Reading Hosea–Micah: A Literary and Theological Commentary (Reading the Old Testament) 157312687X, 9781573126878

Citation preview

Advance Praise The Smyth & Helwys series is a perfect venue for Fretheim’s interpretive skills. He is among the best readers of texts now at work, and here his consummate skill is everywhere evident. In addition to the nuts and bolts of historical criticism that he handles succinctly, he moves readily into the rhetorical strategies performed in the text and finally to his forte of theological interpretation. His exposition is a welcome and reliable probe of difficult texts that continue, he makes clear, to insist upon their own compelling contemporaneity. —Walter Brueggemann Columbia Theological Seminary

Anyone who has learned from Terry Fretheim’s theological and thematic approach to biblical texts will be drawn into this book. His summaries of the thematic flow of the text are erudite and accessible. He provides questions for the reader to ponder and shines light on pathways to discoveries. Whether one deals with the provocative and troubling images of Hosea or the vacillation between hyperbole and tradition in Jonah, Fretheim illuminates the text while asking his own readers to look afresh at these writings as sources of sustained theological reflection. Fretheim engages his readers on the relevance of Old Testament prophetic texts for today’s theological discussions. —James D. Nogalski Author, The Book of the Twelve: Hosea–Jonah and The Book of the Twelve: Micah–Malachi (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentaries)

Fretheim’s study of the Minor Prophets exemplifies the consummate skill, wisdom, and theological sensitivity that we have come to expect from him. He demonstrates why these ancient texts were and remain an essential witness to God’s unending relational commitment to the world. If readers are looking for a way to respond to the sage’s admonition—“May the bones of the Twelve Prophets send forth new life from where they lie” (Sirach 49:10)—they can begin by reading Fretheim reading the prophets. —Samuel E. Balentine Professor of Old Testament Union Presbyterian Seminary Richmond, VA

READING HOSEA–MICAH

Smyth & Helwys Publishing, Inc. 6316 Peake Road Macon, Georgia 31210-3960 1-800-747-3016 © 2013 by Terence E. Fretheim All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Fretheim, Terence E. Reading Hosea–Micah : a literary and theological commentary / by Terence E. Fretheim. pages cm 1. Bible. Minor prophets--Commentaries. I. Title. BS1560.F74 2013 224'.907--dc23 2013027202

Disclaimer of Liability: With respect to statements of opinion or fact available in this work of nonfiction, Smyth & Helwys Publishing Inc. nor any of its employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy or completeness of any information disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately-owned rights.

Reading Hosea–Micah A Literary and Theological Commentary

Terence E. Fretheim

Also by Terence E. Fretheim

About the Bible: Short Answers to Big Questions (revised edition) Abraham: Trials of Family and Faith The Bible as Word of God in a Postmodern Age (with Karlfried Froehlich) “The Book of Genesis” (The New Interpreter’s Bible) Creation, Fall, and Flood: Studies in Genesis 1–11 Creation Untamed: The Bible, God, and Natural Disasters Deuteronomic History (Interpreting Biblical Texts) Exodus (Interpretation) First and Second Kings (Westminster Bible Companion) God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation Jeremiah (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary) The Message of Jonah: A Theological Commentary The Pentateuch (Interpreting Biblical Texts) The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective (Overtures to Biblical Theology) A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament (with Bruce Birch, Walter Brueggemann, David Petersen), revised edition

Acknowledgments

These commentaries on the first six Minor Prophets have been shaped in decisive ways by over thirty years of teaching courses on the prophets to seminary students. Many spirited interactions with these students have contributed to a more mature understanding of these prophetic texts on my part, both literarily and theologically. I dedicate this book to these students in appreciation for their insights and conversations and to my wife, Faith, for her unfailing encouragement and support. I also wish to thank Editor Mark Biddle for his many valuable suggestions regarding content and style.

Contents

Editor’s Foreword......................................................................................1 Introduction to the Minor Prophets..........................................................3 Hosea Introduction to Hosea ........................................................................7 The Structure of Hosea................................................................7 The Audience of Hosea................................................................8 The Historical Situation and Hosea’s Word about Betrayal/Alliances ........................................................................9 The Religious Situation and Hosea’s Word about Adultery/Idolatry ......................................................................10 Hosea’s Rhetorical Strategy ........................................................11 Imagery used to portray God ..............................................12 Imagery of intimacy ............................................................14 Imagery for the renewal of relationship................................16 Commentary ....................................................................................17 Hosea, Gomer, and the Children (Hos 1–3) ..............................17 Superscription (Hos 1:1) ....................................................18 Hosea’s Marriage and Children; Judgment and Promise (Hos 1:2–2:1)......................................................................18 Israel and Idolatry/Adultery (Hos 2:2-23) ..........................25 Judgment and Promise (Hos 3:1-5) ....................................33 The Land Mourns (Hos 4:1-19) ................................................37 You Have Played the Whore! (Hos 5:1-7) ..................................42 Sound the Alarm! (Hos 5:8-15)..................................................43 What Shall I Do with You? (Hos 6:1-11a)..................................46 God Would, but Israel Would Not (Hos 6:11b–7:16)................49 Kings and Altars, Treason and Adultery (Hos 8:1-10) ................52

xii

Reading Hosea–Micah

Back to Egypt (Hos 8:11-14) ....................................................54 The Prophet Is a Fool (Hos 9:1-9) ............................................55 Like Grapes in the Wilderness (Hos 9:10-17) ............................57 Mountains, Fall on Us! (Hos 10:1-8) ........................................59 On Eating the Fruit of Lies (Hos 10:9-15) ................................61 The Pathos of God as Parent (Hos 11:1-11) ..............................63 Figures from Israel’s Past (Hos 11:12–12:14) ............................67 Shall I Redeem Them from Death? (Hos 13:1-16) ....................73 Hope and Promise (Hos 14:1-9) ................................................77 Joel Introduction to Joel..........................................................................83 Structure of Joel ........................................................................84 The Locust Plague ....................................................................84 The Locust Plague and Joel’s Understanding of God..................87 The Day of the LORD ................................................................90 Commentary ....................................................................................92 Response to the Locust Plague (Joel 1:1-14) ..............................92 Superscription (Joel 1:1)......................................................92 Introduction (Joel 1:2-4) ....................................................93 A Call to Lament (Joel 1:5-14)............................................93 Lament Regarding the Effects of the Plague (Joel 1:15-20) ........95 The Day of the LORD Is Near (Joel 2:1-11)................................96 A Call to Repentance? (Joel 2:12-17) ........................................98 God’s Promise of Salvation (Joel 2:18-27) ................................101 The Gift of the Spirit (Joel 2:28-32) ........................................103 The Judgment of the Nations (Joel 3:1-21)..............................106 Amos Introduction to Amos ....................................................................111 Amos as a First ........................................................................111 Amos, His Time and Place ......................................................112 Structure of the Book of Amos ................................................113 The Purpose of Amos and the Rhetorical Strategy....................114 Creation Theology as Key to Understanding Amos ..................117 Commentary ..................................................................................121 Superscription and the First Word (Amos 1:1-2)......................121 Oracles against the Nations (Amos 1:3–2:16) ..........................122 Israel’s Turn (Amos 2:6-16) ......................................................124 Pay Attention! (Amos 3:1-15) ..................................................126

Contents

xiii

Election and Judgment (Amos 3:1-2) ................................126 Making It Obvious (Amos 3:3-11) ....................................127 Israel’s Injustice and God’s Judgment (Amos 4:1-13)................131 Indictment and Judgment (Amos 4:1-3)............................131 A Sarcastic Word (Amos 4:4-5) ........................................132 Disaster upon Disaster (Amos 4:6-13) ..............................132 Divine and Human Lament (Amos 5:1-27) ............................135 A Lamentation (Amos 5:2-3) ............................................136 Seek the Lord (Amos 5:4-5) ..............................................136 Again, Seek the Lord (Amos 5:6-7) ..................................137 Doxology of Judgment (Amos 5:8-9) ................................139 Accusations of Injustice (Amos 5:10-13) ..........................139 Exhortations and Judgments (Amos 5:14-17)....................140 Day of the Lord as Darkness (Amos 5:18-20)....................141 Wasted Worship (Amos 5:21-27) ......................................141 Indictment of the Affluent (Amos 6:1-14) ..............................143 Attack on the Affluent (Amos 6:1-6) ................................143 Judgment Again (Amos 6:7-14) ........................................144 The Visions of Amos (Amos 7:1–9:10) ....................................145 Vision of Locusts—Vision 1 (Amos 7:1-3) ........................147 The Vision of Fire—Vision 2 (Amos 7:4-6) ......................147 Vision of the Plumb Line—Vision 3 (Amos 7:7-9) ..........148 Dispute between Amos and the Priesthood (Amos 7:10-17) ................................................................148 Fourth Vision and Oracles of Judgment (Amos 8:1-14) ..........150 Vision of Summer Fruit—Vision 4 (Amos 8:1-3)..............150 Indictment and Judgment (Amos 8:4-14)..........................151 Moving from Judgment to a Word of Hope (Amos 9:1-10) ....153 No Escape (Amos 9:1-4) ..................................................153 Creation (Amos 9:5-6) ......................................................154 A Challenging Thought (Amos 9:7-8) ..............................155 Exception? (Amos 9:9-10) ................................................156 Words of Hope and Promise (Amos 9:11-15) ..........................157 Obadiah Introduction to Obadiah ................................................................159 Message of Obadiah ......................................................................160 Commentary ..................................................................................162 A Report to the Nations (Obad 1) ..........................................162 Edom’s Pride (Obad 2-4) ........................................................163

xiv

Reading Hosea–Micah

Edom’s Pending Destruction (Obad 5-7) ................................163 The Judgment of Edom (Obad 8-10) ......................................164 Indictment of Edom (Obad 11-14)..........................................164 The Day of the LORD (Obad 15-21) ........................................165 Jonah Introduction to Jonah ....................................................................169 Literary Issues ..........................................................................170 The Exaggerated God of Jonah ................................................171 Justice and Mercy ....................................................................173 Commentary ..................................................................................176 Jonah Called (Jonah 1:1-3) ......................................................176 Jonah Pursued (Jonah 1:4-16)..................................................177 Jonah’s Response to God’s Deliverance (Jonah 1:17–2:10) ......178 Nineveh and God Repent (Jonah 3:1-10) ................................180 A Theological Debate (Jonah 4:1-11) ......................................182 Micah Introduction to Micah....................................................................187 The Historical Setting..............................................................187 The Structure of Micah............................................................188 Micah 1–2 ........................................................................189 Micah 3–5 ........................................................................189 Micah 6–7 ........................................................................189 The Message of Micah ............................................................189 Micah 3:8..........................................................................191 Micah 4:1-5 ......................................................................191 Micah 5:2-5a ....................................................................191 Micah 6:6-8 ......................................................................192 Micah 7:18-20 ..................................................................192 Commentary ..................................................................................192 Critique, Judgment, Lament (Mic 1:1–2:13) ..........................192 Superscription (Mic 1:1) ..................................................193 Threats to the Future of Samaria (Mic 1:2-16) ..................193 A Focus on Issues of Social Justice (Mic 2:1-13) ................198 Corrupt Leaders (Mic 3:1-12)..................................................201 Abuse of Power on the Part of Israel’s Leaders (Mic 3:1-4) ......................................................................202 Indictment of the False Prophets (Mic 3:5-8) ....................202 The End of Jerusalem (Mic 3:9-12) ..................................204

Contents

xv

A Promising Future (Mic 4:1–5:15) ........................................205 They Shall Not Learn War Anymore (Mic 4:1-5) ..............205 Gathering the Remnant (Mic 4:6-8)..................................208 A Promise in the Midst of a Difficult “Now” (Mic 4:9–5:5a) ..................................................................209 A Complex Future (Mic 5:5b-15)......................................212 From Judgment to Mercy (Mic 6:1–7:20)................................214 What Does the Lord Require of You? (Mic 6:1-8) ............214 God’s Charges against Jerusalem and Their Effects (Mic 6:9-16) ....................................................................217 Woe Is Me! (Mic 7:1-7) ....................................................219 A Concluding Liturgy of Hope (Mic 7:8-20) ....................220 Works Cited

..................................................................................223

Editor’s Foreword

The Reading the Old Testament series shares many of the aims and objectives of its counterpart, Reading the New Testament. Contributors to the current series, like those to its predecessor, write with the intention of presenting “cutting-edge research in [a form] accessible” to a wide audience ranging from specialists in the field to educated laypeople. The approach taken here, as there, focuses not on the minutiae of word-by-word, verse-by-verse exegesis but on larger literary and thought units, especially as they function in the overall conception of the book under analysis. From the standpoint of method, volumes in this series will employ an eclectic variety of reading strategies and critical approaches as contributors deem appropriate for explicating the force of the text before them. Nonetheless, as in RNT, “the focus [will be] on a close reading of the final form of the text.” The overarching goal is to provide readers of the commentary series with an aid to help them become more competent, more engaged, and more enthusiastic readers of the Bible as authoritative Scripture. The title of the series prompts several comments. For the editor, at least, the term “Old Testament” is a convenient convention, since any alternative seems either awkward or provocative. The Hebrew Bible is the shared heritage of Judaism and Christianity, the body of believers whom Paul once described as branches from a wild olive tree who have been “grafted contrary to nature into a cultivated olive tree” (Rom 11:24). Since the beginnings of Christianity, questions concerning how and in what sense the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament functions as Christian Scripture have perpetually confronted the church. Nonetheless, throughout its history, in the spirit of Paul, the church has insisted that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is the God of the New Testament. Rather than impose a detailed doctrine of the unity of the two Testaments or specify a particular hermeneutical approach, the editor and the publisher have chosen to invite contributions to the series from scholars selected because of their learning and insight, again

2

Reading Hosea–Micah

in the spirit of Paul, we hope, without regard to faith tradition or denominational identity. The books of the Hebrew Bible were the fountainhead for the faith of both Paul and Aqiba. May it be that, through the scholarship presented in the pages of this series, the books of the “Old Testament” water the faith of another generation. —Mark E. Biddle, General Editor Richmond, Virginia

Introduction to the Minor Prophets

The twelve prophetic books traditionally called the Minor Prophets (because of their length) are increasingly referred to as the Book of the Twelve (for discussion, see Nogalski 2011a, 1–17). This language has continuity with key ancient traditions such as the statement in the apocryphal book Sirach 49:10 from about 200 BCE: “May the bones of the Twelve Prophets send forth new life from where they lie, for they comforted the people of Jacob and delivered them with confident hope” (see also Josephus; Jerome). Jewish tradition counts the same books commonly numbered as 39 as only 24 (in what we call the Old Testament), in part because they count the Minor Prophets as a single work. At the same time, because of their distinctive introductions and historical settings, these books are commonly understood and interpreted as individual prophetic writings. This volume focuses on their individuality. What follows is a commentary focused on the first six of these prophets (due to writing assignments made) rather than a study of these books as part of a larger collection. At the same time, I trust that these studies may be of value for further exploration of the larger collection, the Book of the Twelve. The reason for the order of the twelve prophets is not entirely clear, although chronological factors dominate the discussion. The order of books in the Hebrew Bible differs somewhat from that in the Greek translation (Septuagint, LXX). The latter has been especially noted, wherein three prophets from the eighth century occur together (Hosea, Amos, Micah), as do three prophets from the seventh century (Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah) and two from the sixth century (Haggai, Zechariah). At the same time, the four other Minor Prophets (Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Malachi) cannot be confidently arranged chronologically. In any case, it is likely that these twelve books cover a 300- to 400-year span of time, from about 750 BCE to about 400 BCE. That is a considerable length of time over a major

4

Reading Hosea–Micah

course of Israel’s history, and such a stretch of history is not matched by any of the Major Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel). In terms of content, themes of indictment, judgment, and salvation occur in each prophet. The most basic rhythm of these books is the move from indictment/judgment to salvation, either repeatedly (as in Mic 1–2, 3–5, 6–7) or in terms of the book as a whole (Amos 1:1–9:10 and 9:11-15). The indictment against the people of God especially catches up issues of idolatry and abuse of the less fortunate. The effects of such behaviors are often horrendous in their severity. While God is often the subject of such judgments, it is important to recognize that the relationship between sin and judgment is understood most basically in intrinsic terms. Like fruit, the consequences grow out of the deed itself; God does not introduce anything new into the situation (see Jer 6:19). The eighth-century prophets set this indictment/judgment/salvation pattern in their word to Israel, the northern kingdom (Hosea, Amos), and it is picked up later by the southern prophets. Indeed, the northern prophets seem to have been edited to take into account the southern experience, and so references to Judah are interwoven throughout these northern texts (e.g., Hos 8:14; 10:11; Amos 2:4-5). A concern, finally, for the reunification of Israel and Judah is evident in both Hosea (e.g., 3:5) and Amos (e.g., 9:11). This unification theme seems to undergird the various texts of the prophets, directly or indirectly. Issues of indictment and judgment are not finally ends in themselves, but in the service of the salvation of God. The common “day of the LORD” language in the Twelve can refer to any number of anticipated events, whether days of judgment (for Israel or for other nations) or days of salvation (usually for the people of God). No one will escape participation in the coming day of judgment, but beyond that day, a day of salvation promises to inaugurate a new era. A majority of the prophets conclude with a word of promise and salvation for Israel, even if indictments of sin and consequent judgment have dominated the texts along the way. This is true of each of the prophetic books in this study (Hos 14:4-7; Joel 3:17-21; Amos 9:11-15; Obad 19-21; Jonah 4:11; Mic 7:18-20). An interest in God’s use of agents is integral to all prophetic talk about judgment and salvation. God works in the world directly, but always through means. The agents, in and through which God works, include both nonhuman creatures (e.g., Hos 4:1-3; Joel 1–2) and human, especially Assyrian and Babylonian armies (e.g., Mic 4:10; 5:5-6). In other words, God chooses to depend on what is not God to carry out the divine purposes in the world. This is a risky move for God because it links God with the activi-

Introduction to the Minor Prophets

5

ties of the divinely chosen but often violent agents, and God does not perfect the agents before deciding to work in and through them. Agents can indeed exceed what God would want in a given situation (see Zech 1:15), and God thereby becomes associated with a great deal of violence. Concern for nations outside of Israel/Judah permeates both major and minor prophets, with some thirty chapters devoted to “oracles against the nations” (OAN) in the larger prophetic corpus (examples include Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah; Nahum; Isa 13–23; Jer 46–51; Ezek 25–32). The emphasis in these oracles focuses on indictment and judgment. At the same time, a concern for the salvation of peoples other than Israel/Judah comes into view, especially in Jonah. Generally, this prophetic concern for other nations, indeed the larger natural order, is deeply rooted in a theology of creation. This interest is made especially clear in the creation doxologies in the book of Amos (4:13; 5:8-9; 8:8-9; 9:5-6); the locust plague in Joel 1–2; the “grain, wine, and oil” of Hosea 2 and the images from the natural world that follow throughout Hosea (e.g., 9:2, 10; 10:1, 11-13; 13:3-8); the integration of the natural order in the judgment oracles (e.g., Amos 4:6-12); and the salvation promises (e.g., Hos 14:4-7; Amos 9:13-15). Again and again, the human is shown to have an adverse effect on the earth and the environment (Hos 4:1-3; see Joel 1:10-20). Indeed, there seems to be an inward characteristic of the earth and its creatures such that a genuine relationship exists between them and God (see the vivid language for nature in Joel 1:17-18, 20; 2:21-22). Finally, metaphors of the relationship between God and people are common throughout the prophets and are key to their interpretation. For example, in the Minor Prophets, a stirring use of the husband-wife metaphor begins the collection (Hos 1–3), and the parent-child metaphor appears throughout (e.g., Hos 11:1-9; Mal 3:17). The metaphors used in the prophetic indictments are often highly direct and dramatic (e.g., Mic 3:1-3; Amos 5:20–6:7), with interest in matters of social justice strongly emphasized. Interpreters are called to discern the “yes” and the “no” in each of the metaphors and to discern the points at which they are and are not to be interpreted literally. Most basically, the kind of God with whom Israel has to do is made evident in a variety of ways in these books. Yet the most basic confession about God for Israel is Exodus 34:6-7: “the LORD is gracious, merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness . . . but by no means clearing the guilty.” This creedal statement is woven into several of these books and informs their most basic perspective (Hos 13:4; 14:1-4; Joel 2:13-14, 3:20-21; Jonah 4:2; Mic 7:18-20; cf. Nah 1:3). Such understand-

6

Reading Hosea–Micah

ings of God seem to be integral to the basic theological perspective exhibited in these prophetic books. This creedal formulation finally makes clear that, however appropriate the language of judgment may be, judgment is not to be viewed as the end of God’s relationship to this people nor the category within which that relationship is to be most basically understood.

Hosea

INTRODUCTION TO HOSEA Hosea is the first entry in the Book of the Twelve Prophets, probably because it was considered the earliest (Amos is in fact so) and perhaps because it is the longest. That Hosea employs striking imagery regarding the breakdown and restoration of the God-Israel relationship—a common theme in these prophets—may also have played a role in its placement. Hosea is a difficult book to interpret, not least because text and vocabulary are not always clear (see the extensive footnotes in the NRSV). No little shock value is present in its images (see below), occasioning reflection on the part of readers regarding the character of God as well as their own identity. The intensity of emotion is pervasive, including disappointment, frustration, agony, indecision, anger, fear, and shame. The sexual imagery has been particularly troubling to interpreters (e.g., Hos 2). The activity of both God and prophet with respect to Hosea’s wife Gomer (and, by implication, women generally) is problematic to many readers. The Structure of Hosea Hosea has several interwoven structures. It is common to discern three major blocks in the book: Hosea 1–3, 4–11, 12–14, each of which is ordered in terms of the themes of indictment, judgment, and promise of restoration. This rhythm is also present within chapters 1–3, with promises present at the end of each chapter. This repeated rhythm not only lifts up the basic issue of indictment and judgment but also repeatedly assures readers that God’s promise to them reaches beyond any experience of judgment. Included in these promises is the reunification of Israel and Judah under a single Davidic king (1:11; 3:5). God’s love and faithfulness to Israel has the last word in the book and in each section of the book.

8

Reading Hosea–Micah

The oracles of Hosea do not fit easily into patterns discernible in other prophetic literature, including those of Hosea’s contemporary Amos (e.g., absence of the formula, “Thus says the LORD”). The word of God is presented both in direct divine speech (“I” statements; see 2:16, 19-20; 14:4-8) and in the words of Hosea (see 3:1-5), though it is difficult at times to discern the identity of the speaker. The words addressed to readers include both direct personal address (“you”, both singular and plural) and more distant third person (“they” and “he, she”), and the reasons for these switches are often befuddling. At times, Hosea and God seem to be in dialogue (see 9:10-17); at other times, it is the people and prophet/God (4:15; 6:1-3; 8:2; 10:3; see 10:8; 12:8; 13:2; 14:2b-3). These and other features make the text unusually complex and the reader’s task extraordinarily demanding. The Audience of Hosea To whom is Hosea addressed? The transmission history of the book is much debated. The superscription (1:1) makes clear that what follows is to be read in terms of two separate kingdoms (Israel and Judah) with separate monarchies. Most scholars agree that the basic audience for the prophet’s preaching was the people in the northern kingdom, Israel. At the same time, given Hosea’s various references to Judah, this message may have been preached again in Judah (following the fall of Samaria in 722 BCE?), perhaps designed to “update” Hosea’s word for a Judean audience. Judah is included with Israel in the prophet’s negative indictments and judgments (5:5, 10, 12, 14). Yet Judah is often presented in a positive light (1:7, 11; 4:15); God will see to their future (3:5). We cannot be certain who made such revisions or when they occurred. And we cannot determine whether Hosea as a book had a pre-Judean edition, though the Judean references seem to be “tacked on” rather than fully integrated. In any case, Hosea’s oracles probably received their present form in that Judean context. There is a new or renewed purpose on the part of the final editor of the book (see 1:1; 14:9): to understand what has been said and to walk in the ways of the Lord. Given the wide-ranging historical references in 1:1, the audience of the book of Hosea is different from the earlier audience(s) of the preaching of Hosea. Post-722 BCE readers could read several Hosea texts that depict an exilic situation for Israel (8:8-10; 9:3; 9:17; 11:5) and even a repopulation of the land (1:10-11; 2:21-23; 11:10-11; 14:7).

Hosea

9

The Historical Situation and Hosea’s Word about Betrayal/Alliances The most basic imagery for the ruptured God-Israel relationship may be broken out in terms of the related issues of alliances/betrayal and idolatry/adultery. While the king and other political leaders are basically responsible for betrayal issues, the priests and prophets are most accountable for the adultery. So Hosea attacks the leadership of both “church” and government, engaging in much conflict with the powers that be. The historical setting for the book of Hosea is the middle of the eighth century BCE, about 750–725 BCE. This was a time of political turmoil in the ancient Near East, promoted not least by the expansionist policies of the Assyrian Empire. The very existence of the northern kingdom of Israel was threatened (and Judah as well). These events took place from the end of the long and generally peaceful reign of Jeroboam II (786–746 BCE) until the fall of Samaria (722 BCE). Hosea is set in a precarious world, one that will soon disappear. Hosea’s word of judgment will assist in that disappearance. During this tumultuous time, Israel was pushed around by regional powers (Assyria, Egypt, and Aram), and its survival efforts were marked by the frequent shifting of alliances among them. Sheer ineptitude in the formation and execution of policies on the international scene was common. Living under this ongoing external threat, Israel was also continually rocked by internal political intrigue, murder, and instability (six kings reigned during this period, four of whom were assassinated). The upshot is that Assyrian armies under Tiglath-pileser III reduced Israel to a skeleton of its former self in 735–732 BCE (the Syro-Ephraimitic war), and in 724–722 BCE Assyria under Shalmaneser V and Sargon II destroyed the kingdom and scattered its population. It is rare that readers can relate individual texts in Hosea to particular historical events during this period, though it may be that the judgment/restoration rhythms in Hosea can be related to the swinging political and military fortunes of the country. From within this complex, confusing, and life-threatening socio-political situation, Hosea carried out his ministry. Hosea certainly knows his audience: their religious traditions (4:15; 13:2), political/economic/social activity (8:8-10), proverbs (9:7), types of prayers (2:16; 6:1-3; 8:2; 11:7), acts of deception and arrogance (12:8). Though information is meager, texts such as 9:7-8 suggest that he was not well received among his compatriots: “The prophet is a fool, the man of the spirit is mad!” Given this kind of socio-historical context, readers can understand the urgency of Hosea’s words and the depths of his feelings. Hosea placed these developments within a theological framework: Israel’s relationship with the

10

Reading Hosea–Micah

nations has to do with Israel’s relationship with God. Israel’s shifting alliances with other nations is one entry point for Hosea in this conversation (see 5:13-14; 7:8-16; 8:7-10; 12:1; 14:3). Israel should be placing its trust in God for its future, not be dependent for its security on such alliances (see Isa 30:15-18; 31:1-3). These are acts of betrayal of its relationship with God; it is treason. This point is related to the gods of these nations, that is, political alliance entailed acceptance or recognition of their gods. Yet working with these nations in and of itself was not the problem; it was the nature of the alliances that were forged, alliances that sought to move into international relationships without referencing God’s role. The images used for such alliances are striking: a sick or wounded person turning to an incompetent physician (5:13); a silly dove, flying back and forth from one assumed shelter to the next, with no clear direction (7:11); a wild ass, sniffing the wind, searching for lovers like a prostitute bargaining with potential clients (8:9-10); a herder or pursuer of the wind (12:1). Israel thinks its words and deeds, especially with respect to other nations (Assyria and Egypt are noted), are something substantial (e.g., getting them to do what Israel wants). The exercise proves to be filled with futility and pretense, and it is finally fatal. The end of the book (14:3) establishes a clear recognition of a change in relationship as integral to Israel’s future. Hosea’s preaching is commonly associated with Israel’s idolatrous worship, as will be shown. But Hosea’s indictment of idolatry cannot be read in isolation from these political and economic dimensions of life. Hosea’s alternation between a condemnation of international alliances and the worship of Baal shows that these issues are deeply linked; Baalism comes into Israel’s worship as an integral part of the alliances. Alliances are at the root of Israel’s betrayal of God. The worship of other gods was in significant part the effect of foreign infiltration into the life of Israel through these alliances. The Religious Situation and Hosea’s Word about Adultery/Idolatry The image of adultery/idolatry is the other primary metaphor used with respect to Israel’s failure in its relationship with God; it relates most fundamentally to Israel’s religious situation, but not exclusively. Hosea depicts Israel as the adulterous wife of God. She has expressed her unfaithfulness by turning to lovers (Baals, 2:13) other than Yahweh, and participated in apostate religious beliefs and practices. Hosea’s frequent mentioning of Israel’s worship sites (Beth-Aven [= Bethel], Mizpah, Gilgal, Shechem, Dan) and practices signals this focus.

Hosea

11

The reference to other gods is common (e.g., 3:1; 13:1-2; unlike Amos or Micah, neither of whom mentions Baal). Images of sexual infidelity for this idolatry are especially prominent (1:2-9; 3:1; 4:10-11; 5:3-4; 6:6, 10; 9:1) and explored further below. Explicitly rejected worship practices include Baal festivals (2:13); idolatrous altars and pillars (4:17-19; 8:11; 10:1-2, 8); images (10:5-6; 13:2; cf. 9:10); sacrifices and other rituals (2:13; 7:14; 8:13; 9:4; 13:2). These practices manifested themselves in a variety of ways, especially the relationship of the gods to the land and its fertility. Israel ascribed the blessings of the land to Baal rather than Yahweh (e.g., 2:8) and engaged in related worship practices (2:13). One effect: Israel’s worship, of whatever sort, is condemned. But the use of these images is not an either/or—alliances with other nations or other gods. It is both, with context determining where the emphasis lies. Israel is described as a “lover” among the nations (2:5, 7, 10, 12); other nations are often portrayed as Israel’s lovers (see Jer 4:30; 22:20-22; Ezek 16; 23; Nah 3:4). Indeed, illicit sex is a metaphor for its international dealings and alliances (8:9-10). Harlotry (zanah) can refer to extramarital sex but also to questionable activities with other nations, such as alliances and trade (see Isa 23:17; Ezek 16:26-29). Thus, Hosea’s common use of the sexual analogy (see below) has reference to activities in both the religious and socio-political spheres. The issue faced by Hosea cannot be simply put in terms of choosing Yahweh or Baal. The problem was a form of syncretistic worship, worshiping God in Baalistic ways. The basic issue is not a clash between two religious cultures, Canaanite and Israelite, but a more internal struggle within Israel itself over the nature of the worship of Yahweh. The supremacy of Yahweh was considered under threat from Baal and related interests and practices. The centrality of Yahweh “ever since the land of Egypt” is one key to the interpretation of Hosea: “You know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior” (13:4; see 12:9). That confession was considered by Hosea to be under threat. Hosea’s Rhetorical Strategy Hosea’s rhetorical strategy is commonly thought to be a call for Israel to assume responsibility for its betraying and adulterous relationships and return to Yahweh. To that end, the prophet indicts the people for sins committed, announces judgment on them, calls for repentance, and prom-

12

Reading Hosea–Micah

ises restoration of relationship. Parallel to the use of images noted above, there are several specific features in this strategy. 1. Imagery used to portray God.

The imagery used for God is an important instrument in working toward that objective. Hosea’s language for God is not descriptive, as if he were reporting on the current religious situation. Hosea’s is not a neutral discussion with neutral images. His rhetoric gets to the heart of things quickly and seeks to help readers understand how their relationship with God has gone wrong and how God has been affected by that. Hosea 1–3 are designed to reflect God’s education of the prophet regarding what God is going through. “Hosea, to know what is happening to me, you ought to have a marriage like I’ve had!” Hence, God calls for him to marry Gomer, a person whose adulterous activities (with other gods) are widely known. The book proceeds to expose what has disrupted this relationship as far as God is concerned, conveying what God thinks and feels about these developments. Continuing throughout the book, the images used for God are often audacious and bizarre. God is like maggots or pus (5:12), rejected parent (11:1-4), unfaithful lover (2:2-20), lion, leopard, bear (11:10; 13:7-8), dew (14:5), and cypress (14:8). In parallel fashion, the images for the people of Israel used by God are comparably excessive. Israel is like a stubborn heifer (4:6), dew that disappears early (6:4, 13:3), an overheated oven (7:4-7), a cake not turned (7:8), a silly and senseless dove (7:11, see 11:11), a useless vessel (8:8), wild grapes (9:10), a fruitless tree (9:16), wood chips on roiling waters (10:7), swirling chaff and smoke (13:3). What kind of God has followers described in this way? And so Hoses uses images to help Israel understand how God both feels and thinks about what has happened. To that end, Hosea’s language is certainly not calm or reserved. It is filled with emotion and passion, both evocative and provocative, challenging the reader with images that get under the skin and cut into treasured perspectives on God. God has deep questions about these people (6:4; 11:8): “What shall I do with you?” “How can I give you up?” The language is intimate, not distant or objective (2:19; 11:8): “I will take you for my wife forever”; “My compassion grows warm and tender.” This relationship with Israel really counts for God, and God invests the divine self in their future with energy. God is deeply engaged for the purpose of the restoration of relationship. God may give them up to judgment, but God does not finally give up on them. Thus, regular steps along the way reveal the love of God for this people (11:1-11).

Hosea

13

God longs for a new day for the relationship, no matter the depth of Israel’s sin and the comprehensiveness of the judgment. Unlike the Baals or other nations, God is both receiving and giving; a deeply relational and loving God is revealed. God’s suffering is also revealed in and through these varying images. God, who loves these people dearly, participates along with the people in the suffering effects of their broken relationship. And God painfully takes the initiative with respect to the reconciliation process. “My heart recoils within me.” The suffering of God is embodied in the life of the prophet himself. Initially (chs. 1–3), God asks the prophet to live out in his own life what God has experienced in the divine life. This reality may be a factor in the occasional textual difficulty in determining whether the speaker is the prophet or God. For example, in chapter 2, the identity of the speaker may be purposely ambiguous. Then, chapter 3 begins by calling on Hosea to take initiative with Gomer, to move toward reconciliation by taking certain actions that are in some ways parallel with what God does in chapter 2. This embodiment means not only that God shares in Hosea’s sorrow; Hosea shares in God’s sorrow. In and through his personal experience, Hosea is increasingly awakened to what such a broken relationship means for God. When God reveals God’s own suffering heart, and God’s own love of Israel, Hosea is called to share in that suffering experience and exhibit that love. But he is to do this not simply for God’s sake or his own but for the sake of the future of Israel. This imaging of God and prophet is remarkable in its portrayal of God’s vulnerability to an unfaithful people, God’s openness to be jilted for other lovers. God so enters into such relationships that God forfeits absolute control and, in the interests of the freedom of the other, works within the relationship in constrained and restrained ways. But that divine move entails deep suffering for God. God’s suffering is occasioned by human suffering as well. The suffering that issues from sin’s effects is sharply presented in Hosea—cities laid waste, children killed, mothers dashed in pieces with their children, people mangled by wild animals, pregnant women cut open (see 5:14; 9:11-12, 16; 10:14; 13:7-8, 16). These atrocities should be understood as the natural consequences of sin itself, primarily an inner stubbornness, a hardening of the will (4:11; 5:4; 7:9; 9:10; 10:12-13). The moral order talk is sharply stated: they “have eaten the fruit of lies” (10:13); they sow the wind and reap the whirlwind (8:7). Sin contains the seeds of its own destruction. God’s wrath consists in allowing people to rush over the precipice if they insist on going that way. This is a personal consent to let the moral order so function

14

Reading Hosea–Micah

and the suffering effects on people cost God much anguish and sorrow. No divine indifference, as if God is not involved. No conflict in the heart of God, but deep suffering, an emotional state for God in the wake of such suffering. Readers must not seek to protect God from suffering and hurt. The judgment of God entails real suffering for God, and that should not be watered down. 2. Imagery of intimacy.

The imagery of intimacy is most present in Hosea 1–3, but continues throughout the book, with both marital (4:10-15, 18; 5:3-4; 6:10; 8:9; 9:1) and parental images (4:5; 5:7; 6:4[?]; 9:11-14; 10:14; 11:1-4; 13:12-13, 16). It is important, then, to pay attention to the “fields” of both metaphors. Yahweh is pictured both as parent and as spouse. Hosea and Gomer are both described as spouse and as parent. The children of Gomer and Hosea represent the children of Israel, and inasmuch as Hosea envisions God, God is the parent of these children. The language of prostitution, however, does assume a male figure whose sexual activity, and money, draw women into harlotry. In Hosea 1–3, God commands Hosea to do two things—marry a promiscuous woman (1:3) and love her after she has been unfaithful (3:1). Two different senses of this imagery are present: religious idolatry (1:3) and sexual betrayal (3:1). The assumption: God’s painful experience with an unfaithful Israel (in both senses) precedes the experience of the prophet with his wife. In effect, God asks the prophet to live out in his own life what life has been like for God over the years. This “living out” is to be a public matter, for the woman he is to marry is publicly promiscuous (see commentary on Hos 1:3). For Hosea to do this would make the nature of God’s journey with Israel more openly visible to everyone. The prophet and God have a common bond of being married to similarly faithless partners. Those who hear and see the prophet will hear and see God. The specific language of harlotry and adultery will disappear at 9:1 (as it does over the course of ch. 2), but the language of love continues; God’s love becomes primary in the latter part of the book (11:1; 14:5), even in the face of all the hell that has taken place. The use of such imagery to depict the ruptured relationship between God and Israel is designed to shock readers, as it still does—God did that? Hosea is not only to take an unfaithful wife; he is also to have unfaithful children (see at 1:3). If Hosea embodies God, then God has had a spouse like unfaithful Gomer and is the father of similarly faithless children. The children witness to the intergenerational character of this unfaithfulness. They are not children with an inclination to harlotry or children of actual adul-

Hosea

15

terous relationships; they are children who are faithless like their mother. The names of the children are no doubt designed to make readers uncomfortable. These children are God’s people, especially chosen by God and loved by God. Now they are to be dismissed from the family and declared to be the people of God no longer! Is such rhetoric an effort to break through human stubbornness, a way of trying to get readers to pay attention to what is a lifethreatening issue? For many readers, these images are sharply demeaning of women and can even be considered pornographic (cf. also Jer 2–3, 13; Ezek 16; 23). Women and their sexuality are treated as objects by males and are under their control; women are publicly and violently shamed by males for their behaviors (males are not so depicted). Gomer has no choice to make; she is simply acted upon by God (2:8, 18, 21-22). She is not invited to participate in shaping her own future. Inasmuch as the male in this imagery represents God, the male is understood in a positive light; that is, what God does to the woman in view of her harlotry is appropriate and justified (males who follow this pattern could conclude that they are simply following God’s ways). One might conclude that this language for God and Hosea/Gomer is “merely metaphor.” But the use of such metaphoric language is neither so simple nor so innocent. Analogies with human behaviors are explicitly drawn, and the interpreter cannot easily sort out the “yes” and the “no” of the analogy. The issue is not simply that this language is offensive to women, but that the language is harmful to women in an ongoing way, as these texts continue to live on in believing communities. As such, they may be used, subtly or not so subtly, to encourage continuing negative images of women and their sexuality and even violent treatment of women. What should the interpreter do? For one thing, the violence against the woman should be exposed for what it is—inappropriate and unjustifiable violence; it should not be hidden away or silenced or somehow justified as a reflection of that ancient culture. Just because that culture’s practices are reflected in the Bible does not mean that they should always be considered appropriate. On the other hand, our interpretive options are not reduced to two: dismiss it as pornographic or affirm its cultural perspective. Marriage analogies can be interesting and helpful at several levels in thinking through serious relationships, and interpreters should engage deeply in the “yes” and “no” of the metaphor. Indeed, the text may be helpful if it cuts against the grain of the values we bring to the text, occasioning reflections of consequence. In the metaphor of Israel as an unfaithful woman, it is important to stress that she portrays a social reality, a community to which all belong.

16

Reading Hosea–Micah

Images of children and mother suggest that the larger metaphor of family or household is central, rather than various individual images, and hence Hosea 1–3 fits closely with 11:1 (see “house of God” in 8:1; 9:4, 15). It is wise to remember that Hosea’s indictment is directed primarily against a male audience, and, within that, to the male leadership in both religious and socio-political affairs. The marital imagery that Hosea uses entails a feminization of this male audience; they are collectively represented in adulterous Gomer, who opens herself up to be “invaded” by outsiders. Such imaging strikes at the heart of male honor and status in Israelite society. As Israelite wives are to be faithful to one husband, and socially and economically dependent on him, so are Israelite males to be faithful to God and not become dependent on other nations and their gods. Just as it would have been difficult for Israelite males to forgive an unfaithful wife, so might they gain some insight into what kind of response God must have to their infidelity, their sharing their lives with other gods. This relationship should also be viewed from the other “side”: what are the implications for males whose God is pictured as a male who reaches out to the unfaithful wife rather than casting her out? Hosea’s word is that God so loves them that God will forgive their infidelity and continue to claim them as children. It is wise to remember that the use of marriage imagery for the GodIsrael relationship is not necessarily related to covenant; covenant is rarely used in Hosea (8:1; cf. 6:7), and marital images constitute a separate metaphoric field from that of covenant. 3. Imagery for the renewal of relationship.

Is Israel’s future left up to its repentance? Is Israel’s future a divine move? Is it some combination thereof? Is “returning” a metaphor with a “yes” and a “no”? A typical theological viewpoint on this issue is that Israel has to make the move to “return” and then God will respond in saving ways. A contrary perspective seems more evident. Israel’s repentant response is created by God’s gracious actions (a move that Israel can reject). Some texts do seem to suggest (2:21-23) that God’s action is a response/answer to a repentant Israel. But note that this divine “answering” takes place within the relationship that has been renewed in and through God’s alluring and speaking of 2:14-15. God’s actions to “give” and “make” (2:15a) lead Israel to “respond as in the days of her youth” (2:15b; see a comparable perspective on the call to “return” in the commentary on 14:1-3). God’s gracious action creates the renewed relationship, with the human response following from what God has done. Israel’s “return” does

Hosea

17

not trigger God’s gracious activity. Repentance is created in the people in and through God’s judgment and through the gracious and loving actions of God (3:1). Therefore, Israel’s hope for the future does not lie in its repentance but in the certainty of the divine compassion/promise. God’s love (3:1; see 11:1) persists through thick and thin, moves through the time of judgment, and shapes a future together beyond such a time. If Israel chooses to be unfaithful to the relationship, it can remove itself from the sphere of life and promise. But God does not remove the divine self from commitments made; the promises of God remain a living reality to cling to and prompt Israel to return to God again and again.

COMMENTARY Hosea, Gomer, and the Children (Hos 1–3) The textual unit with which Hosea begins (1:2–2:1) is word about Hosea the prophet, and hence is addressed to the reader by a narrator other than the prophet (3:1-5 will be spoken by Hosea). Chapter 1 is commonly divided in terms of a rhythm of indictment/judgment (1:2-9) and hope/salvation (1:10–2:1). More closely, this rhythm occurs in each of the naming actions in vv. 3-11; each child moves from negative to positive futures. This rhythm is followed in the next segment (2:2-23), which begins with indictment/judgment (2:2-13) and concludes with a message of salvation (2:14-23). This repeated rhythm corresponds to the structure of the book, ending on a note of hope (14:4-9) after many words of indictment and judgment. Scholarly focus in the study of Hosea 1–3 has commonly been placed on the relationship between Hosea and Gomer. At the same time, their three children (1:3-9) play an important role as they draw attention to the experiences of judgment and salvation on the part of the next generation (not just that of their parents). The effect is that both parental and marital metaphors for the God-Israel relationship will be interwoven in Hosea. The first chapter does not simply introduce readers to a marriage metaphor; children with symbolic names are brought into the picture, and so a parental metaphor is also present. Both Israel as spouse and Israel as child need to be recognized here; two metaphors are interwoven.

