Hosea 4:1–19

Original Meaning

God Has a Covenant Lawsuit Against His People (4:1–3)

HOSEA BEGINS BY calling the Israelites to attention (4:1a), announcing that God has a covenant lawsuit against his people (4:1b), and revealing the reasons for this dispute (4:1c). His complaint is that the people exhibit no true faithfulness to him, no steadfast covenant love toward him or others, and no acknowledgment of him as their divine overlord. These three elements have disrupted God’s relationship with his covenant people.

The quality of “faithfulness” (ʾ ^emet) or truth describes a firmness in the people’s commitment (their yes cannot be a half-hearted or unresolved decision), a reliability in their responsibilities (they do not waver back and forth, but have integrity), and an honesty about what they say (there is no deception, but the people have made a lasting choice).5 People who have this quality will be true and faithful to what they know and will give themselves to it completely. If the Israelites are untrustworthy, uncommitted, deceptive, and undecided about their devotion to God, how can God maintain a relationship with them?

The quality of “steadfast covenant love” (ḥesed) demonstrates a loving and compassionate attitude devoted to maintaining an existing relationship. Such people keep their obligations to their partners based on their care for them. They are loyal to the relationship, for ḥesed “is the ‘essence’ of the covenantal relationship.”6 They express their emotional heart connection to the one they love both by their actions and their words. Their love is deep and consistent. If the Israelites do not maintain a love relationship with God, how can their covenant relationship continue in any kind of meaningful way?

The concept of “knowing God” has both an objective aspect (truthful information about who he is) and a subjective aspect (a personal relationship with God that acknowledges him as the sovereign power over one’s life and excludes any acknowledgment of Baal as deity).7 This characteristic is especially important because some of the people were worshiping multiple gods and confusing God with Baal (2:16). They have not made the effort to really know God. Part of the reason for this ignorance and confusion was the general acceptance of Canaanite religious beliefs in Israelite culture, plus a lack of clear priestly teaching about God from the Torah (4:6).

Proof of this sad state of affairs is based on what the people are actually doing (Hos. 4:2). They are breaking their covenant with God by doing what was prohibited in the Ten Commandments (Ex. 20:2–17), which summarize the covenant requirements. The people curse (take God’s name in vain), lie, murder, steal, commit adultery, and break all the boundaries laid out to regulate their covenant relationship with God. Some may be surprised that Hosea brings up these types of issues rather than the worship of false gods, but to Hosea the prophet, religious faith and social action are mirrors of one another. One can argue all day about whether a person really believes or loves God; it is easier to decide the issue without argument by simply pointing to the way God’s people are living. Faith and love are revealed by behavior.

This breakdown of covenant relationship results in the cursing of Israel’s land, just as the covenant predicted (Hos. 4:3; see Lev. 26; Deut. 28). The sign of this curse is the disappearance of vegetation, animals, birds, and even the fish. Hosea does not say whether this will happen through a drought, a military invasion, or a combination of these factors. What is important is that morality has an effect on the economic and political status of the nation. God has inserted into the fabric of covenantal theology a reciprocal relationship between loving or obeying God and blessing the land, and between unfaithfulness and cursing the land. Hosea warns that all who live on the land will feel the consequences of their sins.

Bridging Contexts

THE MAJOR PROBLEM in bringing the ideas in Hosea 4 to people in the church today is the fact that people are not involved with anything similar to the Baal religion of Hosea’s day. Thus, we must look beyond the idols and specific sexual aspects of the cultural representation of religion in Canaan to the broader and deeper problems destroying God’s relationship to his people. As we have previously suggested, it is better to compare Baalism to the popular religious culture of our day rather than any specific set of beliefs or worship experiences. In that way every generation can ask: Have we so synthesized the popular religious ideas of our day into our faith that it has lost its true character?

Jesus himself called the religious people of his day “a wicked and adulterous generation” (Matt. 12:39; 16:4; Mark 8:38) because the people had prostituted their faith in God for something foreign to real faith. James warns his hearers about the dangers of syncretizing their faith with the culture of the day when he writes, “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God?” (James 4:4). Paul also warned the Corinthian believers about accepting the beliefs and standards of their culture. If they were members of the body of Christ, this would be the same as prostitution (1 Cor. 6:15–17).16 Certainly the church today is threatened by this danger as much as the people in the Old and New Testaments. The real problem may be that we are as blind to our prostitution of the faith as the Israelites of Hosea’s day and the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.

