The New Covenant In The Book Of Hosea

Gary W. Light
To speak of a new covenant is to speak radically. In fact, the phrase new covenant (b ert hadasah) occurs only once in the Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah 31:31. No Old Testament writer after Jeremiah makes use of the term. Only two groups connected with Judaism, the Essene sect of Qumran and the Christian churches of the New Testament, take up the phrase. Perhaps it was simply an idea too unsettling, too shocking, to be repeated, for it hints that God did not take adequate steps the first time to ensure peoples loyalty; there were loopholes in the first contract which God will now close because he learns by his mistakes.2 While the Old Testament community of faith may have resisted the concept of a new covenant, the source of Jeremiahs new covenant, many insist, is to be found in the Old Testament itself, Hosea 2:18. Nevertheless, Hosea 2:18 may not be so easily interpreted as a new covenant established between YHVH and Israel. A close, more precise reading of this passage reveals that the nature of this convenant is entirely different. It is YHVHs covenant with creation on behalf of Israel; it is not YHVHs covenant with Israel. This article will investigate the idea of covenant in the book of Hosea in order to determine if one is justified in speaking of a new covenant within the message of the book.

Covenant: Restoration or Renovation?

Harold Fisch writes that the book of Hosea is a remarkably covenantal text. In fact, central to the whole prophecy is the image of a marriage bond that holds in spite of betrayal (3:1), of a covenant transgressed (8:1) and reforged (2:2022), one that binds Israel to God and both to the world of natural things. The question to be resolved is whether this covenant is still the same instrument, or a different one, after it has been reforged. Hans Walter Wolff is convinced that what is offered Hosea is indeed a new covenant. After reviewing the covenantal concepts contained within Hoseas marriage metaphors, Wolff writes, Jer 31:3134 adds little more to this than the appropriate catchword new covenant. The nature of the covenant relationship between YHVH and Israel is shown through the metaphors of 2:1923. On the other hand, there are those who understand Hoseas message to be one of restoration. Reading the words of Hosea in the light of Pentateuchal traditions, especially those of Deuteronomy, Stuart writes that Hoseas good
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 220

news is that eschatological Israel would again benefit from the blessings given that first generation in the original Sinai covenant (Lev 26:45), including ownership by Yahweh (I will be their God). Nevertheless, even though Stuart consistently speaks of restoration, he describes the marriage metaphor of Hosea as meaning the new will have the qualities the old lacked, and he states that the covenant which will be restored is the true covenant. Therefore, in terms of covenant theology, the book of Hosea seems to present a renovation much more than a restoration. It is not the proclamation of covenant renewal in the sense of merely reaffirming or

reactivating the same covenant that Israel had shattered. The book of Hosea offers a new conceptualization of the meaning of covenant. The situation is as different as remodeling an old building by completely renewing its facilities is different from restoring an old building to its original condition with historical accuracy. Hosea transforms the original covenant into a truly new covenant for those who respond positively to the message of the prophet. The original covenant, however, is not something discarded or irrelevant. The metaphors which describe the new covenantal relationship are not unrelated to Hoseas earlier treatment of the relationship between YHVH and Israel. The new covenant is a renewal of the old. In it the promise and intent of Gods personal relationship with his people finds a fullness of expression which had not been realized in the old.

The Fate of the Old Covenant in Hosea

Hosea twice declares that the covenant between YHVH and Israel has been broken, Hosea 8:1 and 6:7. Hosea 8:1 is a call for the distress alarm to be sounded. Israel is under attack because they have broken covenant and rebelled against YHVH, a king even greater than the king of Assyria. Hosea 6:7 also speaks of a broken covenant: For just as at Adam, they broke the covenant. Hoseas use of the covenant concept in these two verses indicates that he is referring to a well-known way of expressing a mutual obligation contracted between YHVH and Israel. In fact, some have suggested that the idea of covenant, which came from the realm of international politics, had become a legal and external description which no longer did justice to vital personal quality of the divine-human relationship.13 For this reason, Hosea 6:7 adds a phrase which is a marriage metaphor that infuses personal qualities into the relationship: There they cheated on me. The situation is a personal one in which love has been violated. God declares in verse six, For I delight in loyal love [ hesed], not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God [daat elohim] more than burnt offerings. These terms are appropriate for the marriage relationship, and the absence of these qualities is an indication of broken marriage vows. Gods desire for love and knowledge permits no response that is impersonal. Thus Hosea does more than simply declare that the old covenant is destroyed. The reason for its failure is shown through the metaphors of broken personal relationships which expose the inadequacy of a legalistic understanding of covenant.
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 221