18

Reading Hosea–Micah

Superscription (Hos 1:1)

As is common in the prophets, Hosea begins with a historical superscription that names four kings from Judah and one from Israel (cf. Isa 1:1, where the four southern kings are also named). Kings from both north and south are also named in Amos 1:1. We do not know why the six northern kings that followed Jeroboam II (786–746 BCE) are omitted when their contemporaries in the south are included (Uzziah, 783–742; Jotham, 742–735; Ahaz, 735–715; Hezekiah, 715–687). Given the dominance of the named kings, Hosea is often thought to be the work of later editors from the southern kingdom (Judah). In any case, the present book is introduced to readers living in a post-Hosea time. The book as a whole is called “the word of the LORD.” Whatever might have been spoken and heard, this word has now become book. It is word of God both spoken and written. This word of the Lord “came”; the word is not simply heard but is experienced in a more comprehensive sense. This word is external to the prophet, not generated from within himself. It is God’s word, not his own. At the same time, God’s word was filtered through the prophet’s own mind, shaped by his own experience, and voiced in language that mirrors his experience (e.g., his marriage). Still, it is the word of God, for God always works in the world through means (including human language). This word from God is also a word about God; given both its source and its content, it is most basically a theological word. Moreover, 1:1 makes clear that God’s word is addressed to a particular time and place. God’s word takes the specifics of that life situation into account, and so particular references to Hosea’s own time and place are evident again and again. Hosea’s Marriage and Children; Judgment and Promise (Hos 1:2–2:1)

The initial section of indictment/judgment (1:2-9) revolves around four symbolic actions by Hosea, each commanded by God: his marriage to Gomer (1:2-3) and the naming of their three children (1:4-9; cf. Isaiah’s children, Isa 7:3; 8:3). Part of the genius of these materials relates to their “shock value.” One might speak of the author’s rhetorical strategy: to find a way to get through to the audience, perhaps self-satisfied with their approach to religion and life, and to catch them up in critical reflection and conversation about God. What kind of God do we have, and what is the nature of our relationship to God? Symbolic actions. Such actions are common in the prophets (e.g., Jer 13:1-11; 19:1-15; Isa 8:1-4; 20:1-6); they are called “symbolic” because they illustrate a particular prophetic point in a graphic way. The people will not

Hosea

19

often see them enacted, and God may not tell the prophet to interpret them to others. For Hosea 1:2-9, the commanded actions constitute a word for the prophet and his own self-understanding, at least initially; when they become public events and part of a book, they gain different audiences. When people hear or read the names of Hosea’s children, they may “get the message.” Later readers of the text are particularly in the mind of the author, which assists them in the interpretation of the words and deeds that now follow. Such symbolic acts are often thought to have an efficacy in their happening; that is, they set in motion the very future that they portray. But such acts are not understood in a magical sense (they may be rooted in such practices), nor are they regarded as inevitably shaping a certain future. They constitute a vivid image for reflection, not the predetermination of an associated event. Hence, the text does not even report the actual naming of the children (unlike the report of Hosea’s marriage, 1:3). Even if it is assumed that Hosea so named the children, that the text does not report it means that the naming in and of itself was not considered crucial for making the point or setting a certain future in place. The marriage. God’s command to Hosea to marry a woman as described in 1:2-3 raises many questions. How did Hosea know whom to look for, or that Gomer was the sort of woman who would fulfill the divine command? Did she have to be publicly promiscuous? Did God make clear to Hosea the identity of the woman, while readers have not been told? Why this command from God in the first place? Why would Hosea obey such a command without a word? What was the nature of the couple’s marriage? When did Gomer become unfaithful? It seems likely that the text purposely raises these kinds of questions, drawing readers in more deeply. The nub of the issue is stated by God in the command: “take for yourself a wife of whoredom” (1:2; “adulterous wife,” NIV; “unchaste woman,” NEB). The language of “whore” or (temple) prostitute is misleading, for she is never called a prostitute as such (zonah). The verb used (zanah) means to engage in sexual relationships outside of marriage, so a married woman is in view. This reference could entail actions from one-time adultery to habitual promiscuity, that is, to act like a whore but not be one by profession. NIV’s “adulterous wife” may be truest to the idea presented. That she is called a “wife” has the marriage to Hosea in view rather than implying that she was someone else’s adulterous wife. But questions abound. Does this language mean she would become adulterous within the marriage relationship? Or was she promiscuous at the time of the marriage or had proclivities to that end (the word “proleptic” may be used)? The latter interpretation is suggested by the reference to “children of

20

Reading Hosea–Micah

whoredom or unfaithfulness” or “promiscuous children.” That is, the children were obviously not promiscuous at the point of their being named; rather, this is what they would become, following a life pattern set by their mother. Perhaps so. But how would Hosea know the identity of such a woman or that God would expect him to know it? Moreover, if actual sexual promiscuity is in view, it is more difficult to speak of children who will certainly assume that life pattern, however much that may prove to be the case over time. Another direction for interpretation is possible. Hosea 1:2–2:1 is retrospective; that is, it is written in the light of later events, and the whole is cast in terms of that later experience. Thus, chapter 3, with its reference to Gomer’s adultery, has had an impact on the wording of chapter 1. Chapter 1 knows, as it were, that chapter 3 is coming, and is written with the later experience in mind. Adultery is not determined from the beginning, as if the marriage were fated to take this turn. But, living through the adultery of one’s spouse affects one’s retelling of the story. And so the descriptions of Gomer in 1:2 are reflections not of what she was at the time of their marriage but of what she turned out to be in the course of their marriage. Still another interpretation is preferable. Given the idolatry = adultery imagery in these chapters, it is more likely that Hosea was called to marry someone who was a known adherent of Baal worship. Hence, the promiscuity has to do with the worship of other gods and not with actual sexual misconduct; it is religious adultery (though association with Baal religion could link her to related sexual rites, 4:13-14). Hosea would then have any number of women from whom to choose! Gomer (whose name has no known significance), while having such a religious identity in her own right, would also be a representative of an adulterous people who worshiped gods other than Yahweh. This could become sexual adultery as well (see ch. 3). Her children would likely follow in her religious footsteps (along with most everyone else!), and they also would be appropriately described as religiously promiscuous. The children’s names could thus relate to the deteriorating effects of idolatry on the health of the nation over time. The latter interpretation is supported by God’s only stated reason for Hosea’s marriage to such a woman: “for” Israel (“this land”) has “forsaken the LORD” by engaging in religious promiscuity (the worship of other gods) and in treason (the appeal to other nations for help in time of trouble rather than Yahweh). Hosea’s marriage to a woman from such a people would then be correspondent with God’s marriage to a religiously adulterous people. The Hosea-Gomer marriage is a living metaphor of the God-Israel marital

Hosea

21

relationship; it is not simply verbal but is lived out before the people. By observing the nature of the Hosea-Gomer relationship, people could hear a word about God, about the kind of marital, indeed familial, experience God must have with Israel, and how God might be responding to it. The HoseaGomer marriage as such from its beginning was intended to be a point of public proclamation, not simply what the marriage might become in time. In his marriage, the prophet becomes an embodied word of God; the prophet’s very life is a message about God’s marriage with Israel. As such a metaphor, the marital/parental imagery has both a “yes” and a “no” in its reference, and readers are invited to think in terms of how the Hosea-Gomer marriage/children is like or unlike the relationship between God and Israel. What might we say about the “yes” and the “no” of the metaphor? The “no”: marriage then was a different reality from what it is today at its best; it was a marriage arranged by the father or other male member of the family. Common practices today, such as genuine mutuality in the relationship and the sharing of decision-making, would have been unusual in that culture. But the metaphor’s main “no” has to do with the image of Israel as a female who is the unfaithful one in the relationship. The “yes”: the centrality of love and faithfulness in the relationship and the recognition of brokenness within all such relationships, often prompted by unfaithfulness. We could also claim a “yes” to the use of the marriage metaphor today that would not have been true of that ancient context (e.g., a genuine mutuality). God’s words to God’s own people, words of sharp judgment, are difficult to speak regarding one who has been faithful to the relationship. The children of Gomer and Hosea. Hosea is also commanded to have “promiscuous children.” These are not children from extra-marital activity (1:3 is clear about this with respect to the first child; it is less clear regarding the other two children, but if religious adultery is in mind, the issue is irrelevant). Rather, as we have suggested, these are children who would be born into a family where the mother was religiously promiscuous; it is likely understood that the children would take on the character and life patterns of their mother. The implication is that, like the nation Israel, Hosea’s entire family is caught up in religious unfaithfulness. Hosea and Gomer have at least three children, a daughter and two sons. God commanded that each child be given a name symbolic of a specific word of God. The three names refer to the consequences of Israel’s unfaithfulness on the nation of Israel. To sum up: no king(dom), no compassion, no God. The names are likely progressive, both in terms of temporality and

22

Reading Hosea–Micah

severity, as the relationship with Yahweh deteriorates in a downward spiral. They move from judgment “in a little while” to divine compassion “no longer” to godforsakenness, immediately announced. Interestingly, the parent-child metaphor is also used to depict an increasingly anarchic religious/political/military situation. At the same time, in the case of each child, the divine judgment is not simply negative; it anticipates a positive future (1:5, 7, 10-11). But that future is possible only by passing through judgment. The references to Judah in 1:7, 11 may be later additions, as Hosea’s message is applied to Judah in time. It has also been suggested that all positive points (1:5, 7, 10-11; 2:1) are later additions (say, after the fall of Samaria) in view of new times and places. Such conclusions remain uncertain. Jezreel (1:4-5, 11; 2:22-23). Jezreel (“God plants”) is a fertile valley in the northern kingdom between Samaria and Galilee. Condemned are violent actions of king Jehu (845–818 BCE) at Jezreel, nearly a century earlier. In 2 Kings 9–10, Jehu’s violence is given a mixed review. God does initiate the coup of Jehu against the house of Ahab/Omri to reform Israel’s idolatrous worship, and God does approve the results in a general way (2 Kgs 10:30). Though God does not necessarily sanction the violent means by which Jehu works it out, 2 Kings 10:17 reports much God-sanctioned violence. Hosea, on the other hand, is unambiguous: the bloody deeds of the house of Jehu must be judged; indeed, they will contribute to the end of Israel. The “blood of Jezreel” is emblematic of the violence of the kings of this dynasty (Jeroboam II the supreme example). More generally, Jezreel was known as a bloody place where key battles had occurred over the years (e.g., Judg 6–7). The city of Megiddo lies in this valley and is used for future battles (Armageddon). What happened at Jezreel is typical of Israel; Israel is personified violence in all its ways. Jezreel is what Israel as a whole has become. What is so bad about naming your son Jezreel? To use the language of Bruce Birch (p. 21): What would we think of “children named Wounded Knee, or Auschwitz, or Hiroshima, or My Lai?” God will “visit” (not “punish”) the blood of Jezreel upon the house of Jehu. God does not impose a penalty specified in the law, but sees that sins have effects. Ironically, God, in announcing “an end to the kingdom of Israel,” will use at least as much violence in and through the Assyrians to accomplish this judgment (see Fretheim 1999, 172–75). Poetic justice is voiced in v. 5: Israel’s power will be broken in the very valley where Jehu executed his purge. But even more, God engages in violence in order to “break the bow,” so that Israel will no more participate

Hosea

23

in violence, demonstrating that God’s purpose is the end of violence. Indeed, the end of war is the shape of the future (anticipating 2:18; see Ps 46:9). In sum, God uses violence against Israel to undercut its violence and work toward a future free of violence. Loruhamah (1:6-8; see 2:1, 23). Its meaning, “no mercy, not pitied” (by God), makes a strong statement about the welfare of a daughter no longer cared for by her parent (cf. Isa 49:14-15). And no reasons are given. Israel’s negative future is close at hand. A contrast is offered regarding Judah’s future in v. 7, but, again, no reasons are given. Following the effect of God’s action in v. 5, violent means are rejected in v. 7 (note the violent means used against Assyria in 2 Kgs 19:32-37). Key questions arise. What does it mean for God to have no mercy on God’s own people (see 5:14)? We hear from other texts that God had shown compassion to Israel in earlier years (e.g., 2 Kgs 13:4-5; 14:25-27). Indeed, the covenant with Abraham is cited as a factor (2 Kgs 13:23), as it is in this context (see v. 10)! Some suggest that such a question was already troubling to the editors (JPS puts v. 7 in parentheses); references to Judah were inserted (fifteen instances in Hosea) to make the continuity in God’s people clear. Yet an editor would have understood that “the house of Israel” (v. 6) and “my people” (v. 9) would have been less than the entirety of God’s people. How is the distinction between Israel and Judah to be explained, especially when no reasons are given? The assumption seems to be that Judah’s sins have not (yet) had the cumulative effect that Israel’s have had (see Jer 3:6-11, where Judah is judged for neglecting the lessons of the north). Strong theological language is used for Judah in v. 7—compassion and salvation (also used for Israel in 2 Kgs 13–14). At the same time, 1:11 assumes that, at some point, Judah will be exiled and suffer a fate similar to Israel’s. But that will not mean the end of the covenant relationship. Loammi (1:8-9; see 2:1, 23). God declares that Israel is “not my people” (v. 9). The language is striking given the covenant formula, “You shall be my people and I shall be your God” (e.g., Jer 30:22). Would “not my people” mean the breaking of God’s promise? Is “the covenant undone . . . null and void because of Israel’s sin” (so Birch, 22)? Did Israel forfeit its status as a covenant people? Yet God did not make a covenant with Israel separately from Judah; there is only one covenant and one people. Judah is still alive and well as God’s people (vv. 7, 11). Is the covenant undone for Israel within the people of God? Yet “not my people” is soon reversed: once again, Israel is “my people” (2:1, 23). No claims are made regarding a nullification of the divine promise. Another approach is necessary, recognizing that many people

24

Reading Hosea–Micah

from Israel were still alive after the fall of the north and could call God’s promises their own. Israel is named “not my people” because Israel has decided to remove itself from the sphere of promise by its unfaithfulness, and God honors this move. But God’s promise will not fail (Deut 4:31; Judg 2:1; 1 Sam 12:22; 2 Sam 7:16); it will never be made null and void as far as God is concerned. The promise is always there for the believing to cling to, and they can be confident that God is open to welcoming the prodigal child home. If vv. 10-11 are the work of a later editor (as commonly thought), it is clear that 1:9 was not understood in absolute or final terms. God’s promises, given long before Israel’s apostasy, still stand—for both Israel and Judah. The language of “not my people” must be seen as an exile, a time away (cf. 2:14-15; 3:3-4), not as God’s cancellation of a promise. Promise. Both Israel and Judah are given promises regarding their future, and their future together. As with the rhythms of 1:4-5 and 1:6-7, there is hope beyond the judgment of 1:9. The name “not my people” becomes “children of the living God,” rather than children of another god (supporting our marriage interpretation above). Verse 10 does not start up a new covenant; rather, Israel has been reintegrated into a covenant that has persisted through this time (recognized with Judah in v. 7). The divine promises in Genesis are repeated (“sand of the sea,” 22:17; 32:12), and the Abrahamic covenant is thereby recognized as continuing to be applicable to Israel. The text once again speaks of Jezreel (1:11), but this time it will be a great day. Indeed, in 2:1, “not my people” is called “my people” and “not pitied” is “pitied.” All three names are reinterpreted in 2:22-23. God as the subject of the word “sow” entails a fulfillment of the future anticipated in 1:5 (Jezreel means “God sows”) and in 1:11, where the battle of Jezreel will signal the day of the Lord for Israel’s salvation. This does not take away the language of judgment (see Israel’s experience at the hands of the Assyrians) but rather indicates that, through the judgment as a refining fire, the people of Israel will experience salvation. God’s love will persist through thick and thin. On what grounds can the prophet claim a future beyond disaster? The language of 1:10 suggests the promise to Abraham: his descendants will be as numerous as the sand on the seashore (Gen 22:17; 32:12), the dust of the earth, and the stars of the heavens (Gen 13:16; 15:5; 26:24; 28:14). The separated people (Israel and Judah) will be reunited (1:11), will take possession of the land (or put down roots in the land or flourish in the land), and will be gathered together under one leader (1:11). “The day of Jezreel”

Hosea

25

speaks of being sown into the land again or replanted (see 2:22-23). The people will appoint for themselves a head/leader; the use of the word “leader” rather than “king” suggests a move away from the kind of kingship under which the people have often suffered (3:5 refers to a Davidic king, with Judah in view; on “head” as king, see Ps 18:43; Job 29:25). This section of Hosea ends with a word to readers (2:1). They are to call each other “my people” and “pitied.” As sisters and brothers, Israel and Judah are reunited and called to recognize their changed status. Other texts begin with words of address to readers, primarily Israel (2:2; 4:1; 5:1, 8; 8:1; 9:1; 14:1-2). Judgment and salvation are themes that go together, and they are both taken seriously. Judgment takes accountability seriously; there will be consequences to sin. At the same time, God’s love is everlasting and God’s promises dependable, moving through times of judgment and enabling a new future. Israel and Idolatry/Adultery (Hos 2:2-23)

The structure of this chapter is similar to that of chapter 1. It begins with language of indictment and judgment (2:2-13) and concludes with language of hope and salvation (2:14-23). Hosea’s personal life had been interwoven with the indictment and judgment of Israel in 1:2-9, and it had issued in a reversal of fortunes in 1:10–2:1. This chapter has a dramatic character, broken into two basic acts (2:2-13; 2:14-23); it reflects (potential) positive or negative developments in the relationship. Hosea 2:2-23 is set largely in the future; divine actions are threatened or promised but not (yet) carried out. As we have seen, Hosea’s story with his religiously unfaithful wife and children is a metaphor for God’s story with his adulterous wife and children (Israel). Now, in 2:2-23, we hear the story of infidelity from God’s side, in God’s own voice (see 2:13, 16, 21). God’s language, filled with emotion and anguish, is made all the more poignant by the occasional quoting of his wife, at least her voice as he understands it (2:5b, 7b, 12a, 16). The language used by God reflects those human feelings that erupt at the knowledge of a spouse’s betrayal. Implicitly, readers are asked to think of what they might say and do in such a situation: the anger and pain, the desire to humiliate, to shame the other, to take revenge. One might imagine these words as the language of an extended lament, thinking of ways to pass judgment and yet, finally, because of love, breaking through to vistas of a renewed relationship. The story of Hosea and Gomer, however, cannot be identified with the story of God and Israel, given its metaphorical character. To say that

26

Reading Hosea–Micah

“Gomer’s story is Israel’s story” speaks truth. But, at the same time, Gomer’s story is not Israel’s story. Both claims must be made, or the Gomer-Hosea marriage itself is not real. Hence, there is both a “yes” and a “no” to the marriage analogy that is developed (see at 1:2-9). Adultery is used as a metaphor for idolatry; the issue for God is Israel’s infidelity, its turning to the worship of other gods (“lovers”). God is represented as the male in this relationship. Adultery in Israel’s world assumed that the male had authority over the female, not least over the expression of her sexuality (see Jer 3, 13). It was a matter of great shame to the male if the female were adulterous. A double standard prevailed in terms of extra-marital relations; the male had freedom—at least with unmarried females—that the female never had (see Weems). The husband is outraged at his wife’s adultery and shamed, not least because of the public character of it all (others would know that he could not control his wife’s sexual behavior). The violence of the shamed husband is also used with reference to God (strip her naked, expose her publicly, 2:3). In what sense does this human analogy apply to God? Does God feel humiliated because his people (= wife) consort with other gods (= adultery)? One of the realities that makes this text so problematic is that it follows a discerned pattern of spousal abuse through the centuries into our own time (for a thoughtful reflection on these issues, see Yee, 226–27; Jacobson). One cannot simply conclude that the judgment is deserved, for the language used to depict it is all too familiar from ongoing situations of spousal abuse. One cannot simply escape from the problem by claiming that this is metaphor, for metaphor speaks both a “yes” and a “no.” The language is more than figurative. In addition, differences of opinion have been voiced over where the “yes” and the “no” lie. It is easy for some to say that, in view of the sin, the abuse is part of the “yes.” One might be tempted to suggest that God’s harsh behavior is finally irrelevant, for that is the means by which the person can be restored to the relationship. This is the pattern of spousal abuse that is commonly worked with these days: words of accusation against the partner’s suspected behaviors (deserved or not), followed by abusing behavior such as blows to the body (sometimes articulated by the abuser as appropriate punishment for the “crime”), and then followed by sorrow and/or contrition, with expressions of tenderness. This pattern of spousal abuse is not a one-time matter; it is a pattern that is episodic, resorted to again and again. That God should follow this pattern is striking and often troublesome, perhaps especially the tenderness following the abuse. Readers must recognize the problems with the metaphor, especially its patriarchal character and its assumption of male authority and control.

Hosea

27

However much one might wish it were not so, this picture probably characterizes many a modern marriage, often with scriptural justification regarding the male as the head of the household. In fact, the ancient and modern worlds probably have much in common here, even if the equality of spouses in a marital relationship is affirmed. Others, also with appeals made to the scriptural heritage, find this understanding and its associated behaviors repulsive. Both of these groups might be able to find common ground in condemning abusive behavior of any kind that manifests itself in the marriage. And that leads to another “no” in the metaphor, namely, that it would in any sense serve to justify abusive behavior on the part of a spouse. It is important that abuse not simply be described in physical terms. Psychological abuse can be just as deadly, though it may take a little longer to kill someone. Any means of abuse by any spouse is off limits. Another “no” in the metaphor (with which some may disagree) is to recognize that in a contemporary understanding of God, the divine abuse such as that evident in this text is inappropriate. This is not to suggest that any negative responses on God’s part be set off limits (e.g., God could be angry, and that anger may be legitimate and have adverse effects on people). What is the “yes” in the judgment language; what would a comparison of abuse and judgment look like? Recognize that one point of the “yes” of the metaphor has to do with the reality of adultery and its adverse consequences on everyone related to the situation. Infidelity evokes a remarkably common set of responses: pain, anger, even rage, shame (on the part of both spouses, if it is public). This is as much a contemporary problem as an ancient one, and texts such as these can enable us to talk more openly about the issue and the problems it commonly raises. Learning to work with such broken relationships is an important goal for all who may ever be related to such situations, especially leaders like counselors and clergy. Another “yes” that is available in this metaphor is the response of God. When God enters into relationships of closeness and intimacy, God becomes vulnerable, taking risks that those relationships will fail. In fact, God is often faced with adultery/idolatry, and one remarkable response on God’s part is that God does not simply take it in stride; rather, God is angry and deeply hurt by the breakdown of these relationships. And so one can understand much of the way in which God responds in these verses. To know that God so responds to unfaithfulness in relationships may be of help to individuals who have experienced infidelity on the part of a spouse.

28

Reading Hosea–Micah

And so, for today, one can say that God is like a husband; indeed, we might de-gender this image so one might say that God is like a wife or a spouse. One might use language that is general enough to cover all such relationships, so that it is not stated or implied (as it is in this text) that it is only the wife that is unfaithful. For example, it might be appropriate in certain situations to speak of God as one who is married to someone who is “sleeping around.” The judgment section of 2:2-13 begins with a divine imperative to the children of Gomer and Hosea (two were mentioned in 2:1). It is assumed that considerable time has elapsed from chapter 1 in that the children are now old enough to be able to help their father. The situation may be compared with that of a family where the wronged spouse seeks to rally the children in an effort to turn the wayward spouse’s life around. The call assumes that some individual Israelites might respond. Given the references to family members (2:1-2), the general setting is familial (rather than a courtroom), with conflict among its members (God’s own family!) over the behaviors of mother and children. The wife is not directly addressed (she is referred to in the third person), nor is she given a voice (though quoted several times). The children are directed to “plead with” (better, “intervene with,” in a sense not unlike Alcoholics Anonymous) their mother to forsake her adultery. These are the very children who are named children of promiscuity in 1:2 and 2:4-5a, but apparently a few faithful (such as Hosea himself ) might respond. Notably, God claims that “he” and Israel no longer have a husband-wife relationship (2:2, reflecting 1:9). Yet an actual divorce has not occurred; this is an emotion-laden charge by God that a proper husband-wife relationship is not present, showing the debilitating effects of infidelity on the marriage. At the same time, the divine statements of betrothal in 2:19-20 would appear to make sense only if there has been a divorce or, if not an official divorce (and no exact parallels from that world have been found), at least an annulment. In view of 2:14, God’s plan throughout is to “allure” Israel into a return, to work toward reconciliation, and to make promises with respect to Israel as a wife “forever” (2:19-20). The appeal to change (2:2b) is a vivid depiction of the unfaithful wife, in terms of both appearance (“face”; she is made up to look like a whore in order to attract lovers; see 2:13) and actions (she sleeps with her lover between her breasts). This is vivid and direct language for idolatry! As the one sinned against, God takes on the role, in that culture, of a wronged husband (not judge)—some would say abusive husband, however much this practice reflects that time and place. The words in 2:3 become

Hosea

29

more ominous and threatening. If the children’s mother does not forsake her adulterous practices, then (“or”) God will treat her with severity, with effects on both people and land. She (that is, the people) will be stripped naked and publicly exposed (2:3a, repeated in 2:10; see Ezek 16:35-37), and she (that is, the land) will be visited with drought so that she becomes like a thirsty wilderness and food resources are depleted, resulting in death for both land and people (2:3b). The close link between people and land is evident, indicating that idolatry has adverse environmental effects. God will also act without pity against the children of “whoredom” (2:4; reflecting 1:6), that is, those brought into being by the wife’s/Israel’s acts of unfaithfulness in turning to other gods (= lovers, 2:5, 7, 10, 13). Verse 5b reports the response of the mother to the charge (which counts as evidence against her): she will continue to go after her lovers because she believes they provide for her daily needs. A key theme that moves through this section relates to daily needs— bread, water, clothing, oil, and drink. These verses address a central issue for Hosea: from whose hand do these gifts come? Is it the God of Israel or the Baals? Or can one weave these deities together into a syncretistic tapestry, as Israel apparently did (see 2:16, where the people call Yahweh “my Baal”)? The word of Elijah is appropriate here: How long will you go limping with two different opinions (1 Kgs 18:21)? The wife thinks that other gods are the providers (2:5b), and hence she did not acknowledge that God provided these things (2:8; cf. Jer 5:24). Therefore, God will take them away by agents unidentified (2:9, 12; 2:3 suggests a drought), thereby demonstrating the impotence of the Baals. The theme of daily needs returns in the announcement of salvation, with gifts given anew (2:15, 21-23). This theme emphasizes God as Creator. It is not so much that Israel did not acknowledge God as Redeemer; Israel may well have retained this element in its continuing creed. The issue is the confession of God as Creator, the one who is responsible for “all good gifts.” God responds with a threefold “therefore.” The first two are negative (2:6, 9), the last is hopeful (2:14). The first “therefore” announces a divine judgment (2:6-8); it follows Israel’s insistence on its present adulterous/idolatrous course (2:5b). But the judgment is unusual, not least because the death penalty might be in order: God will restrict Israel’s movements in the community (as if she were an unruly child), thereby curbing her ability to pursue and find her lovers (2:6-7; apparently a practice of shamed husbands in Israelite society; see 3:3-4). That is to say, God will work to make Israel’s approach to life less beneficial with respect to daily needs (cf. the prodigal son, Luke 15:14-18). While such restriction is judgment (in the sense of

30

Reading Hosea–Micah

discipline), this divine move is also part of God’s strategy to turn Israel’s life around so that she can genuinely say, “I will go to my first husband” (2:7b). But this expression is only God’s wish for her at this point. The reality is that she still is unable to acknowledge (2:8) that it was God, her first husband, who provided her with the daily needs of food and drink and, in addition, filled her life with good things (see Deut 8:7-20; 26:1-15). Much of this largesse she had wasted on Baal (see 8:4; 13:2). The second “therefore” announces other divine judgments in view of this lack of acknowledgment (2:9-13); the “or” of 2:3 has apparently been realized, as the drought, exposure, and other ill effects are announced. The gifts that God provided will be taken away (note God’s four-fold emphasis on “my” in 2:9; they are and remain God’s gifts to give; contrast the repeated “her” in 2:12a). God himself (“my hand,” 2:10) will uncover her shame, that is, expose her nakedness in the sight of all other Baal adherents, who would be incapable of stopping it. In addition, the joy-filled festival results in the worship of Yahweh/Baal—new moon celebrations, Sabbaths, all of them thought to be “hers”—will be taken away (2:11). It would be like canceling Christmas and Easter! Israel had thought vines and fig trees were a fee for services rendered to the Baals (cf. 2:8), but God will turn them into untamed forests and food for wild animals (2:12; cf. Amos 4:9). Hosea 2:13 summarizes the indictment: her wealth-displaying worship of the Baals and her going after these lovers rather than God. The concluding note is filled with pathos: they forgot me! God speaks from a heart that has been deeply wounded. For these things, Israel will be held accountable. The reader is led to expect the other shoe to fall, with all of these announcements to be realized. But God does not go there! The third “therefore” is different (vv. 14-23). It announces a change in the divine direction of judgment, which Israel had to some extent experienced (though no explicit claim is made). The word “therefore” recognizes that the move through a time of judgment has been necessary for the establishment of a hopeful future. At the same time, and significantly, there is no sign of repentance here; God will make this move quite apart from anything Israel says or does. This move on God’s part probably goes beyond any known behavior on the part of a wronged, even abusive husband in Israel; here is a “no” in the metaphor, wherein God is shown to be gracious apart from human response even in the wake of circumstances that deeply affected the divine life. The imaging of God as one who will woo Israel and speak tenderly to her is the image of a lover, a role played by the Baals (2:5-13). This divine move could be misunderstood and misused if expressions of such

Hosea

31

tenderness are considered part of a cycle of abuse on the part of the husband. The abusive images of God as wronged husband in the prior verses (especially 2:3, 10) could lend themselves to such an interpretation. On the other hand, if such expressions of wooing and tenderness are removed from that pattern of abuse, they can have a powerful effect. Again, the “yes” and the “no” of the metaphor are important to remember here. To speak of God as lover is a remarkable, even startling image. What might it mean for God to “allure” or “woo”? What kind of God is this? One might conclude that this is a “too human” view of God, or an image too intimate. But the text will not let us off the hook. There has been a prior relationship between Israel and this God, extending back to exodus days (2:15). Israel had once before responded to the divine wooing, and the hope is divinely expressed that this response can be reborn. How does such imagery from the world of romance work with God as a subject? It is important that God does not force Israel back into relationship. God’s love seeks to draw out the love of the beloved in such a way that a close and intimate relationship can once again be established. To this end, the wooing efforts of God include a context freed from distraction, whether religious or political (the wilderness, as in post-exodus days, where the relationship first developed; see Jer 2:2); they include speech, especially tender speech “to the heart,” and actions, especially the gifts of food resources (vineyards). A kind of second honeymoon is in view, when the valley of trouble (= Achor, near Jericho, a scene of the lack of Israel’s success in Josh 7) shall become a renewed entry into the land of promise. Fractured relationships can never simply return to some idyllic past, of course; but a recalled relationship in good standing can be one resourceful metaphor for a hopeful future. The use of startling images for God continues in 2:16-20. The marital imagery is highly explicit, with Israel referring to God as “my husband” (2:16) rather than “my Baal” (=master). This is more than a change in one’s allegiance, though it is that, publicly evident in the name of God that now crosses Israel’s lips (2:17). This change is also a claim about the nature of the marriage, where the “husband” cannot simply be equated with “my master”; a less monarchial view of the relationship surges to the fore in this statement about the future of Israel with God. At the same time, this marriage should not be conceived in a radical way, as if the prior marriage with Israel were irrelevant; this is a beginning again, though not simply a return to the way things once were. Verses 19-20 are remarkable in their claim and the repetition of words that sharpen that claim: “I will take you for my wife” is repeated three times; the use of the first person is especially striking as, in effect, God speaks

32

Reading Hosea–Micah

marriage vows (actually vows of betrothal, but as good as marriage in that culture): (a) I will take Israel as my wife forever—no ifs, ands, or buts and no temporal limits. (b) I will take Israel as my wife in righteousness, justice, steadfast love, and mercy—no limits regarding God’s committed participation; the very character of God lies behind this divine statement. All the great claims Israel makes about God are here brought to bear: God’s commitment to this marriage is as good as God is. And, in turn, these are the gifts (=bride price) that God brings to the marriage. Thereby, God’s righteousness, justice, steadfast love, and mercy will also become the characteristics of the partner and of their relationship, with the deep and lasting effects on public life that they can bring. These gifts are fundamentally relational in character, gifts that other gods could not make. These gifts may be purposively set over against the attention given to the natural gifts (blessings?) stressed in some religious expressions and rituals (see 2:5-9). (c) I will take Israel as my wife in faithfulness—as if to lift up one dimension of the character of God and drive it home. This God will be faithful; Israel never has to wonder about God’s faithfulness, come what may; God’s fidelity will never be withdrawn. Remarkably, no repentance or vows on Israel’s part are called for or needed. But it is stated that Israel shall “know” the Lord rather than “forget” (v. 13); that is to say, there will be reciprocity on Israel’s part. That Israel “knows” God should not be thought of in an overtly sexual way; at the same time, the deeply personal and relational dimensions of the sexual act are here drawn on to portray the breadth and depth of this new relationship. The use of such an analogy for the God-human relationship doubles back and positively affects the character of the husband-wife relationship—it should be characterized by justice, love, mercy, and faithfulness. The “knowledge of God” is a key theme in Hosea and should be understood in these comprehensive and relational terms. The promises of 2:16-23 are also strongly associated with the land and Israel’s restoration to the land (assuming the loss of the land at some point). The marriage of God and Israel is not narrowly conceived, as if oblivious to the larger world (2:18). Indeed, when this marriage is restored, it will have universal effects. God will make a covenant “for” the people of God “with” the wild animal world. God’s relationship with the “wild” animals (not all animals; see the threat in 2:12) is for the sake of Israel’s life and well-being. When this covenant is combined with an abolition of all weapons and wars, which reaches out to encompass the entire human world, then the people of God can finally be secure and at peace with every creature (see Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3; Isa 11:6-9; 35:9; 65:25; Ezek 34:25-31). The end of violence, from all

Hosea

33

conceivable sources, is in view. God then makes a promise about the character of the interrelationship of God, earth, and the heavens. In this connection, Koch (47–49) has an interesting study. In what might be called a “sociology of nature,” he suggests that the Hebrew verb ‘anah, while having the basic meaning of “answer,” may also have the sense of “to respond in a discussion.” In this context, it may have reference to nonverbal reactions, to the providing of new impulses by one subject to another within a given relationship. Hosea appears to be “thinking of a coherent chain in which God is the initiator, but an initiator who acts in interdependence with earth, man, and nation.” This “chain of harmony” (Birch, 39) goes from God the Creator rather than Baal (both originating and continuing creation) to the heavens (rain), to earth, to its produce, to the people of God living well on the land (= sown in the land = Jezreel; cf. Jer 32:41, “planted”) and back. The image of “sowing” is suggestive of a new beginning, leading to new growth and prosperity. The world of nature, a world of interrelated creatures, is held together by divine interaction with the creatures, and each creature’s participation within that relationship is essential to its well-being. Hosea 2 finally refers to some of the themes of Hosea 1; these show that all of Israel’s children are transformed by the renewed God-Israel relationship. Jezreel (=God sows), a land of former violence (1:4-5), shall now become a symbol of a land of peace and plenty, in such perfect harmony with the earth and heaven that the land will produce to overflowing. The names of Lo-ruhamah and Lo-ammi (1:6-9) will be reversed; God will once again have pity on Israel, and they shall once again interact in a responsively harmonious relationship (see the promises in 1 Pet 2:10). The concluding “you are my God” is a confessional statement meant to stand against all rivals. Judgment and Promise (Hos 3:1-5)

This short chapter has occasioned numerous reflections and much disagreement. Is this (a) a continuation of the prophet’s story with Gomer in chapter 1; (b) another version of that story; (c) another woman’s story? The last-noted option would break down the imagery, for God did not choose another people in the wake of Israel’s betrayal. I will argue that this chapter is a continuation of the story in chapter 1, though there is insufficient information to be fully confident in that decision. But then other questions arise; what has happened in the meantime to occasion this second command? Note that the chapter is different from chapter 1 in that it is cast in the first person (at least vv. 1-3). The transition from the prophet’s own

34

Reading Hosea–Micah

story (vv. 1-3) to the story of Israel (vv. 4-5) is abrupt, but probably a key to interpretation. Another key to interpreting these verses is that they should be read through the content of chapter 2. There God is portrayed as one who has been persistent in loving Israel in spite of her unfaithfulness and, with a period of isolation in view between Israel’s allegiances (2:6-7), God’s love for Israel is such that God commits the divine self to adulterous Israel once again. It seems likely that the prophet in chapter 3 is asked to mirror, indeed embody, that divine experience. If the marriage in chapter 1 was to a woman who was religiously adulterous, chapter 3 describes a new stage in the marriage with Gomer; she becomes sexually adulterous. Hence, the adultery/idolatry metaphor, finally, refers both to religious and sexual adultery. For readers moving through chapters 1–3, the interpretation of chapter 1 gets overlaid with this actual adulterous experience. Thus, Gomer is doubly adulterous. This, then, has implications for how one understands the God-Israel relationship. It becomes apparent later (e.g., 4:13b-14, 18) that actual adultery is an issue in addition to religious adultery. Therefore, God’s spouse, Israel, is doubly adulterous in a way comparable to Gomer. In 3:1, a new command comes from God to the prophet with respect to another symbolic action: “Go, love a woman who has a lover and is an adulteress.” Note the fourfold reference to “love” in v. 1 (Hosea, Gomer, God, and Israel all “love”). That word names the issue in this chapter (and for the first time in Hosea); it is about love, love, love. Who or what do you love, and what does love entail? The bottom line: Hosea’s love for his adulterous wife mirrors God’s experience of loving idolatrous/adulterous Israel. God’s is a perseverant love. God’s command to Hosea is not to marry (as in 1:2) but to love a woman, probably Gomer his wife, who is presently engaged in an adulterous relationship and hence still married (as God has loved adulterous Israel). Is the adultery here a sexual relationship with another human being? Or, as with the command in chapter 1, is the metaphor adultery/idolatry in place so that the command is to love a woman who is an adherent of Baal religion, and “lover” has reference to an idolatrous relationship (as “lovers” does in 2:5, 7, 10, 12-13)? Given these references, it seems likely that the reference is to an idolatrous adulterer, a worshiper of gods other than Yahweh. This interpretation is supported by the “just as” clause: God loves the adherents of Baal religion even though they engage in idolatrous practices (demonstrated in ch. 2). Hosea is to do “just as” God has done. Yet the sexual references in v. 3 suggest that actual adultery is (also?) in view. If this is the case, Hosea is

Hosea

35

to love Gomer through thick and thin, even adultery. This could also be understood as a “just as,” given the idolatry/adultery imagery at work. Just as Gomer has left her husband behind for other lovers, so has Israel left God behind for other lovers (gods). The “raisin cakes” in 3:1 is of unknown significance but is perhaps a delicacy providing a transient satisfaction. But is the woman of Hosea 3 Gomer? Initially, it seems not to be the case. Hosea, obedient to God’s command, purchases her for twenty shekels (cf. Joseph in Gen 37:28). It is not clear from whom. Perhaps it was her lover. Perhaps it was a slave master, because she had sold herself into debtslavery (see Deut 15:12) or had become a “kept woman.” In either case, she had been reduced to a commodity—she could be bought for a price. Alternatively, is the purchase to be interpreted in terms of her adherence to Baal religion? That is, the fee is a way of speaking about luring her away from this religion, perhaps even thereby persuading her or others (such as shrine leaders) with money to do so (see 2:14). She could have remained a Baal adherent throughout Hosea’s marriage to her, as 1:2 suggests might be the case. God’s command and Hosea’s action and payment would then be understood as an “intervention” to “woo” her away from those clutches. That Gomer is in view seems more likely than not. Having been successful at wooing her away, Hosea places a condition on her continuance in his household, namely, a period of isolation from her lovers (3:3). Israel is to be kept in focus here (as in v. 4). Note that God is more behind the scenes here than in chapter 2. This seems to be a kindly move rather than an imprisoning or punishing one, to honor the love of both Hosea and Gomer. Perhaps Hosea does this to give them time to “fall in love again.” Love cannot be turned on and off; it takes time. Perhaps such a move also entailed removal from temptations to engage in such activity again. This understanding of God’s command would seem to parallel God’s action regarding Israel in 2:6-7, wherein restriction and discipline was an important step toward the renewal of the relationship. More difficult, however, is the apparent reference to actual sexual intercourse (3:3). While playing the whore could be interpreted in terms of idolatry, and not having “intercourse with a man” could have reference to sexual activity associated with the worship of Baal, what of the reference to not having intercourse with the prophet? This could be interpreted as a parallel to 2:6-7 as well, where the woman stands between her “lovers” and her “first husband”; she is not present to either but undergoes a period of isolation from such activity with either “lover.” Again, this may be a recognition that it takes time for the wounds of love to heal.

36

Reading Hosea–Micah

Verse 4 could be interpreted in these terms, with its strong emphasis on being “without” (the word occurs five times) certain fundamentals of life. In the wake of their religious apostasy, the people of Israel are commanded to undergo a period of deprivation and discipline, even judgment. The initial “for” suggests that what is happening in v. 3 (including the sexual references) is directly parallel to Israel’s experience of isolation and deprivation in v. 4. The isolation specified in v. 4 includes not only doing without a familiar and stable socio-political context (king or prince) but also doing without familiar religious practices (including sacrifices, familiar worship objects) and priestly personnel, who wore ephods and sought to discern the will of God with their lots and teraphim. As such, then, Israel would stand between religions, having forsaken Baal but not yet joined to Yahweh. This might have reference to an extensive period of exile for the people of Israel, but it is not entirely clear. At the same time, v. 5 makes clear that this period is a prelude to a hopeful time. It is important to link v. 4 not only with 2:6-8 but also with 2:14. God brings Israel into the wilderness and woos her there, speaking tenderly to her. Consequently, the wilderness is a place for the renewal of the relationship— and entirely on God’s initiative. From what (or where) shall they “return”? If it refers to human repentance, such would not have been possible apart from the actions of God described in vv. 1-4. The prophet later calls them to return (6:1; 12:6), but they have failed to return (11:5; 7:10), even cannot return because of their deep stubbornness (5:4). Therefore, they will return to slavery in Egypt (9:3). For them to “seek the LORD” is to worship, assuming that there will be worship of God in this new time of their lives. To “return” seems not to be spatial relocation but religious relocation (repentance). But it could include both, that is to say, leaving behind a former life and returning home, finally to God. This is not a reference to Israel’s pulling itself up by its own bootstraps and returning home to God. God has been deeply involved in their lives up to this point, enabling this moment of return to come to pass (2:14; 6:1; 14:7). After this period of “withoutness” or deprivation, the people of Israel (symbolized by Gomer) shall rejoin the religious community and worship Yahweh (explicit parallels with Gomer cease with v. 3). Notably, the reference to the Davidic king probably assumes that 1:11 has come to pass; the people of Israel and Judah will have merged (see Jer 30:9, also assuming such a reunion). In these days of reunification and the abandonment of Baal religion, the people of God shall return to proper worship, and God’s goodness and blessing will be manifest in their daily lives. As the JPS translation puts it, “they will thrill over the Lord and over His bounty in the days to come.”