The essentials of a relationship with God. The initial announcement of God’s case against Israel (Hos. 4:1–3) provides three criteria to evaluate the nature of the people’s relationship to God. (1) We must look at the present characteristics of our beliefs and behaviors. If there is no faithfulness or truth to our relationship with God, if there is no steadfast covenant love for God and other people, and if there is no acknowledgment of God as Lord, then no positive reciprocal relationship with God can exist (4:1). We can claim many things when we talk, attempt to do many things for God to earn his favor, and be sincere (see Matt. 7:21–23), but without these fundamental principles working in our lives, there is no way to please God.

(2) If our lives are characterized by actions that run contrary to God’s will (murder, stealing, lying, violence, and adultery are forbidden in the covenant documents in Ex. 20), one can legitimately conclude that we do not have a right relationship with God (Hos. 4:2). Such actions are a spiritual barometer of our true inner commitment to love and serve God.

(3) If the land where we live is continually suffering under the curse of no fertility, then perhaps we are not enjoying the blessings of a positive relationship with God.

As a point of caution, the critic who uses these criteria must be careful about misusing them for evaluating our true relationship with God, for no one wants to make the mistakes of Job’s comforters. Nevertheless, Jesus, Paul, and James did use some of these ideas to critique and warn people about the dangers of internalizing too much of the deceptive thinking and sinful framework of the dominant culture of the day.

The centrality of the Word of God for spiritual leaders. When a people fail to follow God, it is always instructive to ask why. What did they do to displease God? Why did they miss the mark of doing what God requires? How can we learn from this incident so that we do not make the same mistakes (1 Cor. 10:11)?

In Hos. 4:4–10 Hosea explains one of the main reasons why the people in Israel were rejected by God. It was fundamentally a problem of not knowing God as their covenant Lord. If one were to ask why this had happened, the answer is clear. Israel’s problem arose because the priests (and to some extent the prophets) were not teaching God’s words of wisdom from the Torah (the five books of Moses). Although this might not be the reason for God’s rejection of every group of people throughout history (some know God’s words but do not follow them), several basic principles are established that serve as a warning to all spiritual leaders.

Of all the roles a pastor or any other spiritual leader has, the undergirding role is to help people know God (4:6). Israel’s experience demonstrates that any acknowledgment of God as Lord is nearly impossible if spiritual leaders ignore God’s revelation in the Bible. A leader will then tend to substitute some other “good” human cause that is culturally attractive but not nearly as important as the glorification of God (4:7). Jesus knew that the giving of charity and praying to God were “good” things, but he condemned the Pharisees who did not exhibit the more important characteristic of righteousness (Matt. 6:1–7). Eventually these “small” things lead to a perversion that destroys the true faith and involves people in things that God rejects (Hos. 4:10).

The powerfully persuasive warning throughout 4:4–10 is that God will destroy those teachers and preachers who reject him and lead his people astray. God’s disapproval of false prophets who give dreams and false messages in his name is reported in Jeremiah 5:12–13; 14:14–15; 23:9–40. Jesus condemns the hypocritical Jewish teachers of his day in Matthew 23, and James warns about the serious responsibility of teachers (James 3:1). As Proverbs 29:18 says, where there is no revelation from God, the people perish.

The perversion of worship. The results of bad teaching nearly always show up in the way people worship God (Hos. 4:11–14). If God is not presented as Redeemer, no one will come to him for forgiveness. If God is not seen as the Sovereign King of the universe, people will not honor and revere him as divine Lord, but will treat him as a casual buddy. If no one knows what God hates and is ignorant of what pleases him, it is not surprising if people do things that are contrary to his revealed will.

When people do not know God, they tend to do whatever seems culturally or socially acceptable. In Hosea’s day that meant following the socially acceptable practices at the Baal temples. How could people go so wrong as to accept excessive drinking, idol worship, prostitution, and sacrifices to gods other than Israel’s God? The simple explanation is that everyone around them was doing it; it was the cultural norm. If this principle is carried over to worship in churches today, the question we should be asking is: To what extent have our cultural norms determined what we do at church? What music, activities, messages, and methods do we use that do not glorify God but are done anyway since they seem so right?

