JOURNAL OF NORTHWEST SEMITIC LANGUAGES

VOLUME 25/1

1999

EDITORS:

J COOK I CORNELIUS P A KRUGER

at the University of Stellenbosch

South Africa

Editorial Board:

W T W Cloete (Bellville), W Gross (Tbingen), T Mafico (Atlanta), S Mittmann (Tbingen), P J Nel

(Bloemfontein), J H Potgieter (Pretoria), J J M Roberts (Princeton), A van der Kooij (Leiden), C H J van der
Merwe (Stellenbosch), H F van Rooy (Potchefstroom)

Published by the Department of Ancient Studies

University of Stellenbosch

V 1, p iii The Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages (ISSN 0259-0131) is published half-yearly

Contributions and books for review should be sent to

The Editor: JNSL

 Department of Ancient Studies

University of Stellenbosch

Private Bag X1 Matieland, ZA-7602

SOUTH AFRICA

Fax +27 (0)21 808 3480

e-mail: hhm@akad.sun.ac.za

Houserules

Articles submitted for publication must be according to the houserules as published in JNSL 25/1 1999.

Subscriptions should be sent to the same address but marked as Subscription: JNSL

Copyright:

Department of Ancient Studies, University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch, SOUTH AFRICA

JNSL homepage (house rules, contents, subscription)

http://www.sun.ac.za/as/journals/jnsl/

Andrew Dearman (Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary)

YHWHS HOUSE: GENDER ROLES AND METAPHORS FOR ISRAEL IN HOSEA

ABSTRACT

The proposal of J. J. Schmitt that the mother in Hosea 2 is a metaphor for Samaria is examined and found
to be unpersuasive. There are valid reasons contextually to see the people Israel portrayed
metaphorically in a feminine role. It is suggested, furthermore, that the root metaphor behind the
depiction of Israel as both wife and children is that of the people as members of YHWHs household (=
family).
In several publications, Schmitt has investigated gender imagery used to describe entities in the Hebrew
Bible such as Israel, Samaria and Jerusalem. 1 He has demonstrated that the grammatical gender of Israel
(masculine) or that of a city (feminine) may carry with it gender imagery and assumptions about social
roles. Thus Israels grammatical gender leads to the metaphor of him as Gods son (Exod 4:22; Hos
11:1), and Samarias grammatical gender leads to the metaphor of her as sister to Jerusalem and wife
of YHWH (Ezek 16:23). Schmitt has also insisted that just as grammatical gender in Hebrew is not
typically interchangeable for persons, so also certain masculine and feminine roles are not mixed in
metaphors. According to him, it is a mistake to see Israel represented metaphorically as a wife or as a

virgin ( )as many interpreters have done. Israel cannot be a she in either grammar or
metaphor. And since two masculine entities (Israel, YHWH) cannot be married, there can be no marital
metaphor to symbolize the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel and no divorce metaphor to
symbolize its rupture as many interpreters have claimed. Marital imagery certainly exists between
YHWH and his wife, but she is the capital city (Ezek 16:8, 32, 60, 62), not masculine Israel. For Schmitt,
there is a fundamental difference between the concepts of city and people (1996: 96).

His studies relate to a field of current interest among scholars and theologians, that of gender and
identity as they are depicted in ancient texts and as they are under discussion in modern societies. He is
fair in dialogue with other scholars, and it is impossible in the scope of one article to provide the kind of
broad examination that his work deserves. In what follows, V 1, p 98 Schmitts treatment of the wife of
God in Hosea 2 (1989, 1995b) will be assessed. The first step will be to assess his methods and to
examine gender imagery in Hosea 13. Second, some attention will be given to the relationship between
grammar, gender and metaphor, particularly as they impact the interpretation of the book of Hosea.
Perhaps through an examination of these matters at least something of a broader assessment of his
theories can be indicated.

