Journal of Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Research Volume 5 Article 4 2013 The etM aphor of Marriage in Hosea Leif Fredheim [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/jiur Part of the Arts and Humanities Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Fredheim, Leif (2013) "The eM taphor of Marriage in Hosea," Journal of Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Research: Vol. 5 , Article 4. Available at: https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/jiur/vol5/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Peer Reviewed Journals at KnowledgeExchange@Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Interdisciplinary Undergraduate Research by an authorized editor of KnowledgeExchange@Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Metaphor of Marriage in Hosea Leif Fredheim “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord” (Hosea 1:2). The message of Hosea is provocative. For this very reason, the biblical book of Hosea has frustrated and intrigued scholars for over two millennia. Scholarly debate has raged due to the implications the text has for the character of God and His prophet, and the ways in which God interacts with His people. It cannot, however, be claimed that the discussion has been concluded; “from centuries of critical debate only one consensus on the book of Hosea emerges: that it is a disturbing, fragmented, outrageous and notoriously problematic text.”1 The book of Hosea is unique not only on account of the metaphorical nature of Hosea’s ministry, but also because of his message which is one of the clearest illustrations of God’s grace in the Old Testament. Little is known about Hosea; this is indicative of the fact that the book was never meant to be a biography, and that who Hosea was is largely irrelevant to his message. Very few details are offered in the portion of the book narrating Hosea’s marriage to Gomer (Hosea 1-3). The sheer number of conflicting interpretations offered by scholars regarding the relationship between Hosea and Gomer demonstrates the complexity of the issue at hand, and the high degree of caution that must be taken when making authoritative claims concerning the sequence of events outlined in the first three chapters of the book. In addition to the lack of detail in the text, the text itself has been very poorly preserved.2 This has, no doubt, been used to justify interpretations that appear inconsistent with the plain reading of the text. Due to the relative lack of evidence, scholars should be modest in their claims about Hosea and his marriage; unfortunately, most have not been willing to be so. In this study the author has attempted to briefly demonstrate the way in which the prevalent views on the marriage between Hosea and Gomer have developed historically, from the church fathers through contemporary scholarship. In doing so, the two main motivating factors for these interpretations has been identified; the interpreter’s stance on the spiritual nature of early Israel and view of the character of God. Finally the author’s interpretation is offered, emphasizing the implications it has for the spiritual history of Israel and the balance between grace and justice integral to God’s character. While much has been written about the issue, the author has chosen not to discuss the nature of Gomer’s “harlotry;” despite being an interesting question, whether or not she took part in cultic prostitution is largely irrelevant to the argument and therefore beyond the scope of this paper. 1 Yvonne Sherwood, The Prostitute and the Prophet: Hosea’s Marriage in Literary-Theoretical Perspective (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 11. 2 Bruce Vawter, Amos, Hosea, Micah: with an introduction to classical prophecy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1981), 23. [1] The Development of Interpretation The Targum of the Minor Prophets, thought to have been written during one of the first three centuries of the Common Era, aptly demonstrates the reluctance of the Jews to accept a literal reading of Hosea. Although the Targums were translations of the Hebrew text, not commentaries, the exegetical position of the translator is often very clear; the Aramaic translation of Hosea is an excellent example of this. The Targum reads that God commanded Hosea to “go speak a prophecy against the inhabitants of the idolatrous city, who continue to sin” (Hosea 1:2).3 There is no mention of Gomer; there is no mention of a marriage. In fact, the Targum removes the metaphor of marriage from the narrative completely. However, it is interesting to note that the imagery of harlots and adultery is not removed from the second part of the book containing