Of course, not all modern cultural innovations are wrong, only those that lead people astray and involve acts of unfaithfulness to God (4:12). Twice Hosea condemns anything that “takes away the understanding” (4:11, 14). One should be suspicious of consulting anything or anyone other than God for divine wisdom (4:12) and of anything involving sexual impurity (4:13–14). Most people can spot an abusive cultic leader who demands absolute control over his followers so that he can indoctrinate them in his version of the truth,17 but it is far more difficult to perceive the small ways in which many “respectable” groups accept the cultural values of our day and ignore what God’s Word says. These perversions eventually have an impact on the nature of people’s conception of God and their worship of him week by week.

Dealing with stubborn rebellion. The final paragraph (4:15–19) warns what can happen to any person or group who rejects God. Once a sinful perception of reality is viewed as normative and acceptable, it is difficult to bring about change. Stubborn persistence based on what people believe to be the truth can so blind our eyes that it is almost impossible to see the light. If my parents did it this way, if this is denominational policy, if this is what makes me comfortable, if this is something I think is okay, then it is hard to conceive of this action as a bad thing that God hates. When these perspectives become the keys to judging the normativity of anything, one has already lost the battle. It becomes a waste of time to lead people in a different way, for there is no ultimate authority (4:16).

The frightening fact is that some people can become so drawn into false religious beliefs that God seems to give up on them (cf. 4:17 with Rom. 1:18–32). In such cases about all one can do is to warn other individuals about not being involved with these sorts of people (Hos. 4:15) and to encourage friends to stay away from the places of deception. Eventually a time may come where thoroughly deceived people must be left to their perverse ways until the shame of their ways finally catches up to them (4:18–19).

Contemporary Significance

A DRAMATIC METHOD of presentation. Part of the process of transforming people’s lives is getting them to pay attention to what is being said. If the same old thing is said Sunday after Sunday, people drift off and daydream through the sermon. Sometimes a teacher/preacher must dare to do the unusual in order to wake people up and get them to understand the seriousness of God’s unhappiness with them.

Hosea does this in 4:1–14 with the covenant lawsuit. He takes the chance to describe God’s hatred of the people’s sin in a new and potentially offensive way. But he cares little about those who may think he is a fool for doing this (9:7), since he is more concerned with communicating God’s thoughts in a manner that the people will clearly understand. This raises the question: Should a person present a similar lawsuit against the church today?

Although not every church will be comfortable with hearing God’s covenant lawsuit against them, the purest way to apply Hosea’s method of teaching in this passage is to dramatize a comparable modern court case.18 The most dramatic kind of presentation would be a complete courtroom reenactment with props and a small cast. One could replace the pulpit with a judge’s bench and have a jury sitting in the choir loft. A prosecuting attorney would point out the failures of your church (attendance declines, fewer baptisms, difficulty of finding Sunday school teachers, cancellation of Wednesday prayer meetings, fewer people converted, etc.) and show how this has led to a decline in morality within the culture (more violence, adultery, stealing [cf. 4:2]).

The prosecutor would raise questions about the motives underlying this degeneration of morality. Perhaps people do not demonstrate a life of faithfulness to God that is reliable and firm in its commitment (cf. 4:1), or perhaps they have a deceptive commitment that goes hot and cold. Some may have a deeper commitment to their business or to sports events of their kids on Sunday. Are the people characterized by steadfast devotion to God (4:1) and their fellow human beings? What signs of steadfast love for God can be illustrated from the community? Is there a personal knowledge of God evident in people’s lives, or do people have a one-sided and incomplete conception of the glory and majesty of Almighty God?

One could go on to raise questions about what or who is to blame for these problems, but in the end the spiritual leaders of the church must bear some responsibility. Following the example of Hosea 5–6, one could end the court proceedings with some sort of verdict (5:1–14), plus offer divine compassion on those who repent and truly seek God (5:15–6:3). Although this type of lesson or sermon may not be any more appreciated in the average church today than it was when Hosea first gave it, it would be a powerful mechanism of persuading people that God is deadly serious about his relationship with his people.

A dramatic assessment of responsibility. The blame for Israel’s spiritual decline is put at the feet of her spiritual leaders, specifically her priests, although the prophets are also mentioned (4:4–10). It is always dangerous to generalize or oversimplify the complexities of life, but the failure of spiritual leadership is one of the top reasons why people in the church fail to acknowledge God, to have a steadfast devotion for God, and to be faithful and true to him (4:1).