1. HOSEA 2 AND ITS SETTING IN THE BOOK OF HOSEA

Schmitt acknowledges that for many interpreters, Hosea 2 is the clearest example in the Hebrew Bible
of marital imagery used symbolically to describe the relationship between Israel and YHWH (1989:6).
Two points undergird his rejection of this view. First (as already mentioned), Israel is grammatically
masculine and, according to Schmitt, is never represented metaphorically as a female in the Hebrew
Bible. Secondly, since Hosea 13 has a long and complicated prehistory, and since the final form of this
subsection2 of Hosea is the work of a redactor, it is unwise to assume that the mother in Chapter 1 3 is

1
Cf. Schmitt 1983, 1985, 1989, 1991a, 1991b, 1995, 1996.
2
Virtually all commentators note that the book of Hosea has two major subsections (13; 414). Hosea
13 is united by the symbolism of the prophets marriage and the related themes of rejection and
reconciliation. In addition to the commentaries, one may consult Sherwood (1996) for discussion of the
history of interpretation. Hosea 414 is comprised of edited sayings of the prophet.
also the mother addressed by her children in 2:4. He does not dispute the view that Hosea 2 employs
marital imagery or that the V 1, p 99 mother of 2:4 is metaphorically the wife of YHWH, only that the
mother/wife signifies Israel. He is able to show persuasively that the fate of the mother (e.g. rejection,
stripping, in 2:5, 12) can be understood as the fate of a city rejected by God and humiliated by her
enemies (e.g. Jer 13:22b, 2627; Ezek 16:39; 23:26, 29). Schmitt suggests, therefore, that the rejected
mother of 2:415 represents Samaria, and that if the mother should also be identified with Gomer, then
her role as the symbol of the city reflects a consistent gender metaphor.

Several matters invite comment. Schmitt draws upon the rich imagery of prophetic texts to show
the ways in which cities are depicted through feminine personification. Surprisingly, however, that
imagery is absent in Hosea 414, a book otherwise replete with literary symbolism. Samaria is
mentioned by name only a few times in 414 (7:1; 8:56; 10:5, 7; 13:6) and not at all in Hosea 13. 4 This
is not a decisive objection to the view that the mother in Hosea 2 is Samaria; it could simply mean that
the implicit personification of Samaria in Hosea 2 is not developed elsewhere in the book. It does mean
that the book of Hoseaa primary context for interpreting Chapter 2offers little support for the
identification of the mother with Samaria.

Furthermore, Schmitts rejection of Chapters 1 and 3 as primary clues for determining the identity of
the mother unduly limits their value as literary context. One freely admits that Chapter 2 may have a
separate literary history and setting in the prophet=s life from either the third person report of Chapter
1 or the first person report of Chapter 3. This could mean, as Schmitt suggests, that the unnamed
woman of 2:4 (the mother) is neither Gomer of Chapter 1 nor the unnamed adulteress of Chapter 3,
but this is not the sense one gains from reading Hosea 13 as a unit. Put another way, one reads across
the grain if the woman in Chapter 2 is different from the woman in Chapter 1. 5 One could claim that it

3
According to 1:26, 89 Hosea marries Gomer ( )who bears children of harlotry. There
is an explicit link between the command to marry her and the charge that the land (, feminine)
commits great harlotry against YHWH. Thus the gender metaphor is consistent: harlotry is a feminine
activity of sexual unfaithfulness against family, husband (in which case it is also adultery, )and
community. A discussion of the specific nature of Gomers harlotry, however, is beyond the scope of this
paper, since her role as faithless symbol is clear enough. The land also is a symbol; apparently in 1:2 it
refers to the people or the country/nation. Names of countries can be feminine through association with
the land (GKC 122h-i). More particularly, the land is a personified ellipsis, standing for the land of
Israel = nation. For example, in 4:13 the charge of national failure is leveled at the inhabitants of the
land ( )who stand in parallel with Israelites. Cf. also YHWHs land in 9:3. Even if the
land symbolically represents something else (Samaria?), the symbolic names of the three children, two
sons and a daughter, are each linked explicitly in 1:46, 89 to a critique of Israel.
4
The obscure Gibeah is mentioned almost as many times (5:8; 9:9; 10:9[twice]).
5
It is somewhat different with the unnamed adulteress in Chapter 3. Possibly she is not Gomer, but
another woman who represents the failure of the people. In either case, it is not likely in the first
is a redactor who makes the mother of 2:4 appear to be Gomer, 6 but this is to admit the contextual V 1,
p 100 force of Chapters 1 and 3 in determining the sense of Chapter 2. The question is not the claim that
the mother of 2:415 has a metaphorical role to play as the wife of YHWH; the question is her symbolic
identity and whether she can represent Israel as the wife of YHWH.