Hosea

37

With respect to the specific story of Hosea and Gomer, however, we are not informed how their marriage finally worked out. The Land Mourns (Hos 4:1-19) This chapter is probably a unit, though scholars often divide it into several segments. The flow of thought ties priests and people together; the multiple factors that have contributed to a forsaking of Yahweh are rehearsed with a consequent breakdown in the basic values of society. People are indicted (vv. 1-3), and priests are blamed (vv. 4-10). Everything hinges on the knowledge of God, absent from the lives of the people (4:1) and from the teaching of the priests (4:6). The problems associated with Israel’s worship are due to the lack of knowledge of God. A fundamental theme of Hosea—namely, apostasy as promiscuity, idolatry as adultery—continues, especially from v. 10. Israel has repudiated allegiance to Yahweh in exchange for allegiance to self-indulgent pleasures. The chapter begins with a call to Israel to “hear” the word of the Lord (cf. Deut 6:4). That initial word is an indictment; the primary imagery is marital, not legal or covenantal (only 8:1 clearly names this relationship as covenantal; cf. 6:7). What is fundamentally at stake is a broken relationship, not a broken agreement. God calls these people on the carpet and names where they have violated the relationship with God: unfaithfulness, disloyalty (or lack of steadfast love), and no knowledge of God (that is, lack of full participation in the relationship with God with respect to both knowing and doing; see 2:8, 20; 4:1, 6; 5:4; 6:3, 6; 8:2; 11:3; 13:4). What follows in v. 2 is a list of sins against people that follow from the breakdown of relationship with God, probably in terms of a version of the Ten Commandments (cf. Jer 7:9): swearing, lying, murder, stealing, adultery, bloodshed. It sounds like anarchy, where “all the people did what was right in their own eyes” (Judg 21:25). But the basic problem (vividly revealed in Hos 1–3) is the absence of faithfulness (total commitment to the relationship, as is the case with God, 2:20), steadfastness in love, and full engagement in the relationship with God. The loss of those basic dimensions to the relationship leads to all that follows. These verses are a reminder of Jesus’ Great Commandment (see Mark 12:28-34). God then sounds a common prophetic word: Therefore! In the prophets, this word usually follows an indictment and introduces divine judgment, with God often the subject of verbs (e.g., Jer 5:14; 6:21). Sometimes, as here, that judgment makes no reference to God (cf. Jer 5:6). What follows is understood to be the natural consequence of the deeds

38

Reading Hosea–Micah

named. It is not that God is out of the picture; rather, God has created the moral order that sins (and good deeds) have consequences, and that order is an agent in and through which God works (seen, e.g., in v. 9). The consequences in this case range widely across the entire created order; they are probably underway, not just future. The land itself mourns (see Jer 12:4, 11); that image most basically refers to a drought, but the land has been adversely affected in multiple ways. The land’s resources have diminished, and all of life, so dependent on the well-being of the land, has begun to slip away. The key point is that human sin has had a major effect on the environment (a common theme; e.g., Deut 11:13-17; Zeph 1:2-3). This text gives sharp testimony to a highly interrelated world—a spider web—in which the actions of one affect the situation of all. All who live on the land languish for lack of food resources; the animal world suffers as well (wild animals, birds, fish). The verb may mean both “mourn” and “dry up” (see Isa 24:4). But “mourn” is its usual focus, and it clearly has that meaning with land as subject in Jeremiah 4:28, where it parallels the verb “grow black” (see Joel 1:9-10). Probably both meanings are in view. The verb may pertain concretely to drought and desertification (see the parallel in Jer 12:4). Yet a broader issue is at stake. The land is given a voice and joins with Hosea and God in lamenting what has happened to it. The land mourns not only because it is drying up but also because it has been polluted by Israel’s infidelities (see Isa 24:5). The blame for the state of affairs in vv. 1-3 is laid at the doorstep of the leaders of Israel, particularly the priests. They are subject to sharp condemnation, indeed held primarily responsible for what has happened to people and land. In a way atypical of the prophets, the indictments and the announcements of judgment are interwoven rather than sequential, and the effect is a kind of verbal battering. God is the speaker throughout (vv. 4-6 are direct address, “you”). The section begins with a focus on priests as a corporate entity (“you” is singular) and moves in vv. 7-10 to the leaders as a group. These leaders have been condemning Hosea for his preaching. But God declares that they have no one to accuse but their own ilk. Indeed, God will contend directly with them, and they shall stumble and fall (4:5; see 5:5), that is, their priestly standing will be brought to an end (= be confused rather than lucid) at every time of day and night, with no relief. The phrases “I will destroy your mother (or kindred; see 2:2, 5)” and “forget your children” catch up the families of these leaders in the judgment, in effect giving them no past or future. The same language is used for Israel (v. 6a). What prophets and priests have not done has been more dangerous for the country than what they have done (v. 6). “You” are the ones who are

Hosea

39

basically responsible for “religious education” in Israel. But you have not taught the people! You have neglected the tradition! The people are threatened with destruction, and you, the clergy, are the problem! Correspondences are drawn in God’s own name; v. 9 (“like people, like priest”) will state the general principle of act-consequence. The priests have destroyed “my people”; therefore, their families will be destroyed. They have rejected the knowledge of God; therefore, God will reject them as priests. They have forgotten to teach the “law” (better, “instruction”); therefore, God will forget their own children. They suffer the consequences of their own deeds in a way that is both personal and professional. The indictment of priestly (and other) leaders continues apace in 4:7-10. The number of priests and prophets has been multiplying (no clergy shortage here!), but that has had no salutary effect; the more clergy there are, the more sin there is! The glory of their profession will be turned (by God) from dignity to dishonor! Their considerable status in Israelite society will degenerate into disgrace. Indeed, “they feed on the sin of my people,” that is, they make the sins of the people worse than they actually are so they can rake in the profits associated with performing more and more rituals and sacrifices (see 8:11). “Their profit has become the true goal of their vocation, and they have turned the institution of worship into a service to the clergy” (Mays, 70). But, it is implied, they ignore religious education and other dimensions of the faith, perhaps particularly those that would enable persons to make a sharper critique of the clergy! In the end, the clergy will not get off easier because they are somehow closer to the things of God; clergy and people will perish together (4:9). The subject moves here from priest to people; the people are not somehow exempted from their responsibility for the degradation of worship and society. Both are guilty and both will perish in the same way. The deedconsequence understanding is especially clear in 4:9: “I will visit [not “punish”] their ways upon them, and their own deeds I will return upon them.” God does not introduce something new into the situation (e.g., a penalty); their own deeds will reap commensurate consequences. These people may seek out even more religion as a way of making their troubling situation more tolerable—more eating, more sexual activity at the shrines—but they shall not be satisfied nor shall they thrive (4:10). What will finally count is that they have forsaken the Lord and the knowledge of the Lord. They abandon themselves to their lusts for food and sex, and they shall derive no benefits from the food and shall not bear children for posterity. The reference to promiscuity anticipates the next few verses, and the problem lies with all the people, not just the priests. The people are

40

Reading Hosea–Micah

caught up uncritically in the activity of the clergy. An intense piety combined with a sustained inattention to the actual needs of the world is a dangerous combination (see Amos 5)! The word “whoredom” or “harlotry” (4:11a) is a key word for Hosea, and while it refers most basically to idolatry—the syncretistic worship of Yahweh with other gods and their rituals—it also carries the sense of sexual activity and exploitation, a key element in the Baal religion. The key culprits here are the religious leaders, and the next section moves to comparable activities on the part of the people as a whole. The section 4:11b-14 (a speech of God) begins and ends with a concern for “understanding,” which begins to fill out the issue of the “knowledge of God” in 4:1. Wine drinking is but the first matter on a list of activities that dull understanding and impair judgment. Participation in these various ritual practices has deadened their perceptions and dulled their spirits. It is not simply that these practices are degrading. They are stupid; they make no sense. Anyone with half a mind should be able to see that these activities are of no value for individual or community; they are self-indulgent activities, a perpetual party, even an orgy. The reference to “wine and new wine” may continue the indictment of the religious leaders; they are drunkards, and as a result what they have to say to the people has only ill effects on their understanding (4:11). The indictment continues, with harlotry a repeated theme. Once again, God speaks in the first person (through v. 14), and direct address returns in vv. 13c-14a. There are further condemnations of idolatrous religious practices, with a veritable laundry list of degrading, even stupid behaviors. The “like people, like priest” (4:9) rhythm may continue here. The initial proverb may read, harlots (v. 11a) and wine take away understanding; the proverb of v. 14 will conclude the point: “a people without understanding come to ruin.” Sarcasm abounds! They drink too much wine and think that contributes to understanding! They consult pieces of wood and rods hoping for prophetic insight (divination; v. 12) and even believe that they have received it! The “spirit of whoredom” again uses the adultery metaphor for the idolatry that is integral to these activities; in turning away from God to other gods, their very selves have been deeply and adversely affected. Believing that nature is filled with the divine (v. 13), they seek to find ways to tap into that energy. They find places in nature for their sacrifices and offerings, especially the tops of the hills in the shade of any green tree available. What counts apparently is that the trees have good shade for cavorting on the hot, sunny days!

Hosea

41

The people have a fascination with sexual matters, although one should recall that adultery is a metaphor for idolatry. Sexual activity between Baal and the goddess Anath was thought to generate the renewed fertility of the ground; sexual activity by worship participants with “temple prostitutes” (v. 14; male and female) was thought to contribute to these developments. This is probably not cult prostitution in a formal sense (related to the fertility of the gods and hence of the earth). It is probably loose sexual behavior associated with orgiastic rites at the shrines and perhaps in other contexts. Both male and female take the initiative with respect to these sexual orgies (vv. 13b-14). But women follow the male example—stressing how female adultery has been occasioned by what men do. Men are to blame for their women going astray! Indeed, their sensual way of life has been passed on to the next generation (“daughters”), who do not have the resources to stand over against such values. The harlotry of worship leads to harlotry at home. God says, however, that these young women will not be judged by God for these activities. In effect, male leaders are responsible for having established certain values in the society, and to blame those who have been affected by those values is to treat the symptoms and not the deeper problem. Ultimately, this is a kind of defense of women in the face of male behaviors that violate fundamental marital relationships. The section 4:15-19 probably shifts the speaker back to the prophet and turns the focus to Judah; it may be a later addition that is developed from the words of God in the prior verses. Following the train of thought is difficult. Though Israel is the guilty one, Judah is thereby placed in a position of danger (see Jer 3). Therefore, Judah is warned against frequenting their sanctuaries at Gilgal (see 9:15; 12:11; Amos 5:5) or Bethel (here sarcastically called Beth-aven, “house of evil”). The warning about swearing, “as the LORD lives,” implies that to use this language signifies total commitment to Yahweh; the Israelites are not so committed, and so to use the name is to be guilty of pretense (see Jer 5:2). A series of quick images, difficult to translate, closes out this section (4:16-19). Israel is like a stubborn calf (just try to get it to behave as you would like!). It is so set in its ways that it cannot see beyond its present behaviors to another dimension of life. How can the Lord provide for them as a shepherd when they refuse to allow it? The text witnesses to a kind of compulsion to their self-indulgent ways. Israel (= Ephraim) is “addicted” (so JPS) to idols (v. 17), enslaved to such a way of living and worshiping. The people drink to excess, which in turn

42

Reading Hosea–Micah

leads them into sexual orgies. They love lewdness more than any proper sense of self (v. 18). Anarchy reigns in a society whose values have deteriorated. Therefore, “let him alone”! Nothing can be done for Israel, so just let him suffer the consequences of his own sin. The people are not beyond redemption, but redemption is a possibility only through judgment. “A wind has wrapped them in its wings.” This is a marvelous image for being at the mercy of the wind, having no control, exercising no prudence. This image relates to the theme of stubbornness (v. 16): they persist in going their own way despite all the negative consequences. They are just carried along by the currents; the wind will sweep them away. They cannot help themselves. This kind of activity will finally lead to divine judgment, which will include shame and dishonor. You Have Played the Whore! (Hos 5:1-7) Hosea 5 is structured in terms of two commands from God (5:1-7, 8-15). The first word from God is addressed especially to Israel’s religious and political leaders (vv. 1-2) and moves on to an oracle of the prophet against the people (vv. 3-7). As if to make the words of the previous chapter crystal clear, this judgment is for every person! Three factors that have led to the word of judgment are briefly offered: the leaders have been a snare, a net, and a pit—all words that bespeak the entrapment of people (or animals). The imagery of entrapment suggests that those who are charged have contributed to imprisoning and exploiting people rather than protecting them and advancing their welfare. Events that have taken place at three cities (each of which had shrines) serve to illustrate the point in quick succession, though it is not entirely clear what is in mind. Probably their leaders were involved in some way in the promotion of Baal worship among their people, ensnaring them in their idolatrous ways; Numbers 25:1-6 is the only text that makes such a connection explicit (Shittim and Baal-Peor; see also Hos 9:10). The NRSV, “punish,” in 5:2 is usually translated “discipline” or the equivalent; that concept is more in tune with Hosea’s theme of judgment serving as a necessary means in and through which salvation is accomplished (see 2:6-7, 14; 3:3-4). In 5:3-7, the adultery/idolatry theme continues, linking it with the basic thread in chapter 4. Nothing that Israel (= Ephraim) does is hidden from God’s sight (5:3). What does God “know”? That Israel does not “know”! Israel has prostituted itself before the Baals and thereby is corrupt, defiled (not able to enter into the presence of God), making itself unclean (and needing cleansing). Moreover, the people’s habitual deeds have led to a

Hosea

43

condition that is of such a nature that they cannot turn to the Lord; their spirit has been so captured by adulterousness that this is who they are. They cannot change that. This is their “habit” (JPS); so habituated are they in their adultery that their situation is hopeless—if their future were to depend on their own words and deeds. Whether 5:5 is in the future (so JPS) or present tense, Ephraim’s arrogance and guilt trip them up and they (will) fall (this is also characteristic of Judah). Note that ‘awon, “guilt” (NRSV) could be translated as sin or the effect of the sin. Who they are (proud and guilty) is a public witness against them (so also 7:10); they seal their own fate. A prior point is stressed: even if they seek the Lord with their finest offerings from their flocks and herds, they will not find God (5:6). The people perhaps considered such rituals an automatic entry into the beneficence of God—if they worshiped with their best, things would go well (see Amos 5). Why will they not find God? Because God has withdrawn from them (v. 6); God no longer can stand to be with them or be beneficent toward them. It is important to say that, contrary to many scholars’ opinion, this text does not speak of divine absence, as if there were a place in the world where God was not present anymore or that God was present only with people who were not (habitual) sinners (!). Indeed, one might speak of an even more intense presence of God, namely, in judgment. The word “withdraw” is relational language, not absence/presence language; it refers to a relational distancing and the effects such distancing can have on the health and stability of a relationship (cf. Jer 5:2). Why has God withdrawn? Because they have proved faithless in this relationship and in their worship (v. 7); because they seek Baal, their claim to be seeking Yahweh is only pretense, a front (see Amos 8:12). In their adulterous ways, they have given birth to illegitimate children. That is, they have spawned a generation of idolaters; their children have been drawn into the same adulterous ways. Hence, the “new moon” (=thirty days) will devour them; that is, it is only a short time until their end comes. Note how vv. 3-7 are related to 6:1-3; the people may want to return, but they cannot do so. God agonizes at the slipping of the bond with Israel (cf. 6:4; 11:8-9). Sound the Alarm! (Hos 5:8-15) After the focus on the breakdown of Israel’s relationship with God come the consequences: war, disaster, exile. Israel and Judah are paired throughout this section (perhaps the product of later editing); both the northern and

44

Reading Hosea–Micah

southern kingdoms are addressed, especially in view of their ongoing internecine warfare. The historical context is the time of social and political tumult for Israel following the long reign of Jeroboam II (786–746 BCE), with increasing tensions between Israel and Judah and with the threat of Assyria looming on the horizon. The specific context may be the Syro-Ephraimite war, though it may also reflect a long-standing struggle between Israel and Judah over control of the territory of Benjamin (e.g., 1 Kgs 15:16-22). A brief word about this context: in the face of an Assyrian threat (under Tiglath-pileser III), Israel had conspired with Aram and sought Judah’s help; Judah (under King Ahaz) refused, which led Israel (with Aram’s help) to invade Judah. This action in turn led Ahaz to appeal to Assyria for help. The context for these verses (5:8–6:6) is probably about the time of the resulting Assyrian attack of Israel (around 733 BCE). An imminent crisis is announced with the blowing of the trumpet and the sounding of alarms and alerts: the destruction of Ephraim/Israel is declared and the judgment is sure (though not necessarily final; see 5:15) because God has spoken (5:8-9). The alarm is sounded in cities in the territory of Benjamin (on the border with Judah), and cities encountered in a journey going north from Jerusalem are named. These cities are put on alert for an attack from Judah (taking advantage of the Assyrian incursion from the north). This reality reflects the long-standing conflict with which the people in Benjamin have lived. The princes of Judah are making incursions into Israel (5:10), seeking to move the boundary lines in their favor (against the law, Deut 19:14; 27:17); therefore, they will experience the wrath of God that is coming on Israel in and through invading armies. These agents of God are likened to a wall of water. The judgment of Judah is perhaps so severe because they sought to take advantage of their “brothers” in the face of Assyria’s threat. Verse 11 shifts back to Israel/Ephraim, which is already experiencing distress (probably from Assyrian armies encroaching from the north). They have been crushed and pillaged because they have gone after vain things, thinking that alliance with neighbors might prevent an Assyrian assault. God is at work in this distressful situation, with foreign armies as agents of judgment, yet God is moving through these tragic times with a saving, healing purpose in view. The description of what Israel had become in 4:1–5:7 is understood to be the basic reason for this destructive time of war. The images of God that follow in 5:12-14 are remarkable (used with respect to both Israel and Judah). God is not removed from these dire political and military situations. God works through such agents to accomplish

Hosea

45

the divine purposes, and in this case the results are not pretty. It is important to stress that these nations are agents that God uses, not direct divine actions. In v. 12, God is like maggots (or moths, pus, rot, wasting disease; translation is uncertain) to Israel; indeed God is like rottenness (or decay). These metaphors are associated in v. 13 with the self-images of sickness and wounds. It is uncertain whether the image of the decay of death is primary or is more like maggots (or even pus); if maggots, the image is that of a God who will eat away only that which is sick, a necessary act for healing (but not final destruction) to take place. Notice the abrupt change in v. 13 from third person to “you”; this shift makes the point that, even if Israel (and probably Judah as well), desperate in seeing its life threatened, should appeal to other countries for help (Assyria and its “great king”; see 7:11, which includes Egypt; 10:6), no help will be forthcoming. It is remarkable that help is sought even from the enemy—but not from God! In v. 14 the violent images continue: God is like a lion to Israel (also in 13:7-8; Amos 1:2). The result will be that God through God’s agents will rip open the people, tearing them to pieces, dragging them away to the den. The emphatic divine subject here does not mean that God is sole agent; rather, God’s actions in and through the agents are the decisive reality in this situation. No one will be available to rescue Israel. Their doom is sealed; there is nothing they can do to escape. Their end will come at the hands of Assyria some ten years later (722–721 BCE). Verse 15 is a key verse following the devastation of the previous verses; it introduces a response from Israel (in 6:1-3). Given this treacherous situation in which Israel finds itself, God makes an unusual move. God does not “finish them off.” God backs away from the devastating situation (see 2:6-7; 3:3), returns home, and waits. God will wait “until.” God is a waiting God. This move makes it clear that God’s judgment was not an end in itself but a divine means in and through which God was at work on behalf of the people of Israel. Until . . . . Until they acknowledge that they are guilty, that they need forgiveness. This point does not stand over against 5:4-6, wherein Israel cannot return to the Lord. What has happened between these verses is great damage and destruction; Israel has gone through a horrendous judgment. This experience changes the situation for Israel, giving them new powers, ironically, to return to the Lord, plead for forgiveness, and beg for the divine favor. Repentance is here seen to be possible only through judgment, not short of judgment.

46

Reading Hosea–Micah

What Shall I Do with You? (Hos 6:1-11a) Following the devastation of the previous verses, 5:15 is a word from God (see above) that introduces the response from Israel in 6:1-3. God backs away from the devastating situation, returns home, and waits “until.” God is a waiting God: until they acknowledge that they need forgiveness. Israel has gone through a horrendous judgment. Repentance is possible only through judgment, not short of judgment. God’s voicing of hope is followed by a quotation of urgency from the people: “Come, let us return to the LORD.” Contrary to many commentators, this seems to be a sincere cry of repentance (cf. Jer 14:7-9, 19-22) for these reasons: the language is exquisite, the religious practice thoughtful, the theology apt, the repentance explicit, the recognition of appropriate divine judgment evident, and the quest for knowledge of the Lord in tune with Hosea’s most basic concerns. Moreover, creation is related to God and not to Baal, there are no signs of apostate worship, and their hope in God is voiced clearly. Indeed, the people do what 3:5 anticipates they will do. If these words were found elsewhere in the Old Testament, they would not be thought insincere. God’s reply (vv. 4-6) may suggest that the words are insincere, and it is tempting to believe that God cannot reject sincerity! The people’s repentance is probably genuine, but God has determined that it is too late for repentance (even if sincere) to change things. The people seem to be sure that the appeal to God will produce results in both God and in their own situation/future. God’s gracious deliverance is as certain as the dawn and the rains. “God will pardon us!” The people draw on the language of 5:13-14 to acknowledge that they have experienced God’s judgment (6:1). They express confidence that God will bind up their wounds and transform their lives. Revival will come in two days, and on the third day God will raise them up and they will live before him (6:2). Actual twenty-four-hour periods are not in view—the word is “soon”! No resurrection of “us” is in view, though this language may have been so used later (see Luke 24:45-46). The people urge one another to “know the LORD” (6:3). They recognize the issue that Hosea has raised; they have no knowledge of the Lord (see 4:1; 5:4). Again, they express confidence that God will surely appear on their behalf. They use remarkable and beautiful images for this God (cf. 14:4-7) that are drawn from creational perspectives: God will come to them in the clear light of dawn, like showers in the spring, and will send rain on the parched earth of their hearts (cf. Deut 32:2).

Hosea

47

God responds to this prayer of repentance and confidence (6:4-6). This key Hosea text makes it clear that Israel’s return to the Lord will not save them; the people must experience severe judgment, at the end of which God’s action will accomplish the restoration (see 11:8-9). As in 11:8, God agonizes over what to do with these people: “What shall I do with you?” A negative response follows. God’s ultimate future with this people is not in doubt. But nothing that people do now can enable that future to happen. Yahweh’s actions cannot be shaped simply by human repentance. We hear the lament of God regarding Israel often voiced over the years. God is portrayed as a parent (see 11:1-3), faced with a dilemma and exasperated over the behaviors of the children (see 11:8-9; Isa 5:4; Mic 6:3-4). What more can God do about these people? God expresses deep feelings about the broken relationship with Israel and God’s ever-renewed efforts to turn them around. Such questions reveal that God participates in the suffering of these people and agonizes over their increasingly deadly plight. Their love is not steadfast; it is like a morning cloud that soon disappears without dropping rain; their love is like the morning dew that dries up early in the day (6:4). God sent prophets to turn them to repentance; the prophetic “hewing”/”killing” is the indictment for their sins (6:5). God’s judgment has been enacted through their words. The prophets have declared these words for a long time; ample opportunity has been given for the people to turn back to God. But a pattern has been in place for too long. The opportunity has not been taken, and now it is too late! The devastators of Israel have already begun their ravaging work; there will be no stopping them now. Verse 6 raises the heart of the issue. What counts with God, finally, are not sacrifices/offerings. This is not to say that they are unimportant as part of a larger fabric of faithful expression. Sacrifices are a God-given means of grace in and through which Israel’s sins can be forgiven. But repentance is understood to be necessary for the sacrifices to be effective (see Lev 5:5; Num 5:6-7). The sacrifices are not magical acts that bring forgiveness; without repentance, they are ineffective, worth nothing. This understanding shapes Hosea’s condemnation of sacrifice here and elsewhere (5:4; 8:11-13). It is not that God prefers the knowledge of God more than sacrifices, but rather than. This is not a total rejection of sacrifices, but in this situation that is the case; nothing that they do with respect to their sacrificial worship is efficacious. The key words are “steadfast love” and “knowledge of God.” They are not requirements in a legal sense. The latter, used heretofore (see 4:1; 5:4), has to do with the full engagement of the self in the relationship with God, approximating Deuteronomy 6:5. Steadfast love (see 4:10) indicates espe-

48

Reading Hosea–Micah

cially faithfulness, not only in the relationship with God but also with human beings. In sum: unless the relationship with God is in good order and manifests itself in the character of one’s daily life, worship activities of any sort have no saving value (see Amos 5:21-24; Mic 6:6-8). This language is not an expression of conditional forgiveness, such as, if your repentance is genuine, then God will extend forgiveness. The issue is the presence or absence of a genuine relationship with God. Jesus quotes this verse twice in that sense (Matt 9:13; 12:7). Now comes a litany of Israel’s sorry history in its relationship with God, followed by a word of judgment (6:7-11a). These verses could be a demonstration of the point made in the prior verses. Indeed the next several chapters of Hosea constitute a kind of list of Israel’s failures. This covenantbreaking history—dealing faithlessly with God (see 5:7)—was already in evidence before the people entered the promised land. God continues speaking in the first person. The people of Israel may well have engaged in religious activities of various kinds, but their daily lives manifested that there was no knowledge of God in the land (4:1). The list of sins at specific places—linking sin with place—reads almost like a catalog of evidence for that fact; they seem to focus on violence, perhaps associated with the quick turnover in governments/kings over the last years of Israel’s life. Verses 7-10 are set in Israel; v. 11 includes Judah (see 8:14). At the same time, these references are treated summarily. Israel transgressed a covenant at Adam (a town north of Jericho, near where Israel crossed the Jordan). There is no definite article with “covenant,” so it probably refers to a treaty between king and people, perhaps treason (see 2 Kgs 15:25), and not to Israel’s covenant with God. But, beyond a statement regarding unfaithfulness, the transgression is not named; many think it was political-military (6:7; see Josh 3:16). The trail of faithlessness continues in v. 8, with murderous evildoers at Gilead in the Transjordan, some twelve miles from Adam. They probably participated in the same treasonous activity (see 2 Kgs 15:25); the problem seems to be murder or other ways in which human life is violated. The road to Shechem is next mentioned (v. 9), with special attention given to murderous priests. Even religious leaders participate in the violence; no historical incident is specified, but it may have reference to priestly support of a bloody revolution. The priests, not content to be complicit in idolatrous worship practices, are banded together like robbers who lie in wait and commit monstrous crimes (not named) or, possibly, they encourage depravity (JPS). These may be references to specific developments in the Syro-Ephraimite war.

Hosea

49

Verse 10 is a general claim, perhaps with reference to the political intrigue of the previous verses. This is a speech of God (see v. 7), who has observed a horrible thing in Israel: Israel has committed adultery with gods other than Yahweh. As a consequence, she is defiled, unclean, unsuited to enter into the sanctuary or, apart from purification, to come into the divine presence. Yet, given the content of the previous verses, it seems that the language of whoredom continues, indicating a close relationship between one’s relationship to God and the way in which the neighbor is treated. Moreover, lest readers forget, Judah, too, is awaiting a harvest, and the reapers will devastate them as much as they are in the process of ravaging Israel (v. 11a). God Would, but Israel Would Not (Hos 6:11b–7:16) This section begins with a clarification about the divine will in this situation (6:11b–7:2). God desires to restore and heal Israel/Ephraim/Samaria, but their wicked deeds remain transparent before God, and God cannot ignore them. They are right in my face (v. 2)! As 7:13b puts it, “I would redeem them, but . . . .” God’s will for Israel is positive, but how can God make a move to heal when there is so much wickedness? When they do these deeds, they forget that God will not forget; their sins will be remembered and judged. They are surrounded by all the wicked deeds that they have committed; they will not be able to get out from under their consequences. God does not ignore their wickedness or consider it irrelevant for the shape of the future. This is a divine recognition of Israel’s deep stubbornness. Like thieves and bandits, they are caught in their own deeds, trapped in the momentum of their own wicked activity. They do not even see that their sins might be a problem, let alone a problem to God. There is nothing that they (or God!) can do with the present situation; neither can make a minor correction and then begin again. God cannot just heal the wound and be on with it. What is necessary in order to move through to healing is a deep cauterizing of the wound. To use the language of Jeremiah 6:14, there can be no healing of the wound lightly. Open-heart surgery is called for, not a bandage on a minor cut or bruise. Given the kind of history of which God has spoken in the larger context, the only way into the future is to pass through horrendous judgment. Then, and only then, can God pick them up off the ground, heal them, and restore their fortunes. “Only when the nation’s guilt is exposed and the moral depravity to which, as a matter of plain fact, they have stooped is acknowledged (v. 2) does healing become possible. . . . It is the perverted will of men

50

Reading Hosea–Micah

that he must change and that function cannot be accomplished by superficial means” (MacIntosh, 251). Yes, there must be a realistic acknowledgment of all the wrong they have done (v. 2). But the people of Israel are so surrounded by their own wickedness that they cannot see themselves for what they are, so habituated are they in evil ways. When dealing with such a perverted will, the usual vehicles for healing are not effective. God must take the people to the bottom, and only then can they be raised up and move into the future. Verses 3-7 continue the indictment against Israel, and especially their leaders, who thrive on the wickedness. While the specific context for this section is difficult to discern, it may be linked to the same context as 6:7-11a: reports of the treacherous times associated with the later demise of the northern kingdom may be embedded here. From 746 to 732 BCE, no fewer than five kings ruled in Israel, four of whom were assassinated. The palace intrigues may be particularly in view, as suggested by references to fallen rulers and “our king” becoming sick. Treasonous plots from within and without are cited, with individuals vying for the throne with treachery, backstabbing, and betrayal. In their evil, the conspirators set up the king and his officials with their talk and humor—for a fall (7:3). Vivid images are used in describing Israel. 1. They are like a heated oven, whose fires never need to be stoked, whose heat never lessens (7:4-7). It is unclear what the repeated citation of the image of the oven entails. It is probably a reference to palace intrigue, with all the plots and conspiracies “cooked up” in an effort to overthrow the current monarch (hence the image of “baker”). The oven is an image for the hatching of plots, out of the public eye, quiet, and intense. But when fully heated—the heat being associated with readiness—the plot is ready to be carried out. And a baker is not needed to take care of what is cooking; it heats up without such external activity. In the process, officials drink so much they become sick with all the wine. Verse 5 may report the carrying out of the conspiracy—getting the king sick with wine on the anniversary day of his accession, giving a signal—then the conspirators or traitors (so JPS; “mockers,” NRSV) strike. While a specific king has been suggested (e.g., Pekah, 735 BCE), v. 7 makes clear that this is the case with respect to several rulers. Adulterers are the conspirators, betraying the current king on the throne for another candidate. So many conspirators, heating up like an oven again and again. So many kings violently plotted against. Their “anger” is probably better seen as passion. They strike at daybreak, that is, the fire blazes. In striking fashion, the

Hosea

51

prophet is involved in matters relating to rulers and government. None of the rulers call on God. Whereas the primary language heretofore has been adultery, here the imagery used is treason; interestingly, both images have unfaithfulness in common. Israel has chosen to make its close alliances with other countries, calling on them (cf. 7:7 with 7:11) and depending on them rather than God. 2. Israel is “a cake not turned,” that is, it is burnt on one side and insufficiently cooked on the other side (7:8-10). It is inedible, suitable only for the waste bin. Israel’s leaders (the bakers) have given insufficient attention to the nature of its “mixing” (as in making a cake) and “cooking” (as in watching the ovens), with other nations (especially Aram, Assyria, and Egypt, see 7:11; 5:13; 10:6) being physicians that cannot heal. Traipsing here and there, promising loyalty to one nation then another, Israel has sought alliances with countries that would be most helpful to it at any given moment (see 8:9-10). Cooking such a cake can only lead to disaster! Such activity, besides being stupid, has had an immense negative impact on their religious and cultural life (see 2 Kgs 15:18-20). These countries are gaining much more from the alliances than is Israel, whose strength is depleted in the process. Like the premature senility of an old man suffering from the weight of lifelong abuse, his hair has become gray, that is, he has become old and decrepit in his ways. And Israel does not even know it! Israel has been humiliated in this process but still has not returned to the Lord. In spite of all its recent difficulties, Israel still does not seek the Lord for help. 3. Israel is “like a dove, silly and without sense” (7:11-13). Israel has flitted here and there, seeking alliances with whomever it thinks could help most at any given moment (see 2 Kgs 17:1-4). Characteristic of the kings of Israel was a constantly shifting policy of allegiances (from Assyria to Egypt to Assyria and back). Such stupid, simple-minded behaviors! God’s response is pictured in terms of a fowler, trapping birds in a net, seeking to prevent Israel (the dove) from such fickle relationships that are so damaging to the inner core of the nation (7:12). But simple discipline is not sufficient; given all their straying (flying away) and rebelling, God must finally announce destruction (7:13). God’s will for Israel’s redemption can only be realized in and through judgment. 4. Israel has become like “a defective bow” (7:14-16; cf. Ps 78:57), inconsistent, shifting in its effectiveness, failing when it matters most. Such is the “help” available in Israel’s searching for aid among the nations. Israel’s leaders engage in much jabbering in their seeking of alliances with foreigners, such as Egyptians; but their end will be the sword and destruction, against which

52

Reading Hosea–Micah

their defective bow will be of no use whatsoever (7:16). Such is the effect of treason against God. Verses 13-15 are especially characterized by features of a lament (cf. 6:4), using language from the Psalms (cf. 4:2; 5:6; 52:1-4). The reference to “woe” (7:13; 9:12) is a reference to impending loss and sorrow. These verses are filled with pathos and divine personal references. The fourfold use of the phrase “against me” (NRSV; two different Hebrew words) constitutes a virtual refrain in this lament. God again makes clear that destruction is not the will of God for Israel (7:13; cf. 6:11–7:1). God wants to redeem them! But how can God make such a move, when Israel’s life is so filled with lies— rebellion “against me,” treason “against me”! God is distressed over the fact that the people do not cry “to me from the heart” (7:14a). Instead, they resort to various pagan rituals—wailing, gashing themselves (see Deut 14:1; 1 Kgs 18:28)—in an effort to attain material well-being and improve their lot among the nations. In spite of all that God has done for them—God has brought them up and strengthened them—they have rebelled “against me” and plotted evil “against me” (7:14b-15). These are remarkably personal responses from God. No mention is made of breaking covenant or laws; rather, all of this behavior is “against me”! They keep turning to others from whom they will not profit! Kings and Altars, Treason and Adultery (Hos 8:1-10) This new section begins with God’s call to Hosea to blow the sound of alarm (see 5:8; Isa 58:1), probably with words and not an actual horn. The reason: Israel is about to experience destruction. In fact, death and destruction will be so pervasive that a vulture is already circling over the land, anticipating the decaying bodies. God, in turn, gives the reason for the impending destruction: Israel has broken “my” covenant (the only certain reference to the Sinai covenant in Hosea) and transgressed “my” law (elsewhere in 4:6; 8:12). The personal element in God’s words surges to the fore once again; the issue is not a legal treaty or impersonal law. These words signal a relationship of consequence in which certain expectations are given to and agreed to by Israel with respect to the future. Under such a threat to its future, Israel “cries out” to “my God” (see Exod 2:23), claiming that they “know” God (a key theme in Hosea) and are God’s people (8:2). It is difficult to discern whether this cry is sincere (see 7:14); in any case, as with 6:1-3, it is too late for the cry to have any positive effect on Israel’s future. Israel has rejected “the good” (all of God’s gifts and benefits, perhaps even the good God), and nothing will stop the “enemy”

Hosea

53

(Assyria) from pursuing him (8:3). How have they spurned the good? The following verses describe the issues that God has with this people. 1. The monarchy (8:4a). The issue is treason against God (see at 7:8-16). While monarchy as such may not be condemned, the filled-with-treachery succession of kings in quick order has been a catastrophe for Israel. God has been ignored in the choice of these kings and does not approve of them; the assassinations and palace intrigues of the prior chapter are evidence of that. Hosea 8:9-10 takes up this theme again. 2. The worship of idols (8:4b-6). The issue of treason is juxtaposed with adultery; for Hosea, they are two sides of the same coin; both are forms of unfaithfulness. The people have constructed their idols out of silver and gold (see 2:8; extraordinary luxury and ostentation!); in so doing, they have ensured their own destruction. Addressing Israel directly with a metonym (its capital, Samaria), God rejects the idol they have constructed and worshiped. “Your calf ” recalls Israel’s building of the calf under Jeroboam I at Bethel (and Dan, which had fallen to Assyria by Hosea’s time) in 1 Kings 12:26-33 (cf. Exod 32:1-14). Israel’s penchant for such worship is not a recent phenomenon. At the point of its origination under Jeroboam I, idolatry was directly associated with political activity (rebellion against the Davidic monarchy and the division of the kingdom), and so the link between idolatry and treason by Hosea has deep roots in Israel’s history. These references are an indication that Israel’s worship is syncretistic (see 2:16); Yahweh may be thought to be worshiped in and through such images. But Hosea makes it crystal clear: the calf is not God; it is the product of human hands (v. 6). God’s anger has been aroused, and the judgmental effects will soon be evident: the calf will be shattered and eliminated from Israel. God’s lament can be heard again in the poignant question, exasperatingly voiced by God (8:5; cf. 7:13-15): How long will Israel be “incapable of innocence”? That is to say, given the wonderful opportunities God has provided, will Israel never come to its senses? It is striking that God’s will for a different Israel is voiced in such a lament-filled way! God will honor the relationship and hence will not, indeed cannot, in faithfulness snap the divine fingers and set everything right whenever God chooses. Israel has been successful in resisting the will of God for its life, and God must take that resistance into account in thinking about ways of charting a future for this relationship. What will be the effects of Israel’s sin (8:7-14)? Destruction all around! Israel will have no success in their agricultural endeavors (used also as a metaphor for other human efforts). Hosea’s familiar proverb is often quoted: They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind (8:7; see Prov 1:27). Notably,

54

Reading Hosea–Micah

this proverb is different from those that think of a strict correspondence between act and consequence (see Job 4:8; Prov 22:8; Gal 6:7). The whirlwind is much more intense than the wind. Indeed, they sow the wind (empty, evil deeds), and they will reap a harvest of disaster (6:11), whether in the fields or in national life. Another proverb is cited: if the standing grain has no heads, it will yield no flour. Thus, Israel’s initial failure yields nothing good (to eat). As in 4:1-3, the moral order affects cosmic order, so interrelated are these realities. Now, if there happens to be a crop . . . . This is an exception to the rule, noting that the created order does not work in a static or automatic way; it is a loose, causal weave, and so there is room for randomness (see Jer 12:1-4 for a classic statement on this issue—sometimes, the treacherous do thrive!). Yet, in this case, if plant growth does happen, there are other factors at work; the crop will, ironically, be stolen by the foreigners whom they have gone out of their way to befriend (8:7). As the foreigners have devoured the grain, so also will they devour Israel itself, so useless has Israel become among the nations (8:8). Recalling the treason of Israel, including the courting of Assyria (see 7:8-16), Israel has become “a wild ass wandering alone,” sniffing the wind in her heat (8:9; cf. Jer 2:23-24). To be called not only an ass but a lonely ass is deeply ironic, given Israel’s search for “lovers” among the nations. Whatever “bargains” they may have picked up along the way, all will be lost. God will now gather them (for purposes of judgment; “round them up,” NEB) and they will soon be depleted of their strength and enslaved by the kings and princes (or “the king of princes,” the king of Assyria), ironically, by the very nations among whom they have been consorting (8:10)! Back to Egypt (Hos 8:11-14) A series of verses follows in which it is shown how Israel has distorted the gifts of God (8:11-14). God had given them sacrifices in order to expiate their sin; they multiplied those altars (see 4:8) and turned them into a licentious setting to commit even more sin (8:11; cf. 4:14). God had given them many (or, weighty) instructions (8:12; note the “my,” as in 8:1; perhaps regarding sacrifices) in their best interests, even in written form (an early reference to the writing of the law). But they treated the instructions as if they were alien to their own interests and not in the service of life. From 8:13 it seems that they offer sacrifices in some fitting ways, even giving the best of their animals. God (functioning in the role of a priest) does not accept their offerings, however. The people regard them only as flesh, as

Hosea

55

something on which to feast (see JPS), contrary to the law; and they are accompanied not by contrition but by adulterous behaviors (see 4:13-14). And so, instead of forgiving their sin, God will remember their iniquity and visit their sins upon them. To put the point vividly: they appeal to Egypt for help (see 7:16); they shall instead be returned to Egypt as slaves. “Back to Egypt with them!” (JPS). This is a partial reversal of the exodus liberation for this particular group of Israelites (8:13; cf. 9:3; 11:5; Deut 28:68), but exile means something short of an absolute end. Judah once again comes on the scene in 8:14 (see 5:5-14; 6:11). Israel has forgotten its Creator and—notice!—built palaces. The link between God the Creator and the expenditure of lavish sums of money on palaces is straightforward; God’s gifts have not been used properly but have been frittered away on luxuries. In similar fashion, Judah has built fortified cities. Perhaps they think, ironically, that such fortifications will protect them from any invaders. This verse should not be used in such a way as to deprecate anything that human beings make. The issue has to do with resources used and purposes for which these things are designed. God’s word to both is one of judgment: a fire will destroy these very cities and palaces (8:14). The Prophet Is a Fool (Hos 9:1-9) Hosea 9:1-9 consists of a series of prophetic reflections on the devastating judgments announced by God in chapter 8, with some direct response to the Israelites. God’s own speaking will resume in 9:10, but in 9:1-9 the reader encounters difficult shifts in person, including the change from “you” in 9:1 to “they” through most of 9:2-9, with an episodic return to “you” in 9:5 and 9:7b. The special links to chapter 8 include the virtual repetition of 8:13b in 9:9b: God “will remember their iniquity and punish [visit] their sins” (and 9:3b, “they shall return to Egypt”). This repetitive theme regarding judgment has suggested that 9:1-9 may consist of internal reflections by the prophet (see the “my” in 9:8 and also 9:17), interspersed with questions and laments addressed directly to Israel’s desperate situation. The call “not to rejoice” or “exult” in view of coming judgment (9:1) probably has reference to the fall festival celebration, the Feast of Booths (see 9:5; Lev 23:39-40; 1 Kgs 12:31-33). In other words, they are not to sing their hymns and songs of thanksgiving (as they and other nations normally do). This is, rather, a time only for lament. The reason is bluntly stated in the language of the unfaithful spouse: they have betrayed their God and engaged in idolatry (adultery).

