An Ecocentric Reading of אמת‎,חסד‎,and דעת אלהים‎ in Hosea 4.1-6

Introduction

There is no gainsaying that ecological crises constitute important concerns for humanity today. This is attested by the volume of publications on the subject in various areas of academic endeavour, as well as the preponderance of awareness campaigns, workshops, symposiums, and numerous programmes and initiatives in various spheres of human activity aimed at generating an appropriate response from individuals, groups, and society at large. ¹ Also, the fact that many critics have laid the blame on Christianity cannot be ignored, considering the basis of the blame on at least two counts: first, that conventional biblical interpretation tends to legitimize human exploitation and abuse of the earth and its resources, based on its doctrine of creation and the human relationship with the rest of creation (Tull 2013, 23); and second, the eschatological doctrine that the Christian is a mere pilgrim on earth, whose real home is somewhere in the heavens beyond the blue, hence encouraging a feeling of detachment from the earthly habitat (Nilsen and Solevåg 2016, 666–67; Watkins 2009, 24). ²

It is a fact that readers’ cosmological ideologies and sociocultural orientations greatly influence their interpretation of Scripture unless a deliberate attempt is made to overcome the contextual gap between the holy writ and the exegete/reader. This may explain why several Bible texts that would have pointed to the human responsibility for maintaining the environment and the consequences of neglecting this responsibility are often glossed over, because the reader is not aware of the underlying cosmological outlook of the text.

This work examines Hos 4.1-6 with a view to discerning its underlying cosmological view, a view that may not be apparent to the modern reader, but could serve as a polemic in favour of the responsibility of humans as stewards of the created order. ³ The work complements a synchronic approach with the historical-critical method of exegesis. It employs the historical-critical method to ascertain the cosmological presupposition of the authors and immediate audience of Hos 4.1-6 in order to challenge an anti-ecological biblical interpretation. On the other hand, this text is read synchronically with texts taken from other parts of the Christian canon, particularly the book of Isaiah. The work posits that the author and audience of the book of Hosea possess a common tacit knowledge of what is called an “everlasting covenant.” ⁴ This everlasting covenant conceptualizes the phenomenon of ecological balance as an intricate web of life under the rule and providential guidance of the Creator, expressed in covenant terms. ⁵ The words אמת‎, חסד‎, and דעת אלהים‎ as used in Hosea presuppose an understanding of this covenant relationship. Reading Hos 4.1-6 with this lens therefore places eco-harmful practices on the same level as false swearing, lying, killing, stealing, and adultery, and prepares the ground for an eco-friendly Christian theology.

The text

The text of Hos 4.1-6 in its original Hebrew is carefully reconstructed here, making use of the available resources in the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), giving due consideration to text-critical issues raised in the critical apparatus. The reconstructed text is then translated into English as presented below.

Hosea 4.1-6

שׁמעו דבר־יהוה בני ישׂראל כי ריב ליהוה עם־יושׁבי הארץ כי אין־אמת ואין־חסד ואין־דעת אלהים בארץ‎ 1

אלה וכחשׁ ורצח וגנב ונאף ופרץ פרצו ⁶ ודמים בדמים נגעו‎ 2

.על־כן תאבל הארץ ואמלל ⁷ כל־יושׁב בהּ בחית השׂדה ⁸ ובעוף השׁמים וגם־דגי הים יאספו‎ 3

⁹ אך אישׁ אל־ירב ואל־יוכח אישׁ ועמך ריבי הכהן‎ 4

¹² וכשׁלת ביום ¹⁰ וכשׁל גם־נביא עמך לילה ¹¹ ודמיתָ את־עמך‎ 5

.נדמו ¹³ עמי מבלי הדעת כי־אתה הדעת מאסת ואמאסאך מכהן לי ותשׁכח תורת אלהיך אשׁכח בניך גם־אני‎ 6

The literal translation of the reconstructed text of Hosea 4.1-6

1 Hear the word of the LORD, children of Israel: for the LORD has a controversy with the inhabitants of the land, because there is no truth, nor covenant-faithfulness, ¹⁴ nor knowledge of God in the land.

2 By swearing, and lying, and killing, and stealing, and committing adultery, they break all bounds, and blood touches blood.