Apart from YHWH, the primary personal agents in Chapter 1 are Hosea, Gomer, and the three
children. As husband and father, Hosea is also a symbol for YHWH. As an unfaithful wife and mother,
Gomer is explicitly linked to the land (of Israel), which is feminine and personified as committing harlotry
against YHWH. Each child, male or female, bears a name that is also explicitly linked to Israels defection
from YHWH. After the naming of the children in Chapter 1, an editor has placed announcements of
salvation in 2:13 as part of a reversal motif. YHWHs future deliverance will reverse the judgment
indicated in Chapter 1, as symbolized by the children. 7 Contextually it is the children in 2:3 who address

( )Israelites as their siblings, reversing the judgment of Lo-Ruhamah and Lo-Ammi in Chapter 1. 8

Therefore, although 2:4 begins a new unit of speech, the children who contend ( )against their
mother in 2:4 are likely the same speakers as represented in 2:3; and the identity of the mother likewise
is Gomer. Metaphorically she represents the unfaithful land (of Israel; 1:2) and its inhabitants as the wife
of YHWH. The children reprise their role in 2:67 as symbols of unfaithful Israel.

The reversal of the mother=s rejection in 2:1625 is likely a collection of sayings of the prophet
collected by a redactor, and in context they continue the gender roles identified for the agents in 1:2
2:15. The description of the woman sought by YHWH and betrothed to him in this collection makes
explicit that the mother of 2:4 was a symbol for his wife. She is identified as someone who came up
from Egypt (2:17b), a reference to the exodus event that elsewhere in the book of Hosea applies to

instance that the woman of 3:1 is a symbol of the city or the land. Her fate is linked explicitly with the
people ( )who will need to undergo a period of preparation (3:34). Since the treatment of
the adulteress in Chapter 3 is a symbol of the treatment of Israel, then it is possible that the treatment
of the mother in Chapter 2 is also symbolic of Israel.
6
As Schmitt (1989: 610) suggests is possible. He does regard Chapters 1 and 3 as redactional
additions (1989: 7).
7
The motif occurs also in 2:1625 where the rejection of the mother and the failure of the land are
reversed. Chapter 3 is a first-person account that symbolically reverses the rejection of Israel through
the purchase of an adulteress. As a subsection of the book, Hosea 13 is comprised of literary units
which alternate expressions of judgment and deliverance.
8
The grammatical gender and the personification in 2:3 are consistent. The address to brothers reverses
the name Lo-Ammi given to the second son of Gomer; the address to the sisters reverses the name Lo-
Ruhamah given to the daughter of Gomer. One should compare 2:25, where YHWH sows her (woman)
in the land, speaks mercifully to Lo-Ruhamah and says to Lo-Ammi: you (masc. sing.) are my people.
Ephraim or Israel (11:1; 12:10, 14; 13:45). Although the gender metaphor of the V 1, p 101 woman
continues through 2:22 (and is picked up again briefly in 2:25a), it is interrupted in 2:20 through

reference to an unnamed group ( )for whom YHWH makes a covenant with the animals of the land

and for whom YHWH breaks the implements of war so that he may cause them ( )to lie
down in safety. Even if 2:20 is the work of an editor who interrupts the gender metaphor, the context
(1:22:15) provides the antecedent of them through repeated references to the children.

One may put the symbolic gender roles of Hosea 13 in list form in order to see the relationships
between them: Hosea as husband and father = YHWH; Gomer = land/nation committing harlotry; Jezreel
= Israel; Lo-Ruhamah = Israel; Lo-Ammi = Israel; unnamed mother = wife of YHWH; adulteress = Israel.
The list shows that a female can represent Israel, at least by her name (Lo-Ruhamah) and by her fate
(adulteress). It is true that the agent(s) represented by Gomer and the unnamed mother are allusive
when compared to the explicit links made elsewhere between Israel and its symbols. The evidence for
the identity of the mother is indirect, and the linking of Gomer with the land implies that the land
itself is a symbol of the personification of the nation. It is hard, therefore, to escape the conclusion that
the unnamed mother too can represent Israel.