56

Reading Hosea–Micah

The threshing floors, a symbol for the successful production of the fruit of the land, are lifted up for attention, for Israel thought that such benefits had been given by her “lovers” (see 2:5, 8, 12). The people have loved the benefits (sarcastically called “prostitute’s pay”!) and not linked them with their true benefactor. But that time is no more. Food resources such as grain and wine shall fail and famine shall strike the land, and consequently there will be no celebratory festivals (see 2:11). The land is the Lord’s (9:3), it will “vomit out” the infidels (so Lev 18:25, 28), and this unfaithful people will be shipped off into exile—into both Egypt and Assyria, a partial reversal of the exodus liberation (see 8:13). There the people will be forced to eat ritually unclean food, a sign of their exclusion from the land of promise and its various benefits (Ezek 4:13). Yet exile means something other than an absolute end. The theme of a life of exile in a foreign land continues in 9:4-5. The regular round of offerings and sacrifices of Israel’s worship shall be no more; they would not be acceptable to God in such a situation in any case (see 8:13). Indeed, all their food will be used only to satisfy their hunger. As such, it will be for them like “mourner’s bread” (see Jer 16:7), that is, food eaten by mourners who, because of their contact with death, were unclean and kept from participating in the worship of God for a time. Therefore, all those exiled from the land will, in effect, experience continual death and mourning and will thereby be unclean, with no food available except for ordinary eating. In 9:5, the prophet asks a rhetorical, lament-filled question of the potential community of exiles: what will you do when the Feast of Booths comes around? The answer is “nothing,” for no such festivals will be celebrated outside the land of promise. It is as if December 25 came around and Christians were unable to celebrate Christmas. The disaster cannot be evaded (9:6). Even if some avoid this future for a time, it will not be long before the Egyptians round them up. They will be carried off to Egypt, where they will die far from home, and Memphis (a key Egyptian city, known for its funeral practices) will be their place of burial. “The nation of their hopes will be the instrument of their humiliation” (Mays, 128). Their silver and gold (financial resources; see 12:8; 13:15), individual or corporate, will disappear, and their homes in the land, no longer filled with people, will be taken over by thorns and briers (9:6). In the words of JPS, “Weeds are their heirs.” The next section (9:7-9) seems to be more personally reflective, especially regarding the way in which the people have received the prophet and his word. The word of the prophet is sharp and clear: Israel’s days are numbered, and the day when God will visit their sins upon them, the day of

Hosea

57

reckoning, has arrived (note the repeated “have come”). For the third time in this section (9:7; see vv. 1, 5), the prophet reverts to the second person. At that time, when everything is falling apart, Israel will know (and say) that the prophet is a perverse fool, a deranged man. This is a common view of the prophets (2 Kgs 9:11; Jer 29:26), as people seek to discredit the messenger when they do not like the message. Hence, the day of reckoning has arrived, but even then the people will continue to make such claims about the prophet. God responds to them: the days of judgment have come because of “your” betrayal of your relationship with God and, consequently, “your” hostility to God and to what the prophet says or does in the divine name (9:7). In a possible self-reference (9:8a), Hosea speaks of the prophet as a watchman for (and with) “my” God with respect to Ephraim (see 5:8; 8:1; Jer 6:17; Ezek 33:1-7). And then the prophet speaks of the via dolorosa that he walks among his people: because of this vocation, people constantly seek to catch him in his ways (as a fowler would birds) and, once again, hostility accompanies his every journey across the land (9:8b; cf. 1 Pet 2:23). The people have deeply corrupted themselves; the days of Gibeah (Judg 19–21) are a particular violent parallel to Israel’s character, both in the Benjaminite actions (the gang rape and murder of the concubine from Bethlehem) and their disastrous future. In such a comparison for Israel, the prophet echoes the judgment of the violent era of Judges when “all the people did what was right in their own eyes” (21:25). The prophet concludes in a way similar to God’s previous declaration (cf. 9:9b with 8:13b): God will not forgive their sins, and the day of divine visitation in judgment is inevitable. Like Grapes in the Wilderness (Hos 9:10-17) These verses are best read as (the prophet’s report of ) God’s personal, sorrowful soliloquy on what is about to transpire for Israel (with prophetic interruptions in 9:14, 17). God recalls Israel’s history from its first days, highlighting both continuities and discontinuities between then and now. Do you remember how good things used to be when we were first married!? Note the human qualities that God finds valuable in Israel at the time of the divine choice (vv. 10, 13). What could have been is, however, not to be. God begins with the wilderness wanderings, recalling the positive aspects in highly personal (“your”) “love-language” (9:10a; see also 2:14-15; Jer 2:2-3), thinking of Israel as juicy, sweet grapes, unexpected in the desert, and early ripening figs, giving promise of what is to come (see Isa 28:4). Then God moves to the negative (switching to “they” language), particularly the apos-

58

Reading Hosea–Micah

tasy at Baal-Peor, a version of Baal worship, kin to the idolatry of Hosea’s Israel (9:10b; Num 25:1-9). There Israel betrayed Yahweh, consecrating itself to Baal (=“a thing of shame”; see 10:6; Jer 3:24-25). Over time, Israel became in fact what they loved most: the detestable image that is loved generates detestable people—like produces like (9:10). Israel’s people and especially their reputation (=“glory”) will all fly away like a flock of birds, never to return (9:11). Their nests, as it were, will be abandoned, and conception, pregnancy, and birth will come to an end. No future for these people! They sought fertility through Baal; the effect, finally, will be infertility. This point is not intended in absolute terms, for 9:16b speaks of the birth of a few children; though even they shall be slain. Even children growing up will be taken from their parents (9:12). The agents that God will use are unspecified, but they likely refer to the fall of the northern kingdom to Assyria armies and the devastating effects those events will have on Israel’s population and future growth (little is known of the remnants of Israel after 721 BCE). God’s “woe” in 9:12 is pathos-filled grief, not anger (see 7:13), for God knows the effects on them (and on God!) when God “turns away” (NIV). How far they have come from God’s picking them like grapes in the wilderness! God will not “depart” (so NRSV); rather, God will be present in intensified ways in the judgment (rather than blessing) that will shortly follow. The text does not testify that the people of Israel are no longer God’s people in any sense. Deathly judgment need not entail the final end, especially if it is the faithful God of Israel with whom we have to do. It is almost as if God cannot help himself, as God moves from talk of Israel’s disaster to recall once again the wonderful time of their early marriage when Israel was a beautiful, growing palm tree (9:13; see Gen 49:22), only to return immediately to talk about disaster and Israel leading its children to the executioner! The pathos, the deep sorrow of God, is evident throughout these verses. “Things could have been quite different; yet that they are as they are is the responsibility of Ephraim” (MacIntosh, 372). The prophet interrupts his own report of God’s lament and joins in that lament with a plea that God the Giver give them no more children (9:14; in essence, agreeing with God’s statement about children in 9:11). The question “what will you give?” could be God’s interruption and questioning of Hosea, which Hosea proceeds to answer. They will go through such disaster that the gracious thing for God to do is to make sure that no more children are brought into such a world (contrast the blessing of Gen 49:25). In 9:15, God returns once again to a historical perspective. Everything began to fall apart at Gilgal, and God came to “hate” them. Gilgal is prob-

Hosea

59

ably referenced because of an event in the not-too-distant past (cf. the cities in 5:1-2; 6:7-9), but about which we are told nothing specific, except links to idolatrous activities (see 4:15; 12:11; Amos 4:4). Hate is a strong word, but it is used elsewhere with God as subject (see Jer 12:8; Amos 5:21); it means for God to turn the divine energies sharply against all that Israel has become. The same idea is expressed in the phrase that God will not love (or accept) them any longer. How personally this response of Yahweh is expressed! Because of their wicked deeds, especially the rebellious leadership, God will drive them out of “my house” (the land). It sounds like the worst possible divorce! Once again (9:16), God returns in poignant fashion to the sorry state of the present condition of Ephraim. They are like a blighted tree, with no living root system; they no longer bear any fruit (cf. Israel as a young plant in 9:13). Their only future is death and decay. If perchance some children are born (see 9:11), these cherished ones (how precious they must have been!) will get swept up in the disaster that is surely to come and will be killed (again, God’s agents will be the Assyrians; God always acts through means). Finally, the prophet speaks once again as if to summarize the point (9:17). Because Israel has not listened to their God, “my God” (note the personal element, expressing the prophet’s acceptance of the divine will) will reject them, and the result for them will be a life of Cain (Gen 4:14; see Deut 28:65), forever wandering among the nations, with never a place that they can call home. What could have been is not to be! Mountains, Fall on Us! (Hos 10:1-8) The theme of “what might have been” continues at the beginning of this chapter; the prophet is the speaker through 10:8, and God is quoted in 10:9-15. The interweaving of matters relating to political life and religious life continues; they are sharply interwoven for Hosea for, as we have seen, unfaithfulness can be exhibited in both spheres of life (see the Introduction). The essential point is that Israel can only look forward to the destruction of its most basic religious and political institutions. Hosea 10:1 is a difficult verse to translate and interpret; the JPS translation of the first line may be best: “Israel is a ravaged vine and its fruit is like it.” This line is similar to 9:16a, which speaks of Ephraim as a blighted plant, no longer bearing fruit; similarly here, Israel is a damaged vine. When ]Israel was a fruitful vine (a common image for Israel, Jer 2:21; Isa 5:1-7; Ps 80:8-18) and a bountiful land, its future looked bright and its potential was promising. But it took an unfortunate course in its religious life, and it now

60

Reading Hosea–Micah

lies ravaged. To use the language of 8:11, “Ephraim multiplied altars.” Altars and pillars (see Deut 16:22) are a metonym for the entire Baal religious system (see 3:4); the language of multiplication is emblematic of the evolution of these idolatrous dimensions of the religious life of Israel. Baal worship, once introduced, spread widely across the land in short order; everything everywhere was infected by this virus, and the effects were horrific on Israel’s worship and its daily life. The word of Yahweh spoken into this situation (10:2) is straightforward: the Baal virus has permeated to the very heart of their identity and character, so that they are defined by their unfaithfulness. They must suffer the consequences of their sins; the altars and the pillars will be shattered, that is, the entire Baal cult shall be destroyed. When these shattering events begin to undo Israel, the people (here given a voice, 10:3) will admit, perhaps even confess: we have no effective king and we do not fear Yahweh. We do have a king on the throne, but he is as good as having no king (see 10:7). Besides, what could any king do for us, given the disastrous situation in which we find ourselves, with the Assyrians such a threatening menace? The admission that they do not fear God, when in 8:2 they said they did, suggests that the historical situation has seriously begun to unravel, and that development has affected their outlook for the future. The next verse (10:4) is probably a response to the question raised in 10:3 about kings (see also the rebellious “officials” in 9:15). As for evidence that they cannot accomplish anything, these leaders make promises and do not keep them (as they say of politicians: Promises, promises!); they swear to agreements (covenants) and violate them (see 12:1); and unjust lawsuits proliferate like poisonous weeds in a plowed field, adversely affecting all of society. It sounds like eighth-century Israel was as litigious a society as is contemporary America! The next segment of the text (10:5-8; cf. 8:5-6) anticipates (or, possibly, recalls) the destruction of the idolatrous features of Israel’s worship. Initially (10:5), we hear the people and idolatrous priests of Samaria (the capital city; a metonym for Israel) fearfully bemoaning the looting and the anticipated loss of its calf image at Bethel (on Beth-aven, see 10:8; 4:15). Sarcasm is evident: its glory days are gone (see 1 Sam 4:22 at the loss of the ark)! A god is supposed to help people in times of trouble; the people should not have to be worried about the fate of their god! What a god this turned out to be! All of its glory or reputation is now a matter of history. The places of worship and associated images had been stripped of their valuable metals to pay tribute to Assyria before the end actually arrived (cf. 1 Kgs 15:18; 2 Kgs 18:16, in Judah). But the end of the idol itself (“thing” of shame, 9:10), a

Hosea

61

central image for Israel from its early days (1 Kgs 12:28-29), is envisaged. It will be shipped off to the king of Assyria for its valuables (10:6). Insofar as Israel’s very identity was linked to this idol, its loss meant the loss of Israel. Like its idol of shame, Israel shall be put to shame and disgraced before the nations (for putting its faith in such an inept object!). In all of these catastrophic events for Israel, the king will be of no help at all. Indeed, the monarchy will also perish—floating away like flotsam and jetsam on the high seas (10:7; see 10:15). In addition to the central cult in Bethel, all of the outdoor altar sites at “the high places of wickedness” (NIV; Aven = evil, shame), named as “the sin of Israel,” will be destroyed (10:8; see 10:5). Given their neglect, these sites shall no longer be carefully kept grounds, but filled with thorns and thistles. If given a voice, these degraded altar sites (figurative for Israel itself ) would call for the most imposing elements of the natural order—the mountains and hills—to finish them off (cited in Luke 23:30; cf. Rev 6:16)! On Eating the Fruit of Lies (Hos 10:9-15) God is the speaker of these verses, but certain words are difficult to interpret and the flow of thought is not entirely clear. The section ends on a note of total destruction (10:15), but some verses along the way suggest that, if the people sought the Lord, that end might be forestalled (10:12). The brief divine oracle in 10:9-10 is often thought to be separate from its context. The initial claim about Gibeah (10:9) picks up on a theme of 9:9 that Israel’s apostasy in Gibeah (see Judg 19–21) set a pattern of wicked behavior in place for all subsequent generations of Israelites; it functions as Israel’s “original sin.” Israelites are the heirs of “the sins of their fathers.” Gibeah may be emblematic for that time when Israel was settling in the land, rather than a specific date and place. It is not that Israel did not sin before this time or that every sin since was of this magnitude, but that those violent actions stand out as especially horrendous and comparable to those of the present time (so 9:9). As war was waged in Gibeah then, so shall it be the case now, only other nations will be involved rather than other tribes. The following verse (10:10) is not clear but generally refers to God’s judgment against Israel. God will come against these people in and through the agency of other nations in ways comparable to the wars against the Benjaminites in Judges 19–21. The consequences of sin then will parallel the effects of sin now, a kind of double iniquity and double consequence (see Jer 2:13; Isa 51:19).

62

Reading Hosea–Micah

The divine oracle in 10:11-15 draws on various images from farming life. Israel, the land, is God’s farm, at least initially (finally, it is the world); the people Israel are God’s farm animals or farmers whose vocation is to serve the world and its life. God once again uses a vivid image to recall an early time in the relationship between God and Israel (see 9:10-13; 11:1). When God first chose Israel, she was a trained heifer (cf. 4:16, “stubborn heifer”; on “heifer” for a wife, see Judg 14:18) that loved to thresh (tread out the grain; see Deut 25:4). Note that the characteristics and qualities of the heifer are not irrelevant to God in making a decision. She had so much promise! She had the right kind of neck (=qualities, talent) for the more mature work— plowing the fields—that would obtain in Israel’s later life. Therefore, God announces an intention to harness her for a vocation of plowing. This vocation is also given to Judah and “Jacob” (all the chosen people). The essential content of that vocation as originally articulated to Israel is specified in 10:12. God here switches to direct address (as in 12:6; 14:1-2) and shifts the image from the animal to the farmer: you are to sow righteousness; that is, do justice to the relationship with Yahweh in which you stand (see 2:19-20), which includes “right” words and deeds in all dimensions of life (see 6:6; 12:6). The effect: you will reap the benefits of the steadfast love (hesed) of that relationship, which includes God’s raining righteousness upon you (see 6:3b; here “righteousness” is basically equivalent to salvation, that is, the manifold benefits of a right relationship, including actual rain). This will be the fruit of good deeds. The text stresses the point: give yourselves to the task of plowing and sowing (“break up your fallow ground”; see Jer 4:3), take up your vocation, and, in so doing, seek the Lord, that is, turn to the Lord in repentance and trust (see Amos 5:4-6). In 10:13a, readers learn that God’s chosen vocation for Israel did not come to fruition but issued in a sorry and consistent history: you plowed (and sowed) wickedness rather than righteousness, and, naturally, you have reaped injustice, which is the present character of your life in all you say and do. To “eat the fruit of lies” (see 8:7; Jer 6:19) is to suffer the natural outgrowth of your own deeds, which grow out of the deed itself (not an external penalty placed on the situation by God). One way in which the people of God have “plowed wickedness” (here the prophet changes to the singular “you,” which could signal a specific reference to the king or other leader): you have trusted in your own power (ways) and your own warriors (10:13b; see 8:14; Isa 31:1-3) rather than placing your trust and confidence in the Lord. You have done these things, “Therefore” (10:14) judgment will fall in the form of war against you, and all your fortresses will be destroyed. The

Hosea

63

disaster that you will suffer is comparable to the worst of destructions in the world, whose brutality is illustrated in the slaughter of mothers and their children (see also 13:16; 2 Kgs 8:12; Isa 13:16). The battle mentioned is unknown but could refer to military exploits by the Assyrian king, Shalmaneser V. The king of Israel (perhaps Hoshea, the last king of Israel; see 2 Kgs 17:4) will be swept away early in the war that brings Israel to an end (“at dawn”). The reason behind all this: your great wickedness. The basic point of the oracle: God chose Israel as one having much promise in carrying out God’s vocation in the world, but Israel over time tragically failed to live up to that promise, and now it faces a brutal and tragic future. The Pathos of God as Parent (Hos 11:1-11) Once again, God recalls Israel’s beginnings (see 9:10-13; 10:11). This time the imagery is familial—God as parent (the images are more maternal than paternal); Israel as child (11:1). These images may link with the texts about Hosea’s children (1:3-9); the prophet’s experience as parent may inform his portrayal of God as a parent. The entire chapter is a divine reflection on this family relationship, with highly relational references on how this journey has gone for the children and for God. The sheer number of personal “I” statements from God is remarkable. God has not removed the divine self from full engagement in the life of the children, however painful it has been for God. God has risked that ongoing encounter for the sake of the children and for the sake of their world. But oh, what hurt and what suffering it has entailed for God to be the parent of such children! In the background of this text lies the law in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 regarding a rebellious son; such a son shall be stoned. God takes that law into account but finally decides that the son cannot be consigned to such a fate. Also lying in the background are the exodus (11:1) and the wilderness wanderings (Exod 15–18; Num 11–25). The wilderness stories in Numbers are the focus, for prior to Exodus 32 these stories do not present issues in terms of divine judgment. This text picks up on the history of the relationship of God and people (11:1-4), moves through their present (11:5-9), and charts their future (11:10-11). Note that Egypt is a key word in shaping this section; the name appears at the beginning (v. 1), middle (v. 5), and end (v. 11). Also, Assyria is mentioned in vv. 5, 11. The family story begins in Egypt, from where God called the child out of bondage into freedom (the exodus). Such language recalls texts such as

64

Reading Hosea–Micah

Exodus 4:22-23, “Israel is my firstborn son.” God has chosen Israel to be God’s child (hence, an adoptive child) and drawn its people into a special relationship. For God, Israel is family. God’s love stands at the head of the text, and God’s love enables everything that follows (cf. 11:8; 9:15; Deut 7:7-8). Notably, nothing about Israel’s piety or religious experience prompts the divine choice; it is a movement of gracious love, pure and simple. At the same time, this point should not be extended to say that Israel had no qualities whatsoever to which God was attracted in choosing a people in and through whom to work. Earlier Hosea texts (see 9:10, 13; 10:11) make it clear that human qualities are important to the choices that God makes (cf. the qualities God sees in Moses, Exod 2:11-22). Matthew 2:15 links this text to Jesus’ flight into Egypt and return; this is typological reflection: as it was with Israel in the beginning of its life with God, so also is it the case with Jesus. Jesus is an embodied Israel. But, once again, the story takes a turn for the worse (11:2). Even though God continually calls the children (“I called”), they turn away ever more persistently and fervently. If, with NRSV footnotes, one used third person pronouns in 11:2a, the “they, them” could refer to Israel’s calling on Egypt (cf. 7:11; 12:1; 11:5) or to the prophets calling on Israel. In any case, the people bring their sacrifices to Baal and perpetuate worship practices with respect to gods other than Yahweh. The juxtaposition of these idolatrous responses and God’s gracious actions are revealing of a profound ingratitude and infidelity on Israel’s part. This negative development occasions God’s reflections on a past that once was filled with the joy of raising children and caring for them (11:3-4). Given what God now knows about the children, the pathos of God about their past times together is sharply evident. “Remember when the children were small? I taught them how to walk; when they fell down, I gathered them into my arms. Things happened so naturally, perhaps, or the children were so distracted by other matters, that they didn’t appreciate the fact that it was I who had healed them” (11:3; see 2:8; Exod 15:26). Notably, God continues to heal even though the children are not attentive. “As the children were growing up, I led them and guided them in kind and loving ways”; the reference to “cords” or “bands” refers most likely to close ties/bonds with the child that good parenting creates. And then God extends this remarkable image: “I was to them like those who lift infants to their cheeks” (see Deut 1:31; Isa 46:3). The translation “infant” continues the parental metaphor and avoids the strangely linked “yoke” (and “jaws”) of some versions. “When the children needed comfort, I was there, holding them close, assuring them that they would be all right. In bending down to them, I took on their

Hosea

65

stature, assumed their size, for the sake of assuring their future; it is almost as if I became as one of them, for their sake” (11:4). Then, out of the blue, comes the announcement (11:5): the children shall “return” to Egypt (see 8:13; 9:3, 6)—out from which God had called them (11:1)—because Israel did not “return” to God! Then, recognizing the Assyrian threat and that Israelites will be scattered across the ancient Near Eastern landscape (see 11:11), some of them will end up having an Assyrian king! The reason for all this is familiar to the reader of Hosea to this point: they have not returned “to me” (11:5; see 6:1) but have pursued alliances with these foreign nations. One might think that, given the violence being perpetrated throughout their country at this time—in their cities, against their priests and altars (11:6)—they would respond to God’s call. One might think that they would make the connection: they are being devoured by violence because of “their schemes” (11:6). The experience of judgment is already real for the children. God is not named as the subject of these various destructive actions (only God’s agents are noted), but it is because of Israel’s relationship to God that they are happening (“to me”). The people are hell-bent (stubbornness of heart) in their turning away “from me.” Thus, the relationship has come to that point where the parent, for the sake of the children’s future, must exercise some “tough love” and “withdraw” from the relationship (5:15). Given the realities of judgment, God is not absent; indeed, God is present in an especially intensified form. The children do call on “the Most High” in the midst of the trouble (referring either to another god or, more likely, to the king of Assyria, see 5:13). But no help is available there (11:7; given 11:8-9 this verse probably does not refer to God). Yet, as is especially to be noted, God does call them “my people” (see 6:11; Hosea’s son, Lo-ammi, “not my people,” 1:8-9). Then God’s “cry of the heart” questions ring through the night (11:8a). Here God gives readers a glimpse deep into the divine heart and mind, so filled with intense emotions. What is happening in the world profoundly affects the life of God. Even more, what does it say about God that God is so open to this kind of self-revelation? The fourfold “How can I?” uttered by God, remarkable for the self-questioning that is revealed, draws on traditional human lament materials. God invites readers to imagine the continuities and discontinuities in the use of this metaphoric language (see also Hos 6:4 and the divine questions there). How can I give you up to the effects of your own sins (see the theme of God’s “giving them up” in Rom 1:18-32)? How can I simply hand you over to the consequences of your own behaviors? How can I treat you like Admah or Zeboiim (two cities that were

66

Reading Hosea–Micah

destroyed along with Sodom and Gomorrah, Deut 29:23)? God’s own response to the self-questioning follows, in effect: I cannot do these things. It may be that the law of the rebellious son in Deuteronomy 21:18-21 is referenced here; God cannot obey God’s own law (cf. Jer 5:1-5). God then speaks of what such questions mean for God’s own heart (11:8b-9). God personally recoils at the thought of such an end for Israel. God’s compassionate heart grows warm and tender, displacing the divine anger and taking control of the divine actions (it is as if Israelites were little children again). God determines to turn away from anger and destruction, though such actions would be entirely justified. God will not exercise the divine anger; that is to say, God is angry over the human wickedness, but God will pull back from its full exercise. In other words, God will not (re)turn to destroy Israel (“again” suggests, mistakenly, that God has done so before). In this regard, the image of God/Hosea in Hosea 2–3 may be recalled; the husband, in spite of the infidelity of Gomer/Israel, simply cannot let her go (see 2:14-23 and 14:4-7). The perspective of Yahweh prior to this change of heart can be observed in 9:15, evident also in 13:14, “compassion is hidden from my eyes.” The book will end on a decisive note of divine salvation on behalf of Israel (14:4-7). God now moves to take action, or more exactly, God resolves not to take actions that had been contemplated and even initiated. The four “How can I?” questions of God are here matched by three “I will not” responses regarding the exercise of wrath and destruction. The reason God gives is remarkable from several angles: God “turns” because God is God and not a “man” (‘ish, usually a male). Such an appeal to God’s Godness is remarkable, given the very humanlike responses God has had over the course of these verses. God’s Godness must therefore contain some characteristics that are like certain human qualities, at least those in evidence in 11:1-8. Another factor, equally startling, is that God acts in these humanlike ways because God is the Holy One “in your midst” (also in Isa 12:6). The One who is Holy is one who is Other than world, but not one who is distant from the life of the world. This God is in the midst of Israel in every life circumstance, whether in judgment or salvation. This decision means that God will not come in wrath (“into the city” is an alternative reading; if so, it could refer to Bethel in 10:15). This divine move should not be ascribed to God’s “sovereign freedom” or the like. If God were so free of these people, how is it that God agonizes over their suffering and their future? These divine questions and responses arise not out of freedom but out of commitment to God’s people; God simply is not able to let them go because of such commitments (see Lev 26:43-45; Deut 30:4-10).

Hosea

67

The next two verses (11:10-11) assume both that God’s change of heart has had deep effects and that considerable destruction has been visited upon Israel, with many people already sent off into exile (the Assyrians conquered Israel over several years, with a major exile already in 733 BCE, 2 Kgs 15:29). This divine oracle is an oracle of salvation just for such exiled persons: they will be going home. The exiles will turn to (or follow) the Lord. The Lord’s response is compared to the roaring of a lion, in judgment against the nations on behalf of Israel (as in Jer 25:30; Joel 3:16); the children will follow the (mother?) lion home. The nations would include both Egypt (in “the west”) and Assyria that have held them captive—but that will be the case no more! The people of God will return home (as do migratory birds), unimpeded by other peoples, trembling like birds—the image is that of a flock of birds and doves flying off into the sky (as in the wake of a lion’s roar?). Anyone who has seen such a flock in motion can understand how the image of “trembling” would be used. They tremble not out of fear but out of joy at the prospect of soon returning home (see Isa 55:12). God’s promise is clear: the people of God will return home (see also the images of salvation in 14:1-8). Was this promise fulfilled or not? What of the other oracles in Hosea that speak of total destruction (e.g., 13:7-11)? Did God’s promissory word to Israel in these verses fail? Such destruction could presumably occur either because Israelites removed themselves from the sphere of the promise or because the circumstances of the nations were such that God’s promised move into the future was only minimally realized. But, at the least, a remnant of northerners would be saved in the end. Figures from Israel’s Past (Hos 11:12–12:14) From the beginning, the book of Hosea has alternated between words of indictment/judgment and oracles of hope. With 11:1-11 being one of the latter, it is expected that readers would be thrown back into the dark spheres of judgment. But is this what happens? Scholars differ on the basic theme of 11:12–12:14. Is this segment primarily indictment/judgment or basically hopeful, or, as I will suggest, are both themes closely interwoven? This chapter brings together seemingly contradictory motifs. It certainly begins and ends with strong words about Ephraim’s evil/deceit and the resultant judgment (11:12; 12:14). At the same time, there are hopeful signs presented (see 12:5-6). On the one hand, the prophet will not let us simply rest with the comforting words of 11:1-11 ringing in our ears, for life moves on and life is more than hope. The prophet remains deeply realistic about

68

Reading Hosea–Micah

the nature of the human condition and its deeply distressing effects on all relationships. On the other hand, the rest of Hosea should be read through the lens provided by 11:1-11, and the kind of God revealed in those verses will color the remaining chapters. The theme of hope will return. This chapter has a strong interest in Israel’s history—including Jacob, exodus, wilderness; Israel’s present situation is thereby placed into a larger framework. References to the story of Jacob in Genesis are especially prominent, beginning and ending the chapter (12:3-4, 12). The unit also presents the image of Jacob in seemingly contradictory terms. Jacob supplanted his brother, but he also wept before God and cried out for divine favor. Jacob is Israel, and so readers are invited to explore how Israel is (to be) like its progenitor Jacob. Note, for example, the move in 12:4 from Jacob to “us” (see NRSV footnote); God spoke not only to Jacob but also to “us” (see Deut 5:1-3). This reference is followed by a creedal formula (12:5) and a call to return (12:6, preparing for 14:1-3). The idea seems to be: You are Jacob, both deceiver and chosen one, and you are to do as Jacob has done: return to the Lord. This oracle is not a legal indictment, but it presents a “scenario in which Israel is offered the possibility to change its course of action” (Sweeney, 117). The speaker in this chapter moves back and forth between God and the prophet, a pattern characteristic of the entire book. God is the speaker in 11:1–12:1 (“me”) and 12:7-10 (“I”), while the prophet seems to enter into the conversation in 12:2-6, 11-14. Moreover, the movement back and forth between Israel and Judah is puzzling (cf. 5:10-14). This difficulty has led many to regard Judah as a later insertion to be applied to the southern kingdom. This is possible, but the only certain text we now have includes both Israel and Judah. Thus, beginning with 11:12, God and prophet talk about lies and deceit, a theme in this chapter (and the book). The people have surrounded “me” (God) with deceit. Israel’s sin has an impact on God’s very life! God is confronted daily with this reality and, given the nature of the relationship, cannot simply decide to escape from it! The indictment of Israel/Ephraim is followed by a word about the southern kingdom, Judah (11:12b). Is that word also an indictment (so NIV), or is a contrast being drawn with Israel (so NRSV)? If the latter, Judah’s relationship with God is still in good order and may stand as a model for Israel. But, more likely, in view of Judah’s indictment in 12:2, Judah is “unruly against God” who, nevertheless, remains faithful to God’s own people (“holy ones”). The sense of betrayal in 11:12 should be read in terms

Hosea

69

of alliances with Assyria and Egypt (12:1), and hence links up with Hosea’s common indictment of Israel for treason against God. An image used for Israel is “herding the wind” (12:1); it thinks its words and deeds are substantial, especially with respect to efforts to appease other nations (Assyria and Egypt; see 7:8-11). But you cannot control the wind! The exercise proves only to be filled with futility and pretense, and is finally destructive and fatal. The closer specification of “east wind” (as in 13:15), with the verb “pursue,” speaks specifically of Assyria, which lies to the east. Israel’s policy of seeking favors among the nations will backfire, and the hot east wind off the eastern desert (the sirocco), an image for Assyria’s armies, will prove to be devastating. The same is true for commerce (olive oil) with Egypt. The references in 12:2 are complex. (a) God has an “indictment” against Judah (see 11:12b, NIV; cf. 4:15; 5:10-14; 10:11); this is more a controversy than a legal case (see 4:1). (b) God will “visit” (rather than “punish”) and “return” (NRSV, repay) the ways/deeds of Jacob upon himself (that is, Israel). It is doubtful that one should understand that God has an indictment against Judah but is not yet at the point of judgment, where Jacob/Israel is. The language of indictment and of visiting/returning is likely to be applicable to both Judah and Israel. They are united in that they have a common ancestor named Jacob (see their juxtaposition in 10:11; cf. Isa 48:1; Mic 1:5), and the story of Jacob is the story of both of them. The reference to Jacob in 12:2 has reference to all of Israel, not just the northern kingdom. The image presented in this verse: sinful deeds work like boomerangs, returning to create trouble for the doers of the deeds. Acts do have consequences, and often quite apart from any legal setting. The puzzling character of this text continues in 12:3-4. The prophet returns to Israel’s/Jacob’s story as a way of thinking through the present situation, providing several quick notices. How is the reference to Jacob to be understood? Many interpreters understand the reference in terms of his deceit (the root of Israel’s later problems); the judgment against Jacob in 12:2 marks his actions in 12:3-4a as sinful. The interpretation of Jacob’s relationship with God is, however, more complex. Jacob’s story is a mixture of deceitful and commendable actions. He supplants his brother and leaves home, but he is visited by God with promises at Bethel (Gen 25:26; 28:10-22); he wrestles with God/the angel and is commended for it, emerging with a new name (Gen 32:22-32), and he returns home from exile (Gen 33:18-20). Israel/Judah is a descendant of Jacob in more than genealogical terms. As Jacob was deceitful, so also is Israel; as God speaks promises to Jacob at Bethel, so Israel is the recipient of

70

Reading Hosea–Micah

God’s promises. Both “sides” of Jacob are presented, and that is also true of Israel. This image of Jacob anticipates the call for Israel to return in 12:6. The reference to Jacob in 12:12 is also positive, recalling Jacob’s service of Laban for Rachel’s hand (see Gen 29:1-30). This passage elaborates further detail on Jacob/Israel. Jacob was a wrestler from the womb, struggling with Esau to be the firstborn son of Rebekah and Isaac (Gen 25:21-26); he did not prevail in the womb, and God still chose him (Jacob as “supplanter,” see Gen 25:26; 27:36). Even before Jacob (read Israel) was born, this deceptive character was evident; this is a deep-seated characteristic of Israel. The next lines (12:3b-4a) recall Jacob’s wrestling with the stranger in the night (Gen 32:22-33). One line states that Jacob “strove” (Gen 32:28) with God, the other line that he wrestled with an angel; both statements are consistent with Genesis in their own way (that is, God appeared to Jacob in the human form of a messenger/angel). To say that Jacob “prevailed” is a direct reference to God’s positive word to Jacob in Genesis 32:28; this divine commendation of Jacob is an important dimension of Jacob/Israel’s identity (Fretheim 1994, 567). To “prevail” is to hold one’s own with God and succeed. Jacob’s wrestling encounter changes him in several ways. Just as the Genesis text is able to combine Jacob’s prevailing with his crying out for blessing, so Hosea combines Israel’s wrestling with waiting for God and seeking the divine favor (12:4). Hosea 12:4 does not interpret Jacob’s striving with God as a negative feature. Israel’s very name refers to this wrestling match with God. The reference to seeking favor with God may refer to Jacob’s prayer for blessing (Gen 32:26; cf. 32:9-12). His weeping may refer to his encounter with Esau (33:4), whose face was like the face of God (33:10), from whom Jacob sought favor (32:5; 33:8, 10, 15). However one thinks about weeping, it is a move away from deception! Also, the picture of Jacob at Bethel in 12:4b is basically positive in view of the accounts of God’s speaking promises to him in Genesis 28:10-22; 35:5-15. God’s appearances to Jacob at Bethel mark both his leaving the land and his return to the land, at least a potential parallel for Israel. The reference to Bethel, the religious “capital” of Israel, invites a link to Bethel as the idolatrous center it became. This may be the reason 12:4 ends with a reference “to us” (NRSV footnote), an effort to bring Jacob’s encounter with God at Bethel into a contemporary setting and apply it there. In 12:4b God meets with Jacob at Bethel, and there he meets with “us.” So the story of Jacob, moving from supplanter to receiver of promises from God, is represented as a journey that Israel must also take. Jacob’s wrestling with God brings change

Hosea

71

to Jacob, including a new name; this trajectory—from deceit through wrestling to word from God—provides a model for contemporary Israel. The confession of God’s identity as Yahweh, the God of Hosts (12:5), may reveal a liturgical point of origin for this material. The point: Israel has to do with the kind of God who wrestled with their progenitor. This downto-earth God is none other than Yahweh, the God of Hosts—God in human form wrestling with the progenitor of Israel! This God is transcendent in relationship, not transcendent and in relationship. Hosea 12:6 (cf. Mic 6:8) turns to the Israelite audience/reader and voices a charge leading out from the references to their progenitor (note the repeated “your God,” implying “my people”). Return to “your God” (shub; repentance is a common theme in Hosea); hold fast to love and justice (hesed; mishpat); and wait continually for your God (see Mic 6:8 for a comparable threefold word). Waiting for God is a strong Old Testament theme, especially in the Psalms (27:14; 40:1; 130:5) and Second Isaiah (40:31). Set commonly in a time of need, to “wait” for the Lord is to trust that God has one’s best interests at heart and in due time will act in salvific ways. This charge seems to be saying, follow in the footsteps of Jacob. Cling to God as Jacob clung, wrestle with God as Jacob wrestled, and wait for a word of promise from God—who may appear as suddenly as he did with Jacob long ago. The theme of injustice (12:7-9), contrasted with “justice” in the prior verse, is a relatively infrequent theme in Hosea (see 10:13), but is taken up here to illustrate Israel’s deceit more fully. God is the speaker (at least through v. 10) and addresses Israel directly as “traders” or merchants (in Hebrew the word is “Canaanite,” suggesting assimilation to that culture and anticipating a similar fate). They work with false balances, cheating people out of money they have paid for goods (perhaps recalling the history of prosperity under Jeroboam II). False balances, prohibited in the law (Lev 19:35-36; Deut 25:13-16), are emblematic of social and economic corruption (see Mic 6:11; Amos 8:5; Prov 11:1; 20:23). A general charge is sharply stated: Israel “loves to oppress.” The use of the word “love” is striking; instead of love directed toward God and others, the very practice of the oppression of others is loved (contrast 12:6). God quotes Ephraim’s response; it sounds like special pleading (12:8): “I admit that I am rich, but I also deny that I have ever gained wealth through the oppression of others; my hands are clean.” The argument may even be theological: “Given all my blessings, built up over many years, it must mean that I have not sinned!” (cf. the argument in Ps 17:3-5). God

72

Reading Hosea–Micah

does not directly refute their claim but in essence responds by saying, “Given my history in dealing with oppression, time will show that I am right.” Reminding Israel (12:9) that “the LORD your God,” who “delivered you from oppression in the land of Egypt” (see Exod 20:2), has made the charge, God announces that “you will soon be dispatched from your palatial homes and your land, and made to live in tents again, as you did during the wilderness wanderings.” That experience will be like the ritual practice associated with living in tents during the fall festival of Booths (Lev 23:39-43), but this time it will be reliving the actual experience. At the same time, Hosea 2:14 suggests that, while this is an experience of judgment, there are positive aspects to this relocation; it is the place where God can once again woo Israel back into relationship. God proceeds to recall how God has responded with respect to such oppressive practices in Israel over the generations (12:10). God has indicted Israel through the prophets (e.g., Elijah and Amos), announcing judgment upon them for oppressive practices. Though 12:10 might be a positive reference to the prophetic visions, the following verse (12:11) suggests a more negative thrust. The effects of sin and divine judgment are illustrated with reference to Gilead and Gilgal (cf. 6:8; 9:15 for prior references). The evil of these cities, including sacrificing bulls on many altars (acts of extravagance), will come to nothing, and all their worship places will become rock heaps on plowed fields. The Jacob tradition mentions Gilead (Gen 31:44-54); Laban overtook Jacob there on his way, with family, back to the land of Israel. They marked their treaty by erecting a pillar and a heap of stones serving as a witness. Stone heaps seem to become a symbol of destruction in Hosea. Once again, God picks up on elements of Israel’s history (Jacob; Moses) to make a point: through both of these individuals, Israel was preserved as a people. First, God returns to the story of Jacob (12:12; see 12:3-4), recalling his journey to the land of Aram, where he worked for his uncle Laban in exchange for securing his daughter(s) for wives (Gen 29–31). The story represents Laban as more deceptive than it does Jacob. Jacob’s working for Laban for a wife (Rachel is the focus here), in view of the Bethel experience (28:10-22), represents Jacob as pursuing goals honestly in view of his love for Rachel. The use of the name “Israel” in 12:12 (a name that he did not have when working for Laban) suggests a positive assessment of Jacob at this point. The verse seems concerned to make Jacob parallel to Israel. Perhaps Jacob = Israel provides a kind of model for contemporary Israel (see also 12:4-6). Having left the land because of his altercation with Esau, Jacob works out his “penance” in “exile” in the process of gaining his wife, through

Hosea

73

whom he (Israel) “preserved” a people (rather than NRSV’s “sheep,” a word not in the Hebrew text). Second, Moses (12:13) is called a prophet who brought Israel up from the land of Egypt (see Deut 18:15-22; 34:10); through him God also worked to “preserve” Israel. Both Jacob and Israel (in Egypt) return to the land after a period of difficulty and oppression, but also continued life and growth, in “exile.” The repeated word “preserved” (NRSV, “guarded”) is a key to interpretation; Israel was preserved while being in exile and preserved by being brought out of “exile.” A word of hope, namely the preservation of the people of Israel, seems to carry through these two verses. God works in and through key individuals (whatever their past history) to preserve the people of God for their vocation in the world. Perhaps there is also reference to the prophetic work of Hosea. God worked through prophets in the past to preserve Israel; God is working in comparable ways now toward the same objective: the preservation of Israel. Note the links between 12:9, 13 and 13:4 regarding the exodus motif, as well as God’s providence in the wilderness traditions (see also 2:14-15 regarding the wilderness theme as preparatory to restoration). Following upon the prophet’s several reflections on Israel’s history that might serve contemporary Israel in helpful ways, he returns to where he began (cf. 11:12 with 12:13). These words of indictment and judgment against Israel show its vulnerability to future catastrophe. For all of Ephraim’s “bitter offenses,” God will mediate the consequences of their sins, bringing all of their crimes down on their own heads and returning their offenses back “home,” to be suffered by themselves. The specifics of that judgment are not announced, but their potential for destructive effects is certain. Shall I Redeem Them from Death? (Hos 13:1-16) Hosea 12 sketched future possibilities for the people of Israel. Hosea 13 speaks of God’s judgment if they do not “return” (12:6); Hosea 14, beginning again with the call to return (14:1), will speak of God’s salvation. Hosea 12–14 thus recaptures the basic flow of thought that is present in Hosea 1–3 and 4–11. God is the speaker in 13:4-14, surrounded by oracles from the prophet (vv. 1-3, 15-16). Hosea 13 begins with a summary statement about Israel—from greatness and honor to guilt and death (13:1), to which the images of 13:2-3 return. The initial lines of 13:1 seem to be another historical recollection— the greatness that was Ephraim in relation to other tribes (see Gen 48:8-20; Deut 33:13-17). But no more. Idolatry/adultery was the chief cause of this

74

Reading Hosea–Micah

downward spiral; this is probably a reference to the golden calf in Exodus 32 and its successors at Bethel and Dan in 1 Kings 12. Moreover, that deathfilled situation has not changed into the present time (13:2). They keep on sinning! Idolatry continues apace, as they make images from precious metals, all cleverly designed from the recesses of their own imaginations (see 8:4-6). Furthermore, they urge people to bring their sacrifices for the worship of such images, worship that includes kissing calves (they do in 1 Kgs 19:18)! Because of these idolatrous practices, judgment will fall. Israel’s grim story leads to the “therefore” of judgment (13:3); it is described in a series of vivid images; they have the cumulative effect of a fleeting and insubstantial reality. They will be like the mist or the dew that materializes early but swiftly disappears (as in 6:4); like chaff, separated from the grain, swirling in the wind (see Ps 1:4); and like smoke that promises fire but soon drifts away (see Ps 37:20). God’s words to such an unfaithful people are heart-rending as God reviews their history together (13:4-8; see 11:1-4). The movement from God’s life-giving work in the exodus (13:4) to God’s ravaging work in judgment (13:7-8) is occasioned solely by what the people have done (13:6). All of this idolatry/adultery has happened “even though I have been your God ever since the land of Egypt” (13:4). “You have never known a true (or actual) God but me, and there is no god that can save but me” (cf. Isa 43:11; 45:21). With the marital metaphor probably in mind (cf. 2:20), God recalls, “I entered into a deep relationship with (literally, “knew”; NRSV footnote) you in the wilderness, provided you with instruction, food and drink, in a land which in and of itself could not support people” (13:5; see Jer 2:2-3). None of Canaan’s gods could accomplish such providential actions. How can it be that, given what God has done for you, you can turn your back and walk away? Such an observation might prompt the question, what kind of God must God be if God cannot hold such a relationship together, that Israel can decide to go its own way? God’s words switch from addressing Israel directly (“you”) to reflections that suggest an audience that had been listening to that direct speech (13:6-8). It is as if God is saying to readers, “Let me tell you what happened to my marriage to Israel and what its long-term effects will be. The people were so satisfied with my gifts that they took credit for these blessings themselves and ‘forgot me’” (13:6; so also 2:13). It sounds like a summary of Deuteronomy 8:11-20 (see also Deut 6:10-12; 32:15-18), “when you have eaten your fill and have built fine houses . . . then do not exult yourself, forgetting the LORD your God” (Deut 8:12-14). Because of Israel’s

Hosea

75

ungrateful response to all that God has done for them, God will respond in judgment. The images of divine judgment, drawn from the wild animal world (and ancient Near Eastern curses on those who break treaties), are fierce (13:7-8): God is like a lion, like a leopard, and like a mother bear robbed of her cubs (see Isa 5:29-30; Lam 3:10-11; Jer 5:6; 50:17). Like such animals, God will lie in wait for these people, fall upon them, and rip open their chests to expose their hearts. Like such animals, God will eat their flesh and rip their bodies into pieces (typical behavior for a lion). A more violent image of divine judgment is hard to imagine (perhaps if it were direct address, “you”). It is important to note the repeated “like”; it invites readers to discern where the “yes” and the “no” in the comparisons are to be found. God does not act in ways that are literally like those of such animals. To that end, note the helpful words of Abraham Heschel (The Prophets, 46, emphasis mine): “These words . . . were neither a final judgment nor an actual prediction. Their true intention was to impart the intensity of the divine anger. And yet that anger did not express all that God felt about the people. Intense is his anger, but profound is his compassion. It is as if there were a dramatic tension in God.” God switches back to direct address (“you”) in 13:9-11. God is straightforward and blunt: “I will destroy you, O Israel!” Note the tension with 11:9, where God says that God “will not again destroy.” Who can help you now (for Yahweh as “helper,” see Psalm 121)? Where is your king now? Let him save you! Where are all the rulers of your cities that you wanted—can they come to your aid? I responded positively to your request for a king, though I was angry about it (see 8:4; this judgment may be rooted in the story of Saul’s kingship, 1 Sam 8:4-9, 19-22; 12:19-25). The Hosea text may reflect God’s total rejection of the monarchy. Given the sorry history of Israel during the monarchy, God’s wrath was intensified and their king was taken away. This language may reflect the events in the last years of Hoshea’s rule (1 Kgs 17:1-4). Alternatively, the verbs could be translated as future, with the sense that God will bring the king of Assyria against them (and eventually pass judgment on him). God moves back to third person address in 13:12-13. God’s wrath shall be exercised, for the record of Israel’s sin has been so great (13:12; cf. Isa 8:16; Jer 32:14). Why? Because there is no repentance, God has not forgiven Israel. God will remember their iniquity (8:13; 9:9), which is “kept in store” (recorded on a scroll and tied up) for all to see that God’s action was not capricious. It is as if Israel is pregnant and is experiencing excruciating labor pains. But the birth does not take place (see Isa 37:3; 26:17-18; Mic 4:9-10;

