Metaphor
This group of texts being analyzed is principally comprised of metaphor. We are thus dealing with imaging of God and humans, and the implications of these images. The nature of metaphor is important to keep in mind, then, as we look to these passages. This does not mean that we can get rid of anything we don�t like as the �no� of the metaphor, keeping only those images or components that we find helpful. On the other hand, though, we must not forget the metaphorical character of these images. As Fretheim asserts, we must retain �controlling metaphors� (11) to guide our readings, and frame our understandings of metaphors. There are foundational understandings of God, as God has disclosed Himself, which guide our interpretation of other metaphorical descriptions. Chief among them is Exodus 34:6-7, which proposes an image of God that includes judgment of the wicked, but places this in the context of God who is slow to anger and abounding in love. The one fits within the context of the other. Of this we must not lose sight as we approach these difficult passages.
Renita Weems, in her book Battered Love, reflects critically on these metaphors, and sees them as fundamentally problematic. She makes the assertion that �God is capable of both good and evil� (81), and this raises for us the question of how we are to interpret these metaphors. Weems constructs a view of the metaphor that uplifts the patriarchal and abusive elements of the image, and as a result of this, ends up attributing �evil� to God. This is an example of where the �no� of the metaphors must be remembered. Because it would be evil for a human husband to act capriciously and abusively, as Weems sees in the metaphor, does not mean that God is acting in these same ways. Yes, God�s actions are compared to the reactions of a husband whose wife has been repeatedly unfaithful (Hos. 2:5, Jer. 13:27). Yet, we must remember that Israel is not an unfaithful wife, and that God is not a wronged husband. Both are placed in relation to the other within metaphor in this way, but the metaphor is not making a blanket statement of reality. When we reach the periphery of the metaphor, there are elements that will not work. God is sorrowful over Israel�s unfaithfulness, which is likened to adultery, and God will react, bringing shame and woe to Israel comparable to the shame an adulterous wife would feel having her nakedness exposed (Jer. 13:26). But God is not a jealous husband, with a limited perspective, vindictively hurting the wife to attempt to simply reclaim honor. God is not blind with rage, not reacting in a purely violent and uncontrolled way toward Israel on a whim.
Jeremiah experienced the rage and judgment of God in the destruction of Jerusalem. He likened it to judgment within a marriage relationship upon an unfaithful wife. Yet, we must not let the metaphor get away from us. Jeremiah begins a lament to God mourning the triumph of the wicked over him and over Israel with the statement, �You are always righteous, O LORD, when I bring a case before you� (Jer. 12:1). Jeremiah seems to be placing a �controlling metaphor� on his own metaphors. Jeremiah is not accusing God of evil. Jeremiah is asserting his own lack of understanding of what he sees around him. This understanding of God, who is �always righteous,� must be held together with the husband of the metaphors. If this is not done, we neglect the �no,� and lose track of what is being told to us. Hosea likewise contains a similar statement of faith in God that controls his metaphors. The last verse of Hosea (14:9), ends, �The ways of the LORD are right; the righteous walk in them, but the rebellious stumble in them.� This provides an extremely useful key for interpreting the metaphor of marriage that Hose uses. It points very clearly to the fact that rebellion from God�s ways will cause stumbling, and affirms that God�s ways are righteous. God�s actions within the marital metaphor can be understood to conform with this summary declaration, and can help function as a controlling text for our interpretation.
This understanding leads us to the need for properly identifying the �no� of the metaphors being used. For a wife to be divorced or left in shame by her husband after she has committed adultery and prostitution would be shameful and disgraceful. Modern readers would be tempted to say that it would have been much better for the husband to simply turn away from the wife, allowing these consequences to catch up with her, leaving her to her own devices. This is in fact probably what modern day norms would prescribe. But, we must remember that this marriage relationship is a metaphor for the Israel-God relationship. Israel is God�s chosen people, and would not be Israel apart from God. God is their identity, God is their hope and prosperity, God is their future, whether Israel acknowledges it or not (Hosea 2:8). These associations would not fit with the way modern readers would view marriage, yet they are true of God and Israel. Divine judgment, though difficult and shameful, serves the end of reconciliation and return (Ez. 16:60; 23:49 ; Hosea 2:19-23). We are not dealing with a relationship that is simply marital. The dependence on God is closer to the view of marriage espoused by the prophets and their audience, but the dependence goes even deeper than that. Israel is bound by covenant, just as God is, to be in this relationship. They are a people set apart to God, not simply an ethnic group.
It is tempting to impose later understandings of resurrection and life-after-death on this metaphor. Adding this understanding, it can be seen that utter despair and judgment in this life, if it serves to bring Israel back to God, is warranted for God has eternity in mind. I do not want to assert this as a definitive reading, for as I have noted, this understanding probably wasn�t operating in the minds of either the prophets or their readers (even if it was operating in God, who inspired these writings/sayings, and this is why it is at least worthy to mention). Our understanding of eternity and salvation in a broader context than being simply of this earth may lend assistance to understanding God�s actions in these metaphors.
Metaphor and Culture
It is worth emphasizing that these sexual images utilized in Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Hosea fit within their cultural contexts. The formation of the metaphor reflects the cultural understandings of marriage, shame and power that were held at the time. This realization will help us to gain deeper insight into the metaphors, and there is also the possibility of carefully extrapolating from the metaphors a deeper understanding of cultural norms they were formed in. Along with this understanding we must remember that our culture is in many ways far removed from this cultural context. Thus, we must seek to discern if these metaphors can function for us today.
Central to the imagery used in Hosea is the idea of divine judgment. As Weems points out, the worldview that is operating in this text seems to assume that the authority to punish lies with the husband, and further, that this punishment is justified (60). Today, in a world that is eminently conscious of domestic violence and spousal abuse, we see no justification for any type of battering of a spouse. There is a distinct disjunction between the worldview operating in the text and ours today. Is there any way we can ascribe authority to a text that operates within or espouses this worldview? This seems to be an important underlying question as we deal with the offensive elements of these texts. To approach an answer, we shall begin with the question, Does the use of a violent metaphor translate to approval or sanctioning of the same type of violence in the domestic setting? Is the text proscribing a mode of action for husbands with their wives? The text is apparently operating in a setting in which this type of violence is not uncommon, nor apparently is it taboo. The text does not make any move toward calling domestic violence inappropriate or wrong. On the other hand, though, it would seem dangerous to generalize too much from a metaphorical text. Hosea (as with the other texts) is working with marriage as a metaphor for the God-Israel relationship. Within this metaphor, the wife is proclaimed to have certain characteristics and to have acted in certain ways. The husband is proclaimed to have other characteristics, and to have taken other actions. Although the metaphor draws on real life situations, it is a metaphor. No husband would ever be perfect, as God is perfect. Weems questions why the husband doesn�t reflect on whether he is at fault (48). This question takes us back to the �no� of the metaphor, as we remember that the husband of the metaphor is God. Are we to ask whether it is God�s fault that Israel strayed? Secondly, should we make the move backward from the metaphor to life, and say that the husband is never to be questioned because God is not questioned? God is clearly not human. The metaphor is precisely that, a metaphor. As Hosea 11:9 proclaims, �For I am God, and not man � the Holy One among you.� God�s judgment is beyond reproach (Hosea 14:9). It is not proper to make a generalization from metaphor to life and say that God acted in such a way with Israel, thus I am to act in a corresponding way with my wife, for I am not God. In the same way, it is dangerous to view God�s action as �husband� as prescribed for all husbands, and God�s use of violent judgment as license to use violence. For again, I am not God; we are not God.
Having made these assertions concerning the careful use of metaphor, it is important to assert that we should and must retain these metaphors. The marital metaphor entails a very personal and intimate portrait of the God-Israel relationship. God is depicted as the supreme lover, jealous of unfaithfulness, and always working for reconciliation and return to relationship. This image is of value, and should be clung to with care.