Hosea 4:13
Hosea 4:13 is widely recognized as the beginning of a major division of the book which at the same time maintains verbal and thematic connections with the first three chapters of the work. Hosea 4:13 preserves YHVHs indictment against Israel in which he charges the nation with breaking covenant. In terms echoing the Decalogue, Israel is accused of cursing, lying, murdering, stealing, and adultery (4:2). This violence which knows no bounds is a deliberate breaking of the covenant and results in the loss of all living things which fill the land. This passage, however, does not simply state that Israel has broken the old covenant with YHVH because it has committed certain illegal acts. Like 6:7, it also points to the absence of relational qualities on the part of Israel as the cause of the broken covenant: For there is no trustworthiness, no loyal love, and no knowledge of God in the land (4:1). In fact, the lack of relationship is given priority of expression over the actual violations of the covenant. The three relational terms, trustworthiness (emet), loyal love (hesed), and knowledge of God (da 'at 'elohm), should not be treated as three distinct, isolated terms. Together they express the

central importance of a relationship which is intensely intimate and enduring. The use of these terms, especially the term hesed, suggests that the fellowship which Hosea envisions between YHVH and Israel cannot be expressed by the term covenant (bert) when covenant is understood as a legal obligation. Rather, for Hosea, the idea of covenant takes second place to the relational concept expressed, for example, by the term hesed. Covenant in effect becomes a synonym for Yahwehs kind, enduring, personal relationship in order to emphasize its permanence and constancy. . ., its inviolability and trustworthiness. Thus the use of the term hesed in connection with the idea of covenant presents a new concept that is not to be understood legalistically. As Zobel writes, In it we hear overtones of promise and grace, mercy and unexpected kindness, not of law and obligation. Hosea 4:13 should not read, therefore, as merely another covenant lawsuit lamenting the breaking of the old covenant. It needs to be read, along with the whole of chapter four, in terms of the metaphors which present YHVH as Person-in-relation with Israel and establish the possibility of a new covenant. There are clear references to the marriage metaphors treating YHVH as the husband of Israel found in Hosea 13. The very lawsuit (rb) of 4:1 has as its background the call to testify (rb) of 2:2 (Heb. 2:4). The missing qualities of 4:1 are the same ones sought by the husband in 2:2122. The betrothal called for faithfulness (emna), but there is no trustworthiness (emet); the sought after loyal love (hesed) is lacking; and the bride who was supposed to know YHVH (veyda'att'et yhvh) has no such knowledge of God (daat elohm).
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 222

Hosea 1:29
The fate of the old covenant is treated at the very beginning of the book of Hosea, 1:29. In this section, while the marriage metaphor is certainly present, a different metaphor dominates, that of the parent-child relationship. Go, marry a woman of prostitutions and have children of prostitutions (1:2). Following this command are three symbolic acts in which the prophet is instructed to name his children, 1:3b5, 67, and 89. While the narrative reflects a real marriage and the births of real children, it is doubtful that any biographical information on the nature of Hoseas domestic relations can be gathered from the names of the children. Clearly the text relates these names to the relationship of YHVH and Israel, not to the prophet and his family. The metaphors of parent-child are used to explore the nature of this broken covenant relationship. When his first son is born, the prophet is told to name him Jezreel (God Sows). The name is a place name which refers to a valley rich in agriculture and momentous military history, or the city which witnessed the cruelties of Ahab and Jezebel. Thus the name itself may be declaring that God is sowing blessings, or he sows seeds of destruction. The context, however, leaves no doubt that the intention of the name is negative, the royal power of the house of Israel will be destroyed. The interpretation of the name of this son suggests a motif which is common throughout the ancient Near East, the king as the son of God. The name of the first child shows a broken relationship which results in lost leadership for Israel; there will be no son (king) among them to guide them along the fathers way. The next child is a daughter. Her name also points to a broken relationship: Lo Ruhama, Not-Loved-By-Her-Parent. Here the interpretation is not limited to the royal leadership, but includes all of Israel. I will no longer demonstrate love to Israel. On the contrary, I will

certainly remove (it) in regard to them (1:6). The plural personal pronoun of the interpretation of the name shows how closely connected this verse is with Hosea 2:4, And I will not demonstrate parental love to her children, for they are children of prostitutions. A third child is born into the family. In verse eight the prophet receives another command, Call his name, Not-My-People, because you are not My People and I am not I AM in relation to you. While many translations emend the text to read .. . I am not your God, most modern commentators agree that the Hebrew text preserves an allusion to Exodus 3:14 where the I AM stands for the personal divine name, YHVH. The covenant between YHVH and his people has been broken, and the rupture has been described in terms of personal relationships which express progressively harsher consequences for Gods people. Without a king [v. 4] Israel can live, without Gods protection [v. 6] it can live only in a permanent fear of going under, but living without God [v. 9] is impossible.
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 223

The Nature of the New Covenant in Hosea

The book of Hosea also presents the possibility of a new covenant between YHVH and Israel. The text, however, does not portray this new covenant as a second contract, better than the first, because God has learned to tighten loopholes. Rather the concept of covenant (bert) undergoes a transformation that completely removes it from the context of international treaties or legal contracts. This transformation is brought about by the use of three metaphoric networks: marriage, parenthood, and agriculture. These three groupings are not as diverse as they may appear at first glance. They are united by a common presentation of YHVH as Person who desires an intimate relationship with his counterpart. It is this intimate, personal element which makes YHVHs covenant with Israel new.