76

Reading Hosea–Micah

contrast Isa 66:7-9). Why? Because Israel is unwise, that is, has not learned from its errors and repented, and so the child does not present itself for birth. This probably means that Israel will not produce descendants but will die out (see Job 10:18-19). Death is Israel’s future; and death continues to be the theme of the following verse. Israel is so bound up in sin and its effects that no future other than death is possible. In a remarkably difficult verse (13:14, quoted in 1 Cor 15:55), God is moved to ask several rhetorical questions at this horrendous moment in the history of Israel. These divine reflections are not unlike 11:8-9. God voices four statements. The first two are probably questions: Shall I (God) redeem them from Death (see 7:13)? Shall I ransom (=deliver) them from the grave, the realm of the dead (=Sheol; see Ps 6:5; 49:14-15; Job 7:7-10; 10:21-22)? Given the emphasis on divine judgment in the surrounding verses (13:12-13, 15-16), the implied answer is “No”! The last line in 13:14, “compassion is hidden from my eyes,” reinforces that perspective: God is compassionate (see 11:8) and deeply desires to redeem them, but, given the sorry history of Israel, the people must experience judgment. Redemption is possible only through (and on the far side of ) a great conflagration. Some translate these words as declarations/promises—God will ransom/redeem Israel (NIV), anticipating Hosea 14—and then understand the next two questions as taunts; death has lost its power. Another possible translation is that God “would” ransom Israel from death, but that future is not possible for Israel until death has been experienced. Two divine questions follow. Addressing Death and Sheol, God asks, where are your plagues, where is your destruction? Scholars differ on what is meant. The answer may be “everywhere”; if so, then judgment is imminent. Alternatively, it may mean that God personifies death and destruction and here urges them to do their devastating deed. In a third option, it could be translated, “I [God] am your death [plagues],” specifying that God brings judgment. The translation of the last line is uncertain, but “compassion” (rather than, say, “revenge”) best follows the questions. The word could also be translated “comfort,” but is it then God who is not comforted, or Israel? Perhaps both? God cannot be consoled in view of what is to happen to Israel, nor can Israel, for judgment must fall. Paul puts this verse to new use in 1 Corinthians 15:54-55 (“Where, O Death, is your victory?”) in light of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, in view of which death has no ultimate victory (Paul is influenced by the LXX, where the initial lines are statements, not questions). Such a perspective can correspond to Hosea’s perspective. For Hosea, death and destruction are

Hosea

77

inevitable experiences for Israel, but they are not God’s last word for them; God will restore them. Yet such a future will only be possible on the far side of a deathly experience. However translated, it is important to sort out this material in terms that make this point: salvation is possible only through judgment. One does not have to make the opening statements positive (cf. NIV) to claim that God’s ultimate purpose is redemptive (now to be stated in 14:4-7) or to link it in helpful ways to 1 Corinthians 15:55. The last verses (13:15-16) assume that judgment shall fall upon Israel. While he may have flourished for a time among the brothers (or “rushes,” an image for other peoples with which Israel has been consorting), the east wind, a blast from the Lord from off the desert, is surely on the way (the sirocco, an image for Assyria; see 8:7; 12:1). All of Israel’s water supplies (that is, its health and well-being, indeed its very future life) will dry up and, returning to what Assyria will literally do, all of its accumulated wealth will be stripped away (13:15). This devastation will occur, readers are reminded, because Israel (Samaria is its capital city) has rebelled against its God and the relationship has been ruptured. Then, returning once again to violent themes (see 13:7-8), the text announces that people shall be put to the sword, children shall be dashed in pieces, and pregnant women shall be ripped open (13:16; see 10:14; Isa 13:16; Nah 3:10; Amos 1:13; 2 Kgs 8:12). The use of such language is likely due to a common understanding of what happens in battle (and possibly an account written after the fall of the North; this is what actually happened). Hope and Promise (Hos 14:1-9) Hosea concludes by declaring words of hope and promise. Many themes from the previous chapters are gathered, either as reversals of previous judgments or reiterations of previous promises. At what stage in Israel’s life this promise occurs is not known, but prior to the fall of Samaria seems likely (see 13:16). The chapter opens with the prophetic word to the people (14:1-3) and continues with strong words of promise in God’s own voice (14:4-8). The book closes with a postscript, commending the words of the book and the ways of the Lord to the reader (14:9). Key themes in Hosea are brought together and strongly emphasized in a positive way: God’s love, 14:4 (3:1; 9:15; 11:1, 4); God’s healing, 14:4 (6:1; 7:1; 11:3); God’s mercy/pity, 14:4 (1:6-7; 2:4, 19, 23); God’s anger, 14:4 (5:10; 8:5; 11:9; 13:11); seeking/returning to the Lord, 14:1-2 (3:5; 5:4, 6, 15; 6:1; 7:10; 10:12; 11:5; 12:6); iniquity/guilt, 14:1-2 (4:8; 5:5; 7:1; 8:13;

78

Reading Hosea–Micah

9:7, 9; 12:9; 13:12); stumbling, 14:1, 9 (4:5; 5:5); Assyria, 14:3 (5:13; 7:11; 8:9; 9:3, 6; 10:6; 11:5, 11; 12:1). The prophet begins by calling for Israel’s repentance, for they have sinned against the Lord (14:1, repeated in 14:2a). Indeed, the prophet specifically teaches them what to say, perhaps under the assumption that, given recent history, they need help in such formulations. Readers will recognize that the prophet is not simply telling Israel to return to the Lord; the prophet is doing so on behalf of Israel. The prophet gives Israel the words to use by which it can return to the Lord (see 5:6, 15; 6:1-3; 10:12; 12:6); given the depths of its sinfulness, some texts have stated that Israel is unable or unwilling to return (5:4; 7:10; 11:5) or will not succeed in doing so (5:6). Notably, Yahweh is referred to as “your God,” thus assuming a relationship of consequence. They are to repent in language provided for them by the prophet: “Take away our sin and guilt, receive us graciously [NIV; cf. 6:6; Mic 6:8], and we will offer a grateful response with our lips rather than with bulls” (14:2; see Ps 13:6; 51:15-17). The issue of forgiveness was raised at the beginning of the book (1:6), with God unwilling to declare forgiveness. The assumption: only Yahweh can respond to such a prayer; only God can forgive sins and enable restoration with God. Further, God will do so because of God’s love for Israel (3:1; 11:1, 4; 14:4). Israel is given words to admit its wrongdoing—both its idolatry/adultery and its treasonous behaviors (14:2-3). In so doing, they are to acknowledge that neither Assyria nor their own horses (see Isa 31:1-3; cf. Deut 17:16) will save them, thereby admitting their treason in turning to other nations for help rather than to God. Moreover, they are no longer to call their handmade idols “Our God,” thereby admitting their infidelity to Yahweh. In so doing, Israel’s voiced repentance is not to be generic, but specific to its situation. They are to name their most heinous sins before God and not leave things at the level of generalization. In stressing the inadequacy of “the work of our hands,” they are to recognize that they cannot bring health to themselves or salvation to their community; such a work must come from God’s hands, not their own. They are to conclude that God is clearly a merciful God, in whom the orphans (by metonymy, any needy person who must rely on others for life and well-being) can confidently place their hope (in Lam 5:3—all exiles are orphans; see Hos 2:19, 23 for the theme of mercy; 11:1-4 for God’s actions with respect to Israel as a child who was loved). The text does not inform readers whether the people actually follow through on this invitation to return or use these words. Yet they could certainly be confident that God would follow through on these new dimensions for their lives. God’s promissory announcement, entirely

Hosea

79

unconditional, is immediately stated (14:4-8). It is important that these personal divine words (note the shift to “I” in much of vv. 4-8) are not a response to Israel’s words. God says nothing of Israel’s repentance but refers to its “disloyalty” and backsliding (from the same root as “return”). God seems to pronounce the word of healing not because they have returned but in the face of their having not returned! How can they be healed? God “will love them freely.” God does the “turning,” not Israel, as God’s anger is “turned” away—unconditional love, unconstrained, unrestrained. This word of promise is the basis for the call to return in 14:1; without God’s will and purpose for salvation, the call to return would be futile (and a discerning prophet would never have made the call). Repentance is certainly a key theme in Hosea, right up to this point in the text (14:1). Now, God’s healing is stated unconditionally, and in the first person, without any reference to repentance on their part! There is no word that says, once you have repented, this is what I will do. It is possible that 14:8 constitutes Israel’s response; several translators (cf. JPS) read, “Ephraim [shall say], ‘What more have I to do with idols?’” If so, the divine response of 14:4-7 is a preview of what God will say if they repent. But this interpretation seems strained. Indeed, although the translation of v. 8 is uncertain, it can be read with NRSV, including “Your faithfulness comes from me.” God is the source of their response of faith, not some internal mental or verbal exercise. The promise is, ironically, filled with natural imagery (14:5-8; cf. Ps 85:10-13; 126:4-6), perhaps in response to the natural images of judgment (see 13:3, 7-8). Many of these images appear in love poetry (see Song of Songs). In addition, historical recollection and traditional confessions regarding God are missing altogether. That these images from the world of nature should so predominantly fill this vision of the future links Hosea closely to the use of natural imagery in Canaanite religion. Such a linkage demonstrates that there were significant continuities between that religion and Israel’s most basic confession of faith (it may explain why Israel often combined elements of both in its syncretistic religious practice). Perhaps the use of that language at this point was to lay a claim for Yahweh regarding the natural world. Though the language of nature is used to speak of people, not the land, the assumption is that the land will thrive as people thrive, so that the images remain appropriate for the people. God’s future for creation is not just a future populated by human beings; God’s salvation catches up all creatures, including healing for the natural order and harmonious relationships among all. Salvation is herein viewed as affecting all spheres of life, from internal

80

Reading Hosea–Micah

healing to external environment. These are images of the salvation of all, not generalized blessings. God’s words in vv. 4-8 are straightforward words of comfort, though they are not said to be personally addressed to the people. Prophetic announcements of salvation can occur in both second and third person—cf. Isa 43:1-7 (“you”) with 42:14-17 (“they”). “My anger” is no longer directed at Israel (14:4). I will heal their infidelity (see 6:1), which is treated as if it were a sickness, deeply and adversely affecting the entire human being (see Isa 53:4-5; Jer 3:22-23). I will freely love them (generously and without conditions; that love was to be withdrawn in 9:15). Then the natural images for God tumble out, especially the comforting images of God as dew and cypress tree, accompanied by flourishing images of the people of Israel (14:5-7). God will be like dew to Israel—not like the dew that goes away early (see 6:4; 13:3; Isa 26:19), but the dew that remains a constant energy for life and enables crops to thrive (see Gen 27:28). In response to this divine watering, Israel will blossom like the lily (known for beauty and fragrance), and its roots will be like those of (the forests of ) Lebanon—deep and strong (14:5; contrast 9:16; see Ps 104:13-16). The branches/shoots of its tree will spread out (a reference to children, Ps 80:11, to counter the word of 9:11-16; 13:13), and evident to all will be its beauty (like “a green olive tree, fair with goodly fruit,” Jer 11:16) and fragrance (see Cant 4:10-11). Some of this imagery is typical of Assyrian images of a sacred tree. In the immense shadow of this tree of returned exiles, Israel shall once again live (Ps 80:10; one emendation of 14:7 refers to God’s shadow, so NRSV). They will flourish like the grain (or a garden; cf. 2:11, 21-22; 8:7), blossom like the vine (cf. 10:1), and its delicious, sweet wine smells and flavors will be Lebanon-like (14:7; see Cant 4:11; 7:9). While God’s action is clearly decisive in bringing this future into being, Israel’s agency will be genuine in the flourishing of this new reality. The final elements in God’s speech to Israel (14:8) completely dissociate the divine self from the world of idols. The translation might rather be, “As for Ephraim, what more has he to do with idols” (cf. NEB; NRSV footnote), stressing the positive effect of God’s promises in 14:4-7. A still different, if strained translation suggests a dialogue between Ephraim and God, with Ephraim speaking the first and third lines (and so Israel likens itself to a tree; see JPS) and God speaking the second and fourth lines. In any case, God (not the idols) is the one who responds to their calls (see 2:21-22) and cares for their daily needs.

Hosea

81

God is to Israel like an evergreen cypress (or juniper), whose branches bend low and are accessible to Israel, whose life and vigor spans the seasons. Israel will draw its “fruit,” or blessings, especially its strength and fidelity, from that tree; in their living in this garden, they will come to discover that they do not generate their own faithful walk; rather, they draw on God, this evergreen tree, for their ongoing faithfulness (literally, fruit; see 11:8). Israel’s (“your,” the only direct address in this segment) faithfulness is a gift from God. This is the only time in the Bible that God is pictured as a tree, but Hosea does use other unique images for God (see 5:12). Besides, such an image for God fits beautifully within this natural context. The book of Hosea closes (11:9; see Qoh 12:13-14) with a word to the ever-contemporary reader; the book that has just been read continues to have importance to the one who reads. The concern of the verse is not fundamentally historical or literary but pertains to the basic character of the religious life: instruction for a life lived in relationship to God. Nevertheless, the issue is not narrowly focused on divine commands but on the ways of the Lord more generally. Its links to wisdom literature are often noted, but its point has links to earlier passages in Hosea (4:5, 15; 5:5; 13:13; 14:1). The verse makes distinctions within the community of the people of God. Those readers who are wise and discerning will have no difficulty understanding these things; indeed they will have deeply appropriated them. The ways of the Lord are right (straight; good); that is, they commend themselves not simply because they are of God but because they are in the reader’s best interests. Those who are faithful will walk in these ways, but the unrighteous will stumble along and fall (see 14:1; cf. Ps 1). The “ways” of God are not commandments, but what might be called the walk of life. Those who are righteous will find the way “smooth sailing,” while transgressors will trip themselves up. This book has implications for readers; they can walk in these words or stumble on them (see 14:1). Thus, the outcome of the reading of the book will vary depending on the reader.

Joel

INTRODUCTION TO JOEL Joel is the second book of the twelve Minor Prophets (for Joel’s place among the Twelve, see especially Nogalski 2011a). This place in the collection of prophets may reflect an ancient understanding that Joel is to be dated in the eighth century (perhaps based on the reference to King Jehoshaphat, 3:2, 12) at the time of Hosea and Amos (in the Septuagint, the order is Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah). But today most scholars date Joel much later, perhaps as late as 400–350 BCE. (Note: Joel has four chapters in the Hebrew version; 2:28-32 is chapter 3; English chapter 3 is Hebrew chapter 4.) Such a conclusion is drawn from (1) indirect references to earlier literature (e.g., Joel 3:16 with Amos 1:2; 3:18 with Amos 9:13; 2:13 with Exod 34:6; 3:10 with Isa 2:4/Mic 4:3; 1:15 with Isa 13:6; Ezek 30:2-3; and 2:1-2 with Zeph 1:14-15); (2) lack of criticism of religious, social, or political practices; (3) the addressees, Judah and Jerusalem; (4) leadership of priests and elders rather than kings; (5) temple and city walls are standing; (6) absence of allusion to prominent pre-exilic societies such as Assyria and Babylonia (see Crenshaw 1995, 27–28). Joel is sometimes called a “cultic prophet” with close links to the worship traditions and practices of his time, which he always portrays in positive terms. Whether Joel had a formal connection to the temple and its life of worship is uncertain. The book gives an especially strong role to lament (e.g., 1:15-20; 2:1-11, 17). Indeed, the life of worship is understood to have the potential of affecting the shape of the future positively (2:12-14) or negatively by the absence of offerings (see, e.g., 1:13-14). Joel is directed to the people of God in Judah and Jerusalem during an environmental crisis. The crisis takes the form of a locust plague and its ill effects on the land and people (see below). Also in view is a major drought,

84

Reading Hosea–Micah

spawned by the summer wind blowing off the desert. A kind of environmental double whammy has hit the community. Structure of Joel The literary movement of the book may be outlined as follows. 1. A national response to a plague of locusts (and drought), moving from a description of the plague (1:2-4) to a call for lament (1:5-14) and then to the voicing of the lament (1:15-20). 2. The call to sound an alarm, moving from a description of an armylike locust plague—a sign of the Day of the Lord (2:1-11)—to a call for communal lament (2:12-17). 3. God’s response to Israel’s lament (2:18–3:21), moving from an announcement of Israel’s salvation from the plague (2:18-27), to the gift of the spirit and signs in nature (2:28-32), to God’s call to the nations to assemble for judgment (3:1-17), and then to a concluding summary that announces prosperity for Jerusalem and destruction of their enemies (3:18-21). The midpoint of the book occurs either between 2:27 and 2:28 (with a move toward more eschatological themes) or, I think, between 2:17 and 2:18 (with its shift to God’s response to the natural disaster with salvation for Israel and judgment on its enemies). This move from lament in 2:17 to deliverance in 2:18 is often considered the center of the book. One prominent issue facing readers of Joel involves the nature of the relationship between these two parts of the book. Is the book a unified composition? Most scholars understand that the recurring themes—events in the natural order (especially the locust plague), the Day of the Lord (1:15; 2:1-2, 10-11, 30-31; 3:14-15, 18), liturgical practices (1:13-14; 2:1, 12-17), and the knowledge of God (1:3; 2:27; 3:17)—are a basic sign of its unity. Some scholars think that additions have been made along the way (most commonly, 3:4-8). Joel uses many imperatives (28 of them!), addressing the community, the natural world, and even God with a sense of urgency again and again. Joel, finally, constitutes a word of hope sounded in a time of deep uncertainty regarding the future of Israel. The Locust Plague Locust plagues were common in Joel’s world, and that natural reality offers a key to the interpretation of this text. The first half of the book focuses on the natural disaster experienced by Judah and Jerusalem; the text presents the

Joel

85

issue of the plague in stages or from different angles of vision (1:2-20; 2:1-17). The experience of disaster on the part of non-Israelites is not reported in this segment except indirectly in terms of a coming “Day of the LORD,” of which the locust plague serves as a sign (1:15; 2:1-2, 11; see 3:14-15). In the last half of the book, however, this threat disappears for Judah (except for those who do not call on the name of the Lord, 2:32) and nonIsraelites come directly into the picture. God’s judgment is visited upon Israel’s enemies in the form of a full experience of such a disaster (3:14-16)— the darkening of the sun, moon, and stars and the trembling of the heavens and the earth—as Judah had experienced (see the almost identical language in 2:10). Edom and Egypt will especially undergo such effects, becoming a desert (3:19) as Israel had (1:10-12, 17-20; 2:3). The end of the book (3:18-21) sets up a contrast: in Judah everything in nature shall thrive, while Judah’s enemies will experience natural disaster and its effects. A locust plague is most fully described elsewhere in Exodus 10:1-20 (see also Deut 28:38-42; 1 Kgs 8:37-40; Amos 4:9; 7:1-3; Nah 3:14-17). The east wind brings dense swarms of locusts (10:13), and they cover the land so that it cannot be seen. They devour whatever the hail has left. Every tree is destroyed. Every plant is eaten. The land is black, as nothing green remains. The locusts fill houses in an unparalleled way (10:6, 14). Interestingly, the Old Testament does not always consider locusts in negative terms. They are a clean insect (Lev 11:20-23) and contribute to the diet of many communities, then and now (see Mark 1:6). It is doubtful that Joel considers the locust plague to be a divine act of judgment (see below). Metaphors abound in Joel’s telling the story of the locust plague and its ruinous effects. The close interconnectedness of animals, land, and people is acutely evident throughout. Fire is an image used for both locust plague and drought, stripping the land of everything green. The crackling sounds made by locust swarms resemble the sound of a raging fire or the rattling of hail on tin roofs. The blowing dust and sand darken the skies and redden the moon. In flight the locusts swarm and constitute a cloud over the land and the darkening of the sun, moon, and stars (see Simkins, 101–20, on the life cycle of locusts). Food has become scarce; offerings to the temple can no longer be given. Joel compares the locusts to lions, whose teeth chew up the victims. All are in anguish “before them” (2:3, 6, 10), and “after them” tragedy reigns supreme. Joy and gladness have turned to mourning. The ground, too, mourns its inability to provide sustenance for the people, and the animals cry to God (2:18-20). All creatures are in anguish and mourn together. Death overtakes life. Some of this language may be drawn from earlier depictions of

86

Reading Hosea–Micah

God’s appearances (theophany), but the locust plague experience itself is the primary source of the imagery used. Joel also uses military images to describe the locusts and their effects (2:4-9). The locusts are “like” a powerful army, war-horses, and warriors (2:2, 4-5, 7). The text does not speak of military forces that are like locusts. Walls and buildings might hold back a human army, at least for a time, but locusts are not so limited. They charge without restraint. Gaining entry through windows also suggests nonhuman intruders, for soldiers would mostly barge through doors. Both people and animals are highly vulnerable; there is nothing they can do to stave off the attack. To use the language about locusts in Revelation 9:9, “they had scales like iron breastplates, and the noise of their wings was like the noise of many chariots with horses rushing into battle.” The enemy is irresistible. Helplessness reigns. Locust plagues continue into our world, and stories about their impact can be helpful in imagining the disaster in the text. According to the National Geographic website, a desert locust swarm can be 460 square miles in size and pack between 40 and 80 million locusts into less than half a square mile. Each locust can eat its weight in plants each day, so a swarm of such size would eat 423 million pounds of plants every day. Like the individual insects within them, locust swarms are typically in motion and can cover vast distances. In 1954, a swarm flew from northwest Africa to Great Britain; in 1988, they flew from West Africa to the Caribbean. Such a story of swarming locusts is well described in Ole Rolvaag’s Giants in the Earth (341–52), set in late nineteenth-century South Dakota. The range of metaphors is similar to usage in the biblical texts. From out of the west layers of clouds came rolling—thin layers that rose and sank on the breeze . . . they came in waves, like the surges of the sea, and cast a glittering sheen before them as they came; they seemed to be made of some solid murky substance that threw out small sparks along its face. . . . The ominous waves of cloud seemed to advance with terrific speed, breaking now and then like a huge surf, and with the deep, dull roaring sound as of a heavy undertow rolling into caverns in a mountain side. . . . But they were neither breakers nor foam, these waves. . . . It seemed more as if the unseen hand of a giant were shaking an immense tablecloth of iridescent colors! . . . And now from out of the sky gushed down with cruel force a living, pulsating stream, striking the backs of the helpless folk like pebbles thrown by an unseen hand . . . this substance had no sooner fallen than it popped up again, crackling and snapping . . . it flared and flittered around them like light gone mad; it chirped and buzzed through the air; it snapped and hopped along the ground; the whole place

Joel

87

was a weltering turmoil of raging little demons; if one looked for a moment into the wind, one saw nothing but glittering, lightning-like flashes—flashes that came and went, in the heart of a cloud made up of innumerable dark-brown clicking bodies! All the while the roaring sound continued. . . . They whizzed by in the air; they literally covered the ground; they lit on the heads of grain, on the stubble, on everything in sight—popping and glittering, millions on millions of them. . . . The people watched it, stricken with fear and awe. Here was Another One speaking! . . . the brown bodies whizzed by on every hand, alighting wherever they pleased, chirping wherever they went; . . . the hurricane of flying bodies . . . the malign beings that still snapped and flared through the air . . . the fiendish shapes flickered and danced in the dying glow of the day. . . . Who would dare affirm that this plague was not of supernatural origin? . . . Now pity the fields that the hand of man had planted with so much care! . . . they would swoop down, dashing and spreading out like an angry flood, slicing and shearing, cutting with greedy teeth, laying waste every foot of the field they lighted in.

Readers cannot help wondering whether Rolvaag drew many of the images used from the book of Joel. Comparable to Rolvaag, Joel addresses an agrarian society struggling with such an experience of natural disaster and its ill effects, wondering what could be done and pleading to God for help. At the same time, the book as a whole is predominantly concerned with bringing a word of comfort to a community that has been ravaged by such a disaster. The Locust Plague and Joel’s Understanding of God What role does God play in this natural disaster? Has God sent the disaster into this specific time and place? Is it a punishment for the sins of the people? Or is it reflective of a natural order that God created good but not perfect? I suggest some factors to consider. Certain phrases in Joel suggest that God sent the disaster: the locusts “obey his command” (2:11; see 2:15) and they are “my great army, which I sent against you” (2:25). At the same time, the locusts themselves are the subject of strong verbs; indeed, they are likened to a “powerful army”: charging, rumbling, leaping, devouring, scaling walls, on track, bursting through, running up walls, climbing into houses, and entering windows like a thief (see 2:4-9). God is not the only subject involved in this plague; the locusts are genuine agents. How are these two subjects to be related to each other?

88

Reading Hosea–Micah

1. Some commentators think of God as a manager of locusts, making sure that they function under the divine control and do exactly what God wants them to do. So, for example, according to J. Crenshaw (1995, 42–43): “Everything is subject to God’s will”; God has “Total control over nature’s forces and human beings.” God is “in control” of every creature, from insects to weather to the movement of foreign armies. Therefore, God caused the problem of the locusts in the first place, kept them on track, and possessed the will and power to remove them whenever God chose to do so. But, while not denying God’s involvement, such an image of God “in control” is difficult to sustain on the basis of these texts. 2. Some commentators think of God as a judge, using the locusts to exact punishment for sins that the people have committed (cf. Amos 7:1-3). But, if punishment is the issue, why is the sin of the people not specified? The text makes no claim that the people must have done something to deserve this catastrophe. If the author thought that human sin led to this disaster, it is likely that the topic would have been mentioned, indeed prominently so. This remarkable silence has led many scholars to speculate regarding the identification of the sin (see the list of sins in Crenshaw 1995, 40). In fact, Joel’s understanding may be more like the viewpoint of the book of Job, where the friends of Job are mistaken in thinking that the destructive effects of nature on Job himself are due to Job’s sin (see my study of Job in Fretheim 2010). Some commentators have suggested that the language of “return” to God (2:12) implies that human sin is a factor in the interpretation of the disaster. But the call to “return” does not necessarily mean repentance of sin (though it can, e.g., Jer 3:10-14; Amos 4:6-12), nor does the call to rend hearts not garments. Joel names no sin of which the people should repent. Moreover, in 2:13b, the prophet takes up the call to “return” that God had begun in 2:12 and cites Exodus 34:6-7a. Notably, the prophet omits the reference to “forgiveness” from the citation of Exodus 34:7, thereby highlighting God’s mercy, graciousness, and steadfast love apart from forgiveness. The call to “return” likely refers to rituals prescribed for communal laments at times of threat to the community (2 Sam 3:31; Ezra 8:21; see Isa 44:22; Crenshaw 1995, 41). The assumption of the book of Joel and its strong use of lament is that prayer was an important practice in the life of faith and that, at difficult times for the community, prayer was integral to a life of faithfulness. Thus prayer is offered in hopes that the divine heart might be moved to act on behalf of the community. This plea is a call for the people to focus on God with all their hearts and souls and to plead with God to act on their behalf (note that God’s anger is not cited). Prayers are to be

Joel

89

accompanied by an inner movement toward God, not just external signs of mourning, such as torn clothes, fasting, and weeping (though these are not unimportant, and so the community engages in every conceivable sign of lament). The language in Joel is more like laments of the innocent sufferer (e.g., Pss 17; 44) than a penitential lament (e.g., Ps 51). These psalms of lament move from description of the suffering situation to promise of salvation to praise for deliverance. Such psalms resemble Joel in that they express the hope that God will take the situation into account and act on behalf of the concern expressed. Even the animals know to whom to address their lament (1:20)! The language of John Barton is helpful (77): “What is being spoken of here is not necessarily national lamentation for any sins supposed to have caused God’s dramatic intervention but simply a ‘turn’ to God in supplication” to save them from the destructive effects of the plague and to restore the situation to normal (so also Simkins, 190). While one might question Barton’s language concerning “God’s dramatic intervention” (see below), the point about sin is in order. 3. I suggest that the focus of Joel is on God as a creator, bringing the locusts into being and enabling them to be what they were created to be. The nature of the creation (that needs to be “subdued”; Gen 1:28) is likely a key factor. That is to say, God created the world in a way that such disasters will occur, and God mediates those ongoing realities without management of their emergence or ongoing life. Such natural disasters and other “behaviors” of the natural order are understood to be a part of God’s good but not perfect creation. The locusts are portrayed as God’s army, under the divine command, but that metaphor contains both a “yes” and a “no.” The locusts are not literally an army under the command of a divine general; they are “like” an army. The image does not mean that God is specifically sending the locusts against the community (for their sins or for any other reason). Rather, locusts are an integral part of God’s good creation, doing what they were created to do. God is responsible for a world in which such natural events occur, but this does not mean that God “controls” their movements. Again, the plague exists not because of the community’s sin but because such natural events are a part of the way in which the world works, and God as creator enables such creatures to continue to be who they are in God’s creation. It might be noted that the Day of the Lord that is “near” is a day of “destruction from the Almighty (Shaddai)” (1:15). Such language could suggest that what happens will be a specific action of God in response to what the people have done. But not necessarily! Such imaging could be

90

Reading Hosea–Micah

understood in other terms: such disasters are an integral element of the created order. God has created such a world, a world in which destructive natural events can occur. It could be that certain human activities will make such natural moments more intense and destructive—witness some types of environmental events in our own time. But the text does not cite such human activities (nor were they environmentally likely in that time and place). Such a creational approach suggests that the language of John Barton, while helpful, goes too far in its claims. He says (64) that “the will of God lies behind natural disaster and that God is free to inflict it or reverse it.” Such an approach suggests that the will of God is being specifically exercised in each case of natural disaster. It seems more appropriate to say that God’s will is evident in having created a natural order where such events occur, but not that each and every such event in the world of nature is an act of God specifically aimed at a given time and place (in view of human sin or not). Indeed, God warns of the attack! The Day of the LORD The Day of the LORD is a prominent theme in Joel and the prophets (see Isa 13:6, 9; Ezek 13:5; Amos 5:8; Obad 15; Zeph 1:4, 14; Mal 3:23; cf. Isa 2:12; Ezek 30:3; Zech 14:1). Its origins are unknown (perhaps a feast day or a military victory celebration). The phrase refers not to a single day but to several different days (past, imminent, or future) on which God is active in a decisive way for or against Israel and/or foreign nations. More abstractly, the Day of the LORD is a “turning point” in the history of a people, enabled by God’s action (not a divine “intervention,” as if God had been absent). Depending on the context, the Day can have positive or negative dimensions (or both). While Israel may have first interpreted this “Day of the LORD” language in positive terms (see the popular interpretation in Amos 5:18-20), the phrase comes to be understood especially as a reference to God’s activity in judgment (e.g., Zeph 1:14-18). Indeed, that “Day” is realized in the Babylonian destruction of city and temple in 587 (so Lam 1:12; 2:1, 21, “the day of his anger”; see Everson). What sense does the “Day” have in Joel? The natural disaster theme— either as a sign of the “Day” or its resolution—is associated with every reference to “Day” in all three chapters of Joel (1:15; 2:1-2, 10-11, 31; 3:14-15, 18). In speaking of a natural disaster, Joel sometimes uses military images (2:4-9). The Day of the LORD may have reference to an actual military day in some contexts, but that is a secondary usage (see 3:9-10 below).

Joel

91

It is evident that the “Day” is not to be equated with the locust plague itself. The locust plague is already in process when the book of Joel begins, and, as such, the plague is understood to be a sign or portent that the Day of the LORD is “near” or imminent (1:15; 2:1; 3:14; see Exod 7:3; 8:23, where the plagues are signs of an even more catastrophic event to come, yet still centered in the world of nature and history). The promise of God in 2:18-20 that God will end the onslaught makes the best sense if the plague is understood to be in process. The repeated formulation of imminence in Joel suggests that the actual arrival of the Day itself would entail unparalleled “destruction” and salvation (1:15; 3:18-21). Events in the world of nature would be central to what happens (1:15; 2:2; see 3:14-16, 18). With such a future in the offing, Israel calls on God to do something so that the effects of the plague can be arrested and such destruction prevented (2:12-17). How the people respond to the “sign” will make a difference with respect to the shape of their future. Those individuals who “call on the name of the LORD shall be saved” from the coming destruction (2:32). What is the understanding of the “Day” of the LORD in the last half of Joel (2:30-31; 3:14-15, 18)? It has been suggested that the “Day” in the last half of the book has a different sense from the “Day” in the first half. That is, the book moves from a historical event orientation to an eschatological event, a large-scale transformation of creation (either in an “end of the world” sense or, less radically, in world-changing events). An editor may have taken up the earlier theme in Joel and added material so that the “Day” becomes such an eschatological or apocalyptic time (see Everson; Barton, 61). I believe, however, that the understanding of “Day” is much the same in both halves of the book. The images of the locust plague and its effects do not disappear in 2:28–3:21. Even the call for God to “bring down your warriors” (3:11) likely refers to catastrophic natural events, not unlike the military imagery for locusts in 2:4-9. At the same time, those images seem to be joined by human warrior activity, however minimal (3:9-10), not unlike the combination of human and natural agents at the Red Sea (see Exod 14). A closer look at the natural imagery in both halves of the book lends support to such a claim. The “portents” in 2:30-31 seem to be the same as the effects of the locusts that serve as signs in the first half of the book (“blood” refers to color). Notably, the portents in 2:30-31 are also described in 3:15, and these natural effects are virtually identical to the effects of the locust plague specified in 2:10, “the sun and the moon are darkened and stars withdraw their shining” (see also the quaking of the heavens and earth in both 2:10 and 3:16). All of this natural imagery can be interpreted as a

92

Reading Hosea–Micah

development of the figurative description of the effects of the locust plagues, perhaps more sharply stated as the Day draws nearer. That understanding of “Day” continues in 3:14-18 as a day of decision for “multitudes”—salvation for Judah/Jerusalem and judgment for their enemies. The Day of the Lord in 1:15; 2:1; and 2:11 then anticipates this “Day” of reckoning: judgment on Israel’s enemies and salvation for Israel. Consequently, I suggest that the salvation of Israel, the renewal of nature, and the destruction of the nations described in 3:18-21 are the climactic event (“that day,” 3:18) of which the locust plague is the sign. This Day of the LORD is declared to be “near” throughout Joel, even toward the end of the book (1:15; 2:1; 3:14). Events in the world of nature and history—both positive and negative—remain at the center of the description of that “Day.” The natural order is renewed (3:18), those nations that mistreated Israel through the years come in for special judgment (3:19, 21), and God’s people shall thrive in God’s presence (3:20-21). Israel is called to live in the present, with all of the life-threatening events, but to look forward to a time when God will act to make all things right. These images in Joel are similar to those that accompany some theophanies, appearances of God, often in judgment (see Ps 97:1-5; Deut 4:11-12; 5:22-26; Exod 19:16-18; Ps 50:3; see Zeph 1:14-18; Amos 5:18-20). Perhaps this tradition has shaped the descriptions in Joel. At the same time, because the theophanic images often literally describe the effects of a locust plague, it may be that the theophanic imagery has also been drawn from such natural occurrences.

COMMENTARY Response to the Locust Plague (Joel 1:1-14) Superscription (Joel 1:1)

Joel begins with a brief note regarding the prophet. Neither Joel nor his father Pethuel is mentioned elsewhere. No historical context is given (see “Introduction to Joel”). That the word of the Lord “came” is common in the prophets (see Hos 1:1); readers are not told the means that God uses. As is typical in the prophets, the words of God are intermingled with the prophet’s own words. God may be speaking through 1:12 (see “my” in 1:6-7), with the prophet speaking in 1:13-20 (see “my God” in 1:13).

Joel

93

Introduction (Joel 1:2-4)

God introduces the problem (“such a thing”). God asks the community, especially those with the longest memory (“elders”), to ponder whether this is not an event without precedent (see the unprecedented locust plague in Exod 10:6, 14). Readers are in turn charged to pass the word to their children so that the memory of the plague lives on through the generations (see Exod 12:26-27). This is an event not to be forgotten. Only at 1:4 does God describe the natural disaster (see also 1:5-7; 2:2-11). God heaps up various words for locusts to emphasize not a distinction among types of locusts but the relentlessness of the event as they come in waves over time (see “years” in 2:25). The plague was a crisis for the entire community, both human beings and animals (see 1:18; 2:21-22), with crops lost, food resources languishing, and the basic rhythms of life severely disrupted. The locusts are indeed a natural disaster, not a symbol for an invading army (some texts do use that image, Judg 6:5; 7:12; Jer 51:14; Nah 3:15-17). As far as we know, an actual army did not threaten Israel in the post-exilic period. At the same time, the locusts have an effect comparable to the devastation wrought by such an army (often with significant environmental damage). Hence the repeated use of comparison language in 2:4-9. The locusts are “like” an army; the army is not “like” locusts. Also, God’s act of restoration is described in 2:18-27 in terms that are dominantly related to the natural order. The “northern army” in 2:20 is simply “northerner” in Hebrew, and it could be another image for the locusts, continuing the train of thought from the “like” in 2:4-9 (see “Introduction to Joel”). The plague is in process, at least far enough along to be evaluated as unprecedented (1:2; 2:2) and for God’s promises of restoration in response to the cries of the people to make sense (2:18-26). The plague is also a sign of a coming Day of the Lord (2:1, 11). A Call to Lament (Joel 1:5-14)

A string of imperatives address several groups in the community most affected by the plague. They are called to lament the disastrous situation. These groups include the following. 1:5-7. The drinkers of wine (NRSV, “drunkards,” is too negative) are to wake up, weep, and wail over what is happening. The locusts have destroyed the vines, a basic source of food and drink. The locusts are pictured both in terms of a powerful nation of invaders (as in 2:4-9; see Prov 30:27) and as a sharp-toothed lion/lioness (see Rev 9:8). They have destroyed vines and fig trees (often paired, see Mic 4:4), with bark stripped off (common in a locust

94

Reading Hosea–Micah

attack) and branches withering. See the description of the eighth plague in Exodus 10:4-6, 10-15. The pronoun “my” linked to land, vines, and fig trees could refer to the prophet or to God (or both). Alternatively, vv. 6-7 could be the words of a lament that the ones addressed in v. 5 are to utter. If the “my” refers to God, then it is striking that God is so closely associated with the natural order and its devastation; God’s own vines and fig trees have been destroyed, and the divine response is lament. 1:8-10. The community as a whole, imaged as a betrothed virgin dressed in sackcloth, is to mourn the loss of a husband (a man betrothed was considered a husband). Yet the Hebrew word commonly translated “virgin” could simply be rendered “young woman” (and married). In either case, the situation faced by the community is as severe as a death in the family. The text moves quickly to the priests. The disaster would affect the priests both as worship leaders and as family providers (having no land of their own). Grain and drink offerings would no longer be brought to the temple to provide food for their households. The reason for the lament is provided in 1:10: everything associated with agriculture and food supplies has been devastated. That the ground itself engages in lament (parallel to the mourning of the priests in 1:9) is also a note struck in Jeremiah 12:10-11. This image could be a reference to drought (as in 1:12, 20), which intensifies the effects of the plague. 1:11-12. The farmers and vintners, whose crops have been devastated (see Exod 10:13-15), are called to lament. As in 1:10, 20, both a locust plague and a drought may be in view. That the “joy” of the people suffers in ways similar to the produce of the soil is striking (see the rejoicing of the soil at 2:21). They wither and die together. 1:13-14. The religious leaders are called to put on sackcloth as a sign of mourning. They are to pass the night in the temple in prayer and fasting (ongoing while the disaster is in progress). The reason: no offerings could be brought (see 1:9). The priests are to call a fast and gather the elders, accompanied by a solemn meeting of the entire community at the temple (see the fasts in Zech 7:5; 8:18-19). Sackcloth is a coarse cloth (like burlap), worn at times of mourning (2 Sam 3:31; 1 Kgs 21:27); this would contrast with the normal dress of priests (fine white linen). Times of fasting were called when the community experienced a threat to its future (see 2 Chr 20). To “sanctify” a fast is to set such a time aside from normal times; normal daily activities are to cease. At the temple, the congregation is to call on their God to relieve them from the plague and its effects.

Joel

95

Lament Regarding the Effects of the Plague (Joel 1:15-20) The lament now follows. These words are not an act of repentance but a solemn prayer to God for deliverance, common in such times of difficulty. No reason is given for the plague; natural disasters are viewed as common human experiences (see “Introduction to Joel”). The language of 1:15 suggests that this disaster could be a major turning point in the history of God’s people, a sign of “the Day of the Lord.” The Day of the Lord is “near” (so also 2:1; 3:14). The plague itself is not identified with the “Day of the Lord” but is a sign (“portent”) that the Day of the Lord is near (see 2:30-31). At the same time, the locust plague is of such a nature that it has significant similarities or continuities with the events of the coming day. The description of the effects of the plague on land and people in 1:15-20 is what the “Day of the Lord” will be like, but even more destructive. The lament is introduced by “alas.” The speaker is the congregation in prayer (see “our” in 1:16) or the prophet on their behalf (see “I” in 1:19). The lament itself contains further comment about the plight of the people (cf. Jer 14:17-22). Everything has happened right “before our eyes.” The lament emphasizes the disastrous effects of the plague, including being “cut off ” from food resources as well as material for temple offerings (which, it would appear, would also affect God, inasmuch as God would “go without” the offerings). The locusts have ravaged the vegetation and fires have spread, not least because of the dry summers (see Amos 7:4-6). Once again, the absence of “joy” is used to describe the ill effects of the disaster on the human community (1:12, 16) and perhaps even on God. The life of worship normally brought such joy and rejoicing. Notably, the people’s lament is parallel to the lament of the nonhuman creatures, also suffering in the wake of the plague (1:17-20): the animals groan, the cattle and sheep wander about looking vainly for pasture, dazed or stunned, and they even cry to God because of the lack of water and food (1:20; see Job 38:41; Ps 104:21). This depiction of the animals is remarkable in its concern for their well-being and the extent to which they are given voice. The storehouses are empty, have even deteriorated from lack of use. The use of the first person singular (1:19, “I cry”) may individualize the lament; this is the cry to God on the part of each and all who are involved (or the prophet could be voicing the lament of the people). It is understood that God may respond and do something to change the situation. The language may have reference to drought, leading to fires and the absence of water in

96

Reading Hosea–Micah

the streams, intensifying the plague. The fire, repeated for emphasis, could accompany the plague, or it could be a metaphor for the devastating effects of the locusts on the land (as in 2:5; see the link between locust plague and fire in Amos 7:1-4). This text is witness to a succession of catastrophes, moving from locusts to drought to fire. This multi-faceted disaster covers the whole of life, deeply affecting both human beings and the animals. The initial chapter in Joel ends on a note of uncertainty. The Day of the LORD Is Near (Joel 2:1-11) God is speaking in most of this segment; the prophet may speak in 2:10-11. The text is centered on the theme of the Day of the LORD, which opens and closes the unit (2:1-2, 10-11). The call to “blow the trumpet” introduces the section (2:1), a call that is repeated in the next section (2:15) How is Joel 2 related to Joel 1? Is it an army invasion, a second locust plague, an eschatological event, or a look at Joel 1 from a different angle of vision? It is likely that Joel 1 and 2 are parallel chapters, referring to the same locust plague. Joel 2 constitutes an advance in how to understand the plague and relate to it, and it may reflect a fuller experience of the plague itself so that the urgency of the call is intensified and an alarm is sounded. Perhaps the repetition in the report of the plague reflects a liturgical context, with different uses of this material to express different reactions on the part of the community. Both chapters use some of the same words, with Joel 2 reflecting a more imminent threat. This segment begins with a call to the community to be on the alert and prepare for the coming Day of the LORD (see Ezek 33:2-7 and the similar language in Ezek 30:2). God is the one who generates the warning call (“my holy mountain”). The one who “sent” the plague (2:25) warns those who would experience its disastrous effects (see “Introduction to Joel”)! Again, the plague is a sign of the Day of the LORD, with 2:1-3 and 2:10-11 and its sign language framing the description in 2:4-9 (see 2:31; Mal 3:2; Jer 10:10). Indeed, the locust plague is referred to as God’s army, God’s host. More specifically, 2:4-9 is a poetic portrayal of the locusts; they are “like” an army but an army is not said to be like locusts. 2:1-3. The sounding of the alarm refers to sentinels on the city walls watching for the approach of the enemy (see Hos 8:1; Isa 62:6); when the enemy has been sighted, they would blow the ram’s horn (shofar) to alert the city. The charge to “blow the trumpet, sound the alarm” indicates that the enemy has been sighted by the sentinels and threatens the very heart of

Joel

97

Israel, the city of Jerusalem. Perhaps the plague that is in process in chapter 1 has reached a new level of threat to Israel’s future. The sounding of the trumpet could at the same time be a call to worship (see Lev 25:9; Ps 81:3). The language that the day “is coming, it is near” suggests that, if the present severity of the plague continues, it will mean catastrophe (= Day of the LORD). The community is faced with “the Day of the LORD” but is not yet fully experiencing it (see Ezek 7:7). The imagery for the enemy is a day of clouds and thick darkness, typically used to describe the day of the LORD’S coming (see Zeph 1:14-18). This image probably refers to the effect of the swarms of locusts that cover the sky in an unparalleled way (see 1:2). The swarms are either accompanied by fire and flame (see 1:19-20) or, better, likened to “the crackling [a sound that locusts make] of a flame of fire devouring the stubble” and the “rumbling of chariots” (2:5). In their wake, the locusts leave the land a wilderness, contrasted with Eden. The scale and density of the plague is likened to a marauding “army” or “people” (2:2; see 2:25). 2:4-9. The army image for the locusts is continued in 2:4-9. The locusts are likened to charging war-horses (see Rev 9:7; a locust’s head was thought to resemble a horse’s head), warriors, rumbling chariots, soldiers scaling city walls, and thieves entering through windows (see Jer 9:21). A whirring sound is made by their wings—millions of wings (see “Introduction to Joel”)! The locusts progress along a straight course as if under the command of a general (see Prov 30:27); even the best of weapons cannot stop them (2:8). Faces grow pale with anguish as the fearful experience intensifies. The people are terror-stricken (2:6). 2:10-11. These verses return to the “Day of the LORD” theme of 2:1-2. The earth and the heavens tremble before this onslaught, and, given the millions of locusts, the sources of light are cut off and darkness covers the earth (as in 3:15-16; see Isa 13:10; Jer 4:23-28; Ezek 32:7-8). Here the army image for the locusts extends to include the image of the “convulsing” of the natural order, indicating how devastating this onslaught is. Images of cosmic tremors and darkness describe what is experienced in the wake of the swarms of locusts. These images do not move into a metahistorical sphere, but portray the idea that “it cannot get any worse than this”! These images do have a literal element and accentuate the terror associated with the coming of the Day of the LORD (see Ps 18:7-15; 77:17-20). In view of the fact that both 2:9 and 2:11 refer to the army image for the locusts, it is likely that 2:10 should be viewed in terms of the intensification of that image to depict the effect of the locusts.