3 Therefore the land shall mourn, and every one that dwells in it languish, with the beasts of the field and with the birds of the sky, even the fishes of the sea shall be taken away.

4 Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another: for I have a controversy with you, O priest.

5 Therefore you shall fall in the daytime [and the prophet also shall fall with you in the night,] and you will be like your people.

6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you, that you shall not be priest to me: seeing you have forgotten the law of your God, I will also forget your children.

The cosmological outlook of the text

Like various other parts of the Old and New Testaments, this text clearly portrays a link between human actions and the well-being of the physical environment. But the exact nature of this connection is often glossed over as a reflection of a “primitive” or “non-scientific” or “less sophisticated” worldview. For instance, Loya (2008) argues that the metaphor תאבל הארץ‎ (the earth mourns) is to be understood literally to mean that the earth or land, as an active agent in the covenant lawsuit rather than a victim, acts independently of the Lord to execute judgement. This position does not give adequate consideration to the fact that Israel’s prophetic tradition unanimously condemns as idolatry the attribution of agency to any aspect of the created order other than humans. This is one of the major objections to the “voice of the earth” principle of the “Earth Bible” project, an objection that Loya does not satisfactorily answer (Loya 2008, 56–57). Furthermore, she does not adequately explain why other parties in Hos 4.3, such as the beasts, the birds, and the fish, are not given agency. However, she rightly affirms the causal link between human crimes and the fate of the earth (Loya 2008, 61). It appears as if Loya assumes that Hosea’s worldview follows similar primitive human worldviews manifested in religious expressions that venerate the earth goddess, and other forces of nature personified as deities. It is necessary to highlight, as Loya does, the apparent connection between human action and its impact on the environment, but in contrast to Loya, to point out the less apparent, but more sophisticated nature of this connection which our modern “scientific” orientation has obscured. ¹⁵

There is a reasonable consensus among scholars that this textual unit belongs to the genre of covenant lawsuit technically called the “ריב‎ genre” or Gerichtsrede. ¹⁶ This is because the literary structure in which the content is presented is in the form of a court case (Loya 2008, 53; Deroche 1981, 400). The text can be divided into two subsections. The impact of humans on the environment is more evident in the first part of the lawsuit, vv. 1-3. The Israelites are asked to “hear” a case between the LORD and “the inhabitants of the land.” The “children of Israel” appear as the potential judge. The second part of the text, vv. 4-6, addresses the loss of the children of Israel’s right to act as judge, because they too, like all other inhabitants of the land, are guilty. In the first case, the LORD is the plaintiff, the inhabitants of the land are the defendants, and the children of Israel are called to “hear” the controversy.

The charge begins with a list of moral and intellectual deficiencies of the human community, which is designated in eco-sensitive language as “inhabitants of the land.” Then in v. 2, the charge is explained further in terms of specific antisocial actions. Verse 3 states the consequences of the state of the human community and its actions also in ecological terms: (i) the land, i.e., the habitat, “mourns” (ii) all the inhabitants, both human and animal, languish and are taken away. It is easy for the modern mind to quickly get the message of this text (as well as several others like Isa 24.4-7; 33.5-12; Jer 4.22-28; 12.4; Ezek 22.24-31; Joel 1.14-20; Matt 24.29-30; Rom 1.18-26; 8.19-23) that the habitat is impacted by human moral and intellectual actions. But it is often difficult to grasp the nature of this connection between human intellectual deficiencies and antisocial actions on the one hand, and land productivity, animal fertility, and the well-being of birds and fish on the other hand. For instance, what is the connection between soil fertility and actions such as oath-breaking, lying, murder, theft, stealing, adultery? How could the human lack of truth, “mercy,” and knowledge of God lead to the decimation of animals, birds, and fish that are not domesticated?

These questions are more difficult to answer when the eco-conscious worldview of the text has been eclipsed in the process of translation. This is more so because there are no “scientific” or empirical explanations. For instance, before the advent of Christianity, there were several ecocentric “taboos” which prevented eco-harmful actions among various African tribes, but with the advent of Christianity and Western civilization, these taboos were discarded as superstitious because they were not explained empirically. Consequently, the people were encouraged to perpetrate eco-harmful behaviours that had previously been curtailed by the taboos.