Marriage Metaphors: Hosea 2:223

Hosea 2:223, which has been called one of the greatest poems of the Old Testament, contributes to an understanding of the nature of the new covenant through its use of a metaphoric network built around the concept of marriage. The central verse of this poem is 2:16, And it will be on that day (This is an oracle of YHVH) you will declare, My 'is-husband, and you will no longer declare concerning me, My baal-husband. God reveals what kind of covenant he wishes to have with his people, a marriage covenant. This marriage covenant will be different from Israels contemporary understanding of the marriage bond because the wording of the vows is changed. The familiar word for husband, baal, is to be replaced by another word also meaning husband, 'is. Although in some contexts these words are synonyms, this deliberate change demands a distinction between them here. The first term, baal, is derived from the verb that means 1. own, rule over. . .; 2. take possession of a woman as a bride or wife. . ., The new word, 'is, can mean person or husband. This latter term is described as the more intimate, more personal address of one person toward another.28 Therefore, Wolff seems to capture accurately its meaning when he writes that it is apparently an endearing expression; it addresses the husband as one who belongs to and even enjoys a deep personal relationship with the wife [ishsha]. 'is is then the more intimate, personal and total term which points to one who loves as partner and counterpart. The result is that Hosea benefits from the option which the language provides him of designating the spouse either by the more legal term: Lord [baali], or by the term with a more familial and human tone: husband, literally: man [ishi]. The benefit is that the change

in terminology provides a means for expressing the newness of the relationship which Hosea foresees between God and his People. This newness is expressed by the metaphoric network of marriage used throughout the whole of 2:223. It is in this passage that it becomes completely clear that the purpose of the book of Hosea is not to present a biographical account of the prophets marriage. Rather, this poem, like the whole of Hosea,
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 224

contrasts Israels present religious situation and the demands of the new covenantal relationship with Yahweh in the boldest terms possible. The beginning of the poem appears to be a legal case between a husband and his wife before the elders of a city. Their children are called as witnesses who are to contend (rb) with their mother in a scandalous, public divorce complete with the legal formula: She is not my wife and I am not her husband. The reader, however, soon discovers that this is no ordinary session of divorce court, nor is this an ordinary couple. While a very powerful man might accuse and threaten his wife and children, the threats of verse eleven, as well as those which follow, cannot be those of a mortal being: And I will put a stop to all her rejoicing: her feasts, her new moons, and all her sacred seasons. The end of verse thirteen reveals the identity of the husband: the oracle of YHVH. Because of this explicit identification, the poem must be reevaluated from its beginning. The children are commanded to testify, rbu. While this legal term may mean to file charges against someone, to accuse, it may also be used for the arguing of a case by bringing forth evidence. Here the children are ordered to take part in a trial as witnesses who are themselves part of the evidence. They are children of prostitution (2:4) and could even be considered hostile witnesses. Nevertheless, their testimony is not to be part of a divorce proceeding.36 This rather peculiar legal proceeding may actually be closer to a court action seeking to ascertain the facts of a case, rather than a suit seeking to achieve a certain legal end. Instead of a divorce formula, 2:2a has been interpreted as a double rhetorical question which affirms that the marriage is still in force: Reason with your mother, Reason [with her] for is she not my wife and am I not her husband? This translation is attractive because it demonstrates clearly at the outset that the legal proceeding has reconciliation as its purpose. It is as if YHVH states a legal truth which the trial should confirm. On the basis of the Aramaic Jewish marriage documents found at Elephantine and the legal texts of Exodus 21:3, 22; Leviticus 21:4; and Deuteronomy 22:22 and 24:4, however, one would expect a legal statement to employ the term baal for husband, and not the term 'is, which is used here. The fact that 2:16 portrays the time when Israel will call out to YHVH, My beloved husband ['is ], as a future event also suggests that 2:2a is not a rhetorical question. If YHVH were already Israels 'is, there would be no need for the hopeful words of 2:1623. This verse then is neither a statement of divorce nor a rhetorical question affirming the marriage. While the marriage is indeed intact, it is not the type of marriage relationship which YHVH wants. Sure, he is able to put his unfaithful wife on trial; yes, divorce is a possibility;

true, punishment is his right. Nevertheless, even though it is apparent that he is Israels legal husband (baal), YHVH declares that he is not yet her beloved husband ('is). It is this new
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 225