Most pastors I talk to recognize the importance of good spiritual leadership in the church, but usually they do not feel they are responsible for the failure they see around them. Of course, God holds each person responsible for his or her own sins, but the Bible also puts accountability on the shoulders of spiritual leaders. The biblical prophets frequently condemn the false prophets and priests who think first of their own financial gain (Mic. 3:5–7, 9–11), and they criticize both priests and prophets who lead the people astray (Jer. 8:10–12; 23:9–40; Ezek. 13; Mal. 1:6–2:9).

Paul warned the church at Ephesus to beware of wicked leaders who would come from within and outside the church to destroy the flock by distorting the truth of God’s Word (Acts 20:25–31). He urged Timothy to command certain men in Ephesus “not to teach false doctrines any longer nor to devote themselves to myths” (1 Tim. 1:3–4) because they promoted controversies and perverted the truth. J. MacArthur claims that “often a church that is failing to impact the world or that is experiencing strife and conflict among its members looks to new programming or other peripheral areas for answers, when the real problem may be that its leaders are spiritually unqualified for the task.”19 A question that every church should ask is: Do we have spiritual leaders who are qualified to lead us to know God and his will for our lives?

Although different pastoral roles involve different spiritual gifts and practical skills (i.e., a minister of music must have musical abilities), there are some fundamental requirements of all spiritual leaders. The key characteristic that Hosea pinpoints is the ability to communicate the Word of God (Hos. 4:6). The spiritual leaders of his day were ignoring the law, even rejecting the knowledge of God that was found in their Scriptures (the Torah). In this way they “deserted the LORD” (4:10) to give themselves to other shameful deeds that led the nation further into sin.

Is this a problem today? Probably every pastor or church member can point to some other church in their town and say that they do not preach the gospel there. We usually perceive that we are doing fairly well ourselves—better than most churches, though with room for improvement. G. Barna’s survey of 1,033 pastors found some claiming that the church was doing “tremendous, highly effective work” while others felt that the church was “failing miserably at every turn.”20 In another portion of this survey 85 percent of these pastors rated their knowledge of Scripture as superior.21 But how dependable are these statistics, and what do they tell us about the theological message being taught in most churches?

While it is natural for people to make things look a little better than reality in any self-reporting survey, the major unknown in Barna’s survey is the nature of what these pastors were preaching. I would like to know how many of these pastors preached from Amos, Hosea, or Micah in the last year. Are these people really preaching the whole counsel of God, or are they ignoring part of it? My own surveys of seminary students indicate that vast portions of the Bible are not being preached in many churches. How different is this from Hosea’s accusation that the spiritual leaders of his day were “rejecting knowledge” and “ignoring the law of God”(Hos. 4:6)?

Moreover, J. Hunter’s study of the beliefs within evangelicalism demonstrates that the theological understanding of evangelical college and seminary students has shifted from some traditional positions, and these shifts are no doubt partially based on what these students heard from their pastor and teachers.22 One can only wonder what these graduates are now teaching others as pastors throughout the world.

How will God react to spiritual leaders today who reject his revelation? Hosea is clear. They and their families will stumble, be destroyed, be rejected, be repaid for their deeds, and not have enough to eat. God’s accountability is in direct relationship to the sins committed. These failures are not forgotten or ignored, because spiritual leaders in every age lead people either to glorify God or to act in a disgraceful way that does not glorify God (4:7). God’s rejection of the spiritual leaders today will be in direct relationship to their rejection of him and his Word.

As Ezekiel heard about his role as a watchman (Ezek. 3:17–21), he came to understand that God would require the blood of the wicked from him, if he did not warn them when God spoke. As messengers of God’s Word, we dare not ignore what he says and allow our people to be destroyed because we are not communicating the knowledge God has revealed in Scripture. God cannot and will not reward those who fail to warn his people today. If he was willing to bring a curse on those spiritual leaders who were leading others astray in the Old Testament, and if Jesus condemned the hypocritical Pharisaic leaders of the New Testament, there is every reason to believe a similar fate awaits those who fail to teach God’s Word in the church.