In the second part of the lawsuit described in vv. 4-6, the inhabitants and the habitat recede to the background, and the focus is on the “priest.” The connection between the two parts of the text is the concept of דעת אלהים‎. The opening of v. 4, “Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another” suggests that it is not the earth or land that is called to judge, as supposed by Loya (2008, 54, 60–61), but either “the children of Israel” called to hear the case in v. 1, or “the priest” forbidden to judge in the second part of v. 4. It is quite plausible that the “children of Israel,” called to “hear the case” in v. 1, are now represented as the “priest” (v. 4) and expressly forbidden to “judge” because they are complicit, on the basis of their equal lack of דעת אלהים‎, or failure to uphold and disseminate it (v. 6).

This interpretation is obscured by the textual corruption in Hos 4.4b, which reads ועַמך כמריבי כהן‎ “for your people are as they that strive with the priest.” ¹⁷ This may be the reason scholars like Loya failed to see that the prerogative to judge was laid on the priest instead of the land. However, the emended text reading ועִמך ריבי הכהן‎ “for I have a controversy with you, O priest,” taken in the context of the preceding phrase in 4a, “Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another,” draws attention to the notion that this verse opens a second level of the foregoing lawsuit.

The main objection to this interpretation is the rationale behind substituting the “children of Israel” in v. 1 for the “priest” in v. 4. The answer to this objection lies in the conceptual framework of the text. Obscure to an average modern reader, the text presupposes a global dimension of the ecological concept. The inhabitants of the land were not only Israelites. The “children of Israel” were to be a kingdom of priests, standing in the priestly office in relation to the rest of the “inhabitants of the earth,” provided they keep the covenant (Exod 19.5-6). Adjudication is an important aspect of the priestly office (Deut 17.8-12). The Levites stand in the priestly office in relation to the children of Israel. The primary duty of the priest is to preserve, transmit, and implement the traditions embodying the cosmic covenant. To expose the hidden ecocentric tone of the passage, three key words, אמת‎, חסד‎, and דעת אלהים‎ will be further examined.

Ecological implications of the use of אמת‎ in Hosea 4.1-6

The lexical meaning of אמת‎ is “firmness” or simply “truth.” It occurs in 127 instances throughout the Hebrew text of L as represented in BHS, ¹⁸ in a wide range of contexts. It denotes faithfulness, certainty, trustworthiness, stability, permanence, continuance, and reliability. ¹⁹ It is also used to denote “truth as a body of ethical or religious knowledge” (BDB, 602). אמת‎ in the context of Hos 4.1-6 is not just “truth,” as the English vocabulary constrains the interpreter to render it. It carries the idea of filial trust and parent-like nurture. On the part of the infant it denotes absolute dependence, while on the part of the guardian or parent it conveys the idea of devoted care. Its root אמן‎ occurs in various other forms. The most important of these forms for the present discussion is the qal participle אֹמֵן‎, ²⁰ which covers the same semantic range of meanings as אמת‎, but in addition conveys the idea of parental nurture, indicating the relationship between a ward and the guardian, based on an innate assurance of dependability and trustworthiness. אֹמֵן‎ is used to denote “nurse” in Num 11.12; Ruth 4.16; and 2 Sam 4.4; “guardians of children” or “foster fathers” in 2 Kgs 10.1, 5; Esth 2.7; and Isa 49.23. The Hebrew אמת‎ and its cognates therefore conceptualize the idea of dependable care and positive nurture emanating from innate parent-like concern. It has been argued that

the basic root idea is firmness or certainty. In the Qal it expresses the basic concept of support and is used in the sense of the strong arms of the parent supporting the helpless infant. The constancy involved in the verbal idea is further seen in the fact that it occurs in the Qal only as a participle. (TWOT, entry 116)