conceptualization of the marriage relationship which is the new covenant in Hosea. When the words of 2:16 are actualized, then the new covenant will be a reality. The words of 2:2a demonstrate that the new covenant is not a reality, not yet. Hosea 2:216, which forms the first half of the poem, portrays YHVH as a husband who surveys the whole situation of his marriage, as he seeks to bring about a new relationship with his wife, a relationship which will stretch the legal model of marriage/covenant to the breaking point. This section presents the actual state of the marriage (2:25) and three courses of action available to the husband corresponding to the infidelity of the wife (2:68, 913, and 1416). Nevertheless, the husband does not appear to be reviewing the options that are his as her legal husband and anticipating the results of each. Everything points to the husbands desire for a new relationship because the present relationship is unacceptable as a marriage/covenant. The husband always refers to his wife in third person (she/her) in the first half of the poem, demonstrating his sense of alienation and separation from her. The change to the second person (you) only occurs at 2:16ff. when the old vows will be exchanged for new ones. Instead of addressing his wife directly, he calls upon the children to convince their mother that her case is hopeless. If he brought her to trial for adultery, she would be convicted. If he sued for divorce, it would be granted. The children are to give indisputable evidence so that their mother will respond to the gracious invitation of her husband and rid herself of all the physical indications of her crimes. The only alternative is to suffer their removal, along with everything else, by the hand of her husband, Or else I will strip her naked (2:3). The children, however, remain silent. Their silence forces the husband to state explicitly the charges, Indeed, their mother has been a prostitute; she who conceived them has caused shame (2:5a). The proof is a direct quotation of the wife, I wish to go after my lovers, those who give me my food and my water, my wood and my flax, my oil and my drink (2:5b). The charge is undeniable; she is condemned by her own words. Either the marriage is over, or the husband must find some means of making it new and vital. He will no longer be satisfied with a merely legal union, a marriage in name only. There must be a mutual relationship of love, intimacy, and loyalty. He must become her 'is, her loving, beloved husband, and not simply her baal, her legal husband. There must be a new kind of covenant. The first option he considers is restricting his wifes movement so that she no longer will have access to her lovers (2:6). Nevertheless, the results would not be encouraging, But she will (still) relentlessly pursue her lovers, though she cannot catch up to them, and she will seek them even though she cannot find [them] (2:7a). Frustrated, she may even come to the point where she says, I wish to go back to my first husband because I was better off then than now (2:7b). Nothing will really have changed, however. This quotation, as Clines remarks:
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 226

is not to be regarded as a speech of repentance or even semblance of repentance, but as a quite amoral decision on Israels part in which only her own well-being plays a part (better for me). There is no expression of sorrow or sense of unfaithfulness in this speech; as in v.10 it is clear, she does not attribute [sic] her former [z] well-being to

Yahweh; but only recalls thatby some coincidence, as it appears to hershe was better off with him (NEB) then than she is now. Her decision to return (2:7) is just as self-centered as her decision to leave in the first place (2:5). While the husband may succeed in keeping his wife at home, this first option is not sufficient to bring about the new relationship which he desires. The second option the husband considers is to punish his guilty wife and expose their relationship (2:913). Legally the husband had to provide food, clothing, and marital rights to his wife (Ex. 21:1011). If there were a divorce, the husband could take everything back. They still belonged to him; by law they never became hers. Even without a divorce, the husband could publicly humiliate her, As things are, I can reveal her sexual foolishness before the eyes of her lovers and a man/loving husband ('is) will not deliver her from my hand (2:10). The lovers are powerless to do anything against the legal husband, even if they wanted to help. More importantly, within this option there is no loving husband who is willing to risk everything in order to rescue the woman he loves. The husband himself is limited to legalities; he can punish, even destroy, but he is not the 'is-husband he desires to be. Once more the words of the wife are quoted showing her selfishness and inability to comprehend a true marriage relationship. The things which the husband has provided and is now prepared to take back she calls her prostitutes fee which the ones who love me gave to me (2:12) even though they never belonged to her. She misunderstands love completely when she calls her clients the ones who love me (meahabay). Her misuse of the verb to love (hb) removes the word from the mouth of the husband as a positive expression of his own feelings. He must search for another way to express the caring relationship which he desires. He may start by destroying the very things which his wife considers to be exclusively hers: vines and fig trees (2:12), even the annual, monthly, and weekly festivities (2:11). They are hers, not anything shared with the husband. In fact, they are the times of her infidelity. These days of sexual activity with lovers are ironically called the days of the baalim [husbands!] The wife does not even know what a husband really is. To her, a husband (baal) is anyone who can demonstrate fertility as long as she is its recipient. As far as she is concerned, lovers are the same as husbands. She is so confused that she no longer recognizes her true husband at all: And she has forgotten me (2:13). The second option under consideration, then, is unable to bring about the desired new covenant relationship with the wife. The wife could be separated from her lovers and punished for her infidelity. The lovers would be powerless
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 227

to intervene. Nevertheless, the wife would not know (yd) her husband, YHVH. That she forgets (skh) him shows that his desire to be her loving, beloved husband still would be unrealized. A third and final option comes under consideration, Therefore, look, I can coax her and lead her into the desert. I can speak romantically unto her heart (2:14). The discontinuity of this option with what has preceded is astonishing. Instead of introducing another punishment, the way to become the loving husband ('is), which this option offers, is to begin the relationship all over again. The new relationship would begin with courtship. The husband will coax (pth) the wife to follow him. Normally pth carries a more sinister meaning, to seduce, to entice, to deceive.

