English Standard Version
You have plowed iniquity; you have reaped injustice; you have eaten the fruit of lies. Because you have trusted in your own way and in the multitude of your warriors,
King James Bible
Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity; ye have eaten the fruit of lies: because thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men.
American Standard Version
Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity; ye have eaten the fruit of lies; for thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men.
You have ploughed wickedness, you have reaped iniquity, you have eaten the fruit of lying: because thou hast trusted in thy ways, in the multitude of thy strong ones.
English Revised Version
Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity; ye have eaten the fruit of lies: for thou didst trust in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men.
Webster's Bible Translation
Ye have plowed wickedness, ye have reaped iniquity; ye have eaten the fruit of lies: because thou hast trusted in thy way, in the multitude of thy mighty men.
Hosea 10:13 Parallel
CommentaryKeil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament
Daniel heard his answer, but he understood it not. To שׁמעתּי, as to אבין לא, the object is wanting, because it can easily be supplied from the connection, namely, the meaning of the answer of the man clothed in linen. Grotius has incorrectly supplied quid futurum esset from the following question, in which he has also incorrectly rendered אלּה אחרית by post illiu triennii et temporis semestris spatium. Hvernick has also defined the object too narrowly, for he has referred the non-understanding merely to the mysterious number (a time, two times, etc.). It was, besides, not merely the double designation of time in Daniel 12:7 which first at the hour of his receiving it, but while it was yet unintelligible to the hearer, compelled Daniel, as Hitzig thinks, to put the further question. The whole answer in Daniel 12:7 is obscure. It gives no measure for the "times," and thus no intelligible disclosure for the prophet regarding the duration of the end, and in the definition, that at the time of the deepest humiliaton of the people the end shall come, leaves wholly undefined when this shall actually take place.
(Note: As to this latter circumstance L'Empereur remarks: Licet Daniel ex antecedentibus certo tempus finiendarum gravissimarum calamitatum cognoverit, tamen illum latuit, quo temporis articulo calamitas inceptura esset: quod ignorantiam quandam in tota prophetia peperit, cum a priori termino posterioris exacta scientia dependeret. Initium quidem variis circumstantiis definitum fuerat: sed quando circumstantiae futurae essent, antequam evenirent, ignorabatur.)
Hence his desire for a more particular disclosure.
The question, "what the end of these?" is very differently interpreted. Following the example of Grotius, Kliefoth takes אחרית in the sense of that which follows something which is either clearly seen from the connection or is expressly stated, and explains אלּה אחרית of that which follows or comes after this. But אלּה is not, with most interpreters, to be taken as identical with כּל־אלּה of Daniel 12:7; for since "this latter phrase includes all the things prophesied of down to the consummation, then would this question refer to what must come after the absolute consummation of all things, which would be meaningless." Besides, the answer, Daniel 12:11, Daniel 12:12, which relates to the things of Antiochus, would not harmonize with such a question. Much more are we, with Auberlen (p. 75f.), to understand אלּה of the present things and circumstances, things then in progress at the time of Daniel and the going forth of the prophecy. In support of this interpretation Auberlen adds, "The angel with heavenly eye sees into the far distant end of all; the prophet, with human sympathies, regards the more immediate future of his people." But however correct the remark, that אלּה is not identical with כּל־אלּה, this not identical with all this, there is no warrant for the conclusion drawn from it, that אלּה designates the present things and circumstances existing under Antiochus at the time of Daniel. אלּה must, by virtue of the connection in Daniel 12:7, Daniel 12:8, be understood of the same things and circumstances, and a distinction between the two is established only by כּל. If we consider this distinction, then the question, What is the last of these things? contains not the meaningless thought, that yet something must follow after the absolute consummation, but the altogether reasonable thought, Which shall be the last of the פּלאות prophesied of? Thus Daniel could ask in the hope of receiving an answer from which he might learn the end of all these פּלאות more distinctly than from the answer given by the angel in Daniel 12:7. But as this reference of אלּה to the present things and circumstances is excluded by the connection, so also is the signification attributed to אחרית, of that which follows something, verbally inadmissible; see under Daniel 8:19.
Most other interpreters have taken אחרית as synonymous with קץ, which Hvernick seeks to establish by a reference to Daniel 8:19, Daniel 8:23, and Deuteronomy 11:12. But none of these passage establishes this identity. קץ is always thus distinguished from אחרית, that it denotes a matter after its conclusion, while אחרית denotes the last or the uttermost of the matter. A distinction which, it is true, may in many cases become irrelevant. For if this distinction is not noticed here, we would be under the necessity, in order to maintain that the two questions in Daniel 12:6, Daniel 12:8 are not altogether identical, of giving to מה the meaning qualis (Maurer), of what nature (Hofmann, v. Lengerke, and others); a meaning which it has not, and which does not accord with the literal idea of אחרית. "Not how? but what? is the question; מה is not the predicate, but the subject, the thing inquired about." Thus Hitzig, who is altogether correct in thus stating the question: "What, i.e., which even its the uttermost, the last of the פּלאות, which stands before the end?"
Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap.
For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
As I have seen, those who plow iniquity and sow trouble reap the same.
The king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength.
From the fruit of his mouth a man eats what is good, but the desire of the treacherous is for violence.
Death and life are in the power of the tongue, and those who love it will eat its fruits.
Whoever sows injustice will reap calamity, and the rod of his fury will fail.
Jump to PreviousAbundance Chariots Confide Deceit Deception Depended Eaten Evil Faith Food Fruit Iniquity Injustice Lies Mighty Multitude Numerous Perversity Planted Ploughed Ploughing Plowed Reaped Sin Store Strength Trust Trusted War Warriors Way Wickedness
Jump to NextAbundance Chariots Confide Deceit Deception Depended Eaten Evil Faith Food Fruit Iniquity Injustice Lies Mighty Multitude Numerous Perversity Planted Ploughed Ploughing Plowed Reaped Sin Store Strength Trust Trusted War Warriors Way Wickedness
LinksHosea 10:13 NIV
Hosea 10:13 NLT
Hosea 10:13 ESV
Hosea 10:13 NASB
Hosea 10:13 KJV
Hosea 10:13 Bible Apps
Hosea 10:13 Biblia Paralela
Hosea 10:13 Chinese Bible
Hosea 10:13 French Bible
Hosea 10:13 German Bible
ESV Text Edition: 2016. The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers.