1. family and parenting
2. children

Joy Philip Kakkanattu
God's Enduring Love in the
Book of Hosea
A Synchronic and Diachronic Analysis of
Hosea 11,1-11
Mohr Siebeck
Joy Philip Kakkanattu, born 1964; 1999 Licentiate in Sacred Scripture from Pontifical Biblical
Institute, Rome; 2005 Doctorate in Theology from Pontifical Gregorian University, Rome;
presently teaching Old Testament at Dharmaram Vidya Kshetram (Pontifical Athenaeum of
Philosophy, Theology and Canon Law), Bangalore.
Acknowledgements
ISBN 3-16-148886-5
ISBN-13 978-3-16-148886-3
ISSN 1611-4914 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2. Reihe)
Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationa1bib1iographie; detailed
bibliographic data is available in the Internet at http://dnb.ddb.de.
© 2006 Mohr Siebeck Tiibingen.
This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by
copyright law) without the publisher's written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations, microfilms and storage and processing in electronic systems.
The book was typeset by Martin Fischer in Tiibingen, printed by Guide-Druck in Tiibingen on
non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Held in Rottenburg.
Printed in Germany.
The present work is in essence a dissertation presented to the Pontifical Gregorian University in May 2005 with minor modifications. Many people have
encouraged and helped me to complete this work and to see it through publication. It is with the greatest pleasure that I express my gratitude and appreciation
to all those who have helped me in one way or another during my time in Rome
and in the realisation of this doctoral thesis.
My deepest expression of gratitude is due to Prof. Charles Conroy, the moderator of this thesis. In addition to his scholarly guidance and perceptive suggestions, the example of his gentle ways and unfailing availability has in itself
been a valuable lesson to me as to the qualities necessary in a good teacher
of the Sacred Scriptures. The study is indebted too in its basic inspiration and
methodology to Prof. Conroy. My sincere thanks are also due to Rev. Sr. Nuria
Claduch-Benages who acted as the second reader of my thesis and who made
important observations and comments.
I am most grateful to Dr. Paul Kalluveettil, CMI and Prof. Hermann Spieckermann, who kindly read my work at an early stage of its preparation and provided
their scholarly comments. I ammuch indebted to their suggestions.
I wish to express my profound gratitude and appreciation to Fr. Simon Nolan,
O. Carm and Fr. Nick Kern for having read the draft of the dissertation and for
having indicated necessary linguistic and stylistic modifications.
I place on record my sincere gratitude to my confreres and religious superiors
of the CMI congregation for their consistent support and friendship.
I remember with gratitude my parents, brothers, sisters, friends and well-wishers in India and elsewhere for their love, support and prayers. In a special way I
acknowledge the friendship and kindness ofPfarrer Peter Gede and Mrs. Gertrud
Dik to me at various occasions.
Lastly, I must express my gratitude to the editors of the series Forschungen
zum Alten Testament, Prof. Bernd Janowski, Mark S. Smith and Prof. Hermann
Spieckermann, for having accepted this work for publication.
Rome, September 2005
Joy Philip Kakkanattu, CMI
126
3) Major
Part 1
The reason for this ignorance is the spirit of promiscuity1l5 and forgetting of
Yahweh's gracious acts.
Botterweck summarises various expressions that are parallel to I:J'H"~n,lt1.
In prophetic criticism attacking absence or rejection of I:J'H"~n.lJ1, ~e find
n;:,tli (skl:z) as a parallel: "Since you have forgotten (n;:,tli) the t6~aof your God,
I also will forget your children" (Hos 4,6). Its absence stands in parallel with
apostasy ('~:::l: 5,7; 6,7), rebellion ("~: 7,14; 9,15; ill/?: 12,1; 14,1), adultery
(i1JT: 1,2; 2,4.7; 3,2; 4,12; 5,4 etc.), iniquity (tlin;:,: 10,13; 12,1) deceit (il~'~:
12,1), and faithlessness (n":l ';l.ll: 6,7; 8,1;:::l~ P~\f: 10,2)116.
The various aspects of the paradigm "knowledge of God" in Hosea are summarised concisely by Jeremias:
T
'
To teach "knowledge of God" is primarily the duty of the priest (4,6); it has got fourfold
implication: 1. The knowledge about to whom Israel owes its existence its fruits of the
land (2,10) and to whom they must be thankful for the protection and salvation in the
course oftheir history (11,3); 2. what follows from this knowledge is that there is no other
helper for Israel except Yahweh (13,4) and thus apostasy to other gods and maintaining
adulterous relationship with them and other powers appear as the senseless evil par excellence (5,4); 3. as a necessary consequence of such a knowledge of God arises the devotion
to the true God and at the same dedication to fellow human beings in need, resulting from
an intimate communion of life, which is implied by the parallel notion 1]esed and finally
4. the concretisation of such dedication is found in the directives for day to day life, which
again the priest must give, which together constitute the instruction of God (4,6 parallel
concept to "knowledge of God"), in so far as it is a help for the life and conduct 117.
On the basis of Hos 11,1-11, as Harrelson thinks, in addition to the basic meaning of "a knowledge of and commitment to the sacral law, to the demands and
promises of the covenant faith", one may also think of a deeper knowledge:
"God exercises the fullness of his deity in rejecting judgement and choosing
forgiveness. He remains the Holy One - hating sin, holding his people accountable for sin; but as God, not a human being, he refuses to let his love for Israel
be set aside and made of no consequence because of the sin ofIsrael"1I8.
In sum, the concept of knowledge of God in Hosea has got a special meaning
and is marked with objective and subjective aspects. Objectively it is to know
Yahweh as a result of the study of divine intervention in the salvation-history
handed over through sacred tradition. Subjectively it means to acknowledge
Yahweh and his acts and manifest this recognition in a righteous relationship
with him in genuine worship and in proper interpersonal relationship. Lack of
this knowledge will lead to lawlessness in the community and to divine anger
and rejection.
1I5
116
117
118
Cf. ANDERSEN
- FREEDMAN,
Hosea, 391.
Cf. BOTTERWECK
- BERGMAN,
"lJ,' yiida''', 476.
JEREMIAS,
Der Prophet Hosea, 61.W. HARRELSON,
"Knowledgeof God in the Church", Int 30 (1976) 13-14.
T
Theological
Themes of Hos 11 in Relation
3.3 The God of Hosea
to the Book of Hosea
127
119
That Hos 11,1-11 presents a unique understanding of God is obvious from a
very simple reading of the text. The portrayal of Yahweh's relationship with
Israel by means of parent-child metaphor is rather rare in the Old Testament120•
The description of the early history of the people ofIsrael as Yahweh's parental
rearing of the child Israel is unique in the Bible.
The perception of Yahweh, who finds the reason for forgiving Israel from
within his very nature, is also special to Hosea 11. The self-presentation of God
"the Holy One in your midst" articulates a significant understanding of Yahweh
as wholly other than humans but also as one who makes himself available to
humanity through his presence.
3.3.1 Yahweh, the Loving Parent
Hosea 11 does not explicitly mention Yahweh as father, but such a notion is
implied by the mention ofIsrael as Yahweh's son and may be derived from the
context. In keeping with the general understanding of God, scholars used to
speak ofthe Yahweh-Israel relationship in Hosea 11 as a father-son relationship.
But the portrayal of Yahweh as father has been challenged by many authors in
recent years. They regard Hos 11 as a text that illustrates a motherly or feminine
aspect ofYahwehl2l. This challenge has led to a careful attention in the interpretation of the metaphor122•
1I9 It is not our intentionwith this headingto investigatethe role of Hosea in the development ofIsraelite religion or to discusshis role as the spokesmanof Yahweh-AloneMovement
etc. Such an approach can be seen in N.P. LEMCHE,
"The God of Hosea", Priests, Prophets
and Scribes: Essays
Joseph Blenkinsopp
on the Formation
and Heritage
of Second
Temple Judaism
in Honour
of
(ed. E. Ulrich et al.) (JSOTSup 149; Sheffield 1992) 241-257. Despite
the title Lemchehardly speaksof the God of Hosea. Our purpose is to examinethe conceptof
God Hosea describesthrough the parent-childmetaphorand its relation to other metaphorsin
the book.
120 Cf. H. RINGGREN,
":JK 'iibh", TDOT 1: 17-18: the various references to Yahweh as
father of people listed are E~od 4,22; Deut 32,6; Jer 3,19; 31,9; Isa 45,9-11; 64,7(8); Hos
11,1 ff.; Mal 2,10.
121 Cf. in this regard SCHUNGEL-STRAUMANN,
"God as Mother in Hosea 11", 194-218;
M.-T.WACKER,
"Traces of Goddess in the Book of Hosea" in A Feminist Companion to the
Latter Prophets (ed.A. Brenner)(FCB 8; Sheffield 1995) 234-241; IDEM,
"Das Buch Hosea"
in Kompendium feministische Bibelauslegung (eds. L. Schottroff- M.-T. Wacker)(Giittersloh
21999) 307-308; NISSINEN,
Prophetie, 268-290; R.J. RAJA,"God as Mother in the O. T.",
21 (1991) 107-117.
122 For a recent investigationof the metaphoricexpressionsof God's fatherhoodin the Old
Jeevadhara
Testamentwith specialattentionon the gender connotations,cf. PJ. NEL,"Does Changingthe
MetaphorLiberate?On the 'Fatherhood' of God", aTE 15 (2002) 131-148. The authorargues
that the fathermetaphor,though it has bearing on the patriarchalfather figure,"never emphasises the biologicalmasculinityof God. The dominantreferencesof the metaphorare to relationalaspectsindicativeof a caringand protectivebond betweenGodand his people" (136). By
128
We have
already
seen that the attempt
Yahweh
in maternal
or feminine
fetched.
The syntax
and grammar
that Hosea portrays
activities
Yahweh
Yahweh
regarded
gives sufficient
as maternal
and the attitudes
Ztigen,
as speaking
and grammar
to justify
of
is far-
the claim
some ofthe
he shows, e.g., lifting the child
credence
proposes
obwohl
11
11123• However,
and affectionate
and give certain
on this Seifert
m.E. vor allem mit mutterlichen
Hosea
evidence
father in Hos
it (vA), the tender
tion of Hos 11,1-11. Based
to show
terms based on philology
as Israel's
accomplishes
to the cheek and feeding
usually
I Major Theological Themes of Hos 11 in Relation to the Book of Hosea
Part I
care (vs.3---4.8), are
to a feminine
that "Hos
interpreta-
11 zeigt JHWH
es keineswegs
unangemessen
This interpretation
motherly
tenderness
of Yahweh
(II: 1-5). This love has been spumed, yet the Lord cannot give them up completely. Judgement must give way - indeed must create - renewal (11:8-11). Ultimately, God will heal
the people's infidelity, ingratitude, ignorance, and rebellionl28.