What kind of worship is unacceptable to God? Hosea describes a syncretistic kind of worship that was full of the culturally accepted practices common in Canaanite temples (Hos. 4:11–14). Missionaries in some parts of the world will find a direct analogy with the idol worship that Hosea describes. But the points of application for most modern audiences must relate to the modern philosophies and cultural practices that the church has allowed to creep into the fabric of its theology and worship services. Some may point their finger at the upbeat choruses that many churches sing or the use of translations other than the old King James Version as signs of negative cultural influences on the church. Others may point to the decline in expository preaching and the increase of drama, especially in seeker-sensitive services.

It is difficult to say exactly what parallels Hosea’s list of problems, but 4:11 seems to condemn anything that takes away the people’s understanding of their relationship with God, 4:12a argues against looking to anything or anyone else than God for spiritual direction, and 4:12b forbids anything that leads to unfaithfulness to God. This even includes doing the right thing in the wrong way or at the wrong place (e.g., sacrifices, 4:13). Hosea also condemns any kind of sexually inappropriate behavior in 4:13–14.

Insofar as Hosea is calling Israel to evaluate the theological and cultural impact of Canaanite religious philosophy on Israelite worship, we too should call the church to be concerned about the influence of modern philosophical movements on our theology and worship. Although one could critique the New Age movement or existentialism, I will comment on a less recognized and more prevalent philosophical movement called pragmatism, an approach championed by W. James.23 It focuses on what works or is useful, not on what is right or wrong. There are no absolutes, just ideas, explanations, or actions that have practical value.24

In many ways it makes sense to do what is practical and what works; after all, everyone wants to be pragmatic. But J. Piper says that the “recent lamentations over the drift of evangelicalism into pragmatism, doctrinally vague, audience-driven, culturally uncritical Christianity are, in my judgment, warranted and needed.”25 A. Fernando, a Youth for Christ leader in Sri Lanka, also has noticed that

a major shift . . . has taken place in western evangelicalism where truth has been replaced by pragmatism . . . many evangelical leaders are so caught up in and blinded by this bondage to pragmatism that even though they may heartily endorse pleas to return to greater dependence on truth, endorsements make minimal inroads into their ministry styles and strategies.26

Scripture indicates that God does not do things just for their pragmatic value. Pragmatism cannot lead one to the truth, and it is a flawed method of discovering God’s will.27 Should we make changes in the church simply because people like it and it brings more in? Should we preach a pop-psychology message that touches people where they itch or employ popular marketing techniques because they get more people in the front door? Do leaders in the church make decisions on the basis of biblical doctrine or on the basis of what works the best?

Although things that work are not necessarily bad, utilitarianism is not a key biblical principle that helps people determine God’s will. Any change that is motivated simply by what works puts biblical teachings, right and wrong, and following his will as secondary factors. Was it pragmatic for Jeremiah to preach the destruction of Jerusalem and get beaten and thrown in jail (Jer. 20:1–2; 37–38)? Was it pragmatism that drove Jesus to oppose the popular behavior of the Pharisees? Was John the Baptizer thinking in these terms when he declared that he must decrease while Jesus and his followers must increase? Was Paul thinking about what was practical or popular when he confronted the Corinthians about not taking a brother to court (1 Cor. 6:1–9) or their misuse of the Lord’s Supper (11:17–34)?

Part of the problem of the church is that it has a “success” orientation borrowed from secular culture. Good is big, popular, exciting, growing, innovative, and on the cutting edge. For some, success is more power, more prestige, more money, and more popularity. But where does it say in the Bible that big is better, or that more is always what one should strive for? Note that Elijah and the seven thousand who had not bowed to Baal formed a minority in Israel (1 Kings 19). Success is doing the will of God, being faithful in what he has sent you to do, and committing yourself to glorify God rather than promoting yourself and your own agendas.

Is pragmatism any more pleasing to God than Baalism with its sexual prostitution? Both replace a dependence on God with a frame of reference that is more acceptable to the thinking of an average nonreligious person. Both reject the authority of God’s words for a nonauthoritative perspective that changes with the whims of cultural change. If, however, the purpose of worship is centered around the glorification of God, all the prayers, singing, and preaching must focus attention on what God wants, not what makes pragmatic sense to a market strategist.28 I doubt God will commend anyone on the day of judgment for being pragmatic. Paul recommends that the church not be conformed to the philosophies and patterns of this world, but that it be transformed by thinking differently (Rom. 12:2).