The people’s lack of אמת‎ in Hos 4.1, therefore, could refer to an attitudinal disposition which led to the deterioration or disappearance of a body of religious or ethical knowledge. This body of knowledge is the compendium of religious traditions for spiritual nurture and ethical codes for moral upbringing meant to guide successive generations into becoming mature and dependable members of the community. Hosea is asserting that this filial commitment to maintain the community is absent, so its cherished ethical standards and norms, which could have ensured and sustained the balance of the ecosystem, have been lost in transmission. Read in tandem with v. 3, אמת‎ in v. 1 implies that the inhabitants of the land were expected to provide some sort of constant support for the habitat and its non-human community, in a parent-like manner. These components of nature suffer when אמת‎ is lacking. אמת‎ as “truth” refers both to the act of teaching the norms as well as the actual action in line with the norms. This understanding is opposed to the idea of dominion, which encourages humanity to exploit its habitat destructively without any sense of responsibility for its sustenance.

Ecological implications of the use of חסד‎ in Hosea 4.1

The form חֶסֶד‎ occurs 244 times in BHS, and has been translated in various English versions as kindness, loving-kindness, unfailing kindness, love, unfailing love, grace, ²¹ loyalty, and mercy. It is defined as “obligation to the community in relation to relatives, friends, master and servant” (Holl 2710). חסד‎ has a close connection with covenant in the Hebrew Bible. While covenants are usually ratified by one sort of ceremony or another, חסד‎ always results from the close relationship between parties. Hence, חסד‎ defines the relationship that ensues between covenant parties. This relationship may precede and form the basis of such covenant-making, just as mutual attraction is expected to precede courtship, which culminates in marriage. Once a covenant is consummated and sustained, חסד‎ must ensue, or be perpetuated. Whenever חסד‎ ceases between the parties, the covenant is broken. Hence חסד‎ can be defined as “fidelity to covenant obligations real or implied” (TWOT, entry 698). Considering the ecological tone of the text and the socio-historical context shared with the prophet Isaiah, the phrase “covenant faithfulness” ²² can be considered as an appropriate translation of חסד‎ in Hos 4.1. So far, the closest existing translation in the English versions is “loyalty” (NRSV), and “mutual trust” (NEB; McKeating 1971, 94). This is in spite of Nelson Glueck’s groundbreaking dissertation of 1927 (Glueck 1967). A cognate of this word, also a noun, חָסִיד‎ occurs 32 times in BHS. NIV translated it 15 times as “saints,” 6 times as “faithful,” 4 times as “godly,” 2 times as “loving,” and once each as “consecrated,” “favored,” “holy,” and “merciful.” The noun חָסִיד‎ describes a person who possesses חסד‎.

An objection to the translation of חסד‎ as “covenant faithfulness” in Hos 4.1 is the lack of explicit reference to any covenant within the immediate context. This objection can be answered first by recognizing the covenant framework of the whole book of Hosea, and second by considering a parallel case in Isa 24.5, where an express mention is made of a ברית עולם‎ (everlasting covenant), with no prior explanation within the text. ²³ In both cases, it is evident that there is a tacit knowledge of a covenant of cosmic dimensions eclipsed during the transmission history of the text. An unveiling of this tacit background knowledge is the key to unlock the full meaning of the text, which highlights its ecological nuance.

First, Hosea alludes to the covenant motif by using the marriage metaphor as the literary framework of his message. In 2.18 Hosea expressly prophesies that the LORD will make a covenant “for” his people “with” the beasts of the earth and the fowl of heaven. This clearly portrays an awareness of the possibility and appropriateness of a covenantal relationship between humans and other parts of creation under God. In 6.6-8, the people are accused of breaking an existing covenant with the LORD in a place called Adam (cf. Josh 3.16) where they dealt treacherously with him. ²⁴ This textual unit also associates the neglect of the knowledge of God (6.5) with the breaking of covenant (6.7) and bloodshed (6.8). Moreover, 8.1-2 also accuses Israel of breaking the covenant with the LORD, and associates this also with the concept of the knowledge of God.