Nevertheless,
as a father who cares for his son Israel with
and love seems
to be more acceptable
on the basis of the
what would
God in Hos
11 is
be improper
to use the parent
of God. Trible,
parental,
"male and female"
categories
cf. also Jer
to withhold
31,20)127. House
his anger against
the rebellious
son (vs.8-9;
is close to the point:
Israel's history is presented as the story of a loving parent faced with raising a rebellious
child. God called Israel, taught the Israelites how to walk, fed them, and guided them
the fatherhood of God, what is highlighted is God as "progenitor and creator ofIsrael" (137). He
holds, "The emphasis serves, not only to manifest God's authority, but to stress the purpose of
the divine commitment to the people ofIsrael and to exhort them to abstain from profaning this
relationship to their own detriment" (137). Being a committed father, despite Israel's apostasy,
he shows compassion and restores their future. In Nel's opinion "the qualities or attributes of
God presumed to exist in the metaphor of 'fatherhood' could best be mentioned in the different
contexts instead of using the metaphor 'father'" (142). At the same time "to leave the option
open by replacing 'father' equally with 'mother' would be futile. 'Parent' might be a translation
option, only those instances where the simile offamily relations is explicit" (143).
123Cf. BRAATEN,"Parent-Child Imagery", 306.
124SEIFERT,Metaphorisches Reden, 201.
125Cf. SIMIAN-YOFRE,
II deserto degli dei, 116. It is noteworthy that Pope John Paul II in
his encyclical Dives in misericordia, makes reference to Hos 11,3 as a witness to the motherly tenderness of the merciful love of God in the Old Testament, cf. G. BORGONOVO
- A.
CATTANEO,Giovanni Paolo teologo: nel segno delle encicliche (Milano 2003) 96. LANDY,"In
the Wilderness of Speech", 41--41, discusses the difficulty of the parent metaphor to explain
the metaphoric relation between Yahweh and Israel: "God nostalgically imagines himself as
a parent (11: 1--4) and accordingly demands filial obedience from Israel, but the insistence is
compromised by two things: first, the bifurcation between father and mother images, and the
denigration of the latter in the book (e.g., 2:4, 6; 4:5); second, the question whether God is actually a parent. Iffantasy does not correspond to reality, then his capacity to be a "good-enough"
parent is impaired by doubt. We do not know the meaning of God's parenthood".
126GROSS,"Das Hohelied", 87-88.
127RENDTORFF,Theologie des Alten Testaments, 192. He notes a difference between the
paternal care and maternal love of God. The former has certain claims on the son and when
the claims are not fulfilled, God becomes angry. On the contrary the latter contains only the
solicitous aspect and does not have the demanding and anger element as in the father figure
(cf. 190-192).
or maternal.
for gender
of God",
is unequivocal.
of God, because
It is essential
God. To describe
solely
or maternal
our notion
in view of Yahweh
to perceive
who looks after the child tenderly
claims
that
God using male
the image of God and to perceive
i.e., paternal
then we bring to our discussion
and not the concept
It would
determination
rightly
image of God is to glimpse the transcendence
of God13o.
Seifert's remark on the parent metaphor ofHos 11 is probably
two aspects,
bringing
to the image of God and not to God. The
then, is to perceive
suited,
Yahweh
paternal
and "image
11 as
Hos
Israel129. The image of
towards
as an argument
"God"
of God gives a clue for understanding
and female
looks after Israel, his son like a mother126•
that prompts
imagery
is the finger pointing
rel about which ofthe
love and compassion
is to regard
rather than specifically
distinguishing
textual and linguistic evidence than the uncritical attempt to depict Yahweh as
a mother in Hos 11125• So one can probably speak of Yahweh, the father, who
It is this parental
be more appropriate
to the fore the parental love and care of Yahweh
image
ist, sie viiterlich zu nennen"124.
129
and lovingly,
apt: if we quar-
is more correct
of mother
the language
the God as he appears
the
and
and father
of Hos
11
here: the one
and who does so enduringly131.
One must also pay attention to the fact that the parent metaphor is only one
among the many metaphors Hosea employs to portray Yahweh's intimate relationship with his peoplel32. Or put another way, the description of Yahweh's love
towards Israel as parental love is only one aspect of the description of Yahweh's
loving bond with IsraeJl33. In Hos 1-3 it is described through the metaphor of
128PR. HOUSE,"The Character of God in the Book of Twelve", in Reading and Hearing
the book of the Twelve (eds. J.D. Nogalski - M.A. Sweeney) (SBLSymS 15; Atlanta, Ga. 2000)
131.
129Cf. EIDEVALL,Grapes in the Desert, 167-174 argues that Hos 11,1--4 contains several
different metaphors for the interactions between Yahweh and Israel. For him "the passage
11:1--4conveys the notion of divine guidance by means of three different metaphors: the parent
calling upon the child (v 1), the shepherd walking in front of the sheep (v 3), and the farmer
leading the oxen home to the stall (v 4)".