Nevertheless, the wooing in this passage seems to be with honorable intentions. The point of the passage is not that the husband must take advantage of his wifes base nature, but lies in the fact that he is different from all the others. Hosea turns language on its head, as he seeks to express the newness of the relationship he envisions. This husband allures his wife not in self-gratifying seduction. It is an irresistible, overwhelming pursuit that leads to an intimate, loving personal relationship. The next phrase, And I will speak unto her heart/makes the husbands intention clear. To speak to the heart is a phrase used ten times in the Old Testament. It may have a general sense of uplifting encouragement or reassurance, or in the conversation between a man and a woman, it is a romantic wooing.51 In spite of its tragic end, the story of Judges 19 most closely parallels the usage of the phrase in Hosea. A Levite has married (lqh l ) a young woman ('iss pleget, concubine) who subsequently left him and returned to her fathers household. The Levite sets out to win her back with romantic words and begin life together again. The reason for speaking to the heart is therefore love and the awareness of belonging together; its object is to overcome sorrow and resentment (cf. also 2 Chr. 32:6), obstinance and estrangement. YHVH, the husband, would demonstrate what true love is to his wife by means of his loving words and attitude in courtship. That this relationship is new in kind is shown by various factors of the courtship. The place will be the desert (2:15), normally an inhospitable place of deprivation and punishment (2:5). Nevertheless, the phrases of 2:15b suggest that the positive aspects of the Exodus tradition are in view here. Out there in the desert YHVH will give to his wife vineyards of her very own. Such action demonstrates the amazing power of this husband: YHVH wants to be her 'is-husband, not her baal (Baal, who is powerless in the desert). Even more, it shows an astonishing capacity to love. The vineyards are her vineyards, and the pronoun raises no protest of misunderstood ownership as it did in 2:1112. In an outpouring of love the husband overcomes the legal technicalities of ownership operative in 2:9, where as legal husband (baal) he reclaimed what was rightfully his. This time the vineyards will be fully and completely gifts of a loving husband ('is) who goes far beyond the demands of law in his love. It is truly the starting of something brand new; it is not a proposal of re-marriage. As Emmerson expresses it, Yahwehs answer to Israels ignoring him will be to
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 228

turn the clock back and let her begin her history with him all over again. This option ends by once more quoting the words of the wife. This quotation, however, is a suggestion to the wife. They are not yet her words. She must pronounce them to make the new relationship a reality. They are to be publicly pronounced (qr) as part of the wedding ceremony. As Friedman writes: Presumably the bride would respond You are my husband. It was unnecessary for Hosea to remind explicitly his audience of what was then the customary marriage formula. For him, the significant point was to instruct Israel that then reciting the brides response she must say 'ysy (th) for (You are) my husband, rather than the familiar bly (th). With this response the husband will have achieved his goal of being the 'is of his bride. What was not a reality in 2:4 and could not be brought about by the first two options is a possibility if

the third option is chosen by the husband and the wife freely responds according to the new wedding vows offered to her. Thus 2:16 closes the first half of the poem. This same verse is the beginning of the second half of the poem as well. The second half is marked by the threefold use of In that day, 2:16, 18, and 21, and it explores the nature of the new marriage relationship. This is a marriage between 'is and 'iss , man and woman, not baal and 'isett , master and his wife. In this light, 2:17 may be a declaration that not only will the word baal be removed from all wedding ceremonies, but also that the very character (sem) of the old marriage will be forgotten. The be'l m of 2:17 could also be another almost satiric reference to the lovers of 2:5 and 14 as in 2:13. The old marriage was marred by infidelity. Now these lovers will not even come to mind. The marriage relationship will be new not only in its demands or expressions, but also in its ability to renovate completely the will of the wife. She will not even want other lovers, no matter what they may euphemistically be called. The husband metaphor continues in 2:1920. The radically new nature of the relationship is demonstrated by the discussion of the bridal price: righteousness, justice, loyalty, intense love, and faithfulness (2:19b20a). Only here the bridal price will be given to the bride herself, not to the father of the bride, as the law stipulates according to Exodus 22:1516 and Deuteronomy 22:28. Once again the husband is able to transcend the limits of the law in order to act freely in a manner that strengthens a personal relationship as the old way never could. And it is a relationship which will not be broken (2:19a). YHVH will indeed become Israels 'is, loving, beloved husband. The marriage will be consummated, And you will intimately know YHVH (2:20b). The picture is complete. The husbands desire for a close, intimate relationship not fixed by definitions will be fully realized in that day. Therefore the poem pointedly ends with other suggested quotations in 2:23, And I will say to NOT-My-People, You are My-People, and he will say, My God. These suggested quotations parallel the suggestion in 2:16 in which the marriage vows became You are my wife, and You are my husband ['is ]. The
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 229

poem thus ends with another potential exchange of vows. YHVH will declare, You are my people, and the people will declare, (You are) my God. It is not so much that 2:23b finally explains the metaphor, although it does demonstrate that the husband of the poem is YHVH. It is more important that the metaphor in fact explains 2:23b. The confession (You are) my God is the entry into an intimate, personal relationship with God that goes far beyond a legal contract (covenant). Anyone who knows (yd) YHVH must exclaim 'is , my loving, beloved husband. It is a new covenant in kind much more than in time.