Hosea’s sermons.4 The translator is evidently not opposed to the use of such language in Scripture, but simply uncomfortable with the acting out of the metaphor by God’s prophet. From the very beginning, Christian interpretation was dominated by “fundamental hermeneutical differences.”5 Stephan Bitter suggests that the school in Antioch emphasized the literal reading of the text, while the Alexandrian school favored an allegorical approach because of the text’s offensive nature. While it is known that early commentaries on Hosea were written by Origen and Eusebius, all that remains is preserved through quotations in later commentaries. The writings of Jerome bring to light that Origen favored an allegorical or visionary approach, whereas Eusebius proposed that although Hosea and Gomer lived in the same house, their marriage was never consummated, and the children Gomer later bore were therefore not Hosea’s. The oldest complete commentary on Hosea was written by Theodor of Mopsuestia, probably while still in his youth.6 Theodor, who belonged to the Antiochian school, believed Hosea actually did marry Gomer and that through their marriage Hosea was able to lead her “auf den Weg der Keuschheit zurück.”7 Bitter presents Didymus the Blind (313-398 CE) as the prime example of the Alexandrian school of interpretation. He wrote that Hosea’s claim that God told him to marry a harlot was no more than an excuse the prophet made to save face. Alexandrian scholars followed the lead of Origen, claiming, among other things, that a harlot was not a fitting parallel to Israel. Thus they took great pains to separate the will and commands of God from the narrative of Hosea, criticizing Hosea for his actions without bearing God’s command in mind.8 In his commentary on Hosea, Cyril of Alexandria (370-444 CE) broke from the Alexandrian tradition by being very clear that the text must be taken at its merit. He consciously opposed the views of Origin and Eusebius from the outset by warning the reader that one should not be persuaded “to condemn the unlikelihood of the facts, to dismiss the 3 Kevin Catchart, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1989), 29. 4 Ibid., 38. 5 Stephan Bitter, Die Ehe des Propheten Hosea: Eine Auslegungsgeschichtliche Untersuching (Göttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1975), 181; translation by author “prinzipielle hermeneutische Gegensätze.” 6 Ibid., 15-18. 7 Ibid., 20; translation by author “back to the path of chastity.” 8 Ibid., 21-22. [2] tastelessness of the event.”9 Cyril recognized that the unnecessary inclusion of detail, such as the name of Gomer’s father, “verbietet, die Wirklichkeit dieser Geschichte anzuzweifeln.”10 He therefore argued that Hosea did not marry Gomer out of lust, but in obedience to God; through their relationship Hosea saved Gomer, at least for a time, from her promiscuous behavior and made her the mother of legitimate children.11 In defense of his view, Cyril suggested that it is no more unreasonable that a prophet have intercourse with an impure woman than “that the Word of God chose to communicate with an unclean soul.”12 By making this argument, Cyril made it clear that he held the parallel between God/Hosea and Israel/Gomer in high regard, and that he recognized God’s willingness to associate with sinful man. This view was, no doubt, the result of reflection over his personal experience of communicating with God, and verses in the New Testament such as Ephesians 5:25-27, where God refers to the imperfect church as His bride. Paul makes it clear that God’s church is not without blemish, but that He is in the process of cleansing it and making it pure; according to Cyril, Hosea’s Old Testament ministry was a reflection of this act. Jerome’s commentary on Hosea remained authoritative well into the Middle Ages.13 It is likely this was because of the way in which he attempted to balance the Antiochian and Alexandrian schools of interpretation, in addition, of course, to his reputation earned from other writings. Jerome’s introduction, which is widely quoted because it aptly describes the difficulty scholars have been and still are faced with when interpreting Hosea, is a call to the Holy Spirit for wisdom.14 Jerome’s inconclusiveness is emphasized by Bitter’s survey of what subsequent scholars have claimed Jerome believed about Hosea’s marriage to Gomer; the proposed interpretations range from “inneres Erlebnis” to “wirklichen Ereignisses.”15 Rabbi Ibn Ezra was one of the most prolific exegetes of the Middle Ages. Although originally from Spain, Ibn Ezra wrote from Rome, Provence, Normandy, and England, thus spreading his repute all over Western Europe. In his commentary on Hosea, Ibn Ezra forcefully