130Cf. PH.TRIBLE,God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (OBT 2; Philadelphia, Pa. 1978)
20-21. Likewise RENDTORFF,Theologie des Alten Testaments, 192.
131Cf. SEIFERT,Metaphorisches Reden, 201-202. Cf. also J.D.W. WATTS,et aI., "God the
Father", ISBE 2: 509; NEL, "Does Changing the Metaphor Liberate?", 142-143.
132According to G.W. LIGHT,"The New Covenant in the Book of Hosea", RevExp 90 (1993)
219-238, the various metaphoric networks - marriage, parenthood and agriculture - are united
by a common presentation of Yahweh as a person who desires an intimate relationship with his
counterpart. [For a fuller treatment of the metaphors and similes for Yahweh-Israel relationship,
cf. NWAORU,Imagery; EIDEVALL,Grapes in the Desert].
133 Cf. P.A. KRUGER,"Prophetic Imagery. On Metaphors and Similes in the book of Hosea",
JNSL 14 (1988) 150: "The Hosean imagery covers the whole spectrum of Yahweh's revelation
in history: at the one end stands his burning anger over against the sin of his people, and the
other the depth and intensity of Yahweh's love. The one moment Yahweh is like decay in the
bones (5: 12), the next his work resembles that of a loving father (11: 1 fi) who, notwithstanding
the obstinacy of his son, was not able to surrender him (II :8). Precisely this feature indicates
130
Part I
3. Major Theological Themes of Hos 11 in Relation to the Book of Hosea
spousal relationship. There too Hosea presents Yahweh's love towards Israel as
a constant love, which does not end even when Israel proves to be unfaithful.
Instead he tries to bring the erred Israel back by "speaking to her heart (:l"-"17
,:l,) (Hos 2,16)". Hosea envisages that this same love would be given with the
eventful reconciliation 134."Hosea is able to express as no other prophet the love
of God for Israel in its varied forms-as compassion (11 :8), as a mother's tenderness (1:6-8; 2:3, 6, 21, 25; 11:1), as love between husband and wife (3:1 ff.).
From the fundamental disposition of love, it is understandable that healing and
reconciliation, not harm and destruction, finally prevail", wrote Heschel several
decades agol35.
Is it possible to understand the marital (Hos 1,2-3,5) and parent-child imagery
in Hosea as parts of a root metaphor of the family or should they be taken as
two isolated and distinct metaphors? According to scholars like Dearman and
Nwaoru, in the ancient Near Eastern cultural milieu, family/household was the
primary social unitl36: "The family as a social institution and economic unit has
members and possessions whose roles can be gender-specific, but these roles
are not carried out in isolation from their Sitz im Leben (= household) which
provides each member with his or her primary identity"137. Hence these two
metaphors used to express Yahweh's relation to Israel, can be understood as part
of the common metaphor, familyl38.
Israel b~cause of his misconduct. Israel's guilt was so great that he deserves
total annulment of filial status and abandonment. But, on the other hand, it is the
failure of Yahweh, the parent, too because it signifies the collapse of Yahweh's
basic purpose of election. Yahweh, being God, cannot let his design fall short.
He cannot allow human response to determine his plan. Hosea finds a solution
to this dilemma in the compassionate nature of God, which does not permit his
anger, even though it is the consequence ofIsrael's erratic ways, to overwhelm
his lovel40.
Thus Hos 11,1-11 speaks of the victory of Yahweh's divine nature, which
is love, and his holiness (vs.8-9). It is a victory of love, for the whole history
of Israel is initiated and perpetuated by Yahweh's love for them 141.Love is the
motive why God enters into relationship with humanity in general, and Israel
in particular (Hos 11,1; 14,5; Deut 7,7-8). The God ofIsrael is enduring in his
love for them.
3.3.1.1 The Theological Meaning of the Metaphor
Through the parent-child metaphor Hosea 11 delineates the relationship between
Yahweh and Israel as familial and personal. By depicting Yahweh as a parent
who persistently loves his child, despite his rebellious and ungrateful attitude,
Hosea finds a reason for Israel's survival. Hosea presents Yahweh as a loving
parent who suffers internally for the sake of his stray/disoriented son. The
question "How can I give you up, how can I deliver you up Israel?" (Hos 11,8)
communicates vividly his suffering. One may define this suffering as a "painful
blend of love and wrath"139. On the one hand his justifiable anger rises against
the ambivalence of the Hosean imagery. To choose therefore, one of these images and regard it
as the key to the whole book would be just as fatal as to look for one central idea which holds
together the Old Testament".
134 C.L. SEOW,"Hosea, Book of', ABD 3: 297.
135 HESCHEL,The Prophets, 49.
136 Cf. A. DEARMAN,"Yhwh's House: Gender Roles and Metaphors for Israel in Hosea",
JNSL 25 (1999) 106-107; NWAORU,Imagery, 96-108.
137 DEARMAN,
"Yhwh's House", 107.
138 For the view that Israelite family structure as the basic framework that provides basis
for the parent-son metaphor for Yahweh-Israel relationship, cf. SCHENKER,"Gott als Vater",
3-55.