Parenthood Metaphors
Another group of metaphors, the parent-child network, is also employed to express the nature of the new covenant. The connection between these two networks may be seen in additional meaning of the codewords 'is and baal, husband. The term baal also carries the idea of fertility and procreation, as seen by its well-known use as the name of the fertility god, Baal. The term 'is also is used with an emphasis on the sense of procreator or father in Ecclesiastes 6:3. Therefore the same dynamics which were present in the marriage metaphors when the one term baal, master, was replaced with the more totally personal term 'is, man, person, now provide a new understanding of YHVH as parent in relationship with Israel, his child.

The parent-child metaphoric network appears throughout the book of Hosea, but seems to be concentrated in Hosea 4 and 11. Thus the metaphors serve as a framing device of a major section of the book, in which Hosea 11 is the grace-filled solution to the problem of alienation posed so radically in Hosea 4. Hosea 4. After the covenant lawsuit of 4:13 is a verse which is notoriously difficult. Perhaps the reading of the Septuagint provides the best insight into the nature of the passage, And my people are like an opposing priest. This text presupposes an original Hebrew text reading 'amm , My People, which recalls the name of the third child of Hosea 1. His name had been changed from Not-My-People (Lo Ammi) to My-People (Ammi) in 2:25. Whereas in chapter two the children were silent when called to testify, in chapter four the children interrupt the father with Ammi acting as spokesman. He says, Oh no! Dont let a husband ['is] accuse and dont let a husband ['is] reprove! 'is, husband, man, person is certainly the key word of this phrase which, coming after chapter two and 4:13, has the effect of saying, Oh no! Lets not start this husband business again. When the children do finally speak up, it is to oppose their father. Therefore he includes them now in his legal case. Ammi is addressed directly in 4:5, So you will stumble. His brother is included through the figure of the prophet. They both will continually (day and night) stumble and their mother will be destroyed. The use of ammi in 4:6 (My people are destroyed by lack of knowledge) once more brings to mind Ammi, the child, who is then directly addressed. Indeed, you yourself have rejected the knowledge. Ammi is ruined by a lack of intimacy with his father because of his willful rejection of that knowledge. As a result, the father responds, Now I will
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 230

reject you from acting as a priest to me. It is not as Andersen and Freedman claim, The priests father is not mentioned here because the person addressed is a chief who would have succeeded on his fathers death. Rather it is the father who is speaking to his son, Ammi, by means of the figure of a priest. The whole people, a kingdom of priests, is symbolized by the figure of Ammi (My-People) who is like a priest who opposes the lawsuit of the husband/father ('is). The full range of this wordplay is seen again in 4:9: And it is like People like priest, for the father continues speaking of his son, And I will visit his ways upon him and I will cause his deeds to return to him. Hosea 4:11b12 shows the complete alienation that these children of prostitutions, as represented by Ammi, have suffered: And new wine takes away the heart of My-People He inquires with his wood and his staff reveals things to him. Indeed, a spirit of prostitution causes errors and they commit prostitution away from their God. The use of the plural pronouns at the end of the verse shows that the same spirit of prostitution at work in Ammi and his mother is also present in other children. Hosea 4:1314 make even the participation of the daughter (Ruhamah/Lo Ruhamah) alongside her mother explicit. Once again the verbs to commit prostitution, znh, and to commit adultery, nf, are used to describe the activity against YHVH, the 'is (husband/parent) of Israel. Daughters act as prostitutes and young brides commit adultery. Because of these activities YHVH declares the certainty of their

punishment: Will I not punish your daughters because they are prostituting themselves? Your brides because they are committing adultery? Of course the women will be punished by YHVH, their is (father and husband), but Ammi and his brother are not forgotten: Indeed they (masculine) pair off with prostitutes and they sacrifice with cult prostitutes. A People without understanding will be thrown down. Then verse seventeen completes the process of alienation in the chapter, when the reader is addressed concerning this people of YHVH, Leave him alone. Indeed the full force of Hosea 1:2 has been established. Without a doubt they are a wife of prostitution and children of prostitution. Hosea 510. The theme of the children rejecting a relationship with a loving father is present in two isolated metaphors leading up to chapter eleven. An allusion to the name of one of the children is found in 6:11b7:1a, When I restored the fortunes of My-People; when I healed Israel, then the sin of Ephraim was revealed (and the evils of Samaria). YHVH, the loving parent, seeks restoration and healing. Nevertheless, every positive action uncovers another negative reaction in the lives of his children, represented as Ammi, My-people. Hosea 7:15 is the other complaint of the rejected parent, And I, myself, trained
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 231