98

Reading Hosea–Micah

The section begins in 2:1 with God’s calling for an alarm to be sounded; it ends with a reference to God at the head of the army. How are these statements to be related? Perhaps God is the one who is responsible for the existence of the natural disaster and, at the same time, warns of its coming and its intensity; this would fit with a creational understanding of things. In more modern terms, God created a world with a potential for natural disasters and, at the same time, warns the community of such a potential. This pattern suggests that the language of sin and judgment is not appropriate. A Call to Repentance? (Joel 2:12-17) This deep lament is not designed to prevent the natural disaster but to rescue the community that is suffering through the disaster “as we speak” (see 2:1). Note again that God is the one who calls for this move on the part of the community (2:12). The text is commonly identified as a call to repentance. But is this correct? The call to “return” to God (see Jer 3:10-14; Amos 4:6-11) probably does not carry the sense of “repent of sin.” When the latter is the point, the explicitness of the sin is common (see Jer 3:10-14; 4:1-2; Hos 14:1; Amos 4:6-11; Jer 24:7; 1 Sam 7:3; 1 Kgs 8:48; 2 Kgs 23:25). Joel names no sin of which the people should repent and does not cite the reference to forgiveness in the quotation from Exodus 34:6-7. Rather, the people are called to focus on God with all their hearts and souls and plead for God to act on their behalf. God is believed to be the only source of aid in such a crisis (typical of laments, see Ps 44). In the words of John Barton (77), “What is being spoken of here is not necessarily national lamentation for any sins supposed to have caused God’s dramatic intervention but simply a ‘turn’ to God in supplication” to save them from the destructive effects of the plague and to restore the situation to normal (so also Simkins, 190). Such a communal act in a time of crisis would traditionally have been accompanied by “fasting, weeping, mourning, rending of hearts” (none of which are necessarily associated with repentance of sin). The tearing of garments is a sign of mourning (2 Sam 3:31). God’s requested work on behalf of Israel is relief from the crisis (note the detail of 2:18-27) not forgiveness of sin. The common use of this text in Christian liturgies at the beginning of the Lenten season does consider these words to be a call to repentance of sin. That sense of the language is a questionable extension of the meaning of the text. This God who invites the people to turn/return is a God of mercy and steadfast love. Appeal is made to God’s character, to the very identity of God,

Joel

99

not, say, to a past divine action or some other motivation. The people are to direct their appeal to a certain kind of God: merciful, gracious, slow to anger, steadfast in love, and ready to relent from doing harm (NRSV, “punish,” is not a helpful translation of the last-noted phrase). This well-known passage, rooted in God’s self-identification to Moses in Exodus 34:6-7a (but not 34:7b), is most fully paralleled in Jonah 4:2, with partial uses elsewhere (Num 14:18; Neh 9:17, 31; Pss 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Nah 1:3). The passage is commonly named a creed or confession of faith. Its use in varying Old Testament contexts witnesses to its ongoing helpfulness for the people of God in various seasons of life. “Who knows” how God will respond to this lament? This language is also used in Jonah 3:9 (see also 2 Sam 12:22; Ps 90:11; Eccl 2:19; 3:21; 8:1; Esth 4:14). Such phraseology functions in a manner similar to “perhaps” in other texts (see Amos 5:15; Jer 26:2-3; Ezek 12:1-3). Not even God’s own prophet is certain of what the future holds! At such times, one is simply called to trust in God. One might think that God would automatically deliver a suffering people, but that is apparently not how God works in the world. God does not micromanage the activities of natural forces and other creatures. The question, “Who knows?” does not “express perplexity, but tentative confidence” (Barton, 81). It “may be” that God will respond. Might this mean that God will respond, but we do not know what form that response will take and do not know the effect that God’s action might have? The nature of God’s response would have to do not only with issues of God’s power (whether God is able to do something in a situation and remain true to who God is) but also with issues of divine will (whether and how God’s purposes can be served). The “Who knows?” of 2:14 is open to each of these possibilities. Again, the plague has occurred because it is a part of the way in which the world works, and God is the one who enables or mediates such an event. The text does not assume that the people must have sinned to deserve this disaster (see the argument against such a view on the part of the friends in the book of Job). The prayer is for God to “leave a blessing behind him,” namely, “a grain offering and a drink offering” (2:14); that is, crops from the fields would once again become available for temple offerings (see 1:13, 16). Inasmuch as the plague is in process, this language would constitute a hope that the plague would cease in time for some crops to be harvested, or hope for next year. Notably, the offerings are for God’s sake. This would be an argument that a reversal of the plague will benefit God!

100

Reading Hosea–Micah

The call of 1:14 is essentially repeated in 2:15-16, only with greater specification of the participants, including aged, children, infants, bride/bridegroom. The inclusivity of the invitation matches the range of concern and the issues at stake. The reference to bridegroom/bride may refer to the termination of sexual activity, but in view of Jeremiah 16:9, it may be an image for the cessation of the voice of mirth and gladness in view of the solemnity of the occasion. The call places emphasis on turning to God and taking specific liturgical actions rather than just lament. Note the concern for detail: the persons to offer the prayer, the place where the prayer is to be offered, the specific behavior of the priests, and the words of the prayer to be spoken. The call for the trumpet to be blown is different from that in 2:1; here it is a call to gather for worship (see, e.g., Ps 81:3; Lev 25:9). The call is to “sanctify” a fast as well as the congregation (see 3:9, “sanctify” war). That is, the people are to solemnly prepare for the occasion by abstaining from eating and work and to humble themselves before God (see 2 Chr 20:3-9; Ezra 8:21-23). Such activity prepares for the occasion by giving God more room in which to work out the divine purposes. Notably, the text does not say whether the people do in fact respond to this invitation. The priests are then called to assemble the community and to lead them in the lament (2:17). The lament that the priests are to speak follows in 2:17b; it is parallel to the longer lament in 1:15-20. The language used is typical of the laments of the innocent sufferer in the Psalter (see, e.g., Ps 79:4-10). The issue specifically voiced is God’s reputation among the nations of the world (see Exod 32:11; Pss 4:13-14; 115:2; Mic 7:10). The concern is that the nations will look at what God’s own people (= “your heritage”; “his” people) are suffering. It will become common among the nations to say (= a byword) that this God does not care for God’s own people, and hence they will be put to shame (see Jer 24:9; Pss 42:10; 79:10; 89:41, 50; 109:25). No God “worth his salt” would allow such a thing to happen to his chosen people, and so the God of Israel would indeed come off badly to outsiders. Indeed, 2:17 gives reasons to God to deliver the people because of what the nations might think of Israel’s God (divine “enlightened self-interest,” so Barton, 78). Interestingly, the nations do not wonder about what sin the people may have committed (as they do in Jer 22:8-9). This statement is a concern about God’s character. What kind of God would let his chosen people endure such a calamity? Moreover, the accusation of the nations is focused not on what God has done but on what God has not done—delivering them from such a natural disaster. God himself has often voiced concern about the divine repu-

Joel

101

tation among the nations (cf. Ezek 36:20-21); God should now act so that such questions are openly considered and God’s name is honored among them. The balance of the book consists of an announcement of salvation from various perspectives. The “Who knows?” of 2:14 is answered. God hears the prayer of the people and responds to it. Notably, God responds to the prayer even though there is no indication that the people have responded to the call of 2:12-14. One might assume that they did, but it could also be suggested, more convincingly, that God acts on behalf of the people without their response to the prayer. God’s Promise of Salvation (Joel 2:18-27) The witness to God’s jealousy in 2:18 is followed by a “response” of promise to land, animals, and people. The translation of 2:18 is uncertain, as can be seen in the varied use of past (NRSV) and future (NIV) translations. If past, as seems likely, the verse speaks to a change in God, which is, in effect, an answer to the questions raised about God in 2:14 (“Who knows?”). This divine change is followed by a series of promises, two segments of which are spoken by God (2:19-20, 25-27); the intervening segment (2:21-24) seems to be spoken by the prophet with words to land, animals, and people regarding the effects God’s promises will have for them. The promises in 2:19-27 are preceded by a description of God’s being moved by, affected by the lament of the people (no act of repentance on the part of the people is in view). God became jealous for his people/land and had pity on them. God’s jealousy can have reference to the prohibition of other gods (see Exod 20:5), but here it has the sense of zeal or intense devotion, being deeply committed to act on behalf of the relationship with Israel (see Isa 9:7). God’s “jealousy” and “pity” are strong personal references not only to God’s decision to act on behalf of people and land but also to God’s feelings in doing so. This language is revealing of the intimate relationship God has with this people—marital (Hos 1–3) and parental images (Hos 11:1-9; Mal 3:17) come to mind. Note the stress in 2:18 on both God’s land and God’s people; God’s saving work includes the land. This sudden transition from lament to promise characterizes certain laments of the innocent sufferer (e.g., Pss 12:4-5; 60:5-8; cf. 2 Chr 30:6-17; Pss 20; 85; Isa 33:10-12; Hos 14:4-7) with expressions of certainty regarding God’s saving action (Pss 6:8-10; 22:21-24; Mic 7:8-10). The promising words from God/prophet are a “response” (2:19) to the people’s communal lament of 2:17. God turns to each of the members of the community that

102

Reading Hosea–Micah

have been adversely affected by the plague (Joel 1–2): soil, animals, people, and citizens of Zion. They are to rejoice in what God has done. Once again, God’s creation will produce food, and Israel’s place of honor among its neighbors shall be restored. 2:19-20. God’s promises include a reversal of the damage done by the locusts (and drought), with some signs that this reversal is already beginning to take place. The promises of basic provisions (grain, wine, oil) for food and offerings as well as Judah’s reputation among the neighbors (removal of their mockery) are central. God will scatter the locusts (likened to an army in 2:4-9 and 2:25; “northerner” may refer to a direction from which armies commonly invaded Israel). The locusts will be driven into seas (Dead Sea and Mediterranean Sea) and wildernesses in every direction—away from Israel—and the stench of their death will be apparent to all (see Exod 10:19 and similar ways in which locust plagues have come to an end through the centuries). 2:21-24. The speaker shifts from God to the prophet. The repeated phrase “has done great things” appears in both v. 20 and v. 21 (cf. Ps 126:2-3). Verse 20 probably refers to the actions of the locusts (perhaps ironically), and then v. 21 would testify to the superior actions of God. The locusts have done great things, but God’s actions are even greater! The disasters will be reversed: ground restored; animals fed; joy returns; drought ended; fruit trees bear again; threshing floors and vats filled. The call to fear no longer and to “be glad and rejoice” recurs in 2:21-23 (see the rhythm in Pss 117; 135). The addressee is remarkably wide-ranging; it refers not only to the people of Israel (2:23) but also to the soil/ground and the animals that live from its produce (2:21-22; see 1:10 for a mourning ground; 1:18 for groaning animals). The people’s joy, which had departed (1:16), now returns. That essentially the same emotional language is used for both people and land/animals is remarkable. It demonstrates how dependent people are on the land and, in turn, on the weather and other natural events; without the land’s productiveness the people will not thrive. They are to rejoice because the ground is productive once again, the rains are abundant, and the grain, wine, and oil overflow. And these effects mean that the people are vindicated, restored to wholeness. The future of the land and the people are inextricably interconnected. These references to the land and its produce are evidence that it is the effects of the locust plagues that have been overcome. Even when the people become the subject of God’s concern (in 2:23-25), the emphasis lies on the change in the land that in turn has positive effects for the people.

Joel

103

2:25-27. God responds to the people. God will make good or make restitution (see Exod 22:1-5; better than NRSV “repay”) for what has been taken away by the locust plague (2:25). Perhaps different types of locusts or stages in the lifespan of the locusts are mentioned (as in 1:4), and different “years” of plagues are in view (occurring over a period of several years). God is here said to have “sent” the locust plague against them (but no reason is cited, here or elsewhere). It is likely that this report is not a specific sending on God’s part but a natural element in the kind of world God has created and continues to maintain (see “Introduction to Joel”). Concluding this segment, 2:26-27 brings together several themes. Once again the people will have plenty to eat (reversal of the locusts’ eating); they will praise the name of God who has worked wonders among them. They shall never again be put to shame or ridiculed by others (a phrase repeated in both verses; see 2:19; cf. Isa 45:17). From these acts of restoration, they shall know that the Lord is their God (see 1 Kgs 20:28), is present among them, and that there is no other god (cf. Isa 45:5-6, 17; Zeph 3:15; Mic 3:11; Deut 4:35). God will bring the time of disaster to an end, and they will flourish once again, voicing songs of praise in thanksgiving. God has responded to their lament by this restoration. This strong promise language leads into the next section, which voices a key promise regarding the gift of the spirit (as in Ezek 39:28-29). The Gift of the Spirit (Joel 2:28-32) The promises of God are again the focus of this text (God speaks 2:28-31, the prophet 2:32). But the temporal references are difficult to sort out— ”afterward” (2:28); “in those days” (2:29); “in those days and at that time” (3:1); “portents” (2:30); “Day of the LORD” (2:31; 3:14; see 1:15; 2:1, 11); “at that time” (3:1); and “in that day” (3:18). “Afterward” refers to the same time as “in those days (and at that time)” and suggests an indefinite time in the future when God will “restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem” (3:1). It is unclear how much time occurs between the promises of 2:18-27 and the “afterward” of 2:28; they could be temporally back to back. The “portents” of 2:30 by definition must precede the gift of the spirit in 2:28-29, which will come “in those days” (2:29), and they must also precede “the Day of the LORD” (as “before” in 2:31 shows). The gift of the spirit is a sign that “the Day of the LORD” is near, but it has not arrived (see Isa 13:10, 13; Ezek 32:3-8). This section of Joel explicitly returns to the issue of natural disaster. Again, there is no indication that the images associated with the

104

Reading Hosea–Micah

natural disaster in 2:30-31 are in any way related to judgment; the portents are a sign for all. The pouring out of the divine spirit is preceded by God’s actions in the world of nature, both on earth and in the heavens (2:30-31). These natural events are signs of the coming Day of the LORD announced in 2:31 (on natural events so functioning, see the plagues in Exod 7–11). The gift of the spirit seems to be linked to the renewal of the natural order in 2:18-27 (see this link in Isa 32:15; Ezek 36:27-30). That the Day of the LORD is “near” is still the time assessment in 3:14. Only in 3:18-21 is “that day” actually described. Readers are living in a time of signs of such events to come. But it is difficult to sort out the actual times involved. What is promised is considered to be more important than when all this will come to pass. The references could be associated with end-time events (eschatological), but that does not seem likely. The images associated with the “Day of the LORD” (2:30-32; 3:14-15) are down to earth rather than otherworldly. It is also difficult to determine whether the promises listed in 2:18–3:21 are expected to occur in the sequence they are mentioned. These images are probably best considered to be kaleidoscopic rather than presented in some anticipated order, temporal or otherwise. God promises to “pour out my spirit” (that phrase introduces and concludes 2:28-29). This language draws on the images of several biblical traditions. 1. The creation story. God breathed God’s own breath, the vital force of life, into the ‘adam, and he became a living being (Gen 2:7). Given this link, the Joel text could well be understood as a reference to a new creation and not simply an issue of revelation. 2. Promises of new life to the exiles in Babylon. God breathes the breath of life into their dead bodies, and they live once again (Ezek 37:1-14; 11:19-20; 36:26-27). Such a link enables a close connection between this text and the salvation oracles of 2:18-27. 3. The inspiration of figures such as Moses and the seventy elders of Israel, enabling them to speak the word of God into specific situations faced by the people of God (Num 11; see 1 Sam 10). This theme of revelation seems to be the primary focus in view of the references to seeing visions, dreaming dreams, and a speaking/hearing of the word of God (all approvingly). Divine empowerment (to be witnesses of God’s word) is an effect that is present as well (see Mic 3:8; Acts 1:8). These promises of God are a fulfillment of Moses’ wish in Numbers 11:29, “Would that all the LORD’s people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit on them.” This under-

Joel

105

standing does not necessarily imply an unmediated relationship with God, not least because human words are agents in any form of communication. The “all flesh” theme of 2:28 makes the text remarkably inclusive. The gift of the spirit is democratized, with no special access to God for the religious elite (see Ezek 36:26-27). The theme breaks down traditional barriers in Israel’s (or any) culture with its range of reference to gender (sons and daughters), age (old men and young men), socioeconomic status (“even” male and female slaves). The text gives no attention to the distinction between Jews and Gentiles, though Romans 10:12-13 so understands it (see also Acts 2:39). While the stress on the word “your” in 2:28 suggests that a particular audience (Israel) is being addressed, that reference stands within the “all flesh” inclusiveness. The people of Israel are the primary concern, but other references to “all flesh” in the Old Testament are inclusive of all human beings (and even animals, see Gen 7:16; 9:8-17). At the same time, 2:32 suggests a limitation (even within Israel); the phrases “everyone who calls on the name of the LORD (= worship) shall be saved” and “those whom the LORD calls” imply boundaries. Christians associate this text with the gift of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost; Acts 2:16-21 quotes the entire passage (with minor changes). That the “portents” in nature (2:30-31) are, like the locust plague, signs of disaster to come is also evident in the future reference to “those who escape” and “survivors” in 2:32 (see Obad 15–17). The reference to the survivors is an indication of what will happen on the Day of the LORD, not an experience of the portents. Those who “call on the name of the LORD” are also referred to as “those whom the LORD calls”; they shall be saved from the destructive effects of these “Day of the LORD” events because of God’s action (the promises of 2:27 are assumed). These phrases express the kind of relationship between God and people that knowing and naming implies. The phrase “shall be saved” has reference not to spiritual salvation but to the “survivors” and those who escape disaster. Only these people shall escape the terror announced in v. 31 for the Day of the LORD. The images of 2:30-32 have suggested to some commentators something more than a description of actual natural events, especially the reference to blood, mushrooming smoke, and the sun/moon turning into darkness/blood. Yet these images may in fact be images of natural disasters. While images of volcanic activity and solar/lunar eclipses are possible, it is more likely that the locust plague with the accompanying drought and fires is still in mind (see 1:10-12, 17-20; 2:2-10; 3:14-16). The fire and smoke have the effect of blocking out the sunlight and making the moon red as it shines through the smoke (see Exod 10:21-23).

106

Reading Hosea–Micah

The Judgment of the Nations (Joel 3:1-21) The opening words, “for then,” link this text to what precedes in 2:28-32; it specifies the negative side of God’s saving work. In order for the restoration to take effect fully, the enemies of Israel must be judged so that they can no longer harm and harass Judah and Jerusalem. Their judgment is announced because of crimes committed against Israel: they have scattered God’s own people; they have divided the land of Israel; they have sold the people of God into slavery—including their children. God will now “enter into judgment with them” (3:2), that is, mediate the consequences of their sins. This segment is framed by portents in the natural order, signs of the Day of the LORD (2:30-31; 3:15-16). The effect: no more threats to the people of God, from either natural or historical forces. A wider framing of this material can be seen in 2:27 and 3:17, which state that God dwells in the midst of Israel and that the nations shall never again put God’s people to shame. The basic themes of this chapter are present in 3:1-3, the restoration of Judah/Jerusalem and the judgment on the nations. 3:1-3. Salvation for God’s people also has a negative aspect, namely, judgment on all those nations that have oppressed Israel, have scattered them across the landscape, have determined their fate as if it were a game of dice (see Obad 11), and have abused their children (for this theme of judgment on the nations, see Zeph 3:8). This threat to life is removed. The “Valley of Jehoshaphat” (“Yahweh judges”; see also 3:12), twice called the “valley of decision” in 3:14, is probably a symbolic name (see 2 Chr 20:20-26, upon which the Joel text seems to be modeled, for an earlier defeat of these nations). 3:4-8. While often thought to be a later insertion, this segment does continue the theme of the judgment against the nations, more closely specifying certain nations that are targeted by the divine judgment. God is speaking, asking these nations a question: What do you have against me; are you paying me back for something I did to you? What it means for them to pay God back is not clear; it could be to seek revenge for earlier Judean conquests against them. The Phoenicians and the Philistines come in for special attention for having plundered Israel’s cities and temples of their silver and gold and having sold the people to the Greeks (see Ezek 27:13). Offenses against Israelites are an offense against their God. But God will now bring those exiles home and turn the tables on their captors. God will “turn your deeds back upon your own heads” (twice-stated; see Obad 15; Pss 7:16; 28:4), selling into slavery (to the Sabeans, people in southern Arabia, far away from

Joel

107

their homes) the children of those who had earlier sold others (see 3:3). No people—no matter who—that has mistreated the people of Israel will escape from suffering the consequences of their actions. What goes around comes around; that is the way in which God’s created moral order works. Such a principle helps explain the violence that is evident here; the violence that they suffer is shaped by their own violence. 3:9-17. The speaker of 3:12, 17 is clearly God, and it is likely that God speaks in 3:9-11a, 13 as well. God may be speaking to the heavenly council (suggested by v. 9), with an indication of what they are to say. The call to God to bring down the divine warriors (v. 11b) suggests that the prophet speaks, as perhaps also vv. 14-16. To “prepare war” (= “sanctify war” with NRSV footnote, 9:9) is to prepare for battle by invoking the name of God. The soldiers and the warriors here are the armies of the nations that God is calling to judgment. God is at war against them; let them bring all of their most powerful forces into the fray! They in fact are “weaklings” (3:10). They will not be able to contend with the warriors of God! The theme of judgment on the nations continues, with further reference to the Valley of Jehoshaphat, “the valley of decision” (3:12, 14). The flow of thought is difficult to discern; the prophet is speaking to both God and the nations (3:11). The nations of that world (“all” of them, v. 11a) are commanded to stir up their soldiers and prepare for war (against God’s forces). Indeed, in a reversal of Isaiah 2:4 (= Mic 4:3), their instruments of peace are to be transformed into weapons of war, and even the weak are to prepare for battle. This call to arms has an ironic twist. Even the most equipped and motivated of warriors, and in great numbers, will not be able to overcome God’s own army (see Mic 4:11-13). God even seems to challenge them: bring all the nations (v. 12). They are to gather quickly in the valley of Jehoshaphat, where God will judge them, and their warriors will fall. Their warriors are roused only to be met by God’s warriors, perhaps God’s heavenly armies or, more likely, human armies that serve as God’s agents. From another angle, the prophet’s command to God to “bring down your warriors” (3:11b) may be an imaging of natural disaster in human army terms (as in 2:4-9; 2:20, 25). The image of a thoroughgoing harvest (of grain, grapes, olive oil) is used for what will happen to the warriors of the nations, “for their wickedness is great” (3:13; see the use of the image of grape harvest in Isa 63:1-6). An ironic note is sounded here; as the action of God enables the land’s abundance to return for Israel (2:21-24), that image is used to depict the defeat of the enemy.

108

Reading Hosea–Micah

The massacre will be bloody indeed as “multitudes, multitudes” (the repeated Hebrew word may be intended to reflect the noise from the battlefield) will fall to God’s warriors in the Valley of Jehoshaphat (3:14). Is this a reference to the multitude of God’s warriors or to assembled warriors that have been called from every nation? The latter seems likely. This event will be such a world-changing event that all creation will be affected; the sun, moon, and stars will be darkened and the heavens and earth will shake (3:15). These are images of a locust plague return (cf. 2:10-11). Only this time, this “Day of the LORD is near” against the enemy of God’s people; God will act for the sake of the future of God’s own people. In the unfolding of that judgmental process, God is pictured as a lion (3:16) that roars against Israel’s enemies. Indeed, the heavens and earth will be shaken as God moves against the enemy on behalf of God’s people (the book of Amos begins with this language, 1:2; see also Jer 25:30). But God will protect the people through this time of destruction, for God is their refuge and strength (as in Ps 46:1; see Isa 25:4). In view of their experience, they shall know that Yahweh is their God and dwells among them in the temple on Mt. Zion (3:17; see 2:27). Because of this divine presence, “never again” will the enemies of Israel prevail against, indeed pass through, Jerusalem and its holy place (see Zech 8:3). Inasmuch as many nations have passed through Jerusalem in the years since this prophecy was given, it may be that this promise is understood to be a promise for some time in the future (or, better, is purposefully hyperbolic). In any case, through all this violence God’s people will be secure (3:16), and God will dwell among them (3:17, 21; see 2:27; Isa 8:18; Zech 2:10) in Jerusalem, the holy city (see Isa 52:1). 3:18-21. The book of Joel ends with a summary statement regarding Israel’s renewed prosperity; note the effect on the natural order, relief from suffering, and the destruction of its enemies. Notably, the future toward which the prophet looks is entirely this-worldly; this ending suggests that Joel’s prior references to events in the world of nature are to be interpreted in other than apocalyptic terms. God’s presence was believed to be important for thinking about the future of the community. These verses pick up the agricultural theme introduced at the beginning of Joel, promising a reversal of the effects of plague and drought. God promises sweet wine, earlier lost (see 1:5, 9, 12; Amos 9:13), milk, and water (contrast 1:20; for such fruitfulness, see Amos 9:13-14; Zech 14:6-11). Cattle will have adequate grass to produce abundant milk. This promise is linked to the theme of Jerusalem/Zion/temple/divine dwelling place as the source of this abundance (see Zech 14:8; Ezek 47:1-12; 48:35; Ps 46:4).

Joel

109

On the other hand, the enemies of Israel shall become desolate places because they have shed innocent blood. Egypt and Edom are specifically named, either because of recent atrocities against Israel or because they are emblematic of all of Israel’s enemies (see Obadiah). God will judge them for their deeds, but God will dwell in Judah/Jerusalem. God will enable the people to be at rest from all their enemies, and they shall thrive forever and ever (see Zech 12:6).

Amos

INTRODUCTION TO AMOS Amos as a First Many prophets lived and worked before Amos, but Amos marks a new stage in the history of prophecy. Indeed, Amos opened up previously unexplored theological territory, stretched religious imaginations, and enabled people to view their world with new eyes. In so doing, Amos constitutes several “firsts” for prophecy. 1. Amos is the first prophet whose writings have been preserved, though we cannot be certain that he was the first prophet to commit his message to writing (some prophetic writings may have been lost along the way). 2. Amos is also the first prophet who addresses the people of God as a whole (though emphasis is placed on Israel, the northern kingdom, Judah is in view at times). Earlier prophets (e.g., Nathan) focused on addressing specific individuals; with Amos the entire community of God’s elect people comes into view, and he sharply widens the horizon of prophetic concern. 3. Amos is also a first in that he passes judgment on all Israel and even envisions the “end” of God’s chosen people (8:2). With Amos, the “exile” of the entire people of God at the hands of other nations initially comes into view. For these three reasons alone, Amos is worthy of special attention. Strikingly, ancient commentators paid no such attention to Amos—if the lack of specific references to Amos in the literature is any indication. While Amos has certainly influenced later prophets, he is rarely cited in the New Testament (Acts 7:42-43; 15:16-17) or other ancient Jewish literature (Tobit 2:6). One is given to wonder why this is the case. Might it be that Amos’s sharp critique of socio-political issues came too close to home, theologically if not personally (as it often still does)?

112

Reading Hosea–Micah

Amos, His Time and Place Amos’s prophetic vocation is specifically positioned in the middle of the eighth century BCE. The introductory note of the book (1:1) sets his ministry during the reigns of kings Jeroboam II (782–742 BCE) of the northern kingdom and Uzziah (786–746 BCE) of the southern kingdom. A more precise time within this period is difficult to discern. But reference to an earthquake in 1:1 (see 8:8; 9:1, 9), while scant knowledge is available (see Zech 14:5), has suggested a time for Amos’s ministry in the period 760–750 BCE. Also of assistance in dating Amos to this period is the relatively stable socioeconomic situation of Israelite society that is reflected in the text (see below). We do not know when his ministry began or when it came to an end; most interpreters consider it to have lasted a relatively short time. We can say little about Amos’s personal life. We are not told of his birth or his death. He came from a small town in Judah named Tekoa, located about ten miles southwest of Jerusalem (1:1). At the same time, he was called to a ministry that was focused in Israel, the northern kingdom. His personal career was related to agriculture (see 1:1; 7:14). Probably more than a small farmer, Amos was likely a landowner who raised livestock and fruit trees and so would have been considered a member of the upper class (see 2 Kgs 3:4). If so, he was a member of the very class of affluent people who were the special object of his criticism. His own socioeconomic standing enabled him to speak with wide-ranging “insider” knowledge of the deep issues that pervaded the country—and exhibited a sharp irony. He would know from personal experience what he was talking about, and that made him especially vulnerable to those who recognized that he was one of “them.” That he was also considered an “outsider” in terms of residence and social setting (Judah) would have further angered the leaders of Israel. Apart from notices about his five visions (7:1–9:6), only one incident from his life is reported (7:10-17). Israel’s leaders, upset by his prophetic rhetoric, sought to rid the country of both his words and his presence. Amos was expelled from Israel and probably returned to his home in Judah. Judah was then the likely context for his writing of these texts, and that setting may have prompted the addition of several texts that drew Judah into the conversation (e.g., 2:4-5; 5:5; 6:1). Yet it may be that Amos’s successors later applied his prophecies to the Judean context, warning them of a comparable fate. The period in Israel during Amos’s ministry was notable for its stability, relative freedom from conflict with foreign nations, and unparalleled territorial expansion (see 2 Kgs 14:23-29). This era was also noted for economic

Amos

113

prosperity, at least for the upper classes; at the same time, there was a significant neglect of the needs of those on the lower rungs of society, a point of considerable attention in the book. In fact, the prophecy of Amos focuses largely on socioeconomic issues and related theological matters. Amos exhibits a lively concern that opulence among the affluent was accompanied by a confident piety that assumed that, given their standing in society, their relationship with God was also in good order. At the same time, this religious self-confidence that Amos brought under the microscope rarely if ever occasioned an expression of concern about matters related to idolatry (unlike Hosea a generation later). At the least, Amos does not make this concern explicit. In view of this religious situation, Amos becomes sharply focused on matters of God’s judgment. The people, particularly the upper classes, would reap the consequences of their inattention to matters of justice and righteousness—the understanding of which is simply assumed (see 5:7, 10-15, 21-24; 6:12). Amos brings these people face to face with a destiny that is sharply named in terms such as “end” and “exile” (8:2; 5:5, 27; 6:7; 7:11, 17). The thoroughness of the destruction of Israel that Amos envisioned is remarkable (3:12-15; 6:8-14; 8:1-3, 7-14; 9:1-4). Moreover, that judgment is now inevitable (see below). A remnant will survive (3:12; 5:3; 6:9-10; 9:8-10), but the devastation of the people will be sharp and pervasive. Only in the last verses of the book (9:11-15) do words of promise and salvation come into play, and they were likely a later addition (by Amos or a follower). The future of the chosen people lies with Judah, more particularly the Davidic monarchy, and not much with Israel, if at all. Structure of the Book of Amos Many scholars divide Amos into four parts, based largely on matters of literary form: Amos 1–2; 3–6; 7:1–9:10 (or some variation thereof ); 9:11-15. 1. Amos 1–2. Eight oracles address neighboring nations, climaxing with oracles against Judah (2:4-5) and, especially, Israel (2:6-16). Interestingly, the major countries of Egypt and Assyria go unmentioned. Every oracle includes both sinful actions and judgments to be expected. 2. Amos 3–6. Various sayings have been collected. The focus on judgment is sharp and clear. The flow of thought is difficult to discern, though catchwords are given (“Hear this word,” 3:1; 4:1; 5:1). The language of grief and lament corresponds to the message delivered, setting a mournful tone (e.g., 5:1, 16-18; 6:1, 4). The sharpness of the theme of mourning is basic in shaping how the book is to be interpreted.

114

Reading Hosea–Micah

3. Amos 7:1–9:10. Five vision reports center the developments in this segment. They are presented with increasing severity regarding the word of judgment as God’s initial changes of mind (7:1-6) are left behind and the future for Israel becomes sharply negative. These vision reports are interrupted by a narrative regarding a key incident in Amos’s prophetic career (7:10-17) and several judgment speeches (8:4-14). 4. Amos 9:11-15. Matters of hope and promise emerge to provide a positive closure for the book. While usually considered a later editorial addition, this section does provide a judgment-promise division for Amos that makes it parallel to most other prophetic books. The Purpose of Amos and the Rhetorical Strategy Amos’s common use of the language of lament reflects the basic purpose of the book and the related rhetorical strategy (5:1, 16-17, 18, 20; 6:1, 4; 8:2-3, 8, 10). This repeated grieving on the part of both God (5:1, 18; 6:1, 4) and people serves to emphasize that Israel’s death is imminent and certain; no escape is possible. The time for repentance is past, and a devastating judgment is already in process. Amos’s purpose is to announce the death of Israel, to state the reasons for the death, and to provide a whisper of hope for a surviving remnant. History proves Amos right! Assyrian armies bring Israel, the northern kingdom, to an end in 722 BCE. Amos may be the first to tell the story of “the ten lost tribes of Israel.” Anticipating this turn of events, Amos puts out the call to lament, sharply stated in 5:1-2 and 8:1-3 especially. “The end has come.” “Prepare to meet your God” (4:12). No one can take measures that will prevent this future from taking place, not even God. Such lamenting shows that what is at stake for Amos and for the God of Amos cannot be reduced to judicial considerations. True judges do not become so personally involved in their decisions. What is happening to Israel has to do with the breakdown of a close relationship and its rippling effects on all aspects of the lives of those involved (compare it to a divorce and its wide-ranging effects; see Hos 1–3), including its effects on God! The grief of God over Israel’s prospects is profound. This catastrophic time of deep and prolonged mourning on the part of everyone involved is not unlike the later use of this theme with respect to Judah in Jeremiah (e.g., Jer 4:5-8, 19-28; see Fretheim 2002, 93–106 ). Amos does bear witness to an earlier time when the future for Israel was not so negatively set. This scenario is signaled by the development in the five

Amos

115

visions of Amos 7–9. The first two visions (7:1-6) indicate that, at some earlier point in time, Israel’s future still had positive possibilities. The prophetic intercessions in response to these two visions have a positive effect. God sets the judgments aside. Interestingly, that positive future is made possible by prophetic intercession and divine repentance, not Israel’s repentance. Beginning with the third vision in 7:6-9, however, such a future is no longer deemed possible. In view of Israel’s unchanging patterns of negative behavior, God’s willingness to change his mind is no longer available. Indeed, God uses strong and unambiguous language: “I will never again pass them by” (7:8). The death of Israel is now certain. What was once a possibility has been cut off (compare the development reported in 2 Kgs 17:13 and 17:23). This scenario is also suggested by the language of Amos 5. Even in the midst of death, the call from God comes: Seek me and live! This call recurs four times in this context in variant forms (5:4, 6, 14-15). What the call to “seek” entails is not altogether clear. Some scholars think that these texts show that Israel’s negative future is not set in stone at this point. This interpretation is thought to be supported by the word “or” in 5:6, which suggests that God will not come against the house of Joseph (= Israel) in disastrous judgment if they seek the Lord. Nonetheless, the “or” of 5:6 does not hold out hope! Rather, the word more sharply specifies the inevitable judgment for such an unjust people. The immediately following indictment of 5:7 (with which commentators commonly have difficulty in this context) makes the point. This is who you are and hence the future has already been shaped! The disaster cannot be averted even if God is sought. No one will escape the horror of the disaster (see 4:12), even if a few should repent. This perspective also finds support in the fact that the call to “seek good and not evil . . . hate evil and love good” (5:14-15) is immediately followed by an announcement of judgment (“therefore,” 5:16-17). In turn, a remarkable series of lamenting words is voiced (wailing, alas, alas, mourning, lamentation, wailing, wailing); these words return the reader to the lamentation theme of 5:1 and embrace the text in between. A disastrous future for the people of God is set. Indeed, that future is so certain that one can say that Israel has already “fallen, no more to rise” (5:2). The wailing of 5:16-17 includes everyone—in the cities and on farms. Clearly a death is envisaged, namely the death of a people! Moreover, the death and mourning will occur because of the judgment of God, who will “pass through” their midst (see 4:12), probably in the form of marauding agents/armies that will bring great devastation. The upshot of these verses: Israel will not be able to escape disaster!

116

Reading Hosea–Micah

Such a negative scenario does not mean that no hope is available. It is, however, a limited hope only for a scattered remnant to emerge on the far side of the chaos (see 5:15). The invitation to “seek” remains available to this remnant (5:15) as they pass through the fire and live beyond the disaster or, better, through judgment as a refining fire. Yet, even then, that future is marked by God’s “perhaps” (5:15, “may be”). That there was such a remnant that survived the Assyrian onslaught by fleeing to Judah suggests some positive response to this call. Yet, even then, the remnant of Israel will survive only by being integrated into the people of God in the land of Judah. One of the related concerns of Amos involves certain theological issues that pertain to this negative purpose. The basic self-understanding of the audience is that God has chosen them and hence God will not enter into judgment against them (3:2; 5:18-20). If the people think that, because they are God’s chosen people, they will not have to worry about such a future, Amos presents sharply stated arguments to demonstrate why this is in fact not the case. Such a critique lies at the center of the book’s opening with the oracles against the nations (1:3–2:3) and the integration of Judah and, especially, Israel into this weave of indictment and judgment (2:4-16). Such a conviction also underlies the claim made about God’s saving work among non-elect peoples (9:7). Moreover, should the people appeal to their close attention to matters of worship as a factor that will save them, that should be considered a misplaced confidence (4:4-5; 5:4-6, 21-24). Worship in and of itself, if not accompanied by a life of justice and righteousness, is worthless! Moreover, should the people exhibit an arrogance regarding promises of participation in the/a positive day of the LORD, they have another “think” coming (5:18-20). Amos voices these perspectives as part of an effort to support his claims regarding a harsh judgment by God. The prophet demonstrates an integral relationship between the judgment—that is certainly coming—and what they have (not) done. The people of Israel do not see the issues at stake given the way in which they are conducting their everyday affairs, particularly with respect to their treatment of the poor and needy. Amos shows them that their actions toward their own people were just as violent as anything the neighboring peoples have done (hence the opening in Amos 1–2). Israel’s own sins, the sins of the elect, involve the same level of seriousness as those of other nations, and they are just as deserving of condemnation. Indeed, Amos 3:2 suggests that the effects of the broken relationship with God will be even worse for Israel. They had been given all the advantages of an elect people of God, and they blew it! Israel cannot claim that it has a relationship with God that would

Amos

117

exempt it from judgment regardless of what they do and say. Close relationships (such as a marriage; see Hos 1–3) are always more devastating when they break up than casual ones. Such a time has arrived for Israel. Creation Theology as Key to Understanding Amos These most basic words of Amos to the people of Israel are grounded in the work of the Creator God (for detail and context, see Fretheim 2005, 168–71). The theme of creation brackets the book as a whole, moving as it does from the withering of vegetation before the judgment of God (1:2) to the thriving of the vineyards in the wake of the new creative action of God (9:11-15). Moreover, the universal reach of God’s judgmental activity against the nations at the beginning of the book, including Judah and Israel (1:3–2:3), finds a counterpart at the end of the book in the saving and judgmental activity of God among the nations, and their “likeness” to Israel in the sight of God (9:7-10). In addition, several creation paragraphs punctuate the text along the way in hymnic fashion (4:13; 5:8-9; 8:8-9; 9:5-6; for the most thorough treatment of these texts, see Paas, 183–326; for an earlier study, see Crenshaw 1975; see also Birch, 209–10.) Themes of originating creation and continuing creation are interwoven, providing theological grounds for reflections about sin, justice, and judgment. These texts demonstrate that God’s creative work is ongoing and exhibits continuity across the ages in every corner of the globe. We begin with the oracles against the nations (= OAN) in Amos 1–2. OAN are remarkably common in the prophetic books (Isa 13–23; Jer 46–51; Ezek 25–32; Nahum; Obadiah). A motivation for the announced judgments against these nations often focuses on issues of human justice, especially in the conduct of war, including wars against Israel (in addition, see Isa 10:12, 24-27; Jer 10:25; Ezek 36:1-7; Zech 1:14-15; Pss 2:5, 12; 79:5-7; 110:5). Such a justice perspective roots these texts not in any covenantal understanding but in a creation theology. Amos’s OAN reflect the belief that knowledge regarding matters such as social justice is available to those outside Israel; all nations will be held accountable to such a created moral order. In this created moral order, evident throughout the prophets, human evil (ra’ah) issues in divinely mediated disaster (ra’ah), not simply for Israel but for all nations. One after another, God/the prophets hold the nations responsible for who they are and what they have done (interestingly, idolatry is not cited), and they will suffer the consequences. No matter the justifications or defenses they might bring to the case, they will not be able to escape

118

Reading Hosea–Micah

from the effects of their own behaviors. No matter how great their empires, how sophisticated their policies, how brilliant their officials, God will hold them accountable. The OAN demonstrate that God’s just purposes are universal; God’s work has the world in view. Again and again, the parallels between Israel and the nations are drawn out; all nations, chosen or nonchosen, are subject to the created moral order. That the predominant theme of the OAN as well as the oracles against Israel is one of judgment and justice bespeaks a word to Israel: God is consistent in the way in which God acts in the world. God’s word of judgment and concern for justice with respect to Israel is part and parcel of God’s ways with the nations more generally. Hence, Israel would not be able to claim that they had been singled out for judgment and held to a higher standard of behavior. On the other hand, the nations could not claim unfairness either, as though God played favorites and never visited the chosen people with judgment. All nations are accountable to God, and God works consistently among them in terms of sin and its consequences. These OAN also testify that God is actively at work among the nations for purposes of restoration and salvation (e.g., Jer 3:17; 12:14-16; 16:19-21; cf. 18:7-10). Amos 9:7 fits this understanding, which portrays God as acting in a salvific way on behalf of non-chosen folk such as the Philistines and Aramaeans (see Zech 8:22-23; Isa 45:14, 22-23; 56:3-8; 66:18-19, 23). The God of Amos is no local deity, concerned simply about the people of Israel. God is the Creator God who works out the divine purposes for the entire creation in and through the movements of nations and peoples. God is interested in these nations for who they are in themselves, not simply in their relationship to Israel. At the same time, the particularity of God’s work in and through Israel remains intact amid the universality of God’s work among the nations. Israel’s God is active among the nations quite apart from the chosen people. God participates in international affairs, its policies and politics. God works in and through the nations for the sake of peace and goodness, although it may not be clear just how God is at work in a given situation. We have seen above that the moral order is a matter of creation, built into the very infrastructure of God’s cosmic design. That sins will have adverse consequences is fundamentally a matter of the way in which the world works; ill effects relate intrinsically to the deed. Therefore, it is a natural theological move for Amos to integrate the oracles of indictment and judgments (experienced and anticipated) with rhythmic words about creation.