139 P.S. FIDDES,"The Cross of Hosea Revisited: The Meaning of Suffering in the Book of
Hosea", RevExp 90 (1993) 184-186. The question "does God suffer" is a very complex and
highly debated one. The advocates of the passibility of God often quote Hos 11,8 in support
131
3.3.2 Yahweh, the Holy One Among Humans
The affirmation "I am God, not man, the Holy One in your midst" may be
considered the theological hinge upon which the whole book turns. For Hosea
the whole merit of Israel's survival is based on the holy nature of God, who
unlike humans does not modify his basic purpose according to the response of
his covenant partner. Yahweh, being divine, is able to withhold his anger against
Israel for their unfaithfulness and ingratitude. Even though Israel has to undergo
certain punitive measures for his wayward behaviour, for Hosea, this punishment
is not terminal but salutary and corrective. The compassionate nature of Yahweh
is too great to permit his beloved child to perish (Hos 11,8-9)142.
of their argument. More than a theological issue, the passibility and impassibility of God is a
matter of philosophical dispute. It is not my intention, when I say Hos 11,8 communicates the
inner suffering of God, to join in the philosophical debate on the passibility and impassibility
of God or to negate the Christian doctrine of the impassibility and immutability of God. For a
thoroughgoing discussion ofthe question, cf. WEINANDY,Does God Suffer? (Edinburgh 2000)
1-26.
140 Cf. E. BONS,'''Denn ich bin Gott, nichtein Mensch'. Eine Auslegung von Hosea 11", in
Gottes unbeirrbare Liebe, Hosea 11. Materialheft fUr Gottesdienst und Gemeindearbeit [no
Editor] (Bausteine flir den Gottesdienst; Stuttgart 2003) 17. On the prophets' understanding of
the wrath of God as his abandoning people to the consequences of their own sins, see FIDDES,
"The Cross of Hosea", 183-186; further S.E. BALENTINE,The Hidden Face of God: The Hiding
of the Face of God in the Old Testament (Oxford 1983) 143-151.
141 Cf. JDNGLING,"Aspekte des Redens von Gott", 358.
142 Cf. SEOW,"Hosea", 297; BUCK,Die Liebe Gottes, 84. C. HARDMEIER,
"Systematische
Elemente der Theologie in der Hebraischen Bibel", JBTh 10 (1995) 111-127, speaking of
the systematic elements of the theology of the Old Testament with reference to Hos 11,8 also
highlights the compassionate aspect of Yahweh. He remarks: "1m Unterschied zu allen anderen
Gottem der Religionsgeschichte verkorpert der Gott des Alten Testaments personal diese
Unbestimmbarkeit und Unverfligbarkeit selbst und als solche. Darin ist er als Gott unverglei-
132
Part I
3. Major Theological Themes of Hos 11 in Relation to the Book of Hosea
In this theological affirmation Hosea articulates the transcendence and immanence of the God of Israel143. The holiness (lD"P) of God highlights his
transcendent nature. The title "Holy One" for Yahweh 11,9 refers to his otherness from human beings (cf. Isa 6,3)144. But this otherness is manifested not in
standing aloof from the human milieu but in his immanent presence in dynamic
dealing with humans145. He is totally other from humans in that he is able to hold
back his anger in order to remain faithful to his basic design. His holy nature is
manifested in that he is willing to forgive the transgressions of his people, even
without their asking it (cf. Hos 2,16; 14,5). Because He is God he can transform
a human catastrophe like a war into a means of purification (11,5). In other
words, "for God to be transcendent means that he intimately relates to, is lovingly present to, and dynamically acts within the created order as the one who is
ontologically wholly other than the created order"146.
Through the phrase "Holy One in your midst" Hosea presents Yahweh as
someone who is different but at the same time present in the midst ofthe people
through his condescension 147.The prophet seems to consider Yahweh's dwelling
in the midst of the people as a characteristic of divine holiness. The holiness of
Yahweh becomes available and experienceable for Israel only because he has
manifesfud himself in a relationship of love expressed through various metaphors like covenant, family relationship and thus revealed himself amidst the
people. According to Hos 11,1-11, God's holiness becomes a tangible presence
in his decision not to execute his anger and in his constant love, despite Israel's
turning away (;'~'lDT?) (V.7)148.Thus Hosea traces the basis of Yahweh's love in
his holy naturel49. Or, alternatively "it is the incomprehensible creative power
oflove which marks out Yahweh as the wholly 'other"'150. Jiingling summarises
the message of Hos 11,8-9 rather well:
chlich, einzigartig undjeder metaphysischen Objektivation enthoben. Doch wird JHWH durch
die lange und wechselvolle Geschichte Israels hindurch auf vieWiltigste Weise und in den
unterschiedlichsten Traditionen und Bildem als ansprechbares Du bezeugt, d. h. als personales
Du das sich seinem Yolk und den einzelnen Menschen zwar im Extremfall begriindetermaBen
aU~hzomig zeigen kann (wenn auch stets gegen seinen eigenen Willen),jedoch als ein personal
ansprechbares Du, das sich vor allem und immer wieder giitig, gniidig und barmherzig, rettend
und heilsam den Menschen zugewandt hat und stets von neuem zuwendet" (122). Cf. also
KRASOVEC,
Reward, Punishment, and Forgiveness, 419.
143 A similar theology can be seen in Isa 6,3-6; Psa 24, cf. H. SPIECKERMANN,
"Die ganze
Erde ist seiner Herrlichkeit voll- Pantheismus im Alten Testament?", ZTK 87 (1990) 415--436,
especially 418--419.