2. GRAMMAR, GENDER AND METAPHOR IN HOSEA

The examination of gender roles in the previous section demonstrates their centrality in the
metaphorical presentation of YHWH and his wife, even if the examination did not confirm Schmitt=s
specific proposal for the unnamed mothers symbolic identity. His method presumes a kind of gender
particularity or exclusivism associated with grammatical gender that is not fully born out in Hosea 13.
Literary symbolism, 9 by its very nature, may push against such conventions or rigidity. In the case of
metaphor, two entities are linked which are not normally associated with one another, and by doing so,
a new perception of the primary subject may be created.10 Hosea 414 does not contain the kind of
extended metaphorical V 1, p 102 sayings about Israel/Ephraim and YHWH.11 In most of the texts

9
By literary symbolism is meant such things as metaphor, metonymy, simile and personification. For a
helpful introduction to symbolism in the biblical text see Caird (1980); for metaphor see Macky (1990).
10
A metaphor is a manner of expression where a subject is spoken of in terms of a symbol, sometimes
linking the two in an unfamiliar or surprising way, so that an analogy between subject and symbol is
created in order to interpret the subject for the hearer or reader. This is my own definition. One might
compare the survey and definition in Macky (1990: 3186; 567) and in Seifert (1996: 1186; 87).
11
Seifert (1996) is a thorough introduction to the linguistic analysis of metaphor (pp. 1186) and its
place in the book of Hosea (pp. 87263). She divides the books metaphors into four categories:
Betrogene Liebe (Hos 2:417; 1:2b+3a; 3:15), Drohendes Verderben (e.g. Hos 7:1112; 13:48),
Erfahrene Frsorge (e.g. Hos 11:17), Unbegreifliches Erbarmen (Hos 11:811). Cf. also Labuschagne
(1964) and Kruger (1988).
concerning Israel/Ephraim, the function of gender is actually irrelevant to the metaphor.12 One

exception could be the announcement in 13:13a that labor pains shall come upon him (
) , raising the possibility of mixed gender roles. Ephraim, as a male, is incapable of giving birth
literally (cf. Jer 30:6), so gender role is important to the metaphor. The question is whether Ephraim is
being personified as a woman about to give birth (a mixed metaphor)1 3 or as a fetus about to experience
12F

the travail of birth.1 4 The complexity of the verse=s grammar and imagery preclude certainty on the
13F

matter, but it is more likely that the birth travail of the fetus is applied metaphorically to Ephraim.1 5 14F

Such an understanding would fit Schmitts theory that gender-specific roles are not mixed in metaphor.

The problem with his theory of gender roles does surface in the language of harlotry applied to
Israel/Ephraim (4:1012, 15, 18; 5:34; 6:10). If the metaphorical language of harlotry in Hosea is gender
specific as Schmitt claims (1989: 7), then why is masculine Israel/Ephraim charged several times with

harlotry in 414? He sees the problem, but claims that the verb should not be translated as play
the harlot when used of males. According to him, if the verb meant that Israel played the role of harlot
(in a feminine-specific role), it would be inflected as a feminine form even with Israel as subject.1 6 This is
15F

to interpret the function of grammar and that of gender role in metaphor too rigidly. Even if harlotry
can be understood in V 1, p 103 ancient Israel as a gender-specific charge, it is the nature of metaphor
to compare entities in order to cast new light on a subject.1 716F

12
Cf. Hosea 7:8, 11; 9:10; 10:1, 11 and 12:7. For example, in 7:8 Ephraim is described as a half-baked
cake ( ) . The cake is feminine, but grammatical gender is not important to the
metaphor.
13
So Macintosh (1997: 54344).
14
So Andersen and Freedman (1980: 638).
15
13:13b can be rendered: it is not the time for him to hesitate (literally stand) at the point of
delivery. This would suggest that the travail of 13:13a comes upon the fetus in the womb.
16
The verb is used elsewhere with a masculine subject (e.g. Num 15:39 and Judg 2:17), with the
meaning lusting after/playing the harlot after other deities. Something similar is predicated of Israel
in Hosea. Cf. Kruger (1985). Schmitt does not say how the verb should be translated when predicated of
males.
17
Schmitts interpretation of adultery is also problematic (1989: 7). He states that the people are not
charged with adultery ( )in 414, though it is a regular charge against the accused in 13. This is
not true. The charge (literal not metaphorical?) of adultery against the people can be found in 4:2. Thus,
 The metaphorical language in Hosea about YHWH is relevant to this discussion. The imagery has
tremendous diversity, including some gender-specific roles (e.g. father, husband). Schmitt acknowledges
these roles as consistent with YHWHs grammatical gender, but he is also careful to note that feminine
imagery is predicated of YHWH elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (1985).18 He does so, however, without
recognizing the potential contradiction with his denial that masculine Israel can be symbolized in a
feminine gender role. Although it is unwise simply to assume symmetry in the range of imagery for
YHWH and that for Israel, in both cases the data suggest that YHWH and Israel can, on occasion, be
symbolized in feminine imagery.