Second, an appeal to Isaiah is justified due to the fact that Hosea shares a great deal of the same sociocultural context with Isaiah; hence the audience would also share the same worldview and cosmological orientation. This is in spite of the fact that Isaiah’s ministry is based in the southern kingdom while that of Hosea’s is based in the north. It can be argued that the key theological term in Isa 24.5 is ברית עולם‎. A text-critical analysis suggests that it was expanded sometime in the history of transmission with the addition of two explanatory phrases, עָבְרוּ תוֹרוֹת חָלְפוּ חֹק‎ (they have transgressed the laws, they have changed the ordinances). These two glosses may have become necessary at a stage in the text’s transmission when the phrase ברית עולם‎ was becoming ambiguous or unfamiliar. The arising ambiguity may be due to fresh emergence of new concepts of covenant, or more probably, confusion with other existing concepts of covenant. The phrase עָבְרוּ תוֹרוֹת חָלְפוּ חֹק‎ in Isa 24.5 conveys the same notion as the word פרץ‎ (break bounds) in Hos 4.2. In Isa 24.5, ברית עולם‎ denotes an already existing and fully consummated covenant that the people broke by their actions, resulting in curses that now devour the earth (the habitat) in Isa 24.6, and make the land mourn in Isa 24.4, just as the lack of covenant faithfulness in Hos 4.1 makes the land mourn in Hos 4.3.

In summary, the transmission history and tradition-critical analysis of Isa 24.5 within its immediate literary context strongly suggest that there was a tacit knowledge of a sort of cosmic covenant among the people to whom Isaiah and Hosea addressed their message, but at some period, as is reflected by the addition of qualifying glosses to the text of Isa 24.5, this knowledge was dying out. If Hosea and Isaiah were contemporaries, as indicated by the biographic introductions in Isa 1.1 and Hos 1.1, it could be argued that Hosea expects his audience to be aware of the existence of a “cosmic covenant,” and does not see the need to give an elaborate explanation of it. This contextual background justifies translating חסד‎ in this context as “covenant faithfulness.” The accusation of lack of covenant faithfulness could also point to the failure of the people to preserve the cosmic covenant. Their failure to preserve it may have caused it to be forgotten in subsequent generations.

Ecological implications of the use of דעת אלהים‎ in Hosea 4.1

The idea that דעת אלהים‎ should lead to responsible behaviour in relation to the ecosystem appears as a fundamental assumption in Hosea and several other biblical texts. In Ps 19.1-4 and Rom 1.18-23, the knowledge of God is evident in the contemplation of the works of nature. Psalm 19.1-4 posits that nature provides a universal source for the knowledge of God, and based on this universally available source of the knowledge of God, Rom 1.18-23 suggests that no person can be excused from knowing God. Isaiah 11.1-9 eschatologically suggests that when there is knowledge of God, there will be ecological peace and harmony such that “the calf and the lion can lie down together.”

The knowledge of God, however, is not mere intellectual knowledge. It goes deeper than mere cognition. It denotes knowledge gained through interpersonal experience. This interpersonal experience extends beyond the individual level, but is also cumulative, communal, and cosmic. It is cumulative and cosmic because it is transmitted to the fathers for preservation and onward transmission to the next generation. The next generation, in the light of received tradition, also enjoys further revelation as they encounter the divine afresh through daily providence in the sustenance of the cosmos. The experience is communal because it builds up progressively into a lore of socio-religious traditions practiced within an interdependent relationship among individual members of the human community on the one hand, and their individual and collective interaction with the land and other non-human inhabitants on the other. Important aspects of this lore are entrusted to the priesthood, whose representatives should teach the people. Hence Mal 2.7, “For the priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.” ²⁵ The tone of Mal 2.7 does not presuppose that these laws were limited to those in the body of law given at Sinai. It refers to something more profound, though it does not exclude the Mosaic law. The indictment of Christian biblical interpretation and eschatological doctrine that legitimize human exploitation and abuse of the earth-habitat is therefore a very crucial one in the light of Hos 4.1-6.

Christian religious tradition is expected to be in continuum with that of Old Testament Israel, whose scriptural texts form the basis of the Christian doctrine and practice. In Christ, there is a renewal of the cosmic covenant (Walker 2006), with a fresh revelation to the new community of faith, which consists in an innate knowledge of God imparted by the inner experience engendered by the indwelling Spirit of God (Ezek 36.26-27; Jer 31.31-34). The apostle Paul proposes that no one can claim to belong to Christ if they do not possess this Spirit (Rom 8.9). The Johannine writings of the New Testament posit that eternal life, which is imparted to the Christian by the indwelling Spirit of God, is equivalent to the knowledge of God. “And this is life eternal, that they might know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent” (John 17.3). If the “knowledge of God” in Hos 4.1-6 includes an innate consciousness of a right relationship with and in the ecosystem as a constituent part of God’s whole creation, then the Johannine logic of an eschatological destruction of “those who destroy the earth” in Rev 11.8 is consistent with the polemic of Hos 4.4-6. Bandy (2011, 178–205) has argued convincingly that the Apocalypse of John also employed the covenant lawsuit genre, just as Hosea did.