144 Cf. W. KORNFELD
- H. RINGGREN,"tViP qds", TDOT 12: 539; BLENKINSOPP,
Isaiah
1-39,225.
145 Cf. BUCK,"Die Liebe Gottes", 186: "'Heilig in deiner Mitte' [... ] nimmt verschiedene
Bedeutungsnuancen an, je nachdem es vom 'Handeln Gottes', von seiner 'Zieisetzung' oder
von seiner 'gottlichen Personlichkeit' verstanden wird. Da jedoch diese drei erwiihnten Bedeutungsaspekte sich gegenseitig nicht ausschlieBen, in Gegenteil, sich vervollstiindigen, liisst
es sich rechtfertigen, hier 'heilig' in der Gesamtheit seiner Bedeutungsaspekte aufzufassen".
As WEINANDY,Does God Suffer?, 55-57, with logical rigour claims, the biblical notions of
transcendence and immanence of God, when describing God and his relationship to all else,
are often misconceived. To him "the Old Testament never conceives of God's transcendence
in opposition to his immanence, as if that which makes God wholly other is different from that
which allows him to be a personal God who lovingly acts in time and history. For the Bible,
transcendence and immanence do not describe two divine modes of being or two sets of distinguishing qualities - one as God is apart from the created order and another as he is in relation
to the created order. That which makes him divine, and thus wholly other as so transcendent, is
what which equally allows him to be active within the created order and so be immanent".
146 WEINANDY,
Does God Suffer?, 57.
147 Cf. J. LIMBURG,
Hosea - Micah (Interpretation; Atlanta, Ga. 1988) 41--42.
133
Since Yahweh is God and not a man, for that reason and only for that reason he is the
person in love (der Liebende), who does not come for destruction; since Yahweh is God,
since he is the holy one, he is the person in love, who masters his wrath. Yahweh is not
a man/human being, who lets himself be overpowered by anger, but on the contrary he
shows his godly nature in that he overcomes the anger through lovel51.
The theological perception that the Assyrian domination and exile is a means of
purification for Israel to make good their sins and return to Yahweh, their loving
parent, is important and provides a theological hope of restoration after the period
of punishment (cf. Hos 2,16-25; 3,4-5; 6,11; 11,10-11; 14,5-9)152. Hosea clearly
envisages a period of punishment for Israel's sins. The Assyrian military domination is conceived as God's judgement upon Ephraim and as the consequence
of their wayward comportment. He figuratively speaks of a return to Egypt as a
consequence ofIsrael's apostasy, which in actuality would probably signify the
148 Cf. JEREMIAS,
"Zur Eschatologie", 84. Cf. further E. ZENGER,"Wie und wozu die Tora
zum Sinai kam; Literarische und theologische Beobachtungen zu Exodus 19-34", in Studies
in the Book of Exodus: Redaction - Reception - Interpretation (ed. M. Vervenne) (BETL 126;
Leuven 1996) 283.
149 Cf. BUCK,"Die Liebe Gottes", 137: '''Heilig in deiner Mitte' begriindet also das Wirken
der Liebe Jahwes hinsichtlich seines Handelns, mit Bezug auf die Zielsetzung aber den schlieBlichen Sieg der Liebe und deutet hinsichtlich des gottlichen Seins schon an, dass Gottes Wesen
Liebe ist". Similarly, BJORNARD,"Hos 11,8-9",21-22.
150 W. EICHRODT,Theology of the Old Testament, vol. 1 (OTL; Philadelphia, Pa. 1961)
281.
151 JONGLING,"Aspekte des Redens von Gott", 358: "weil Jahwe Gott ist und nicht ein
Mann, deswegen und allein deswegen ist er der Liebende, der nicht zur Zerstorung kommt;
weil Jahwe Gott ist, weil er der Heilige ist, ist er der Liebende, der seinen Zorn besiegt. Jahwe
ist nicht ein Mann/Mensch, der sich vom Zorn iiberwiiltigen liiBt, sondem er beweist sein gottheitliches Wesen dadurch, daB er den Zorn durch Liebe iiberwindet".
152 Cf. JEREMIAS,
Der Prophet Hosea, 171. A thorough analysis of the relation between the
prophetic oracles of judgment and salvation often juxtaposed in Hosea, is beyond the scope of
this study. In this regard, cf. for instance S. HERRMANN,Die Prophetischen Heilserwartungen
im Alten Testament: Ursprung und Gestaltwandel (BWANT 5; Stuttgart 1965); R.E. CLEMENTS,
"Patterns in the Prophetic Canon", in Canon and Authority: Essays in Old Testament Religion
and Authority (eds. G.w. Coats -B.a. Long) (Philadelphia, Pa. 1977) 42-55; PJ. KING,
"Hosea's Message of Hope", BTB 2 (1982) 91-95; H.G.M. WILLIAMSON,
"Hope Under Judgement. The Prophets OfThe Eighth Century BeE", EvQ 72 (2000) 291-306.