In another context Schmitt remarks with some dismay about the people who refer to Israel as she
and to YHWH as he (1996: 10506). Again, the rigidity of his theory leads to a difficulty. Grammatical
gender is one thing, but almost certainly those who speak in this manner are influenced, at least in part,
by the marital metaphor as expressive of the covenant between YHWH and Israel. In spite of impressive
evidence to the contrary (Sohn 1991:1044, 18389, 200203),19 he denies that the covenant V 1, p 104
formula is patterned on the marriage formula, since this would place Israel metaphorically in the female
role (1996: 96).20 With regard to the interpretation of Hosea, Schmitt offers the objection that the
phrase in 2:4, she is not my wife and I am not her husband, differs from the form of the typical

not only is predicated of masculine Israel, so is . It should be noted that Schmitt does not say
of adultery that it is gender-specific as he implies with harlotry.
18
Some scholars posit feminine activity for YHWH in Hosea 11:18. For discussion, see Seibert (1996:
198202).

19
Sohn provides examples of the four related formulae for taking ( )a woman in marriage (e.g. (i)
1 Kings 16:31; 1 Chron 14:3; (ii) 2 Chron 11:18; (iii) Gen 12:19, 25:20; (iv) Gen 24:67; 1 Sam 25:43; Ruth
4:13). One should compare Hosea 1:2 and the command: take for yourself a woman (
). The covenant formula of Exod 6:7a follows the third marriage formula exactly: I will take you
( )to be my people and I will be )your God. The term belong to ( ) is employed
for the status of marriage (e.g. Gen 20:12; Deut 22:29; 1 Sam 25:43; Ruth 4:13) and for that of covenant
member (e.g. Lev 26:12; I will be your God [ ] and you will be my people). For
some additional examples, see Deut 26:1718; Jer 7:23; 11:4; 24:7; 31:33; 32:38; Ezek 36:28; 37:27, and
the treatment of Smend (1963). Hosea 1:9 has a play on the term and on the name YHWH in its
parody of the marital/covenant formulae.
20
The covenant and marital formulae are similar in syntactical form, perhaps because marriage was
understood in monarchical Israel not just contractually, but also as a relationship having the status of a
covenant. Cf. Hugenberger (1993: 216338). One should be cautious, however, in assuming that the
covenant formulae were simply derived from those used in marriage. Conceptual and syntactical
similarity do not require literary dependence.
covenant formula (Lev 26:12) because the covenant text employs the use of a lamed, whereas the
marital formula in Hos 2:4 uses no lamed (1983: 117118).21 There are two problems with his
conclusion. First, Hosea 2:4 is not a marital formula, although it is possibly a terse divorce
pronouncement. Second, as Sohn points out, one of the variables in the marital formulae is whether a
lamed is used to govern either the direct object and/or the indirect object. It seems, therefore, that
Schmitt=s objection to the relationship between the marital and covenantal formulae is based finally on
his theory that Israel cannot have the metaphorical role of wife, rather than a detailed examination of
the texts in question.

Hosea 2:4 and 1:9 should be compared with one another in any assessment of marital/covenant
imagery in Hosea. Hosea 2:4 is a declaration that reverses the status of a marriage, while 1:9 is a parody
that reverses the status of the covenant between YHWH and Israel. When set side-by-side, their
congruence is obvious:

She is Lo-Ishti (not my wife) and I am Lo-Ishah (not her husband).

You are Lo-Ammi (not my people) and I am Lo-Ehyeh (I will not be)22 for you.