The ecological dimension of the controversy in Hos 4.1-3

The message of Hos 4.1-6 can be deciphered in the light of its ecological worldview by analysing the nature of the two-tier controversy around which the text is woven. The first controversy is between the LORD and the inhabitants of the land, in vv. 1-3. The second is the controversy between the LORD and the priest in vv. 4-6.

In the first controversy, charges are levelled against “the inhabitants of the land,” Israelites and non-Israelites. They do not possess any filial concern towards maintaining the social and ecological stability of the community. They do not possess the virtue and integrity described as covenant faithfulness towards the laws of nature. They have been oblivious to the ethical norms that govern human society, and the stipulations of the covenant that gave Israel its distinctiveness as a theocratic community. They do not retain the knowledge of God, which was the unique heritage bequeathed to them through generations of experiential relationship with God. Because of these intellectual and moral failings, they commit various atrocities which include swearing, lying, killing, stealing, and adultery. These actions were expressly forbidden in the ethical Decalogue, which forms the core of the stipulations of the Sinai covenant.

The accusation climaxes in the phrase “they continually break all bounds,” meaning that they have transgressed all natural laws including those that ensure the ecological balance and a sustainable habitat. This, among numerous other possibilities, would include actions such as over-cultivation of the land by neglecting the law of the seventh year (Exod 23.10-11); the destruction of indigenous animal and plant species by contravening the stipulations for preservation of species (Deut 22.6-9); unrestrained genetic manipulation of plant and animals for selfish gain contrary to the anti-genetic manipulation law of the Holiness Code (Lev 19.19); the spread of strange diseases through bestiality, and similar practices prohibited by the anti-bestiality law of the Covenant Code (Exo 22.19). The consequence is the inevitable principle of cause and effect, clearly expressed in Hos 4.3. The whole ecosystem suffers, the land “mourns.”

A very good example of this in the recent past is the dust-bowl experience in the American and Canadian prairies during the 1930s, which was a result of over-cropping and disregard for the dynamics of the natural environment. It is very important that even though the non-human inhabitants of the land also suffer in v. 3, they are not the subject of the controversy, neither are they summoned to the hearing. They are simply victims of the irresponsible behaviour of the human inhabitants. This is so because animals are “amoral.” It is human beings that possessed the “breath of God” at creation which makes them capable of the “knowledge of God,” and thus responsible stewards, who are held accountable for the maintenance of the habitat.

The ecological dimension of the controversy in Hos 4.4-6

The term “priest” in this section has a double application. It applies first to the priests as the leaders of the Israelite theocratic community, who should teach their nation the ways of God, maintain societal and ecological justice, and reprove transgressors. This position is buttressed by the immediately following verses. Hosea 4.8, for instance, indicates that the priests prefer to enrich themselves with the sin offerings of the people rather than rebuke them for their sins and teach them the right ways with God.

Second, Israel as a nation can be called priest because of the nation’s corporate experiential knowledge of the dealings of the LORD with them in the practical context of their ecological habitat, right from Egypt, in the wilderness, at Mount Sinai, up to the final settlement in the promised land and beyond, as a cumulative addition to what must have been passed down to them from the patriarchs (including perhaps, the stipulations of the everlasting cosmic covenant that had conjecturally been preserved from Adam through Noah to the patriarchs). They were expected to be a kingdom of priests unto the LORD, through whom the knowledge of God would be spread to all the earth (Exod 19.5-6).