Amos

119

God is certainly involved in these ongoing workings of the created order, mediating the movement from sins to their effects; indeed, the texts often use the first person to speak of such divine involvement. Thus, Amos 4:4-12, climaxing with a claim about God the Creator (4:13), contains a string of verbs with God as subject: I gave, withheld, struck, laid waste, sent, killed, carried away, and overthrew. Most, if not all, of these actions relate to the natural order (famine, drought, blight and mildew, locusts, pestilence/ plagues, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) as effects of human activity, at least in part. God has mediated these adverse effects on the natural order before and is about to do so again (v. 12). It is important that the concluding statement about creation (v. 13) makes clear that the reader is to think of the foregoing divine involvement as a matter of God tending to the created moral order, not arbitrarily imposing a series of sanctions or controlling the workings of nature (cf. Hos 4:1-3). God’s creation is of such a communal/relational nature that human actions may ripple out and bring negative effects in comprehensive ways. The doxology in 5:8-9 seems interruptive in its context, but that is less the case if creational themes are seen as integral to talk about judgment. The doxology is preceded by a lament for the death of the nation (5:1-2) and a call to “seek the LORD and live” or suffer the consequences of God “breaking out” and “devouring” (5:3-7). The doxology is followed by more indictments, oracles of judgment, exhortations, and, significantly, words of lamentation (5:10-17). God the Creator, who acts in creation to “turn deep darkness into the morning, and darkens the day into night,” has created the world in such a way as to “make destruction flash out against the strong, so that destruction comes upon the fortress” (5:8-9). As certainly as Pleiades and Orion, darkness and light, day and night, work according to their created ordering, so also will God mediate adverse effects upon those who “trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain” (5:11; cf. Job 5:8-16; 9:5-10). The larger context picks up the theme of justice especially (5:7, 10-15; 5:21–6:14). This theme is fundamentally creational in orientation; the absence of justice in Israel disrupts not only the social order but also the cosmic order. The people have polluted the land through their lack of care and concern for the needy and disadvantaged (cf. Hos 4:1-3; Jer 3:1-5, which link human wickedness with adverse cosmic effects; Joel 2:10). Amos 8:7-10 may be of some help in working this issue through. Because of human wickedness, the earth will be adversely affected (8:7-8). The relationship between v. 8 and v. 9 is striking. Events in the celestial sphere, probably an earthquake (v. 8) and a solar eclipse (v. 9), parallel the

120

Reading Hosea–Micah

adverse effects of sin on the human community (v. 10). As such events occur in the natural order, so will human sinfulness have such negative effects on Israel. These realities are all of one piece: the divinely mediated working out of the created order of things. It is noteworthy that the theme of justice returns in this context (8:4-6), and those verses introduce the creational themes. The context of Amos 9:5-6 again helps the reader to see the function of the creational doxologies. A key point of 9:1-4 is that the judgment will be universally effective; there can be no escape. God then grounds that word in a claim about the Creator God who has a universal reach, whose touch extends across the entire face of the cosmos (9:5-6). Amos 9:7 is an extension of the same point, namely, that God is the God of all peoples, acting in the stories of non-chosen nations. Nothing escapes “the eyes of the LORD” (vv. 4, 8; cf. Prov 5:21; 15:3), a theme that brackets the creational text. This point has been sharply introduced in the opening chapters of the book, namely, that all peoples, not just Israel, experience judgment (1:3–2:16). Again, the sheer worldwide range of divine activity relates to claims made about the Creator God. All of these texts about the created order fit well with the description of the new creation at the end of Amos (9:11-15). This text, along with Amos 1:2, brackets the book with the idea of the ill effects of human sinfulness on the environment. One characteristic of this new world is that the natural order will be rid of the adverse effects of creaturely activity. Even more, the creation will function in ways that outstrip God’s original creational intentions. The vineyards will be so productive that human efforts will not be able to keep up with the abundance. There is no return to Eden here, no myth of the eternal return. The prophets move beyond Eden in their vision of the future. Amos’s recurrent use of references to the natural order and the linkage he draws to human words and deeds cannot be reduced to poetic imagery. The world that God created actually works this way. From one angle, the created moral order is of such a nature that human deeds have consequences. From another, human behaviors have negative effects not only on human life but also on the natural order. To so depict the human predicament and its rippling effects in cosmic terms lends a depth to the human situation that catches up the entire environment. Those of us who live in this environmentally troubled time should have no difficulty seeing the truth of this remarkably rich interrelatedness of social and cosmic orders.

Amos

121

COMMENTARY Superscription and the First Word (Amos 1:1-2) The opening verse (similar to Hos 1:1), cast in the third person, addresses readers of the book of Amos and not hearers of the preaching of Amos (although there may have been some overlap). Only in 7:10-17, a report of Amos’s confrontation with the priest Amaziah, does the third person narrative style return. These texts suggest that the book as we now have it has been edited by a person other than Amos, perhaps a disciple. Notably, the opening clause, “the words of Amos” (similar to Jer 1:1; rather than the more common “the word of the LORD,” Hos 1:1), has the effect of merging the words of the prophet and the words of God that follow (beginning with 1:3). Amos is said to “see” these words that concerned Israel; this could mean an experience of visions within which words were spoken and heard (five visions are specifically cited in 7:1–9:6). This superscription sets Amos in the southern kingdom (Judah) during the reign of Uzziah (783–742 BCE); his home was near the village of Tekoa, about ten miles south of Jerusalem (see 7:14-15 and “Introduction to Amos”). Notably, Amos is not represented as one who holds a political or religious office. He may have been a leader among those who traded sheep and cattle (see 2 Kgs 3:4), and that could in part explain his presence in Israel, the northern kingdom (his only specified appearance is at Bethel, 7:10). At the same time, Amos apparently was called by God to venture north to Israel (or at least to speak there when on his trading business), where he preached during the long and peaceful reign of Jeroboam II (786–746 BCE). Jeroboam seems to be the “senior partner” in the apparently congenial relationship with Uzziah, king of Judah (see 2 Kgs 14:25). The earthquake (see 8:8; 9:1, 9; Zech 14:5) cannot be precisely dated, but Amos’s ministry likely occurred during the years before and after 760 BCE. Amos 1:2 states the theme of the book in the prophet’s own words. The verse is similar to Joel 3:16a (cf. Jer 25:30) and may have been drawn from a common fund of hymnic language. Amos’s words, in turn, introduce the words of Yahweh (1:3). These words, together with 9:11-15, bracket the book of Amos with creational themes (see “Introduction to Amos”). God’s actions in 1:2 lead to the devastation of the land and its occupants; God’s actions in 9:11-15 lead to renewal of the land, with the flourishing of people and vegetation. The reference to Jerusalem/Zion in 1:2 correlates with the reference to the restoration of the Davidic kingship in 9:11; Mount Zion,

122

Reading Hosea–Micah

the dwelling place of God, is the place from which stream both judgment and salvation. In language associated with divine appearances (theophanies; see Nah 1:2-6; Hab 3:3-12), God comes in judgment with cosmic effects. Both the northern kingdom (Carmel, a mountain peak on the Mediterranean coast; see 9:3) and the southern kingdom (possibly Amos’s own pastures) are in view. The point is intensified with the reference to the “top of Carmel,” an especially fertile area and grape-growing region, which is adversely affected by drought; see 9:13 for a reversal of this situation (on drought, see Joel 1:17-20; Jer 12:4; 23:10). God speaks from Jerusalem/Zion, reflecting Amos’s religious roots (cf. Ps 50:1-6). God’s speech is likened to the roaring of a lion (see 3:4, 8; Hos 5:14; 11:10-11; 13:7-8; a symbol for the tribe of Judah, Gen 49:9); God’s word is thereby portrayed as both strong and threatening. Interestingly, the land is adversely affected by human actions that have prompted God’s judgmental response (see 4:6-10). The effect of God’s roaring word is wide-ranging; people will be deeply affected by what happens to fields and crops. Because the lion image can be positive (Hos 11:10-11), however, it will not be clear to readers until 2:4-8 that God’s judgment includes Judah and Israel. Oracles against the Nations (Amos 1:3–2:16) This segment contains eight judgment oracles against every nation (sometimes referenced by a key city) that encircles Israel, whether friend or foe—Damascus (Aram/Syria), Gaza (Philistia), Tyre, Edom, Ammon, Moab, and Judah. This litany precedes an oracle against Israel (2:6-16; such oracles against the nations are common in the prophets, see “Introduction”). The rhetorical strategy of the oracles is important. Readers would probably nod in agreement as God judges the violent activities of each nation, only to be brought up short when Israel is included in the indictment and judgment (2:6-16). If these crimes of the nations had been committed against Israel (e.g., Gilead, 1:3, 13), there would be even more agreement as the prophet moved through the list. This agreement would be followed by surprise and even anger when, at the end, Israel is included among such peoples. Readers and hearers have been caught by the rhetoric of the prophet! The argument of Amos is that these nations are indeed guilty, of cruelty especially. Given the created moral order, they should have known better. Yet, because of what Israel has specifically been told about God’s will and ways, Israel is guiltier! The domino effect of the disasters experienced by

Amos

123

these nations boxes Israel in; if they are all judged, Israel is surrounded and must be next—and is! Beyond that, it is not known why the oracles mention the nations in this order. Each oracle begins and (often) ends in the same way, stressing that the prophet here speaks the word of God, not his own word. Each oracle specifies a “progressive numerical sequence”—three to four (cf. Job 5:19-27; Prov 30:15-31), emphasizing the idea of “more than enough.” “I could keep counting!” The word “punishment” in the repeated phrase, “I will not revoke the punishment” (NRSV), is not in the Hebrew text. A more literal translation is “I will not cause it to return” (NRSV footnote), that is, “I will not take it back.” The antecedent of “it” is probably the consequences inherent in the transgressions (or intrinsic to the deeds); God will not stop the sins from working themselves out and having disastrous effects. These repeated elements are followed in turn by an indictment with respect to the sin(s) committed and a declaration of the effects on the inhabitants. This pattern—announcement of judgment preceded by reason for judgment (often linked by “therefore”; see 5:11, 16)—is common in the prophets. The indictments relate to war crimes, inhumanity, and oppression of the less fortunate by the more powerful. Links to specific historical events have not been established with certainty, but the lack of such specificity implies that such atrocities are to be condemned at whatever time and place they occur. Every generation! Amos’s indictment of Israel in the chapters that follow charges them with comparable levels of violence and oppression. The cumulative, cascading references to violence are likely to have an emotional effect on the reader—to hear about so much violent activity is an assault on the mind (particularly when God becomes the subject of verbs of violence). This barrage may have promoted a sense of self-satisfaction in some readers. We are not like those people! A common effect, however, would also be to promote apprehension and self-examination, particularly with readers familiar with these oracles, for whom the climax is no longer surprising. Some details regarding the various indictments: Damascus/Syria (under its royal house of Hazael/Hadad), is guilty of cruelty, crushing Gilead as a sledge would crush grain on a threshing floor (1:3). Gaza (and other Philistine cities) is guilty of deporting entire communities to inhospitable sites, a kind of ethnic cleansing (1:6). Tyre is guilty of deportation and the violation of treaties, that is, a “covenant of kinship” (1:9). The second three nations (Edom, Ammon, Moab) are “blood relatives” of Israel and hence move more closely to Judah and then Israel. Edom (Esau) is guilty of prolonging an anger-filled and bloody conflict with a brother nation, that is,

124

Reading Hosea–Micah

Jacob/Israel (1:11; see Obad 11–14). Ammon (Lot) is guilty of expanding its territory through brutality against pregnant women (1:13; see 1:3; Hos 10:14; 13:16). Moab (Lot) is guilty of “topping off ” a victory over Edom by desecrating the tomb and corpse of its king (2:1). The indictment of Judah (2:4-5) shifts from specific instances of violence to general violations of God’s law (or instruction; cf. Isa 5:24). Their guilt is marked by a continuation of the deceptive practices and false teachings of their forebears. No changes in conduct for so many generations! That long “tradition” constitutes a kind of violence that is commensurate with that of the other nations. To be accused of having violated the law of God in its entirety is a climactic point. The announcements of judgment on these seven nations are commonly formulated in terms of defeat in war and being sent into exile. The image of God’s “sending a fire” is understood both literally (shooting flaming torches over a city wall) and metaphorically—devastation that fire can bring, both internally (Lam 1:13; Isa 10:16-18, both “soul and body”) and externally (Hos 8:14). God is pictured more as a judge than a warrior; that is, God mediates devastation more than executes it. The common effect of the judgment is that the powerful are brought down—persons of power (those who “hold the scepter,” rulers and officials) and places of power (“strongholds,” walls and gates in key cities). These powerful people suffer the same sort of violence and death that they visited upon others (e.g., exile, 1:5, 15; see 2 Kgs 16:9). They reap what they sow! (For reflections on the oracles against the nations [OAN], see “Introduction to Amos”). Israel’s Turn (Amos 2:6-16) From these seven nations, Amos turns his attention to Israel (2:6-16); the same standards are applied. This climactic oracle begins as the others do, and only when Israel is mentioned is it clear that Israel is the explicit object of Amos’s preaching. At the same time, alert hearers would have been prepared for such a turn upon hearing about Judah (2:4-5), and, if there was shock and scandal at being included on such a list of foreign nations, it would have occurred at this point, at least on first hearing. The prophet’s indictment of Israel centers on issues similar to those already introduced in the oracles against other nations, namely, the savaging of the poor and disadvantaged by the privileged and powerful. Because these actions may have been perceived (incorrectly) as less “violent” than those of the other nations, they may have been easier to overlook (then and now). Nonetheless, the list is remarkably straightforward.

Amos

125

The people of God (!) buy and sell “righteous” (= legally innocent) individuals who had fallen into debt in the slave markets—for as little as a pair of sandals (probably a reference to bribes given the judges; see the law on bribery in Exod 23:6-8)! These folks are not given access to the courts where their grievances could be addressed. Moreover, the rich and powerful foster a social and economic system that favors their pocketbooks but grinds the poor into the ground, pushing them into the gutters of life like so much trash. The garments that the poor have given to the rich as pledges for money borrowed are treated as if they were never to be returned, let alone returned on the same day (see Exod 22:25-26). Even more, they are publicly displayed in places of worship. A grand illustration of hypocrisy! Their shameless lifestyles of drunken brawls, bought with fines imposed on the poor, and profligate sexual activities (perhaps incest or with slave girls, on the part of young and old alike) profane God’s name. That is, they associate Israel’s God with such obviously wanton activities (2:6-8). Indeed, God’s third person reference to “their God” suggests that their God cannot be identified with Yahweh! Again and again, the powerful exploit the most vulnerable among them, and always to their own advantage. Israelites engage in such activities even though their own history abounds with God’s gracious activity on their behalf (2:9-11). They have forgotten God and their own special history with God. Even though they continued to engage in such practices, God delivered them from the Amorites (= Canaanites), a strong people who were deeply rooted in the land of promise. Before Israel had possessed the land of Canaan, God had brought them up out of the land of Egypt and led them through the wilderness. God had also raised up prophets and Nazirites (including persons such as Samson and Samuel) to mediate God’s word and deed among them. Both prophets and Nazirites had lived a disciplined, even ascetic life (see Num 6:1-7; Jer 35). One notes the shift to second person in 2:10. Up to this point, the use of the third person has suggested continuity with the previous nations. Now God moves to direct address: You! God’s rhetorical question in 2:11 puts the truth question back in their laps, inviting their response: “Is it not the case, O Israel, that I have done these things for you?!” Israel apparently thinks that God’s actions on its behalf in the past will continue regardless of their behavior (see 3:2). God’s care for Israel when they were in need is likely intended to contrast with Israel’s current neglect of the poor and the needy. Picking up on the last of God’s gifts to Israel in 2:9-11, God’s indictment focuses on their mistreatment of Nazirites (who abstained from alcohol) and the prophets (2:12): these gifted persons were prevented from

126

Reading Hosea–Micah

carrying out their vows and duties. Israel had refused to hear the prophetic word, to have their memories jogged regarding God’s blessings to them, and so the judgment is now announced (2:13-16). The stress lies on their inability to escape from the consequences. The announced judgments on Israel focus on specific personal skills and assets. No enemies are specifically in view, but Israel’s known strengths will not pass muster in the face of external threats. The interweaving of the themes of swiftness and strength suggest an anarchic situation. The people are likened to a cart filled with sheaves. They will become so burdened by the consequences of their sins, and their movements so slowed, that they cannot escape the onslaught. Even the swift will not be able to flee; courage will fail even the bravest (the stout of heart); the strength of the strong and the skilled at the bow will disappoint at such a time. Nothing, absolutely nothing they do will be able to save them, and, in great shame and dishonor, the few who survive will be stripped naked and publicly exposed (see Hos 2:3). God’s sending of fire, a feature of the oracles against the nations, is reserved for Israel until 7:4-6. Pay Attention! (Amos 3:1-15) The next three sections of Amos each begin with the exhortation, “Hear this word” (3:1; 4:1; 5:1). In other words: pay attention to what I have to say! Election and Judgment (Amos 3:1-2)

In the first section, the prophet speaks a word concerning God’s own people, “the whole family” (including Judah) whom God brought out of the land of Egypt (expressed also in 2:10). This family has experienced the unmerited, saving work of God. This creedal word is not cited to ground a moral imperative or to indicate how much Israel “owes” God; it is reiterated for its own sake: God has chosen and redeemed you! The word that follows addresses a people with this identity. Noteworthy is the direct address; this is a word to “you.” Indeed, God understands that these people are unique (“only”) in that God has “known” (=chosen, elected) them in a way that God has known no other “family” (repeated in vv. 1-2; cf. Deut 7:6-9). The language of “family” entails a relationship with God characterized by intimacy, interaction, mutuality, and responsibility. Amos 9:7 will testify to God’s engagement in the stories of other peoples, but the relationship between God and Israel entails special responsibilities to which Israel is called to account. Similarly, in Genesis 18:19, God “knows” Abraham in order that he might do righteousness and justice.

Amos

127

The question then becomes, “Given your unique identity as a family known by God, what might that mean with respect to the shape of daily life?” (see Luke 12:48). The point here is not so much that Israel should have known better (though that is the case); rather, given the closeness of the relationship, the effects of a breakdown will be more severe (compare a friendship with a marriage). It is not that Israel is singled out from the nations for judgment or held to a higher standard (see Amos 1–2). Election is neither the basis for the judgment nor the way to be immune to judgment. It is often thought that 3:2 may reflect a common claim made by Israel (and Judah): “We are God’s elect ones and hence, even though we have sinned (see 2:6-12), we are exempt from divine judgment (see their claim at 9:10; cf. 5:14). Especially because we worship in the right way (see 4:4-5; 5:21-24)! Our positive future is assured because God is on our side—regardless of what we do or say.” In contrast, the claims that God makes regarding Israel’s election and redemption are followed by a startling “therefore,” introducing a word of judgment (3:2). God recognizes these people as God’s elect, and yet God speaks against them: “therefore I will visit your iniquities upon you” (“visit” is a more helpful translation than “punish”), that is, bring your sins back on your own head (see the use of this theme again in 3:13-15). The word “iniquity” (‘awon) can refer to both the sinful deed and the effects. In other words, God grants Israel’s premise but then proceeds to deny the conclusion they draw. This must have been a hard word for Israel to hear. How can it be that God especially picks “you” out from all the other peoples of the world, only to turn around and condemn you? Making It Obvious (Amos 3:3-11)

These verses provide responses to such a query, sharpening the point being made by asking a series of rhetorical questions. The responses begin rather innocently (3:3) but intensify as they move through conflict among animals (3:4), between birds and human beings (3:5), among human beings (3:6), to the role of the prophet in announcing such ominous events (3:7-8). The rhetorical questions are similar to formulations found in wisdom literature, including moral order talk (e.g., Prov 6:27-29; Job 8:11-13; cf. Amos 6:12; Jer 18:13-17). Some commentators suggest that these verses are a defense of Amos’s prophetic call in the face of opposition (see 3:8; cf. Jer 20:15). It is more likely, however, that these questions support the point made in the preceding verse (3:2). God asks a series of seven rhetorical questions in 3:3-6, the answer to which is obvious (“no”). The reader/hearer is virtually forced to respond. A striking thing about these questions is that anyone who knows something

128

Reading Hosea–Micah

about life knows the answers, or at least the general direction of a response. They draw this knowledge not from what God has revealed but from what is evident in nature and in human culture. These questions should not be cast as cause-and-effect questions that bespeak inevitability, but in terms of that which is generally the case. As the people respond to the questions, they will in turn be admitting to the link that the prophet established in 3:2; they are God’s chosen people, but God will judge them for their iniquities. That is, whether God has chosen a specific people or not, you can conclude that their iniquities will find them out. That is the way life works. God works in and through such creaturely agents (the moral order), though that order does not function in any mechanical or inevitable way. Therefore, if you see two people walking together, you can conclude that at some prior point they have met, though not necessarily made an appointment (3:3). If you hear a lion roaring or young lion crying out, you can conclude that it has captured its prey, but not without exception (3:4). If you see a bird caught in a snare, you can conclude that a trap (with bait) has been set for it. If a trap has sprung, you can conclude that it has caught something (3:5). If a trumpet (warning of imminent battle) has been sounded, you can conclude that the people are afraid (unlike the other examples, the cause precedes the effect here). If disaster (ra’ah) befalls a city, you can conclude that it is a judgment from God (3:6; see chs. 1–2!). Necessarily? These questions speak truths generally, not absolutely; that is enough to make Amos’s point. The point for his audience in this instance is that, should disaster strike Israel, God is seeing to the link between sin and consequence. The next verse (3:7) breaks the pattern of questioning by making an assertion; that break suggests an important point. If God is to do something, and the “disaster” of 3:6b is in mind, you can conclude that God has revealed his purpose to his prophets (see Gen 18:17-19; Jer 7:25-26). It is not that God does nothing without speaking to the prophets; certainly there are exceptions! Nonetheless, it is generally the case that God enables the prophets to interpret what God has done and to make it known to the people. Perhaps this claim is a way of enhancing the word of the prophets, of lifting up their God-given role as interpreters of historical events. Then the point is driven home: if the prophet is divinely given to know about such disasters—and God has spoken!—then, as 3:8 states, the prophet must speak about it; the prophet does have other choices but not “legitimate” choices (see below on prophetic compulsion). The prophet does not delight in speaking such words. Rather, given what he now knows, the prophet would be irresponsible not to speak, and the audience should appreciate that point. The audience does not “have to”

Amos

129

conclude that Amos is right, however; people have a remarkable capacity to reject prophets. In addition, God’s word and a lion’s roar are cast in parallel terms in 3:8 (now requiring the answer “no one” rather than “no”). If a lion has roared, you can conclude that people will be afraid. So also, if God has spoken, you can conclude that prophets will prophesy. Fear is as predictable a response to a lion’s roar as is a prophet speaking upon reception of a word from God. Thus, Amos gives a reason for his speaking; God has spoken to him. This is a personal claim, of course, and would not necessarily convince others. The language of 3:8 has been thought to speak of prophetic compulsion: if God speaks, a prophet must prophesy (see Jer 20:15; 1 Cor 9:16). Not necessarily. Again, these claims are generally true, not absolutely so. Such a reference should not be interpreted as a clinical compulsion but as a vocational one. The prophet speaks because he comes to the point where he believes he must do it. Yet what he says is really what he says and not the word of God in some unmediated way. He remains a genuine human mediator of the word. McKane (474) uses helpful language in this regard. If the prophet speaks against his will, his freedom is overwhelmed by a force which he cannot resist, and his utterance is no more his than that of a man whose integrity has been destroyed by violence or torture or drugs. . . . The most that can be made of “compulsion” is that what we are loath to utter and can only utter after overcoming inner resistance is not so subject to the dangers of willfulness, self-assertiveness or self-deception as those utterances which we have a natural inclination to make. The thoughts which are congenial to us and which we are inclined to embrace, or the attitudes which are agreeable with our desire for security are more liable to error than those which force themselves on us because they have a truth which we cannot ultimately evade and to which we must give expression, even if we fear or shrink from the consequences of so speaking.

In 3:9-11, the text moves in terms of a courtroom scene—from the gathering of the witnesses and their observations (3:9) to the statement of the indictment (3:10) to the announcement of judgment (3:11). The theme of those called to be a witness that Israel’s judgment is well deserved continues in 3:13. In 3:9, God commands some unnamed heralds (the addressee is plural) to proclaim a word to the fortresses of Ashdod (a city in neighboring Philistia) and of Egypt (see the need for two witnesses in Deut 19:15-21). These heralds are to come to Samaria (the capital of Israel) and observe the anarchy and oppression that are characteristic of its life—a violent place

130

Reading Hosea–Micah

indeed. They are called to be witnesses of what Israel has done (not to attack the country). These witnesses are noted for their “strongholds”; that gives them the standing needed to testify regarding Israel’s strongholds (3:10). Even such nations—not members of God’s chosen family—will be able to discern that it is appropriate and fair for God to enter into judgment against Israel (see Deut 4:6 on the discernment of non-chosen people; Ezek 5:5-8). Amos’s hearers/readers would no doubt be offended that such nations would be called on to testify against God’s chosen people! Nevertheless, they would be “expert witnesses,” knowing firsthand of Israel’s crimes. God is not asking Amos to travel to these countries to bring this word. Rather, this is a word reported to Israel (referred to in the third person in 3:9-10); the Israelites should conclude that even these “heathen” neighbors understand why God would come against Samaria for all their sin. For, as God—an expert witness indeed—explains (3:10), they do not know how to do right. It is not simply that they do not do the right thing, but that they have so strayed from their relationship with God that they do not even know how to do what is right (see Jer 4:22). They not only commit violence (crimes against persons) and robbery (crimes against property) but also store them up so as to have them ready and available for use! “Therefore”! God returns to the second person “you,” addressing the audience directly. God, in typical prophetic speech, having indicted Israel for their words and deeds, announces judgment (3:11). The focus on “strongholds” in the judgment correlates well with the indictment (3:10). “Your enemies will surround your land, strip your defenses, and plunder the wealth from all your fortresses” (probably in that order). In effect, Israel will suffer the consequences of their sins in terms similar to what they have visited upon others. Furthermore, all possibilities of military response on Israel’s part will be eliminated as the enemy devastates the land (note God’s use of agents here, as always). Amos does not name the enemy (Assyria is not mentioned), although Assyrian policies regarding exile may be reflected in the book (e.g., 5:27). God repeats this judgment theme in the third person in 3:12, using a vivid and violent image, probably drawn from Amos’s own experience with sheep. A ravaging lion may leave behind pieces of a sheep’s body, which the shepherd “rescues” (natsal). Similarly, only a few persons (a remnant, see 5:15) from Israel/Samaria, salvaging but the corner of a couch and part of a bed from their affluent lifestyles, shall be “rescued” (natsal) from the coming devastation. A deep irony pervades this verse: just as the “rescue” of the torn pieces of the sheep functions only as evidence to confirm its death (see Exod 22:13), so also the “rescue” of some pieces of luxurious furniture shall

Amos

131

confirm the death of this people. Their affluence could not save them. The existence of a remnant actually confirms the death of the people. Given the plural addressee (3:13), God, the Lord of hosts (possibly, armies), continues the call to the two witnesses (from 3:9) to testify against Israel (= the house of Jacob), perhaps to ratify the judgment as appropriate (the links to strongholds suggest this). God will visit Israel’s own iniquities upon them (see 3:2) and upon the altars of Bethel, Israel’s key worship center, which shall be destroyed. The destruction of the “horns of the altar” (3:14; see Exod 27:2) may be specified because they symbolized the granting of mercy to asylum seekers (Exod 21:13-14; 1 Kgs 1:50-53) and to those who offered sacrifices (Lev 4:7; 16:18-19). This is a concrete way of making the point: mercy will no longer be available to this people. Amos is probably not condemning Israel for its idolatry at this point. In addition (3:15), the palaces of the king (who has summer and winter homes) and other wealthy people who live in ivory residences and great houses (see 1 Kgs 22:39) shall be no more. The form of the judgment correlates with the form of the indictment in 3:9-10. The prophet’s indictment against all the symbols of affluence is once again evident (2:6-8), as it is throughout the book. Israel’s Injustice and God’s Judgment (Amos 4:1-13) There is little agreement among scholars regarding the composition of Amos 4. Some think the chapter (or parts of it) is a continuation of chapter 3; others think it is a new unit of material. On the basis of the opening call to “hear this word” (4:1, as in 3:1 and 5:1), 4:1 is likely to be the beginning of a new unit. This chapter may be structured around the repeated references to “says the LORD” (4:3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11), all associated with indictments of the people (4:1-3, 4-5, 6-11), climaxing with the statement of judgment and its rationale (4:12-13, “therefore”). Indictment and Judgment (Amos 4:1-3)

This segment begins with a sharp indictment of those who oppress the poor and the needy (4:1). Those charged are called “cows of Bashan who are on Mount Samaria” (a fertile area east of the Sea of Galilee, modern-day Golan Heights). This sarcastic, intentionally offensive name-calling is often thought to refer to affluent Israelite women, whose husbands support them in their lifestyle. This view is difficult because the word for “husbands” (4:1, NRSV) is more properly translated “lords” (see REB) and the opening imperative is masculine (“hear”), as are two forms in 4:2. The mixture of pronouns probably signals a reference to both men and women, a view supported by the people-oriented context of Amos 3–4.

132

Reading Hosea–Micah

The image of “cows” is probably an insult regarding Israel’s ineffective, failed leadership (a view already held by Calvin), while “lords” could refer to specific leaders. The point: these people focus on a life of luxury at the expense of those who live on the margins and eke out a living, barely meeting necessities of life. The effect of their self-indulgent lifestyle was to reduce the life of the poor to shreds and scraps. Because of this gross neglect of the poor and needy, God announces, indeed swears, a sharp judgment (4:2-3); God’s action will be as sure as God is God (= holiness). “This day will come for you! Justice will be done.” The images used for this judgment include hooks, fishhooks (“the last of you” may be a way of stressing that no one will be exempt!), and being pulled through breaches in the city walls made by the enemy in their assault. These are probably violent images for people being forcibly taken through the ruins of the city into exile, beyond an unknown place called Harmon (see 5:27; see REB, “on a dunghill”). A Sarcastic Word (Amos 4:4-5)

This brief unit constitutes a satirical indictment of the people with respect to their worship practices (cf. 5:21-24). God issues “a call to worship”: “Come to the sanctuary at Bethel (or Gilgal) and worship the Lord! Bring your sacrifices and tithes, your thank offerings and freewill offerings (see Jer 7:21). Bring them all! You love to worship. So worship!” Then, however, God immediately states what they will actually be doing: they will be transgressing, not worshiping (see 2:6-8, with the focus on the poor and needy). “Come to church and sin!” The more they engage in worship rituals, bring sacrifices, and enhance their tithes, the more their transgressions will be multiplied! In other words, their treatment of their poor and needy neighbors is such that they are not worthy to be involved in the worship of God. Their worship has in fact become sinful activity! The problem is not that Israel’s worship is idolatrous or inappropriate in some way. The practices named are proper Israelite worship practices. Nor are the people insincere, as if they only engaged in the external forms of worship, a public religiosity. For all we know from the text, their sincerity in worship was not an issue. The absence of reference to sin-offerings could suggest that their worship does not include confession. Yet, if that point were important, why the lack of specificity? It may be that their worship practices, certainly well established, were caught up in liturgical details for their own sake; these rituals were just something that they “loved to do.” Yet such love in itself is not the reason for the condemnation.

Amos

133

The point about multiplying and publicizing worship practices seems to be ironic (see Mic 6:6-8), not that they actually multiply their worship practices. They can multiply them all they want and they will remain ineffective—except to multiply their transgressions! The issue, to recall the immediately prior segment (especially 4:1) and to anticipate 5:21-24, is the disjunction between their worship and their mistreatment of the poor and the needy. There are not two separate issues here: the abuse of worship and the mistreatment of the disadvantaged; they are two sides of the same issue. The former is a problem because the latter is a problem. They cannot obey the law in selective fashion, in this case focusing on the worship laws and neglecting the others. Worship, even right worship, is not enough. Disaster upon Disaster (Amos 4:6-13)

These verses move the reader far beyond a narrow understanding of worship (an issue in 4:4-5) out into the larger creation where God is at work. In one sense, they continue the call to worship in 4:4, constituting a kind of creed regarding God’s actions in Israel’s story—only not the usual creed! Verses 6-11 consist of a list of disasters, mostly in the natural order, that Israel has endured over the decades: famine, hence the cleanness of teeth (4:6); drought, with adverse effects on fields and the availability of drinking water, though selectively distributed (4:7-8); gardens and orchards laid waste by blight, mildew, and locusts (4:9); pestilence (4:10a); war, with the death of numerous young men and horses (4:10bc); a natural disaster, a Sodom and Gomorrah-like experience, and being plucked from the resulting fires (4:11). Some parallels to this listing occur in the covenant curses (Lev 26:14-45; Deut 28:15-68); even closer is the list in Solomon’s prayer (1 Kgs 8:33-53). This list is regularly punctuated by the phrase “yet you did not return to me, says the LORD” (4:6, 8, 9, 10, 11). The lament-like character of this refrain is important (it is explicitly continued in 5:1-2). The repetition of this refrain and of the pronouns “you” and “me” reveals God’s deep personal feelings about what has become of the relationship. God is not indifferent to what has happened or will happen to Israel! The refrain also reveals what God’s most basic (and persistent) will for God’s people has been: the restoration of a close relationship. This refrain is important in thinking through the significance of this listing of disasters. For one thing, it was the divine expectation that these disasters would prompt the community to reflect on its relationship with God, repent of its sin, and turn back to its God (on the divine expectation, see Isa 5:1-4; Jer 26:2-3, “it may be, perhaps”). Yet what

134

Reading Hosea–Micah

God expected did not happen. These disasters occasioned no repentance at all. The regular mention of the divine subject could suggest that God explicitly ordered each of these disasters to take place to prompt such repentance: I gave, withheld, struck, laid waste, sent, killed, carried away, and overthrew. If this were the case, they failed to accomplish the divine intentions. Another understanding seems preferable. The refrain makes clear that these disasters were considered to be the natural effects of Israel’s sinfulness, not punitive divine interventions or arbitrarily designed divine actions. They should be understood as divinely mediated effects of human sinfulness on (mostly) the natural order (cf. Hos 4:1-3). In these events, God was at work to prompt self-examination and repentance, and, in them, human choices count with respect to the shape of the future. The idea that natural disasters are a sign of sin committed is not being claimed here; generally speaking, the biblical authors move beyond such an understanding (e.g., Job; Luke 13:1-5). Amos does not fall into a trap of thinking that all sufferings, including natural disasters and their effects, come from God and are due to sin. Natural evils take place quite apart from human sin (though human sin can intensify such events, and natural disasters often reveal social disasters). God created a world in which such disasters take place, so God is a factor in one’s thinking about such events. Just how God is involved remains an open question (see Fretheim 2010). Amos’s concern here is how Israel responded to the occurrence of such disasters— they did not examine their own life. Such events in God’s creation will happen again—and soon (Amos 4:12)! The reason (“therefore”): the habitual failure of the people (“you”!) to return to God. “Your present affluence (4:1-3) is not long for this world, as you should have been able to infer from your own historical experience.” The nature of the disaster is not explicitly stated in 4:12 (cf. Jer 5:13; 1 Kgs 2:23), creating some suspense in the reader. One of the previous sections (3:11–4:3) suggests foreign armies, followed by exile. The immediately prior section (4:6-11) suggests a natural disaster. In any case, it will be a catastrophic event for the Israelite community that can be named as the judgment of God. Such a devastating future seems to be set, as is evident in the repeated, “I will do (this) to you.” The divine call, revealing a continuing concern for this people, is sharp and clear: “Prepare to meet your God!” This language might be used for a call to worship, but here it is a word of judgment. There is no other way into the future except through this (unnamed) disaster. This meeting with God will be no more severe than the encounters

Amos

135

noted in vv. 6-11, but it may well be more devastating (see the larger context). The placement of 4:13 suggests that it explains (“for,” ki) the divine judgments that have and will occur: it is a reality grounded in creation. The creation language used (as in 5:8-9; 8:7-10; 9:5-6; see discussion in the “Introduction to Amos”) may have had roots in the hymnic tradition (and associations with divine appearances, see Mic 1:2-4). The reference to creation does not reinforce the word of judgment but explains its most basic workings. The moral order (that acts have consequences) is fundamentally a matter of creation, built into the very infrastructure of God’s cosmic design. That sins will have adverse consequences is fundamentally a matter of the way in which the world works; ill effects are intrinsically related to the deed. Consequently, it is a natural theological move for the prophet to follow the strong indictment and the oracles of judgment (experienced and anticipated) with a word about creation. This concluding statement makes clear that the reader is to think of the preceding involvement of God in disasters as a matter of God tending to the created moral order, not imposing a series of sanctions (similarly, Hos 4:1-3). Those who live in these environmentally troubled times should have no difficulty in discerning the truth of this remarkably rich statement of the interrelatedness of social and cosmic orders. Divine and Human Lament (Amos 5:1-27) Once again, a section of Amos begins with the call to “hear this word” (5:1; see 3:1; 4:1; 8:4). In this instance, the word of God (and Amos) constitutes a divine “lamentation” (“I take up”) over the people of Israel—it is as if Israel has already died. Funeral music before the death has occurred! But this reality makes it clear that the death is certain, and what follows in Amos 5–6 should be read in those terms. A clue to the length of this lament is provided by the language of 5:16-17, where Israel’s lamenting now mirrors God’s lamenting. At the same time, the lamenting of 5:16-17 sets the foundation for the two “alas” sections that follow (5:18-27; 6:1-14). This repeated grieving in Amos 5–6 serves to emphasize that there is no escape from the judgment announced in 5:16-17 (“therefore”). The exhortations to “seek” in 5:4-6 and 5:14-15 also mirror each other, as do the concerns about justice in 5:7 and 5:10-12; these repeated elements should be considered from within the lament, which enables them to be more clearly understood. What difference does the lament make to the interpretation of the exhortations (e.g., “seek”; 5:4, 6, 14-15)? To speak of God lamenting is to set aside any idea that God is unaffected by these developments in the

136

Reading Hosea–Micah

relationship with Israel; this God is one whose grief over Israel’s prospects is profound. God is deeply moved by the troubling effects that sinfulness has had on Israel’s life and openly voices that divine anguish to Israel (see Jer 31:20; Matt 23:37-38). This divine lament is prompted by the desperate situation in which God finds Israel; a disastrous future for the people of God seems to be set. Indeed, that future is so certain that it can be said that Israel has already “fallen, no more to rise” (5:2). Moreover, the larger context suggests that the repeated call to seek the Lord and live (5:4-6) will, finally, focus on the “remnant” (5:14-15). While this call repeatedly extends to the whole house of Israel (5:4), so that it is clear that everyone has been invited, only a remnant will have the chance to respond and “live.” Nonetheless, that the call is issued at all (to those who are living through death) is of crucial importance; beyond this certain death, life will still be available for at least a remnant in Israel. Even then, however, the future for this remnant is cast in the language of uncertainty: “it may be that the LORD . . . will be gracious to the remnant” (5:15). For God to say “may be” (the Hebrew word could also be translated “perhaps”) suggests some level of uncertainty for God with respect to the shape of the future of those involved (see the discussion of the “divine perhaps” in Fretheim 1984, 45–47). A Lamentation (Amos 5:2-3)

Israel is pictured as a vulnerable young woman who has “fallen” (5:2; said of Babylon in Isa 14:12). It is as if she has been ravaged or is in a drunken stupor, and she has no power to raise herself up or to provide for her future (say, through heirs). Moreover, no one is available to “raise her up”; she has been “forsaken” by all who might have given assistance (perhaps even God, at least for a time; Amos does envision a day when God will raise Israel up, 9:11). Even her own armies (from “the city,” 5:3), whatever role they may have had in the past (“a thousand . . . a hundred”; see Exod 18:21, 25), have now been scattered. Only a remnant of Israel’s former self remains (“a hundred left . . . ten left”), as she lies helpless on the land before any enemy. Seek the Lord (Amos 5:4-5)

Yet, in the midst of death, the call from God still comes: “Seek me and [so that you may] live!” In variant forms, this call recurs four times in this context (5:4, 6, 14-15). The call comes in God’s own words in 5:4b-5: Seek “me”! Seeking the Lord usually refers to going to the sanctuary for worship (e.g., Pss 24:6; 105:4). That is probably how the people would have understood “Seek me and live” (not unlike “Come to Bethel,” 4:4), but then God

Amos

137

shifts gears (as in 4:4) and tells them not to seek God in the usual places! That would be a futile exercise, for the negative future that has been announced is unconditional. The people are to seek the Lord rather than their sanctuaries: Bethel or Gilgal (see 4:4, where the call was ironic) or even Beersheba, a place of pilgrimage in Judah associated with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (e.g., Gen 46:1-4). The reason (“for”)? These sanctuaries (metonyms for the people) will come to nothing and their people will go into exile. Thus, it becomes clear that seeking the Lord will not stop that announced future; the disaster cannot be averted even if God is sought. At the same time, that invitation remains available to the people as they pass through the fire and live beyond the time of judgment. To be able to seek the Lord apart from sanctuaries and formal worship, while moving through such tumultuous and deathly times, is a gracious gift. Responding to that invitation may entail seeking the Lord more directly in prayer, praise, and thanksgiving. Again, Seek the Lord (Amos 5:6-7)

Amos reiterates the call in 5:6 (except in the third person): Seek “the LORD.” It is significant that those who are called to “seek the LORD” are immediately and sharply identified in 5:7 (“you”): those who turn justice into bitterness (=wormwood; see 6:12) against others and reduce righteousness to nothing (“seek the LORD” may be implied at the end of v. 7; cf. JPS). How should one explain such a sharp indictment accompanying the call to “seek the LORD”? A positive response seems not to be envisaged as a possibility. Such a bitter people, intransigent with respect to issues of justice will, finally, not be able to seek the Lord. The call to seek solidifies the point being made! This understanding becomes clearer in 5:14-15, where the phrase to “seek the LORD” does not focus on repentance or on the sanctuary but on justice and righteousness. The call in 5:14-15 to “seek good and not evil that you may live . . . hate evil and love good” provides a clue to the earlier calls, especially with the explanatory phrase, “establish justice in the gate” (5:15; cf. Isa 1:16-17; Ps 14:2-4; Hos 10:12). In view of this language, the reader finally knows what “seek the LORD” in 5:4-7 entails: to seek justice on behalf of the poor and the needy (stated sharply in 5:10-12, 24). Thus, the meaning of the call to “live” must include a call for Israel to live a life characterized by justice and righteousness. Justice and righteousness are paired themes in Amos (5:7, 24; 6:12). Justice has special reference to honesty and equity in the use of the legal system. Additionally, it is applicable more generally to fairness in all dealings of the community with respect to the life and well-being of others, especially

138

Reading Hosea–Micah

those who have few resources with which to defend themselves. Righteousness is the more basic term; to describe someone as righteous is to make a statement about who one is and what one does. Most fundamentally, it has reference to the relationship with God itself. Furthermore, growing out from that relationship, righteousness entails “attending well” to the relationships in which one stands in every sphere of life (whether with God or others). Justice in the courts and elsewhere is one of the contexts within which such righteousness is to be exhibited. Some scholars think that Israel’s future is not set in stone at this point, and that Israel’s turning to the Lord can bring new life into being for the community. This interpretation seems to be supported by the translation “or” in 5:6, which suggests that God will not come against the house of Joseph (= Israel) in disastrous judgment if they seek the Lord. Yet the “or” of 5:6 does not hold out hope! Rather, it more sharply specifies the inevitable judgment for such an unjust people. That this future is certain is made clear by the immediately following indictment of 5:7 (with which commentators commonly have difficulty in this context). “This is who you are; hence the future has already been shaped!” Such a future is also made clear in the exhortation of 5:14-15: it envisages only a remnant of Israel for such a positive future. Indeed, such a future for the remnant is not fully certain; it is reduced to a “perhaps” (5:15b). The situation has deteriorated too much for Israel’s future to be turned around! The call to seek the Lord, with its predictable renewed rejection by the people, will serve to solidify, indeed intensify the coming judgment. Such continued rejection of an explicit call from the Lord will publicly demonstrate Israel’s hardness of heart and (mercifully!) hasten the fall (see Fretheim 2002 on Jer 7). Given the lament that has been voiced and the certainty with which the judgment has been announced, it is not clear what the call to “seek” entails. The certainty of judgment does seem clear from texts such as 3:12, the innumerable refusals to repent in 4:6-11, and the series of visions in 7:7-9; 8:1-3 (in contrast to the divine change of mind in 7:1-6). This language suggests that the announcements of judgment are more than threats designed to move people to repentance. There is no real evidence for the common suggestion that the initial calls to “seek” held out genuine hope for cutting off the judgment (on either the people as a whole or a remnant), but that Amos later changed that possible future in view of the negative response. Moreover, the calls are more than the offer of a “last chance” to Israel so that, if they repented, God would cancel the judgment (for a remnant, if not for the people as a whole).