V 1, p 105 Both statements contain wordplays designed to negate the same relationship. In 2:4 the
children address their mother on behalf of her husband (their father). In light of the wordplay on names
in 1:9, one can see in 2:4 a wordplay that symbolically projects a new name based on a change of
status for the mother. In 1:9 the wordplay reverses the covenant between YHWH and Israel through
the assertion that Lo-Ammi is Israel and that Ehyeh of Exod 3:14 has become correspondingly Lo-
Ehyeh. In 2:4, YHWH is the husband who rejects his wife, the children=s mother. Perhaps it is more
accurate to say that 2:4 and 1:9 evoke one another. This is the case because the covenant between
YHWH and Israel in the book of Hosea is symbolized by the marriage between the prophet and Gomer.

3. CONCLUSION

21
It is the lamed used to govern a direct object or indirect object that Schmitt has in mind.

22
This name reflects a word-play between and ( like Exod 3:1415) and also on the
possessive term , meaning belong to, which can be used in the marriage and covenant
formulae. For a discussion of possible translations of 1:9, see Ehrlich (1985). Ehrlich proposes to emend
the last clause and read: I will not be your God ( ) . He does not accept the
double word-play proposed here or that the final is the indirect object governed by a lamed.
Anyone who reads Schmitts articles will see that he collects a lot of evidence for a close relationship
between grammatical gender and gender-specific imagery (metaphorical roles). The problem is not that
he is wrong to isolate the phenomena and to insist that scholars recognize them and interpret them
accurately; it is that on occasion he interprets the evidence too rigidly and also assumes a consistency of
expression that is not always borne out by examination. In the case of Hosea 2 and the unnamed
mother/wife of YHWH, he has shown that her fate is similar to that described elsewhere for defeated
cities. Furthermore, his conclusion that the mother is a symbol for Samaria is plausible; but his proposal
works best when Chapter 2 is isolated from its literary context in 13 and when a hypothetical earlier
form of the rb speech in 2:415 is the basis for the conclusion.

In Hosea 13 there are gender-specific roles depicted for YHWH, Gomer and the children, and each
role can be understood as part of a familial metaphor used to symbolize the relationship between
YHWH and Israel. Neither Gomer nor the unnamed mother (2:4) represent Israel as explicitly as do the
children (male and female) and the unnamed adulteress (3:15). Schmitt may well be right that such a
direct portrayal of Israel as a wife/mother was culturally awkward, if not unconventional, but his case
that the mother represents Samaria is weak. None of the other female agents (Gomer, Lo-Ruhamah,
adulteress) in 13 represent Samaria, and neither apparently does the mother. She too represents Israel
in defection from YHWH.23

V 1, p 106 Schmitts rejection of the derivation of the covenant formula from that for marriage is
formally distinct from his rejection of the identity of the mother with Israel, but his two conclusions are
finally related. His own criticism of the derivation hypothesis is so general that it can hardly be
persuasive, even if there should be other grounds on which to question a formal literary dependence.
The covenant that YHWH established with Israel is pivotal in the book of Hosea (8:1), and the marriage
metaphor in 13 is its symbol. This conclusion can be sustained on a close reading of Hosea 13 apart
from the related question of the dependence of the covenant formula upon that for marriage.

Scholars typically treat the marital and the parent/child imagery in Hosea as if they are different
metaphors. And they are. Nevertheless, one should ask if it is not possible to see the different roles of
spouse, parent and child in the book as part of a larger root metaphor of the family (or better
household) in Israels cultural milieu?24 Spouses and children in ancient Israel, as in virtually all pre-
modern societies, found their primary identity in the family, rather than through their individual social

23
If the mother is a symbol for Samaria, then almost certainly Samaria represents the house of Israel
through metonymy, a figure of speech whereby an entity is symbolized by reference to something
characteristic of it. Thus, in American expression one often speaks of the White House as an acting
agent when what is meant is the presidency, the executive branch of the government, or even the
official voice of the national government.
24
In her detailed analysis, Seifert (1996) investigates the marriage and parent/child metaphors
separately, rather than approaching them as if they could be interpreted together as part of a more
fundamental household metaphor.
roles (Perdue, et al. 1997 and Dearman 1998).25 What modern interpreters often separate because of
their conceptual framework (i.e. marriage, children, property = land) would be held together in antiquity
under the primary social unit known as the family/household. 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 (= the household) which provides each member with his
or her primary identity. For Hosea 13, this would mean interpreting Gomer and the children in their
roles as a symbolic representation of Israel as the household of YHWH, rather than interpreting the
chapters as a collection of prophecies simply employing a variety of symbolic images.