134
Part I
Assyrian
3. Major Theological Themes of Hos 11 in Relation to the Book of Hosea
exile (11,5; also 8,13; 9,3.6.15)153.
not consider
this punishment
return to the landl54. Naude's
However,
as annihilation.
comment
Rather,
the book of Hosea
does
it speaks of restoration
and
on 11,9 stresses
this perspective:
The Lord, the Holy One in the midst of the people, is nonetheless not a destroyer or
demon, even when the people have been guilty of great profanity, but intends purification
through a devastating catastrophe. His purpose is not destruction, but a new future for Israel. Because God is holy, he is free from the moral imperfections and frailties common to
humanity (Hos 11:9) and can be counted on to be faithful to his promises (Ps 22:3[4]155.
The reversal
of the exodus
is conceived
threshold
for a new, harmonious
2,16-25;
14,5-9),
loving
when
call and return
possible
according
not only as a punishment
and lasting divine-human
the elected
people
to their homeland
to Hosea
11,8-9
respond
but also as the
relationship
to the voice
(11,10-11)156.
this return
of the people
but
Yahweh's
passionate
and compassionate
love, which has its basis in his divine
and holy naturel57. As Williamson
points out, "we find here a hope struggling
triumphantly
to emerge from the darkness,
mercy of the sovereign
grounded
exclusively
in the grace and
is, therefore,
Lord"158.
his wrath)
the consequence
his heart for the people.
However,
a positive
and conversion)
they hearken
where
induces
repentance
of the persistent
And the forgiveness
and return. Repentance
love of Yahweh,
is aimed
who suffers
at achieving
in
reconcilia-
tionl59. As Bons suggests:
153FIDDES,"The Cross of Hosea", 184, makes a valid observation on this point: "The
theologian has to decide how to interpret two kinds oflanguage of judgement-the language of
'letting people go' and the language of direct punishment through a foreign power. I suggest
that it is consonant with the nature of God revealed in Hosea to interpret the second language
in terms of the first. While the Hebrew idiom is that of direct causation, with God's sending
the Assyrian army to wreck havoc, we are to understand this theologically in a more indirect
way; God consents the self-destructive consequences of sin in Israelite society, which make it
an easy prey to the invader".
154Cf. e.g., HESCHEL,The Prophets, 51; SEOW,"Hosea", 297; Cf. ZIMMERLI,Old Testament
Theology, 190. See further GROSS,"Zorn Gottes", 69-70.
155NAUDE,"lLiip", 882.
156Cf. B.S. CHILDS,Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testament (Minneapolis, Mn.
1993) 177.
157Cf. e.g., CHILDS,Biblical Theology, 354. As K'RASOVEC,
Reward, Punishment, and
Forgiveness, 419, affirms: "Divine sanctity must surely be more a matter of the imperative of
God's love and redemption than of the demands of divine wrath, for the former was and is the
driving force behind Creation and the completion of the world. The purpose of Creation and
history of mankind is so manifest that no force can hinder the implementation of God's plan".
Cf. also H.G.L. PEELS,Shadow Sides: The Revelation of God in the Old Testament (Cumbria
2003) 65--66.
158WILLIAMSON,
"Hope Under Judgement", 304-305.
159Cf. NWAORU,Imagery, 179.
response
is expected
tured relationship.
by correcting
their ways (by means
from the people
The changed
attitude
to the voice of Yahweh
Israel refused
of the people
and follow
the call of Yahweh
can be traced
of repentance
for the reestablishment
of the rup-
is clear from the fact that
him (v.lO) in contrast
to 11,2,
for Baal.
in Hos 2,16-17.
Hos 2,16 presents
Yahweh
the husband's
attempt to relate to Israel the unfaithful wife by speaking to her
heart (:::It,-t,!1 1:::li) in such a way as to convince her that even if she forgets her
husband (2,15), he will not forget her. More than a love-speech,
the expression
"speak to the heart" is an imparting of Yahweh's love for Israel and a breaking
of the impasse
and forgiveness
Hosea 11 does not posit repentance as a prerequisite for Yahweh's forgiveness.
On the other hand, as 11, I0-11 indicates, though implicitly, Yahweh's forgiving
Israel, (i.e., not executing
Yahweh (foes not wait - and this is the unprecedented thing with Hosea - for Israel's
conversion (Umkehr); rather he takes the first step and by that he enables Israel's return
(Ruckkehr). The sequence of events is thus not sin - punishment - Israel's conversion
- new gift of Yahweh, but Yahweh turns back (umkehren) so to say first and gives Israel
the unconditional gift of new salvationl60.
The same pattern
of Yahweh's
What makes
is not the repentance
(cf. Hos
135
It is an expression
of non-communication.
that leads to reconciliation
of unconditional
and the strengthening
love
of a disrupted
relationship
(cf. Gen 34,3; 50,21; Judg 19,3; Isa 40,1). As a consequence
forgiveness
2,18-25)161.
Israel will respond positively
and return to covenant fidelity (Hos
As has been said already, Hosea does have a sense of punishment
for
sins. However,
pardon
"The
it is not to destroy,
and, hence,
so-called
but to help the people realise Yahweh's
is "transformative"162.
punishment
Kalluveettil
was envisaged
formulates
is to be made ofthe
by God as a disciplinary
action,
in the form of an aspiration
of the people
(6,1-2),
divine
healing/forgiveness
an invitation
to Yahweh
so sure as the seasons.
in
of election
fact that Hosea does speak of conversion
or as a hope (3,5). In 6,1 the wish to return
loving
it succinctly:
order to force Israel to turn back to him. Thus once more the purpose
ofIsrael to live as a 'con-verted'
people was realised"163.