This is where the global dimension of the ecological concept underlying Hosea’s worldview comes to the fore. The “inhabitants of the land” are mentioned in Hos 4.1 as a distinct category, while the “children of Israel” form another category. Another way to translate “inhabitants of the land” would be “dwellers on earth.” But both the priests and the Israelite nation as a whole are restricted from blaming or rebuking the “inhabitants of the land.” “Yet let no man strive, nor reprove another.” They are equally guilty. The distinction between the priest and the people exists only because of the possession of the knowledge of God and the ability to dispense divine justice and perpetuate the knowledge of God in the land, which is the common habitat for all, and the means of sustenance of all its inhabitants. Hence the loss of trust leads to the loss of privilege.

The “children” mentioned in v. 6 symbolize perpetuity and continuance. Since the heritage of the priesthood has been disregarded by the parents, the privilege of the priesthood cannot be bequeathed to the children. Once humanity loses the intuition and the knowledge of the principles that ensure the sustenance of the earth as a human habitat and the ecological system as the means of sustaining human productivity and well-being, the next generation will ultimately exhaust the abundance of the earth, which the Creator has provided for the overall well-being of all creatures, and ultimately ruin itself and the habitat.

Conclusion

This brief exercise has attempted a reconstruction of the Hebrew text of Hos 4.1-6 making use of the available resources in BHS. A significant emendation was effected in the second verse: פֶּרֶץ פָּרָצוּ‎ (they break all bounds) replaced the single word פָּרָצוּ‎ (they break forth). A suspected textual corruption in L, reading וְעִמְּךָ כִּמְרִיבֵי כֹהֵן‎ “for thy people are as they that strive with the priest,” was emended to וְעִמְּךָ רִיבִי הַכֹּהֵן‎ “for with you I have a controversy, O priest,” upholding the option adopted by NLT, RSV, and NRSV.

The semantic range of meanings of the keyterms אמת, חסד‎, and דעת אלהים‎ in their various English translations was examined, and applied to an ecologically sensitive interpretation. Consequently, “covenant faithfulness” was recommended as the most appropriate translation of חסד‎. Hosea 4.1-6, read in tandem with other texts like Hos 2.18; Isa 24.1-6; Ps 19; and Rom 1.18-26; 8.19-23, confirms that human relationship in and with its habitat is conceptualized in covenant terms in ancient Israel. The terms אמת‎, חסד‎, and דעת אלהים‎ were used with this conceptual framework in mind.

The word אמת‎, translated as “truth” in English, denotes not only speaking the truth to one another, but possessing true knowledge of matters of existential importance, and acting in filial concern with the rest of creation. Truth is beyond what is philosophically or philologically straightforward, but involves acting in agreement with the immutable principles of existence, which inevitably require every human action to be nature-compliant. Hence, to desire a clean environment for personal well-being and yet pollute the waters with toxic waste is to be inconsistent with truth.

The term חסד‎ implies covenant faithfulness, and means that humans are naturally in a covenant relationship with the rest of creation by virtue of being formed from the same matter (earth) as the rest of creation. The covenant is not artificial or formal, but a naturally ensuing one. It is a covenant with the human race, inherited in perpetuity ever since Adam. The obligation of the covenant on the human side can be summed up with the word חסד‎, with its nuances of goodness, mercy, kindness, loving-kindness, or unfailing kindness. To deny any aspect of the rest of creation its rightful privileges through any form of exploitation is to break the covenant, and suffer the consequences. To act in an unfair manner towards animals for the sake of personal gain, as is most common in contemporary agribusiness, is to break the covenant, and both humans and the rest of nature will suffer the consequences.

In the context of this covenant framework, דעת אלהים‎ translated as “knowledge of God” is not limited to a cognitive body of philosophical knowledge. It also denotes an experiential knowledge of God in relation to his work of creation. A possession of דעת אלהים‎ is a prerequisite for the office of priest. The duties of the priesthood consist in the preservation, perpetuation, and propagation of the knowledge of God.

Followers of Christ, as priests (Rev 1.6) under Jesus Christ the high priest (Heb 4.14, etc.), have a responsibility to seek the knowledge of God and his purpose for the whole of creation, and to disseminate as well as effectuate this knowledge in practical living in collaboration with other members of the earth community. Failure in this duty invites the common consequence of annihilation of both the Christian and other human and non-human inhabitants from the earth-habitat.