V 1, p 107 Finally, if the preceding proposal has any merit, then it may shed some light on the term
YHWHs household in 8:1, 9:4, and the reference to my house in 9:15. The text of 8:1 is difficult, but

it contains a threat to YHWHs house ( )because of its (literally their) rebellion against
YHWHs covenant ( )and instruction (). Since the term is unlikely to be a reference to the
temple in Jerusalem, YHWHs house refers either to a temple in Samaria (Bethel?) or to Israel as a
nation. Of the two options, a reference to the nation seems more preferable in context, for both 8:1 and
9:4.2 6 Israel, therefore, understood as YHWHs house, may be the conceptual key to the familial
25F

imagery in the book of Hosea and the gender roles depicted for its members.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Andersen, F & Freedman, D N 1980. Hosea. Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday & Co.

Caird, G B 1980. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster Press.

Dearman, J A 1998. The Family in the Old Testament. Interpretation 52, 11729.

25
The household not only grounded Old Testament theology in Israels social reality but became the
primary lens through which to view the character and activity of God, the identity and self-
understanding of Israel in its relationship to God, the value and meaning of the land as the nahalah God
gives to Israel, and Israels relationship to the nations (so Perdue 1997: 22526).
26
The reference in 9:4 also could refer to the nation or a temple. The reference to YHWHs land in 9:3
suggests that the house in 9:4 is another reference to the nation perceived as land and inhabitants.
The statement attributed to YHWH in 9:15, that I will drive them (wicked Ephraim) from my house
(), is consistent with this understanding of house. Possibly the expression house of his
(Ephraims) God in 9:8 is also a reference to the land and people of Israel who belong to YHWH.
Ehrlich, C S 1985. The Text of Hosea 1:9. JBL 104, 1319.

Hugenberger, G P 1993. Marriage as a Covenant: A Study of Biblical Law and Ethics Governing Marriage
Derived from Malachi. VTSup 52. Leiden: E. J. Brill.

Kruger, P A 1985. Israel the Harlot (Hos. 2:49). JNSL 11, 107116.

Kruger, P A 1988. Prophetic Imagery. On Metaphors and Similes in the Book Hosea. JNSL 14, 14351.

Labuschagne, C J 1964. The Similes in the Book of Hosea, in: van Zyl, A H (ed). Studies on the Books of
Hosea and Amos. Potchefstroom: Pro Rege-Pers Beperk, 6476.

Macky, P 1990. The Centrality of Metaphors to Biblical Thought. Lewiston: The Edwin Mellen Press.

Macintosh, A A 1997. Hosea. International Critical Commentary; Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

V 1, p 108 Perdue, L et. al. 1997. Families in Ancient Israel. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Schmitt, J J 1983. The Gender of Ancient Israel. JSOT 26, 11525.

Schmitt, J J 1985. The Motherhood of God and Zion as Mother. RB 92, 55769.

Schmitt, J J 1989. The Wife of God in Hosea 2. Biblical Research 24, 518.

Schmitt, J J 1991a. Israel and Zion-Two Gendered Images: Biblical Speech Traditions and Their Current
Neglect. Horizons 18, 1832.

Schmitt, J J 1991b. The Virgin of Israel: Referent and Use of the Phrase in Amos and Jeremiah. CBQ 53,
36587.

Schmitt, J J 1995. Yahwehs Divorce in Hosea 2Who is That Woman? SJOT 9, 11932.

Schmitt, J J 1996. Gender Correctness and Biblical Metaphors: The Case of God=s Relation to Israel. BTB
26, 96106.

Seifert, B 1996. Metaphorisches Reden von Gott im Hoseabuch. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Sherwood, I 1996. The Prophet and the Prostitute. Hosea=s Marriage in Literary-Theoretical Perspective.
JSOTS 212; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.

Smend, R 1963. Die Bundesformel. Zrich: EVZ Verlag.

Sohn, T S 1991. The Divine Election of Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.