11:3a–b

Notice the parallel parts that are similar in meaning:

^3aIt was I who taught Ephraim to walk,

^3b taking them in My arms,

These lines are metaphors that compare two things:

1. They compare the LORD to a father who loves and nurtures his child.

2. They compare Ephraim/Israel to his child.

11:3a

It was I who taught Ephraim to walk: In this clause, the LORD compares himself to a parent who teaches his child to walk.Andersen and Freedman (page 579).

It was I who: The Hebrew uses a pronoun for I that indicates emphasis. Some English versions express this emphasis by using special wording. For example:

I myself taught (NLT)

I was the one who taught (GW)

Other languages may be able to use an emphatic pronoun. You should express this emphasis in a way that is natural in your language.

Ephraim: In this clause, as elsewhere in Hosea, the name Ephraim refers to Israel. For example:

It was I who taught Israel to walk (NCV)

taught…to walk: This metaphor probably refers to the LORD’s guidance and care of young Israel in the wilderness of Sinai.Dearman (pages 281–282), Andersen and Freedman (page 579).

Here are some ways to translate this metaphor:

• Use a metaphor. For example:

  I myself taught Ephraim to walk (NJB)

• Change the metaphor to a simile. For example:

  It was I who guided Israel like a father teaches his child to walk.

• Translate the meaning without a figure of speech. For example:

  Yet it was I who led Ephraim (NET)

11:3b

taking them in My arms: In the Masoretic Text, the first part of this phrase is more literally “he took them.” The LXX and Peshitta have “I…took him/them.” The last part of this phrase in the MT is literally “on his arms.” The LXX and Peshitta have “on my arm(s).”

The Notes will not discuss these and other textual issues separately, but will combine them with interpretation issues. The Notes will focus on two main ways to interpret the phrase as a whole:

1. This phrase means that the LORD took his child Ephraim up in his arms. For example:

   I took my people up in my arms (GNT) (BSB, ESV,The ESV has been listed here because “took up by their arms” would normally be interpreted as picking a child up. This wording is unusual, however, because a parent who picks up a child does so by holding him under the arms, not by the arms. GNT, NAB, NASB, NJPS, NRSV, REB)

2. This phrase means that the LORD took his child Ephraim by the arm(s). For example:

   I myself took them by the arm (NJB) (CEV, GW, KJV, NCV, NET, NIV, NJB, NLT)

You may follow either interpretation. They are supported by equal numbers of commentaries.Commentaries that support interpretation (1) include Keil, McComiskey, Davies, and Macintosh. Commentaries that support interpretation (2) include Stuart, Garrett, Hubbard, and Wood. The Display will follow interpretation (1). This interpretation is supported by the LXX and Peshitta. It is also supported by a similar description of the LORD carrying the Israelites through the wilderness like a child (Deuteronomy 1:31).

Interpretation (2) better fits the preceding context of a father teaching his child to walk, holding him by the arms as he guides him in the right direction.This understanding is supported by the lack of the conjunction “and” in the Hebrew text between 3a and 3b. The lack of “and” suggests that the second clause is closely connected to the first. See Hubbard (page 188). It is also supported by the similar description of the LORD guiding the Israelites through the wilderness by means of the cloud and fire (Exodus 40:36–38).

In interpretation (1), the LORD compares himself to a father who lifts his child to hold or carry him in his arms. This comparison may be a further description of what a father does in the overall process of teaching his child to walk. For example, when the child stumbles or grows weary, his father picks him up to give him comfort and encouragement.See Macintosh (page 444) and Pusey (page 111).

11:3c

but: This clause contrasts with the previous one. Most versions use a word such as but or “yet” to indicate this contrast. Indicate this contrast in a natural way in your language.

they never realized that it was I who healed them: The LORD cared for the people of Israel as a father cares for his child. As a result, the people should have been grateful. However, they were not.

they never realized: In Hebrew, this phrase is more literally “they did not know.” There are two ways to interpret the Hebrew verb “know” here:

1. It means that they did not acknowledge or admit that the LORD was the one who healed them. For example:

   But they would not admit that I was the one who had healed them. (CEV) (CEV, GNT, NET, NJPS)

2. It means that they did not know or realize that the LORD was the one who had healed them. For example:

   but they did not know that I healed them (NRSV) (BSB, ESV, GW, KJV, NAB, NASB, NCV, NIV, NJB, NRSV)

It is recommended that you follow interpretation (1) along with a slight majority of commentaries.Commentaries in favor of “did not acknowledge/admit” include Hubbard, Macintosh, Andersen and Freedman, Pusey, and Calvin. Hubbard (page 188) says that “the truth should have been obvious.” Andersen & Freedman (page 581) says, “The people are blamed for rejecting knowledge gained by experience of Yahweh’s healing, not for mere ignorance.” Commentaries in favor of “did not know/realize” include Davies, Garrett, McComiskey, and Wood. Wood (page 212) says that “they were blind to his healing purpose.” Garrett (page 223–224) says they “quickly forgot how the Lord repeatedly restored health.” At this time in Israel’s history, the LORD was leading his people through the desert, and Moses told them that it was the LORD who healed them (Exodus 15:26). So the people must have realized this.Much later, after they were settled in the land of Canaan, it is possible that everyone had forgotten these stories. See Joshua 24:31.

These words are similar to the phrase “she does not acknowledge” in 2:8a. See the comment there. In both places, the meaning is probably that the people were aware of the truth but refused to acknowledge it.

Here are some other ways to translate this clause:

they have ignored My healing care. (NJPS)

They would not admit that I was the one who had healed them. (CEV)

healed: This word probably refers here to more than just physical healing. In this context, it refers to the many ways that the LORD helped Israel, especially in times of trouble in the wilderness of Sinai.The wider meaning of “heal” is mentioned by Keil (page 90), Dearman (page 282), Hubbard (page 188), and Davies.

However, the word definitely includes the idea of physical healing, and most of the versions used in TN use a form of that word. In Exodus 15:26, the LORD promised that if the people obeyed him, he would keep them from getting any of the diseases that he had caused the Egyptians to suffer, “For I am the LORD who heals you” (BSB). And in Numbers 21:6–10, the LORD directed Moses to provide a bronze snake on a pole. All those who had been bitten by poisonous snakes and would have died were miraculously healed when they looked at the snake.

Some versions translate the word healed here as “cared for” or “took care of.” For example:

I took care of them (GNT)

If you translate the term in a similar way, it is recommended that you also use a term in your language that refers to physical healing.In the four other references in Hosea where a form of the Hebrew for “heal” occurs, it refers to physical healing or treating of wounds in 5:13 and 6:1 and to figurative healing of Israel from sin in 7:1 and 14:4. It does not occur elsewhere in Hosea in the generic sense of “take care of.” For example:

but they have ignored my healing care (NJPS)

but they refused to admit that it was I who healed them and cared for them.