Mention
of this
(:::l,tli)164
to them (14,2-4)
is based on the hope of
The invitation
to return
in
160BONS,"'Denn ich bin Gott, nicht ein Mensch"', 17: "JHWH wartet nieht - und dies ist
das Unerhorte bei Hosea - die Umkehr Israe1s ab; er tut vielmehr den ersten Schritt und ermoglicht ihm somit die RUckkehr. Die Reihenfolge des Geschehens ist also nieht SUnde- Strafe
- Umkehr Israels - neue Zuwendung JHWHs, sondem JHWH kehrt gleichsam als Erster urn
und schenkt Israel bedingungslos neues Heil".
161Cf. G. FISCHER,"Die Redewendung
'~i - ein Beitrag zum VersW.ndnisvon Jes
40,2", Bib 65 (1984) 249; FABRY,"~~ leb",418.
162Cf. JEREMIAS,Der Prophet Hosea, 21; FIDDES,"The Cross of Hosea", 186-190.
163P. KALLUVEETTIL,
"Convertere as the Christian Ideology", Journal of Dharma 28 (2003)
37.
164For a fuller treatment of the use the use of the root ~,lLi and the theme conversion in
Hosea cf. G. FOHRER,"Umkehr und Erlosung beim Propheten Hosea", ThZ 11 (1955) 161-185;
H.W. WOLFF,"Das Thema 'Umkehr', in der alttestamentlichen Prophetie", ZTK 48 (1951)
129-148.
"!1-~"
136
Part I
14,2--4 is also grounded on Yahweh's healing ofIsrael's ;'~itLil? (11,7; 14,5)165.
The hope ofIsrael's return to Yahweh in 3,5 is not to be understand as the result
of the punishment mentioned in 3,4 but much more as the consequence of the
love of Yahweh, that waits for Israel's retuml66. Abma, commenting on Hos 3,5
observes: "On the one hand, it is up to Israel to repent, but, on the other hand,
Yhwh's love for the people and his faithful partnership may motivate this repentance and open up this perspective"167.
Thus for Hosea, return to Yahweh is not a precondition for Yahweh's healing
and pardon, rather it is Yahweh's healing that makes the return possiblel68. In
other words, God's initiative in offering pardon does not primarily depend upon
human response. However, "forgiveness aims at achieving reconciliation; so the
completeness of its work is dependent upon the response of the offenders, and
this in turn involves the pain of recognising that their life is under judgement"169.
God's forgiving love is, hence, abounding grace freely given to erring humanity,
which needs to be accepted through repentance for its complete realisation in a
reconciled and harmonious divine-human relationship.
165 I follow here the interpretation of JEREMIAS,
Der Prophet Hosea, 168-174. Cf. also
WOLFF,"Das Thema 'Umkehr"', 141; JEREMIAS,"Zur Eschato1ogie", 84; BaNS, Das Buch
Hosea, 169; R. SCORALICK,
Gottes Gilte Gille und Gottes Zorn: Die Gottespriidikationen in Ex
34,6fund ihre intertexuellen Beziehungen zum Zwo/fProphetenbuch (HBS 33; Freiburg 2002),
158-159. But the text 14,2-9 can also be understood as a sequence of deed-consequence, i.e.,
"zuerest emsthafe Umkehr - dann die gott1iche Gnade", cf. FaHRER, "Umkehr", 230. For a
thorough study of Hos 14,2-9, evidencing the various interpretative difficulties of the unit,
cf. P.A. KRUGER,"Yahweh's Generous Love: Eschatological Expectations in Hosea 14:2-9",
GTE 1 (1988) 27-48.
166 Cf. BONS,Das Buch Hosea, 66; DAVIES,Hosea, 104.
167 ABMA,Bonds of Love, 209.
168 J. UNTERMAN,From Repentance to Redemption: Jeremiah:S Thought in Transition
(JSOTSSup 54; Sheffield 1987) 154-165, who discusses the dialectics of repentance and
redemption in Hosea has a somewhat different understanding ofthis point. He claims that there
is an inconsistency of the message of redemption in Hosea. According to him, Hos 2,16-25 and
11,8-11 depict redemption despite the people's lack of repentance while Hos 3,5 and 14,2-9
portray redemption preceded by repentance. He attributes this inconsistency to the inner turmoil
of the prophet regarding the Judgment and mercy of God. EMMERSON,Hosea: An Israelite
Prophet, attempts to resolve the apparent inconsistency between Hos 11,8-11 (cf. 2,16-25)
and 14,2-9 by suggesting that these texts manifest two diverse theologies of repentance: first,
the Hosean, reflected in 11,8-11, speaks of pardon without having repentance as a prerequisite
and the second seen in 14,2-9, posits repentance as a precondition for Yahweh's pardon (cf.
pages 52-55). JEREMIAS,Der Prophet Hosea, 169-170, makes the very plausible suggestion,
that 14,2-9 is wholly an invitation and was conceived as an invitation of God for conversion,
an invitation which was motivated by the promise of God in vs.5-9. Historically, 14,2-9 would
have been composed after 722 BC by the disciples of Hosea, who survived the disaster.
169 FIDDES,"The Cross of Hosea", 190.
PART
II