Central Idea

But the priests particularly are to blame for my people's complete lack of knowledge and sin, and therefore they will likewise reap judgment and be put to shame.

Textual and translation difficulties.

This passage contains several phrases that raise questions over the original text as well as how to translate. Let us look at a selection of the most significant.

‏ אַ֥ךְ אִ֛ישׁ אַל־יָרֵ֖ב וְאַל־יוֹכַ֣ח אִ֑ישׁ

Vs4 is by far the most difficult. We have accepted a translation stemming from a re-vocalization of the Hebrew text. Without this, it would read, "Yet let no one contend, and let none accuse." But for the simple reason of attempting to find a coherent stream of thoughts in this passage, the re-vocalization (no actual letter changes) was adopted. (The weakness with this route, however, is fact that this re-vocalized word meaning "God" is found no where else in Hosea.)

‏וְעַמְּךָ֖ כִּמְרִיבֵ֥י כֹהֵֽן

The Hebrew text plainly reads as we have translated it (4c), minus the square brackets of course (which are there to show you how I read the translation). However, due to the difficulty in understanding how this proposition would fit in the context, scholars have suggested the text to be corrupted with the possible correction of "[for] with you is my contention, O priest." The problem with accepting this correction, though, is that it requires two Hebrew letters to be eliminated and has no support in any ancient manuscript or translation. Thus, difficult as it may be, we have accepted the Hebrew "as is" in this arc.

‏ וְדָמִ֖יתִי אִמֶּֽךָ

Alternatively, the original text for vs5c may have been, "[for] you have destroyed your mother." The reason being that the 2nd person masculine singular form ‏וְדָמִית‎ is preserved in several medieval Hebrew MSS and reflected in Jerome’s Vulgate (as noted by the NET Bible). But the significance of the textual question here is small, for either way the clear idea is that the priests' "mother" (see below) is destroyed by God because of the failure of the priests.

‏ כְּבוֹדָ֖ם בְּקָל֥וֹן אָמִֽיר

The NET Bible translates this phrase, "They have turned their glorious calling into a shameful disgrace!" with the following footnote: 

The MT reads ‏אָמִיר‎ (ʾamir, “I will change, exchange”; Hiphil imperfect 1st person common singular from ‏מוּר‎, mur, “to change, exchange”). However, an alternate scribal tradition (tiqquneh sopherim, that is, an intentional scribal change when the Masoretes believed that the received consonantal reading was corrupt) preserves the reading ‏הֵמִירוּ‎ (hemiru, “they have exchanged”; Hiphil perfect 3rd person common plural from ‏מוּר‎). This alternate scribal tradition is also found in the Targum and reflected in the Syriac Peshitta.

Their proposal is certainly a possibility, but we have nonetheless accepted the more likely reading of the MT (Hebrew text) which is affirmed in the LXX.

‏חַטַּ֥את עַמִּ֖י יֹאכֵ֑לוּ

"Sin" in vs8a could also be translated "sin offering"--something that would literally be eaten. However, the parallelism with vs8b strongly suggests "sin" to be the proper translation as it corresponds to "iniquity." (Also, the priests were supposed to eat the sin offering in Lev 6:25-26.)

‏כִּֽי־אֶת־יְהוָ֥ה עָזְב֖וּ לִשְׁמֹֽר׃‏ זְנ֛וּת וְיַ֥יִן וְתִיר֖וֹשׁ יִֽקַּֽח־לֵֽב׃

Here we find two translation questions. (1) Ought the sentence to end after whoredom, leaving "Wine and new wine take away understanding" to be its own proposition? Or is how we have translated it preferred? (2) Should the first word of vs12 be connected to the last phrase in our passage, producing "...take away the understanding of my people" and then this entire proposition (from "Wine...") be moved to belong to the next passage?

I have answered "no" to both these viable options because of the placements of the conjunction "and" ("ו") which leans me to our chosen translation. For #1, the "ו" plus a noun argues for continuing a list more than beginning a new thought. For #2, I would expect a clause lacking an initial "ו" to break this passage focussing on the priests with the next focussing on the people again. 

How does this passage continue from 4:1-3?

In 4:1-3 we read about God's coming judgment on the people as a whole (and their land) because of their lack of knowledge of him. Here, the focus turns to the priests as the spiritual leaders and their great failure in this role. The issue is still knowledge of God, which the priests had rejected (vs6). 

What is the flow of our passage?

Vs4-5 provide a synopsis of the message which is repeated with further detail in vs6-11. And so continuing the courtroom language of 4:1-3, God's accusation is laid out in vs4 and vs6-8, and the sentence in vs5 and vs9-11. (Though admittedly the separations are not completely clean, with definite words of judgment scattered throughout the accusation section of vs6-11 as well as prophets and the people brought in at different points.)

Priest or priests?

Note the singular use of "priest" throughout this passage, matched by all the pronouns. Nonetheless, the context seems to suggest that priests in general are in mind, not a single priest. Thus, the usage seems to be akin to if, while addressing a large group of Christian workers, I were to say, "Listen up pastor--what I am about to say is particularly for you." I have used singular language to make the address more personal and direct for each pastor, but my meaning is clearly to address all the pastors present.

Who is "your mother" in vs5c?

The priests' mother is the nation. This is first evidenced by how "your mother" is used in the Hosea/Gomer/children analogy (2:2) to clearly speak of Israel as a nation. But more significant than this is the evidence of how the passage continues. "I will destroy your mother" is immediately followed by "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." Thus, is seems highly likely that "your [priests'] mother" and "my [God's] people" are in fact the same group.

Who are the children in vs6e and what are the implications of God forgetting them?

It is the subsequent generations of the priests, and specifically their taking up of that role, that will be forgotten by God. As with the incredibly harsh language of disowning and rejection that we read with regard to the people to this point in the book, so we find here with specific attention to the priests.

But there is a difference. While the book of Hosea is also filled with lavish promises of restoration for the people, we find no such promises of restoration of the priests in their role. The Gospel would certainly explain why, for in the New Covenant we find glorious realities at work that abolish this role (as it stood) forever.

1. The priests are exchanged for a single high priest, Jesus, our king and Messiah!
2. All separation between us and God (that they priests of old would mediate) is obliviated!
3. We, God's people, as a whole and entirely are made--as it were--a kingdom of priests who do not instruct one another "know the Lord," for we all know him!

God will shame all glory used for sin.

The Situation-Response relationships of vs7 are very significant and powerful to me. It begins in vs7a with the increase of the priests. God has caused them to flourish and prosper. He has granted them an honor and glory, as it were. This is the initial Situation. And as with the definition of this relationship, the Response is surprising. The priests have taken increased blessing from God and used it to increase their sin! (And all of us have done the same in one way or another.) So how then will God Respond? The Lord is a righteous and jealous God and will not leave sinners to boast in their sin. Their glory will be turned to shame. This is right and just, and great preparation for our hearts to receive the dumbfounding grace of a further Response not mentioned here--namely God inviting us to share in the unmatched glory of is very Son through an incredible plan of grace!

Meditations on the punishment.

For most of us, frustration is a very unpleasant word--as it should be. Well such is the lot of those who reject knowing the Lord. "They shall eat, but not be satisfied; they shall play the whore, but not multiply." This is the chasing after the wind of Ecclesiastes. Or as Haggai describes it:

You have sown much, and harvested little. You eat, but you never have enough; you drink, but you never have your fill. You clothe yourselves, but no one is warm. And he who earns wages does so to put them into a bag with holes. (Haggai 1:6)

Such is the water of this world. May you and I drink from a different well!

But whoever drinks of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again. (John 4:14)