Agency
It is instructive to analyze the elements of divine and human agency within these texts, as we look at the violent treatment of Israel the wife. Numerous references throughout these metaphors point to a duality of agency, with both God and the human participants as agents. In Ezekiel, God is one who �hands over� (Ez. 23:9, 28), and the Assyrians and other outsiders are the ones who �deal with you in hatred� (Ez. 23:29) and �stripped her naked� (Ez. 23:10). The �other sister� of Ezekiel 23 also exposes her own nakedness (23:18). This duality of agency is also seen in Jeremiah 13. In verse 22, Israel�s skirts have been torn off because of her �many sins.� Then in verse 26, it is God who says �I will pull up your skirts.� God is clearly directly involved in the judgment that is being brought on Israel, but at the same time, this judgment is continuous with Israel�s own actions. In a sense, Israel has brought this judgment upon herself, and God is mediating it.
The Assyrians and other nations are the executors of God�s judgment. Much of the criticism of these marital metaphors centers on the detestable way God acts toward the unfaithful wife. This duality of agency does not get God �off the hook� in the sense that God judged Israel and mediated violence upon them, but at the same time it emphasizes the fact that the judgment was consistent and continuous with the unfaithfulness, and was brought on by Israel�s actions. Although it may be simple and neat for modern readers if we were able to remove God from these actions, the duality of agency is clear. God is involved in mediating this result upon the wife Israel.
Authority and Inspiration
Christianity looks to the Bible as the Word of God, and accords it authority over life and faith. Views of how to understand the Bible�s inspiration and authority have varied over the years, and today a wide range of views still abounds. There are people who think the Bible is purely a historical document, and there are those who think the words are God�s words, verbatim, for today and every day, with no regard for historical setting. Into this discussion, we add a group of troubling prophetic texts. The imagery utilized for the relationship between God and Israel is troubling to modern readers, and sets off warning bells about issues such as domestic violence and sexual abuse. Thus, we must take a hard look at these texts, and analyze how they function, and what bearing this has on our view of the role of the Bible as inspired and authoritative Word of God.
What do we mean when we claim the Bible is God�s Word. 2 Timothy 3:16 asserts that all scripture is �God-breathed.� We claim that the Bible is in fact God�s words to humanity. This does not mean that all scripture is a giant divine quote, as are some passages of the prophets especially, but that God through the Holy Spirit guided and inspired the writing. This means that there was a �double authorship� at work. The Bible can be said to be God�s word, but this must not neglect the fact that humans wrote the words. God used these humans, including their personalities, abilities and knowledge, to write these words. This means that God�s Word can be subject to criticism, since it is also the words of humans. Thus, in this human production, we will have places where perspectives are limited. These marriage metaphors are a case where the cultural setting of the day has created tension for today�s readers. We must at one and the same time assert this metaphor to be a human construct, built out of a limited perspective, yet also a divine message, conveying truth. At times, such as in these texts, this will create a difficult tension as we seek to understand the truth from the texts. This tension is not to be feared, nor are the texts simply to be thrown out. Instead, let us take up the task of criticism in pursuit of the truth with vigor, and with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For inspiration is not only what happened thousands of years ago. The Spirit is still working in and through texts. May we be receptive.
Conclusion
Jeremiah 3:3 portrays Israel as a prostitute who is not ashamed by her actions. Israel has become complacent in her adultery. God has been neglected, and God�s patience has come to an end. God must call back Israel, the chosen people, the wife to which God has been devoted. God will not let her go. Redemption is on God�s mind. The marriage metaphors include imagery that we find distasteful, and even repulsive and offensive. God is violent, and mediates violence. We must never forget, though that the end God has in sight is relationship, not forsakenness. God is a God of grace (Weems, 114), not turning away from Israel, but (painfully) turning Israel back toward Himself. On the other side of this horrendous judgment, of this utter destruction, �Then you will know that I am the LORD� (Ez. 23:49). God is faithful, and will not let His wife Israel drift away forever, but will bring her back. Let us not lose this powerful message in the metaphors that are used.
�For I know the plans I have for you,� declares the LORD, �plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you a hope and a future. �I will be found by you,� declares the LORD, �and will bring you back from captivity.�
Jeremiah 29:11,14 |