them. I strengthened their arms. But they planned evil against me! The theme of rebellious children refusing to enter into an intimate relationship with a loving parent here emphasizes the personal involvement of the father. The parent is not at fault. The similarity in vocabulary (their arms [7:15] and his arms [11:3]) supports this function as a foreshadowing of what is to come in 11:34. Hosea 11. The parent-child network of metaphors is treated most fully in Hosea 11. The chapter begins: When Israel was a child I loved him and I called my son out of Egypt. The more I called to them, the more they, for their part, walked away from me! This description of the covenant relationship as a parent-child relationship demands a personal, loving union. Indeed the parent seeks to overcome a physical separation (alienation) by calling the children home from Egypt. Nevertheless, the relationship is unfulfilled because the children reject all such efforts. They go farther away from the parent in direct proportion to the efforts of reconciliation. They fail to develop intimacy: And I taught Ephraim to walk, and I took them up into my arms.64 But they did not know that I healed them. The last phrase does not mean that the children were unaware of their health. It is, rather, that they did not recognize nor respond to the love and warmth of a loving parent who taught them to walk and doctored them when they may have fallen. The metaphor of the loving parent continues in 11:4: With human cords, with ropes of love, I drew them. And I was to them as those lifting a baby up to their cheeks. And I knelt down to him and I fed him.67 YHVH gives parental care to Israel in the forms of loving protection, tender affection, and adequate nutrition. In light of the quality of this parental care, the childrens response is surprising: They keep on returning to the land of Egypt and Assyria is their king (11:5a). The

children prefer alienation to intimacy. Direction is not an issue; the children are only concerned with distance. They may go to Egypt or to Assyria. Whichever way they turn, one thing is clear. They are not on their way home: Certainly they refuse to return (11:5b). YHVH, as parent, must respond to the constant rejection of the loving relation he offers and to the disobedience of his summons. The rejection and disobedience are intentional and not likely to change. 11:7 declares, And my people are hung up in turning away from me. This phrase alludes to both the name of the son, Ammi, and to the activity of the spirit of prostitution (4:12) which has led them all astray. Parents could bring their children before the elders at the gate to accuse them of disobedience. The punishment would be death (Deuteronomy 21:1821). If YHVH were interested only in the legal rights and demands of parenthood/ covenant as a contract, he should certainly act out of anger. As the responsible head of family, he has the right, perhaps even obligation, to destroy Israel. Hosea 11:89, however, gives full expression to love and grace. In these verses
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 232

YHVH declares, My heart has changed; my parental love is completely aroused. I will not execute the burning of my anger; I will not turn to destroy Ephraim. In these verses YHVH takes upon himself the entire burden of faithfulness required to maintain his relation as father to Ephraim as child.70 If YHVH is ever to be the loving father ('is) of his people, his son cannot be put to death. Hoseas vision of a new type of covenant is the only hope for the rebellious child before his wounded parent. This hope, that the rebellious son (Ephraim) might find in his father (YHVH) a person-inrelation ('is) instead of a master (baal) who demands the exact legal punishment for rebellion, lies in the declaration of YHVH, For I am God [el], and not a man ['is]! A Holy One in your midst, and I will not become enraged (11:9b). There is tremendous irony in the YHVHs statement: I am God, and not a man. A human ('is) is often one who is incapable of action because of his divided feelings, or one who would necessarily give in to provocations to anger.73 YHVH is not this type of person; he is not a man ('is). It is precisely YHVHs divine uniqueness (el), however, which enables him to be a loving father ('is) and change his heart/mind (leb). Because he is God he is free to show parental love (rhm) rather than being compelled to react. Thus the chapter concludes with an affirmation which anticipates the day when YHVH will indeed be the loving father in intimate relation to his children (11:1011). YHVH will summon his children once again. They will respond with respect. The last line of verse ten makes this conclusion even more intimate with its change to first person. The loving father says, I will bring them back home where they belong to stay as a part of my household. Hosea 1214. The final section of the book of Hosea contains two other parenthood metaphors which further develop the prophets vision of the new covenant. Hosea 13:1314 complain of an unwise son who refuses to present himself at the mouth of the womb when it is time to be born. He jeopardizes the whole family relationship by his stubbornness, endangering not only his own life by also that of his mother. Therefore, the father can act to remove the threat. The child may experience death while the father closes his eyes to the situation. The relationship is not ruptured by later acts of disobedience, but by the childs refusal to enter into the family relationship at all. The failure of the old covenant cannot be explained simply on the basis of specific acts of disobedience to the terms of a contract. Hosea perceives that the real

problem lies in Israels failure to understand covenant as an entry into a living relationship with the Divine Parent. Nevertheless, there still remains a miraculous hope. 14:3 ends: Because an orphan receives parental love in you. The name of the daughter Ruhamah is alluded to in the verb receives parental love (Pual of rhm). The orphan, the one who has no loving father ('is) will not simply receive parental love, but receives that love in YHVH. Within the new covenant Gods people will not be orphaned any longer. YHVH will be the personal, loving, relational father.
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 233