Is it ever too late? Hosea ends this section with the sad recognition that God’s people are so stubborn and self-willed that it seems impossible for them to change (Hos. 4:15–19). What does one do in such a situation? Hosea’s words suggest practical steps.

(1) One can warn others (in Hosea’s case, the people of Judah) to avoid the mistakes of those who have compromised their faith with their culture (4:15). One can do this by illustrating what has happened in other churches or in the lives of other people. Reading biographies of past saints and modern heroes provides a host of bad examples to avoid. Most newspapers carry an unending list of tragedies based on bad choices. Christianity Today, Leadership, and other such magazines discuss problems caused by people or churches that have bought into the philosophies of our age. A frank talk by a policeman at a kid’s club, a testimony by a social worker at a youth meeting, or the honest assessment of life by Mom or Dad around the dinner table can go a long way toward making others aware of the consequences of wrong choices. Warning the innocent and naive of the danger of compromising with the subtle philosophies that pervade the world is an essential responsibility of every believer.

(2) The second thing one needs to do is communicate honestly with those who have already syncretized their faith with the philosophies of this world. Many of these people are unaware that their thinking is unbiblical because they do not see how pragmatism or any other “ism” contradicts biblical teaching. Sometimes a comment of concern about a decision is enough, but at other times a humble explanation of why this or that is not a good choice is needed. People who have fully bought into the worldview of the secular culture may need a sterner warning; they may need to know one’s strong disapproval of their behavior (4:16). Confrontation is not wrong. If we truly love people, should we not care enough to warn them that they are in big trouble?

Original Meaning

Accusations Against the Priests (4:4–10)

GOD NOW HAS Hosea bring specific charges. Problems with understanding the Hebrew text and the difficulty of identifying the speaker(s) in 4:4 have produced a multitude of different translations. We need not list all the hypothetical emendations of the difficult Hebrew text, but the translation of 4:4b as “for with you is my contention, O priest” (RSV) makes the most sense of a difficult phrase.8

In 4:4a some interpreters suggest that a person in Hosea’s audience objects to his bold attempt to present this case against Israel in 4:1–3. Like Amaziah’s earlier attempt to quiet Amos (Amos 7:10–17, see comments), interpreters maintain that in 4:4a someone is telling Hosea not to bring a lawsuit or accuse anyone. The strong response in Hosea 4:4b is then Hosea’s rejection of this admonition; he is determined to bring this case against Israel.9 This view of 4:4a is not the best interpretation, since this verse gives no indication of any other speaker besides Hosea. It is better (following NIV, NASB) to see all of this verse as Hosea’s report of what God has said. The prophet is encouraging the people to listen to what God has to say and not dispute his charges. The evidence will show that the priests, the spiritual leaders of the community, are guilty.

The prophets (4:5) and even the mothers and children of the priests will suffer under God’s punishment (they will “stumble”; cf. Amos 7:17). This comes about because the priests have destroyed the people by failing to instruct the people concerning God’s divine revelation in the Torah. How can they ever know God’s character or ways if the priest never explains the “Bible” of that day? How can they distinguish God from Baal if the people are not taught the differences from the holy scrolls? How can the people have an intimate relationship with their covenant God and acknowledge him as their Lord if the priest never describes from Deuteronomy the close covenant relationship God desires?

It is impossible for God to continue his relationship with his chosen people if the priests keep increasing the people’s sinfulness rather than leading them to God. If the truth were told, the priests actually enjoy sinning and relish their evil lifestyle (Hos. 4:8). They encourage the people to exchange “their Glory” (referring to God himself, who is the Glory of Israel) for some idolatrous false god like Baal (4:7).10 What a despicable group of spiritual leaders the priests are. They are guilty of breaking the covenant with God.

God’s response is to reciprocate by rejecting the priests (4:6). He will ignore their children, just as the priests have ignored his words. There is a certain level of justice in God’s action. You get what you deserve. God will repay each one for his or her deeds in an appropriate manner (4:9). He cannot bless the families of those priests who have purposely deserted him. The priests are doubly accountable because they have prevented the people from hearing about the personal relationship God wants to have with his people (4:10). The priests have even gotten involved with the drinking and prostitution going on at these temples.11 God will not reward these priests with any blessings, but instead will send a curse. Yes, both the priests and the people will be punished severely by God (4:9).