos 2:23).

³ sn The plowman will catch up to the reaper. Plowing occurred in October-November, and harvesting in April-May (see P. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 109.) But in the future age of restored divine blessing, there will be so many crops the reapers will take all summer to harvest them, and it will be time for plowing again before the harvest is finished.

⁶ sn The grape harvest occurred in August-September, the planting in November-December (see P. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 109). But in the future age described here there will be so many grapes that the workers who stomp them will still be working when the next planting season arrives.

¹ sn Like kings, many in Israel’s wealthy class owned both winter and summer houses (cf. 1 Kgs 21:1, 18; Jer 36:22). For a discussion of archaeological evidence relating to these structures, see P. King, Amos, Hosea, Micah, 64-65.

¹ sn In Hosea the name “Ephraim” does not refer to the tribe but to the region of Mount Ephraim, where the royal residence of Samaria was located. It functions as a synecdoche of location (Mount Ephraim) for its inhabitants (the king of Samaria; e.g., 5:13; 8:8, 10).

¹ tc The Leningrad Codex (the MT ms used for BHS) and Aleppo Codex both place the atnakh (colon divider) after אלהי (“my God”) and connect נָבִיא (naviʾ, “prophet”) with the following colon. On the other hand, BHS suggests that נָבִיא belongs with the first colon. For discussion of this syntactical problem, see F. I. Andersen and D. N. Freedman, Hosea (AB), 533-34.

⁵ sn Hosea personifies Ephraim’s “wound” as if it could depart from the sickly Ephraim (see the formal equivalent rendering in the preceding tn). Ephraim’s sinful action in relying upon an Assyrian treaty for protection will not dispense with its problems.

² tn The particle עַתָּה (ʿattah) often refers to the imminent or the impending future: “very soon” (BDB 774 s.v. עַתָּה 1.b). In Hosea it normally introduces imminent judgment (Hos 2:12; 4:16; 5:7; 8:8, 13; 10:2).

¹ sn The terms flocks and herds are used figuratively for animal sacrifices (metonymy of association). Hosea describes the futility of seeking God’s favor with mere ritual sacrifice without the prerequisite moral obedience (e.g., 1 Sam 15:24; Pss 50:6-8; 51:17-18; Isa 1:12; Mic 6:6-8).