Agricultural Metaphors
A third group of metaphors treats the covenant relationship between YHVH and Israel like a relationship between a husbandman and his farm. Once more this metaphoric network is related to the other two by means of the codewords baal (owner of the land, Baal) and ('is) (keeper of the tillable ground, Genesis 9:20). In the new covenant envisioned by Hosea, YHVH is not the owner (baal) of a farm which is merely his possession. Instead, YHVH is the farmer in living relationship with his farm ('is) through a mutual answering, or responding, nh (2:2122). Therefore, in 2:23 YHVH says, And I will sow her for myself in the land. The addition of the preposition for to the verb to sow occurs only three times in the Old Testament and emphasizes the formation of a relationship. The metaphors of YHVH as husbandman ('is), then, also seek to emphasize the quality of relationship which forms the heart of the new covenant. The relationship between YHVH and Israel, however, is in danger. Hosea 9:10 describes a miraculous beginning; God finds grapes in the desert and figs on a one-year-old fig tree. The response from Israel was better than could have been expected. Hosea 9:16 suddenly paints a different picture: Ephraim is blighted, their root is dried up, they cannot produce fruit. What can explain the change? Perhaps it is the event at Baal-Peor which occurs in this context. Perhaps it is the attitude shown in 10:1 and 10:11 where Israel/Ephriam is a vine/heifer producing for himself. The mutuality of the relationship has been abandoned. The result of this broken relationship for Israel is expressed through a variety of metaphors. Hosea 4:16 employs the figures of the heifer and lamb, domesticated animals which legitimately belong to the husbandman. Israel is a balking heifer whose rebelliousness ruptures the desired relationship. How can it be treated as a pet lamb? The traditional image of Shepherd and sheep becomes an impossibility. Hosea 7:11a further describes the broken relationship. Ephraim is like a dove, silly, without a mind. Easily deceived, Ephraim is unable to discern between his true caretaker and others. It is impossible to maintain a mutual relationship with a pigeon. Finally, if the phrase a wild ass keeping to himself is interpreted as a metaphor for Ephraim, Hosea 8:9 expresses the same thought. A domestic ass would be responsive to his caregiver, but Ephraim is wild. He rejects YHVHs care; he wants no relationship. Breaking covenant, Israel seeks to take over the activity of the husbandman with disastrous results (8:7): For they sow the wind (ruah), but they will harvest a tornado. Grain that does not flower will never produce flour. Even if it should produce, strangers will gobble it up. The repetition of this figure in 12:1 shows again that futility, nor fertility, is the consequence of their actions. YHVH even shows himself willing to allow Israel to participate in the activity of the husbandman, if that activity places relational qualities as its priorities in 10:12. But Israel refuses

to care about justice, loyal love (hesed), or knowledge (intimate relationship). Israel will not be co-laborer with YHVH, and 10:13 demonstrates the realities of the broken fellowship.
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 234

The lack of commitment or loyal love (hesed) in this relationship is described in Hosea 6:4. Hesed which can be described as a morning cloud (it will not be around later) or as dew which so quickly dissipates, is not hesed at all. And in 13:3 the people themselves become like their own commitment, impermanent and unproductive: a morning cloud, dew, chaff, smoke. Gods covenant with his people is a call into a mutual relationship. Israels refusal to respond changes the whole nature of the relationship. In 13:56 YHVH describes himself as the caring shepherd who was forgotten (skh) by his sheep. For this reason in 13:78 YHVH is no longer the caregiver, but becomes a savage destroyer: lion, leopard, and she-bear. Because Israel, the vine, has rejected YHVH, the husbandman, YHVH sends his wind (ruah) to dry up the sources of irrigation. Nevertheless, the final word of the metaphor is not death. There is the possibility of a new covenant. YHVH, the husbandman, speaks of response (nh) and watchful care (sur) at the end of the poem in Hosea 14:69. What is different about this poem may be seen in its frame, 14:6a and 9. Within this frame Israel will be productive as lily, tree, grain, and vine. Framing these figures of Israel are figures of YHVH. He is life-giving dew (the phrase rising early and going away, is purposely omitted) and, what is more, he is truly the tree of life. Miraculously he becomes like what is his. He identifies with his own, becoming one of them to give them his own fruit (fulness) so that they might live in cooperative, productive relationship with him.

Conclusion
The term new covenant is not used in the book of Hosea. In fact, the word covenant (berit) itself is rarely used. The book gives no indication of a new covenant in the sense of one contract being terminated and a different contract set up in its place. Nevertheless, Hosea does present a new conceptualization of the covenant as a personal relationship between YHVH and his people by means of a substitution of terms. Baal and 'is function as codewords. The former represents a relation based on legalism, power, and ownership; the latter emphasizes a relationship which is intimate, personal, and loving. The substitution of the personal for the legal finds expression through three metaphoric networks. The husband-wife metaphoric network explores the nature of love and portrays YHVH as a husband who is more concerned with mutual relationship than he is with his own legal rights. The network of parent-child metaphors portrays YHVH as one who seeks to overcome alienation and rebellion rather than one who seeks to punish. The third network portrays YHVH as the husbandman who seeks to live in cooperative, productive relationship with what is his more than one who cares only for ownership and control. Together these metaphors present a unified description of God as Person, one who seeks to live in a loving, intimate relationship with his people. To those who willingly enter into this relationship, he freely gives life with all its
RevExp 90:2 (Spring 1993) p. 235

blessings. Hoseas portrayal of a personal God of love and grace is indeed a portrayal of a new covenant.1

. Vol. 90: Review and Expositor Volume 90. 1993 (2) (215235). Louisville, KY: Review and Expositor.