Amos

139

Amos certainly has a remnant in view, but he does not think they will escape the judgment; the remnant will emerge only through (and perhaps because of ) the fires of judgment. No one will escape the horror of the disaster (see 3:12), even if a few should respond to Amos’s word and repent. The call extends to everyone (“the house of Israel,” 5:1), the same people over whom God is lamenting. Consequently, at best, the call has continued importance for any members from the house of Israel who manage to survive the disaster (see the “ten” in 5:3; the “remnant” in 5:15) and any other audience (e.g., Judah) that can be identified as “the house of Israel.” The third call to seek good (5:14-15) seems to resolve any ambiguity, for at this point in the text it is only the “remnant” of the house of Joseph that will be delivered. Doxology of Judgment (Amos 5:8-9)

This doxology of judgment (see 4:13; 8:7-10; 9:5-6) seems interruptive in this context, but that is not the case if creational themes are integral to talk about judgment (some see it as the center of the chapter). This doxology is surrounded by laments for the death of the nation, indictments, announcements of judgment, and calls to “seek the LORD.” The context picks up the theme of justice especially (5:7, 10-15; 5:21–6:14), a theme that is fundamentally creational in orientation; the absence of justice in Israel disrupts not only the social order but also the cosmic order. God the Creator, who acts to “turn deep darkness into the morning, and darkens the day into night,” has created the world in such a way as to “make destruction flash out against the strong, so that destruction comes upon the fortress” and pours out raging waters over the earth (cf. “breaking out” and “devouring” in 5:6). As certainly as Pleiades and Orion (constellations), darkness and light, day and night, work according to their created ordering, so also will God mediate adverse effects upon those who “trample on the poor and take from them levies of grain,” that is, unfair taxes (5:11; cf. Job 5:8-16; 9:5-10). The people have polluted the land through their lack of care and concern for the needy and disadvantaged (cf. Jer 3:1-5, linking human wickedness with adverse cosmic effects; Joel 2:10). Such behaviors have cosmic consequences! That is the nature of the moral order—chickens come home to roost (see “Introduction to Amos”). Accusations of Injustice (Amos 5:10-13)

This segment is mostly direct address (the “you” continues from 5:4-7; 5:10 uses the third person). Those who do speak the truth are hated! “If you rebuke those who misuse the court system (= the gate) through bribery and

140

Reading Hosea–Micah

subversion of the cause of the needy, you are hated and abhorred by the people of Israel.” This indictment, spoken first by the prophet (5:10) and then by God (5:12), both precedes and follows the judgment (5:11; “therefore”). Because of Israel’s lack of justice and because the people trample on the poor and deprive them of justice in the courts, they shall not live in their opulent houses (hewn stone rather than uncut stones from the field) and shall not drink the wine from their plentiful vineyards (comparably, Zeph 1:13). It is such an evil time that those who are prudent and oppose injustice—such as those named in 5:10—are reduced to silence and can have no effect in moving Israel into a more secure future (5:13). Exhortations and Judgments (Amos 5:14-17)

Announcements of judgment resume in 5:16-17 (see discussion on 5:4-6), but they are interrupted by further calls to “seek good and not evil . . . to hate evil and love good” (see 5:4, 6). The people of Israel are to set their minds and hearts against evil (=“hate”) and on behalf of good. It may be/perhaps (5:14a is parallel to 5:15b—expressing less than full certainty) that God “will be with you” and “be gracious to the remnant” (as claimed in their worship; Ps 23:4). This theme refers to God’s engagement on their behalf rather than simple presence; God’s presence as such is not made conditional upon Israel’s conduct (God will be active in judgment!). The “perhaps” element in these verses is ironic, standing against popular conceptions of divine presence and Israel’s future. God’s “perhaps” (“may be”; 5:15) does not claim a divine freedom. Rather, it stresses the uncertainty, even for God, of the kind of future that Israel will have on the far side of the judgment. Israel is to take up the call to hate evil, do what is good, and establish justice in the courts; the effects on their future may be positive indeed. Nevertheless, there is, finally, a “Who knows?” that pervades this word (see Jonah 3:9). The call to “seek good and not evil . . . hate evil and love good” is immediately followed by a remarkable series of lamenting words (wailing, alas, alas, mourning, lamentation, wailing, wailing); they return the reader to the lamentation theme of 5:1. The wailing includes everyone—in the cities (squares and streets) and on farms and vineyards. The phrase concerning those “skilled in lamentation” (cf. Jer 9:17-19) refers to those called to mourn on behalf of the community at a death that has occurred. Clearly a death is envisaged, and it is the death of a people! Furthermore, the death and mourning will occur because of the judgment of God, who will pass through their midst (see 4:12; Exod 12:12, 23), probably in the form of

Amos

141

marauding agents/armies that will bring great devastation. The upshot of these verses: Israel will not be able to escape disaster! Day of the LORD as Darkness (Amos 5:18-20)

This segment continues the theme of lament and grief (“Alas”; and 6:1, 4). It is designed for the religious leadership of Israel and challenges those who refused to believe that a disaster could catch up God’s elect (see 3:2). Israel was expecting/desiring “the day of the LORD,” a popular phrase used to refer to a glorious future in which all of Israel’s (and the Lord’s) enemies would be vanquished (see Joel). The prophet cuts into this hope, however, with a sharp question: why would “you” (direct address) desire the day of the LORD? That “day” would not be the kind of day for which they hoped (cf. Joel 1:15; Isa 2:11-12). It would not be a day of deliverance for them but of disaster, not a day of light and brightness but of darkness and gloom. In other words, you are the enemies God will vanquish! These words are a remarkable reversal of expectation, and one that would certainly place the prophet at odds with his audience! The prophet uses an everyday image to drive the point home and disabuse the people of their sense of security: they will flee from one wild animal only to meet another; they will seek refuge in their homes—usually the safest of places—only to be bitten by poisonous snakes—a fatal event. Darkness and gloom is the only shape of their future. There is no escape! Wasted Worship (Amos 5:21-27)

God reminds Israel, again, why they face such a future. This segment consists primarily of indictments and announcements of judgment (including judgments of their worship in 5:21-23). God returns to the themes of 4:4-5, which make clear that the people “love” to worship. They do all the right things in their worship: festivals, solemn assemblies, offerings of various sorts, hymn-singing with musical accompaniment. God’s response to these worship practices, delivered in the first person, is remarkably sharp: I hate; I despise; I take no delight in (literally, smell); I do not accept; I do not look upon them with favor; I do not listen to the “noise” of your hymnody. To “hate” is to stand fully over against something; to “despise” is to reject as repulsive. Amos condemns every dimension of Israel’s worship life (see Isa 1:10-17, adding the practice of prayer; Isa 58:1-9; Hos 6:6; Mic 6:1-8; Ps 15:1-5; Matt 7:21; 23:23). The depth and breadth of God’s rejection of Israel’s worship is conveyed in ways that are emotional (hate, despise), volitional (no acceptance), and sensory (smell, touch, sight, hearing). God holds his nose, shuts his eyes, and

142

Reading Hosea–Micah

plugs his ears! The range of interpretive possibilities regarding why God so rejects Israel’s worship has been noted (4:4-5); God’s rejection does not relate to issues of appropriateness, idolatry, or sincerity. As 5:24 makes clear, the issue is the disjunction between worship and life. The people do all of the right things in worship, but their daily lives are not characterized by justice and righteousness. The lack of the latter results in God’s rejection of the former! Scholars have suggested two basic interpretations of 5:24, depending on the sense of “justice.” If justice has reference to God’s judgment, then the verse means that God is calling for judgment to roll over Israel like flooding waters. Another interpretation is more likely in view of the usage elsewhere in Amos exclusively for human beings (see at 5:7, 15; 6:12). That is, the language of 5:24 constitutes a call for justice and righteousness to flood over the community and to continue to cascade and flow, not like a brook that dries up in the summer but like a stream that never stops flowing. The image of water is especially meaningful in such an arid land. There is no indication, however, that to practice justice would stop the disaster from occurring; it stands rather as God’s constant expectation for God’s people. Is Amos presenting an either/or here: either worship or justice/righteousness? Are such practices of worship inherently inappropriate? Such a perspective is not likely to be the case. Rather, it is the disjunction of worship and daily life that has become so problematic. Condemned is an understanding that worship is somehow sufficient for a proper relationship with God. If the people’s daily lives had been showing forth justice and righteousness, particularly in their treatment of the less fortunate, then the worship practices would not have been condemned. Worship and ethics must be of one piece, not separated or compartmentalized. Notably, care for the less fortunate is not just added to the worship elements; the worship elements are to be taken away. The present worship infrastructure had to be denounced and destroyed. Then, it could be rebuilt following renewed commitment and action regarding justice and righteousness. The next segment (5:25-27) has long been a puzzle to interpreters, both in terms of the flow of thought and the translation and interpretation of several words. The question about sacrifices in the wilderness is similar to that posed by Jeremiah 7:22: Did the people of Israel have a sacrificial system during the wilderness journey? The most likely interpretation of 5:26-27 understands that the exile beyond Damascus (that is, Assyria) is a certain future for Israel. The reference to the Assyrian gods in 5:26 is probably a future issue, for Amos has not raised the issue of idolatry (contrast Hosea). Hence, it likely refers to the gods that will join the exiles as they move into

Amos

143

captivity or, more likely, that Israel will take up while they are in captivity. The people of Israel are headed “beyond Damascus” (in Syria), on their way to exile in Assyria. Indictment of the Affluent (Amos 6:1-14) This section, with its initial “Alas,” parallels 5:18-27. The lament motif, begun in 5:1, continues. As the religious leaders are the focus in the lament in 5:18-27, so the political leaders are in Amos’s sights in 6:1-14. It is ironic that Amos should lament the comfortable, affluent people who were “in charge” in the land; they would no doubt expect to be celebrated for all their accomplishments! The initial segment consists of a series of indictments (6:1-6); announcements of judgment follow (6:7-14; “therefore”). Amos commonly interweaves indictments in these announcements (see 6:8, 12-13). As often in Amos, these verses focus on persons who have challenged Amos’s message, to whom the prophet replies. Attack on the Affluent (Amos 6:1-6)

The indictment, edged with disputation and sarcasm, is directed in particular at the affluent leaders of society from both Judah and Israel (cf. Mic 1:5-9)—“those who are at ease . . . those who feel secure.” Amos the southerner does not exempt his own country from the indictment (the better to be received by the northerners); this reference would also be an important text for the later application to Judeans. Amos’s reference to “notables” and to “the first” (most prominent) among “the nations” in the region is ironic. So they think! For Israel to pin its hopes on these sorts of leaders is sheer folly! “Take a look at the surrounding countries/cities (several translations are possible): Calneh and Hamath (important Syrian cities), Gath (major city in Philistia). Take a close look! You certainly are not better or bigger than they are!” Indeed, each of them was defeated (perhaps by Assyria; the historical setting is uncertain). So how can Israel claim exemption? Echoing 5:18-20, 6:3 addresses those who claim that the evil day (the day of the LORD as darkness and gloom) does not pertain to them. In fact, however, their behaviors bring that day of violence even nearer! The rich and all-too-comfortable, even decadent persons—who gained their wealth on the backs of the poor—appear once again in 6:4-6 (cf. Hos 7:1-11; Mic 2:1-2; 3:1-3) in the description of an extravagant banquet (that may go on for several days). These people lie on fancy, ivory-inlaid beds and recline on dinner couches—eating meat of young animals (meat was a

144

Reading Hosea–Micah

luxury in that society), frivolously singing songs to improvised music (thinking they are composers like David!), drinking wine from bowls (not cups!), anointing themselves with the latest in commercial body oils. They are so self-indulgent that they are oblivious to what is truly happening to their country (Joseph = Israel)! They should be grieving, not partying! Judgment Again (Amos 6:7-14)

Because of these developments, the announcement of judgment is sharply stated (6:7): they shall be the “first” (cf. 6:1)—to go into exile! The revelry of these loungers (see 6:4) shall fade away into the night. Because God so loathes, even hates (sets the divine heart firmly against, see 5:21) this arrogance and ostentatious wealth and power (on “strongholds,” see 3:11), God will give Jacob (= Israel) up to the adverse effects of their own sins (6:8). Furthermore, God swears again “by himself ” (4:2; see 8:7) that this will occur by placing, as it were, “his hand over his heart”: this judgment will be as certain as God’s very person and character. That time of violence shall create upheavals at all levels of Israelite culture, from individuals and families to houses great and small (6:9-11). A grisly story, of uncertain meaning, is told about ten people from one house, probably soldiers (see 5:3); they are killed, perhaps as the result of a siege. Before the house is destroyed, a relative who is responsible for dead bodies (cremation?) comes to the house; he finds one person still alive in the innermost part of the house and asks whether any others may have survived. Having received a negative reply, he cautions that neither of them must mention God’s name, perhaps out of fear of another experience of the wrath of God or, better, fear that those perpetrating the violence would not be sympathetic to Yahweh worshipers. In 6:11, the judgment takes place at the “command” of the Lord, with the effect that the houses of both small and great will be shattered. In 6:12, picking up the indictment again, the prophet asks two rhetorical questions and draws a comparison. No, of course, horses do not run on rocks! Moreover, the sea (or the rocks) cannot be plowed with oxen (in today’s idiom: can elephants fly?). Yet “you” (direct address) have tried something just as foolish and, notably, unnatural; “you” have sought to turn justice and righteousness into poison and wormwood—that which is deadly and bitter (see 5:7, 24). Therefore—continuing the announcement of judgment—those who rejoice now over Israel’s power in recapturing two towns east of the Jordan by Jeroboam’s armies (6:13; Lodebar; Karnaim; see 2 Kgs 14:25), and brag about it (!), will soon be overwhelmed by “a nation” (6:14; unnamed, but

Amos

145

proves to be Assyria) that God is “raising up” to bring judgment. God will use available agents against Israel that Israel’s own sins have stirred up. These agents will oppress Israel (and Judah) from one end of the nation to the next. Lebo-hamath in the north (Syria) and the gulf of Arabah in the south are the borders established by Jeroboam (2 Kgs 14:25). What they thought they had gained in prominence and wealth, they will now lose (“you reap what you sow”). The Visions of Amos (Amos 7:1–9:10) Amos 7:1–9:10 consists of five visions of the prophet (7:1-3, 4-6, 7-9; 8:1-3; 9:1-4); these are the only texts in Amos written in the first person. These visions are negative “showings” of the judgments to be experienced by Israel. The first two visions are not realized because of Amos’s intercession on Israel’s behalf (7:1-6); they remain only portents of the future. At the same time, the first two visions demonstrate that the prophet desired salvation for Israel rather than judgment; God’s response to the prophet also makes clear God’s desires for Israel. Amos does not intercede on behalf of the people in the wake of the last three visions; Amos’s reasons for not doing so are not made clear. The implication is that the visions will be realized and Israel will not be able to escape the disaster. Between the third and fourth visions, a report of a confrontation between Amos and the priest of Bethel, Amaziah (7:10-17), is recounted; this is the only narrative about the prophet in the book (besides the vision reports). This story, which comes to a climax with a sharp word of judgment (7:17), may have been inserted at this point to provide narrative backing to the judgments in 7:9 (which explicitly speak of the end of the Jeroboam dynasty). This report also serves to associate the visions with Amos’s call (7:14-15), although we do not know whether they occurred at the same time; the visions themselves contain no call language. The timing of these visions relative to the preceding indictments and announcements of judgment is uncertain. It may be that the visions were received over an extended period, with Amos’s intercessory activity (7:1-6) successful in forestalling the actual judgment. The point at which God shifts toward certain judgment (visions 3-5) may have come after a time during which the people continued their unfaithfulness. Whether Amos’s preaching of judgment is only to be associated with the period after visions 3-5 is uncertain; perhaps some of his earlier warnings were associated with visions 1-2. What seems to have changed Amos’s direction was God’s own way of proceeding in vision 3; God interprets the object shown to Amos in terms that seem to foreclose intercession (7:8-9). Yet

146

Reading Hosea–Micah

Amos’s intercessory moves in visions 1-2—from “forgive” (7:2) to “cease” (7:5)—are already going in the direction that God takes in vision 3 and prepare him for the moment that is beyond intercession. The visions may describe an experience of Amos within the divine council (see Jer 23:18-22). The prophet may recount them to lend authority to the word that the visions claim is the word of God. The play on the words “prophet” and “seer” in 7:10-17 (see below) may reflect the debate in Israel over issues of prophetic authority. That Amos’s visions surround the report of the confrontation with Amaziah in 7:10-17 suggests that they function as authoritative backing for Amos’s word to the priest. Such visions do not prove that the prophet’s word is from God, of course, but they might bring pause to those who condemned his words—and keep them watching over their shoulder to what might be coming next! The visions often speak of something that God “showed” the prophet (see Jer 24:1; Ezek 40:4; Zech 1:20). Amos sees something that is earthly rather than heavenly (cf. Ezek 1). Just how the prophet received these visions is not made clear. The fourth vision is perhaps the most transparent, suggesting a form of concentration ecstasy (8:1-3). That is, God asks Amos to focus on a basket of summer fruit (Hebrew qayits, 8:1; cf. the similar process in Jer 1:11-14). By repeating this word again and again, the Hebrew word for “end” (qets; 8:2) may leap into the mind of the prophet. Qayits, qayits, qayits, qayits—qets! The “end” of the people of Israel thus becomes the subject of the word that Amos hears the Lord speak. As such, the object in itself is not the focus of the vision, but the name of the object. The word play in 7:7-9 revolves around the word for “plumb line” (‘anak), but the meaning of the word is uncertain; it could be related to the word ‘anaq/’anah, “sigh” (and related to the laments of chs. 5–6 and in 8:3, 10). The visions are presented not as individual images or objects but as “videos” of what has transpired (or will transpire over time). Amos primarily sees, rather than hears, this word of God (hearing may be a secondary aspect of the vision). At the same time, these images (locusts, fire, wall, baskets of fruit, God beside the altar) were real in Israel’s life; Amos had experienced them. Notably, in the vision of locusts (7:1-3), Amos intercedes after they have finished eating; in the vision of fire (7:4-6), the destruction is in process; hence, while these are visions of the future, there remain elements of uncertainty. In each vision, except the fourth, God is a character, forming locusts (7:1), calling for a fire (7:4), holding the plumb line used to build the wall (7:7), and exercising judgment (9:1-4). The first two visions are presented without clarification; in the second two visions God makes an explanation available to Amos (7:8-9; 8:2-3),

Amos

147

perhaps because the significance of the plumb line/summer fruit is not immediately evident. God asks Amos to identify (not describe) what he sees (7:8; 8:2). That Amos responds, however minimally, means that the prophet participates in the development of the word of judgment that is to come. What the prophet has to say contributes to the shape of the future, especially the future of Israel and of God. In the fifth vision (9:1-4), God commands Amos to act. In this case, God asks Amos to participate in actions that bring the future into being (though no report of his action is given). While Amos’s response is acutely evident in the wake of the first two visions, his lack of an intercessory response to visions 3 and 4 (7:8; 8:2) has a major effect on the future as well. That is, the presence or absence of the intercession of the prophet shapes the future and the nature of God’s response. God’s specification in vision 3 (and 4) that God would not again relent (“pass by”) reinforces the absence of Amos’s intercessions. One may compare Exodus 32:7-10, where God’s speaking (“leave me alone”) does not stop Moses from interceding. Whatever the visions may have meant to Amos and his sense of call, the reports of the visions now have a different function. They are an integral part of the prophet’s proclamation; they have become word of God to readers. Vision of Locusts—Vision 1 (Amos 7:1-3)

The initial vision of locusts occurs at the worst possible time in the agricultural year (see 4:9; Joel 1). The early growth (grain) is ready for harvesting (though the king had gotten his share out of the field!) and the late growth (vegetables) has just begun to sprout. The locusts have devoured all the vegetation (“grass,” NRSV). For Amos not to have to ask about the meaning of the visions indicates that he is sufficiently attuned to God’s purposes to recognize what is at stake. The Vision of Fire—Vision 2 (Amos 7:4-6)

The second vision of a judgment of fire (perhaps a lightning storm setting dry fields ablaze) envelops the natural order (creation imagery is used to describe its intensity). The sending of fire is the judgment announced against each nation in 1:3–2:5 (though not Israel); it is now Israel’s turn. That these two visions come to nothing but are reported nonetheless is important. It suggests that God makes every effort to find a more positive way into the future. God is not hasty or capricious, but “slow to anger” (see Exod 34:6-7), that is, patient with human wrongdoing. One may compare those texts where God forgives quite apart from any human initiative (Isa

148

Reading Hosea–Micah

44:22-23). Forgiveness can lead to repentance rather than the other way around! In both cases, Amos intercedes on behalf of Israel (a common prophetic responsibility), demonstrating that he cares deeply about their future— prophets do not simply speak against the people! What the prophet has to say can profoundly affect the moves that God makes. The prophet first asks God to “forgive” (7:2) and, then, given that God did not forgive Israel, to “cease” moving toward judgment (7:5). The prophet does not suggest that the people do not deserve it or that God is somehow being unfair; the appeal is based solely on Israel’s being too “small” (weak) to survive, in contrast to its own claims (6:1-2, 8, 13). God has a history of tending to the “small” of this world (see Exod 22:21-27)! The assumption: God is gracious and merciful and could “forgive” without repentance on Israel’s part. In both cases, God is responsive to the prophet and “relents,” declaring that the announced future shall not be. To relent is not the same as to forgive; it is to reverse a decision for judgment. The effects of relenting and forgiving may be different; to forgive sins may still mean that one experiences the effects of the judgment (e.g., David, 2 Sam 12). At the same time, when God no longer relents regarding the announced judgments, the effect is to put the first two visions back into play, at least with respect to their disastrous impact. Vision of the Plumb Line—Vision 3 (Amos 7:7-9)

The third vision (cf. Jer 1:11-14) focuses on an object, perhaps a “plumb line”—a cord with a lead weight on one end—that has been used to build a wall straight (see Isa 28:17). When Amos identifies the object, God announces the significance of the vision. God has used a plumb line with respect to “my people Israel” (note the intimacy) who, in effect, are likened to the wall of 7:7. Because they have not measured up, God the builder will treat them like a wall that is not plumb—tear it down. This image of building destruction informs God’s judgment language in 7:9, which consists of the demolition of shrines (Isaac=Israel, see 7:16), sanctuaries, and the royal house (of the current king, Jeroboam II). God’s use of armies to accomplish this end is evident in the word “sword.” The last image of 7:8 speaks of God no longer passing over Israel’s sin (see Mic 7:18); that is, the divine relenting of 7:1-6 is no longer available. Dispute between Amos and the Priesthood (Amos 7:10-17)

A sharp confrontation is reported between Amos and Israel’s religious leadership (represented by Amaziah, probably the chief priest). The segment begins

Amos

149

with Amaziah reporting to king Jeroboam what Amos has said about him (7:10-11), his confrontation of Amos (7:12-13), and Amos’s response (7:14-17). This segment seems designed to provide a real-life illustration of the kind of rejection that the prophet faced. He is rejected at the highest levels of “church and state.” This story may represent a typical engagement on the part of Israel’s leadership to stop the preaching of Amos. That the priest and king (and their respective interests) are closely related is evident in the quick reporting of Amos’s activities to the king by the priest (7:10) and the reference to Bethel as “the king’s sanctuary” (7:13). Priest and king are clearly in cahoots, perhaps because the sanctuary is the beneficiary of royal largesse (7:13; “temple of the kingdom”) and because its personnel will protect the political leadership at all costs—even its own integrity. The message of the prophet is considered a threat to both of these realities. In his report to Jeroboam (whose response is unknown), Amaziah names Amos’s activity a conspiracy against the king and provides a paraphrase of Amos’s message as evidence (cf. 7:11 with 7:9, where Jeroboam is named by Amos). Amaziah may (purposely?) misinterpret Amos—7:9 does not speak of Jeroboam being killed (he died a natural death, 2 Kgs 14:29) or Israel’s exile. Moreover, Amaziah does not recognize that it is God’s word that Amos has spoken, not a personal conspiracy by the prophet (cf. 7:8 with 7:11). Amaziah apparently thinks that by banishing Amos (and the words of God he claims to speak), he can defuse the problem. Peace at all costs! At the same time, Amaziah may know more than he lets on. He does not deny that Amos is a prophet (or “seer,” 7:12-13), or even his authority as a prophet. He certainly knows of the long history of prophets in Israel who have often successfully challenged kings (e.g., Ahijah; Elijah; Elisha). For him to say that Israel is not able to “bear his words” (7:10) recognizes that Amos has real power, capable of more than a minor destabilization of the country. Notably, he does not challenge the specific content of Amos’s words, and, by letting a person guilty of treason go home scot-free, he may signal that he does not want to mess with a prophet. Perhaps he has the hope that Amos might redirect his word against Judah! Amos’s response (7:14-17) is striking in several respects. For one thing, he does not directly reply to Amaziah’s directive; he does not say he will (not) leave. Amos initially picks up on Amaziah’s address to him as a “seer”: he is not a prophet and does not belong to a prophetic guild (a professional class, see 2 Kgs 2:3-15). Rather, his primary vocation is the proper care of animals and sycamore figs—not the usual prophet! At the same time, he understands himself to be called to “prophesy” (7:15; see 3:8). While this may mean

150

Reading Hosea–Micah

“I was no prophet” (but now is, see NRSV footnote), more likely he understands that he does not fit the pattern of a typical prophet (the issue is not office). In modern terms, Amos is an example of “lay ministry.” Amos seems to claim that his call from God—to prophesy to Israel = house of Isaac (not Judah)—is temporary and situation-specific; he has no identity as a prophet and does not have an ongoing call to prophesy. Consequently, Amaziah’s directive to Amos to earn his living by prophesying in Judah is beside the point (and Amos uses Amaziah’s own words against him, 7:16). Most seriously, Amaziah seeks to obstruct his calling by God to “preach against” Israel. Notably, Amaziah does not want to silence Amos or the word of God that he speaks as such; he wants to silence him regarding the word spoken at Bethel against Israel. In view of Amaziah’s efforts to obstruct his calling, Amos proceeds to prophesy! Amos announces a penetrating judgment from the Lord, mostly against Amaziah and his family, with a final word about Israel going into exile (7:17; cf. 2:11-12; 2 Kgs 17:23). The judgment on Amaziah is unusually harsh (cf. the comparable words to David, 2 Sam 12:10-12): his wife will become a prostitute (that is, be forced into it by the desperate situation), his children killed, his land parceled out to conquerors, and his own life ended in exile in an unclean (for a priest!) land. Such a listing constitutes a common fate of those who endured the onslaught of armies in those days. The irony is that Amos’s word was not finally obstructed, and Amaziah’s own future was problematized. Fourth Vision and Oracles of Judgment (Amos 8:1-14) Vision of Summer Fruit—Vision 4 (Amos 8:1-3)

The fourth vision again focuses on an object—a basket of “summer fruit” (qayits, a play on the word “end”—qets). Amos is to concentrate on the summer fruit, repeating the word: qayits, qayits, qayits. Repeated, it could bring to mind the word qets, “end.” The likely point of the summer fruit is that it looks great but will become rotten in a short time and be discarded. It may be associated with the harvest (qasir) of summer fruit, and the link between “harvest” and “end” is also sharp and clear (see Hos 6:11; Jer 51:33). The “end,” a word also used for the flood and its effects in Genesis 6:13 (see Ezek 7:2-6), is uncompromising! It will not be the end of an individual life but the end of a people! The end is coming on the people of Israel as certainly as on this fruit; as God repeats, “I will never again pass them by” (see 7:8).

Amos

151

The theme of mourning and wailing reappears (see 5:1-6:14), permeating an atmosphere of death with many dead bodies strewn about (8:3, 9-10). The songs to which God would not listen (5:23) have become laments. The end is silence (see 6:10; Zeph 1:7). The translation of JPS catches the disjointedness: “So many corpses left lying everywhere! Hush!” The prophet is not to intercede or otherwise speak. It is difficult to understand a word like “end” for a people to whom God has made a never-ending promise. Did God break a promise? Is there any way in which God can be said to fail when people fail? God’s promise can be rejected by those to whom it is given! And that may mean that God’s will does not get done. Indictment and Judgment (Amos 8:4-14)

A familiar reason for the intensive judgment of 8:1-3 is repeated in 8:4-6. This indictment is, in turn, followed by a renewed announcement of judgment (8:7-14). These verses might be interpreted as reflections on the idea of the “end” of Israel that has been introduced. Many words and phrases from earlier in Amos are picked up again here (e.g., 8:11-12 with 2:6-7; 4:6-8; or 8:13-14 with 5:1-2). The audience is directly addressed (“you”) in 8:4-6, 10; God speaks in the first person in 8:7-12. 8:4-6. The beginning words (“Hear this”) echo 3:1; 4:1; 5:1. They introduce an indictment (8:4-6) focused on Israel’s mistreatment of the poor and needy (see 2:6-8; 5:10-13; 6:1-7). Amos quotes their own words (8:5-6), and so they indict themselves! The focus of this description is not on the political or legal system but on Israel’s commercial life (in our terms, “the business community”). These texts reflect an increasing divide between the rich and the poor; wealth is often gained on the backs of the disadvantaged (yes, the poor can prey on the poor, but that is not the basic issue for Amos). The merchants and traders in particular are described in rapacious terms, out to get every penny possible from those who are forced to eke out a living with limited resources. These shopkeepers can hardly wait until the new moon rest days (see Num 10:10) and sabbaths are over—they are missing out on a full day of profits!—so that they can reopen their shops and work on their earnings. They do not care what happens to the poor. This attitude suggests a deep hypocrisy regarding their religious practice; they participate in worship only to enable their businesses to thrive (see 5:21-24). Business ethics be damned! Their cheating is manifold, with rigged containers/scales for measuring food and money (in modern terms, their scales register a pound as 15½ ounces). This practice, which the law

152

Reading Hosea–Micah

prohibits (Lev 19:35-37; Deut 25:13-16), is sharply condemned by other prophets (Hos 12:7; Mic 6:9-11). The language of 8:6 (echoing 2:6) speaks of forcing those who cannot pay their bills—even small bills, worth no more than a pair of sandals!—into debt slavery. The segment ends with a note about selling the “sweepings of the wheat” (chaff ); we would call it the bottom of the barrel, where the least valuable food has settled. A contemporary example would be selling hamburger with a high percentage of fat, particularly in the stores that serve the poorer sections of town. 8:7-14. Another announcement of judgment follows, focused on death and, again, mourning/wailing. This deathly announcement is introduced in 8:7 by a divine swearing, with heavy satire this time (cf. 4:2; 6:8); this future for Israel is as sure as Jacob is proud! God will “never forget their deeds”; that is, their deeds will certainly have (divinely mediated) consequences. The staccato-like time references in 8:9, 11, 13 (“on that day”; “the time is surely coming”; “in that day”; cf. 5:18-20) emphasize the certain march of time toward these disasters. “The end is at hand! There is nothing you can do!” Notably, Israel’s sins will have an effect on the entire land (not just the people). The land shall tremble, probably a reference to an earthquake (see 1:1), but other natural disasters such as drought are also likely in mind (see 4:6-11). In an earthquake, the land will rise and fall, toss and turn like a flooding river such as the Nile (repeated in 9:5). All the people who live on the land shall mourn; their mourning has been mirrored in the divine lament in 5:1-3 and “Alas” sections of 5:18-27; 6:1-14. The earthquake in 8:8 parallels events in the heavens in 8:9, probably a solar eclipse (8:9; see 4:13; 5:8; solar eclipses occurred in 784 and 763 BCE). In turn, these natural events parallel the adverse effects of sin on the human community, manifest especially in rites of mourning (8:10). “Every festival will be a funeral, every song a lament! All your clothes will be funeral garb, every head shaved (8:10; see Mic 1:16)!” These rites signal the deaths of many in the community; death is so pervasive and, again and again, hits so close to home. The situation will be like the death of an only son (Jer 6:26); that is, Israel will have no one left to carry on their name into the next generation. The “end” of it all is a bitter day! These judgmental themes continue in 8:11-14, but they strike a new note. The natural disasters shall fade in significance compared to a God-sent famine “of hearing the words of the LORD” (8:11). This spiritual judgment is unique in the Old Testament (though similar to Hos 5:6; 6:5; Mic 3:5-7). The future for Israel will be so disastrous that people, ironically, will cry out

Amos

153

for some comforting word from God, but it will be too late! Given their present rejection of the word of God, this is poetic justice— having shut down Amos’s preaching and intercessions (7:12-13)! They will search everywhere for a word from the Lord, but they shall not find it (8:12). Even those who are young and energetic will not succeed in finding a way to quench their thirst for a word from God (8:13). Those who claim to have found a word of the Lord at any location in the land—from Dan in the north, Samaria (NRSV “Ashimah” is better read “shame,” see NIV; we know nothing of a goddess named Ashimah) in the middle, and Beersheba in the south—will only fall in attempting to do so. The problem is deeply pervasive; the issue is the silence of the word of God (not idolatry). Those who speak the word will never rise again (8:14; see Zeph 1:5). In other words, the time is coming when judgment will fall and no prophets will be available to speak the word of the Lord. The effect of such an absence of the word of the Lord is to hasten the judgment and bring on the end. In sum, human sinfulness will have sharply negative effects on both the natural order and on the Israelite community. These realities in the natural sphere and the human sphere are all of one piece: the divinely mediated working out of the created order of things in the wake of human sinfulness. It is noteworthy that the theme of justice, so central to earlier references to creational themes in 4:13 (see 4:1) and 5:8-9 (see 5:7, 10-12), returns in this context (8:4-6). Human injustice in particular is seen to have devastating effects on every aspect of life, including the land (on Amos’s creation theology, see “Introduction to Amos”). Moving from Judgment to a Word of Hope (Amos 9:1-10) God is the speaker of much of this segment (except vv. 5-6, which are about God). The divine words are spoken to Amos (9:1), but Amos is less engaged as a person than in the prior visions. At the same time, God calls him to speak/act; what he does will have sharply judgmental effects. No Escape (Amos 9:1-4)

The chapter begins with Amos’s vision of the Lord standing beside the altar (presumably at Bethel). The function of the vision is to finalize God’s word of judgment in and through the prophet. That Amos actually “saw” the Lord is in line with several other Old Testament texts (Exod 24:9-11; 1 Kgs 22:19; Isa 6:1). God issues a command, probably to Amos, to “strike” the “capitals” (the tops of the pillars that support the roof of the building within which is the

154

Reading Hosea–Micah

altar, beside which God is standing). He is so to act until the thresholds (or bases) are destabilized, and the buildings fall and crush the people (sounds like the effects of an earthquake). Apparently, the central sanctuary at Bethel (and related buildings; see 3:14; 7:13) is a metonym for the people of Israel. This divine command has primary reference to the word of judgment that Amos is to preach; it will have these disastrous effects. At the same time, the word of Amos and the person of Amos are not distinguished in this formulation. It is as if Amos personally is to “strike” and “shatter”; that is, all that Amos says and does is to be directed to this destructive end. Amos as actor is set alongside God as actor. For all the preeminence of God’s activity, God chooses to use agents and not to act alone. Those individuals who elude the actions of Amos will be killed by the sword (other divine agents). Not one shall escape! Even if they were to dig into Sheol (the world of all dead) or climb into heaven (God’s abode), God would find them and take them (cf. Ps 139:7-12 for a positive use of this divine activity, though see 139:19-22!). God is “inescapable”; people cannot hide from God in any niche or corner of the cosmos. Even if they hide on Carmel, the highest of Israel’s hills (overlooking the Mediterranean Sea), or at the bottom of the sea, God will seek them out and use agents (such as seaserpents) to hunt them down and afflict them. Even if they are taken into exile, forcibly marched there by their enemies, God will consider such a judgment insufficient and will find agents to kill them (see Ezek 5:12). God’s basic stance toward this people is acutely stated: “I intend harm to them rather than good” (contrast Zeph 1:12; Gen 50:20; Jer 29:11). What a divine word, and spoken at the altar no less! It sounds as if not even a remnant of Israel will survive this onslaught and begin again. Yet 9:8 will stake the claim sharply: “I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob.” This suggests that the issue is stated in hyperbolic or at least inexact ways. However widely the sword of the agent reaches, some will be spared. Creation (Amos 9:5-6)

Once again, a creation theology is spoken (see 4:13; 5:8-9; 8:10-13). A key point of 9:1-4 has been that the judgment will be universally effective; there can be no escape, even for the chosen people. God then grounds that word in a creation theology: the touch of the Creator God extends across the entire face of the cosmos. That universal divine reach uses elements of nature as agents in the exercise of judgment (using images of 8:8). The earth “melts” and rises and falls (a probable reference to the crushing effects of earthquakes, see 8:8; 9:1), and the seas flood across the depth and breadth of the

Amos

155

earth—and people mourn (on Amos’s creation theology, see “Introduction to Amos”). A Challenging Thought (Amos 9:7-8)

This segment is an extension of the same point made in 9:5-6: God is the God of all peoples, acting decisively in the stories of non-chosen nations (see Mal 1:11 for a comparable claim). This claim is stated in rhetorical questions that both challenge present views of the audience (see the quoted assertion in 9:10) and invite further reflection. God acts among the nations of the world in ways that are comparable to God’s saving work on behalf of Israel: just as God brought Israel out of Egypt to Canaan, so also God brought the Philistines from Caphtor (= Crete) to the Mediterranean coast and the Aramaeans from Kir in Elam (see 1:5) to Syria—countries adjacent to Israel. This is not to say that God controlled their movements, but God became actively engaged for good in their stories. Furthermore, it is wise to remember, these nations did not exercise care for Israel, God’s chosen people, in any special way. They could even be said to be hostile to Israel, early and often. Yet God was at work in their life in a positive way. Citing another example, Amos describes Israel’s relationship with God as “like” that of the Ethiopians (better, Cushites), an African dark-skinned people, different from Israelites in appearance and culture and geographically far removed. Even such a people are included in the vision of God! The Israelites are like the Cushites in that God can enter into judgment against either. This God acts to both judge and save with respect to all nations. Amos 9:7 constitutes a remarkable claim: Israel’s election may distinguish it among the nations, and even be unique in the mission of God, but other nations have their own “brand” of elect status with God. Any special appeals to election by Amos’s audience are here undercut; election does not exempt Israel or any of these other peoples from historical judgment (see 3:2). Election does not distinguish Israel in receiving divine protection in any special sense (e.g., “regardless of what you do, God will protect you”). Similarly, Christians would claim exemption from eschatological judgment but not historical judgment (see 1 Thess 5:1-3). Again, this sheer worldwide range of divine activity is related to earlier claims about the Creator God. God the Creator is the one who saves and judges all. God’s election of Israel opens up consideration of God’s wideranging activity, making sure that all peoples everywhere are seen to be the beneficiaries of the divine activity.

156

Reading Hosea–Micah

A theme that is sometimes lifted out of this text is the freedom of God. If so, one must be very careful in considering such a matter. Sometimes this theme is stated in such a way that God never makes commitments, or at least that God is so radically free that God can ignore promises made (even to Israel). God, of course, cannot be domesticated by human beings, but God may choose to be domesticated. God may choose to establish relationships wherein God will honor divine commitments made, come what may. Promises do obligate God, but, of course, it is God who freely makes the decision to be so obligated (the divine freedom comes at that point). Once God has made the commitment, God will not break related promises. People may choose to remove themselves from the sphere of the promise, but the promises will always remain in place. A key theme brackets this creation doxology: nothing escapes “the eyes of the LORD” (9:4, 8; cf. Prov 5:21; 15:3). This creation-wide point was directly introduced in the opening chapters of the book; judgment is experienced by all peoples (1:3-2:16). In 9:8, a climactic note is struck (and continues the thought of 9:7 in its own way): God’s judgmental reach touches even Israel, “the sinful kingdom” (other nations seem not to be in mind at this point). Israel will be destroyed . . . except . . . the destruction shall not be total. This exception should not be considered a problem; as noted, the universal reach of the judgmental activity of God in 9:1-4 is hyperbolic (for a similar juxtaposition, see Jer 4:27 with 4:23-26). This way of thinking (no exception, yet exception) is a death and resurrection motif; the faithful will participate in the destruction along with everyone else, but will be raised up from within the fire. The destruction of the “sinful kingdom” is one thing; the destruction of every last human being is another. This understanding lifts up the gracious character of the activity of God on behalf of the faithful remnant. Exception? (Amos 9:9-10)

These verses expand on the idea of no exception/yet exception, using the image of a sieve (used to separate grain from chaff and other detritus). God will shake the sieve to see if any from Israel—wherever they might be scattered among the nations—might be saved. This process suggests that the book of Amos does make a distinction between the “sinners,” those who have been the perpetrators of violence throughout the book, and those who have been victimized by these persons (understanding that there is no clean distinction between them). Amos 9:8 implies that some will be finally saved from destruction, though they will have been scattered among the nations

Amos

157

(pass through the sieve). In contrast, no pebble (=“sinners of my people”) can get through; they are the subject of 9:10 and will experience destruction. The “pebbles” shall die, though they think and say that no disaster shall overtake them. Amos 9:11-15 now picks up on the future of those who have “survived” the sieve. Who are they? The best suggestions include northerners who fled south after the destruction of Samaria in 722 BCE or the deliverance of Judah from the Assyrians during that time. Words of Hope and Promise (Amos 9:11-15) Readers are often surprised by several features of this text: the promises for life beyond judgment, their particularity (focused on “my people Israel”), and perhaps especially their concern for the future of the Davidic monarchy (at the time of Amos, only kings from Judah were Davidic). Such factors have often led to claims that these verses are a later addition to the book, perhaps from a Judean perspective, or a perspective looking to the reuniting of Israel and Judah under a Davidic king, or a time after Jerusalem and the Davidic dynasty have fallen to Babylon (598 BCE), or a messianic outlook that lifts up the Davidic promise. While the links to these themes in Amos up to this point are thin, a case can be made for a Judean such as Amos to envision a future for Israel that reunites north and south under a new David. These words speak of a future that lies beyond severe disruption and loss (“on that day”; “the time is surely coming”; cf. this language in the judgment context of 8:9-14). This disruption may refer to the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE or anticipate a coming disaster. The various terms used are not always clear (cf. Ps 89:38-51; Hos 3:5): the Davidic kingdom (=booth) has “fallen” (its rule has been interrupted or ceased altogether); the phrase “possess the remnant of Edom” may be a metonym for victory over what is left of one’s former enemies (the reference to Edom looks ahead to the book of Obadiah); “ruins; rebuild” may have reference to the Davidic kingship or to a ruined city. The phrase “as in the days of old” (9:11) seems to refer back to the times of David and Solomon. On the future of a failed Davidic dynasty, a destroyed Jerusalem, and a wasted natural order, see also Isaiah 11:1-9; 35:1-10; Ezekiel 34:23-24; 36:29-36. These prophecies are (in time?) related to the fall of Jerusalem and the exile (see the creative use of 9:12 in Acts 15:16-17, based on a somewhat different LXX text, and oriented to the mission to the Gentiles). All of Amos’s prior texts about the created order fit well with this description of the new creation (9:11-15). The book of Amos began (1:2) with words about creation and the ill effects of human sinfulness on the

158

Reading Hosea–Micah

environment. The book now ends on that theme. It is significant that materials about creation bracket the entire book and punctuate the text all along the way (see at 4:13; 5:8-9; and “Introduction to Amos”). One of the characteristics of this new world is that the natural order will be rid of the adverse effects of human sinfulness. Even more, the creation will function in ways that outstrip God’s original creational intentions. The vineyards will be so productive that human efforts will not be able to keep up with the abundance. There is no return to Eden here, no myth of the eternal return. The prophets move beyond Eden in their vision of the future. The promises are direct and specific. God will return the Davidic dynasty to its former glory and will repair all of Zion’s ruins (9:11). The former empire of David (the “remnant of Edom,” a sign of the empire that is “called by my name”) will be repossessed. Even more, the entire land of Israel will thrive, producing so much grain and so many grapes that crops cannot be fully harvested before it is time to start all over again (9:13). Wine in particular becomes a symbol of blessing and of joy for this new day for land and people. Wine shall be produced in such plenty that the rivers flowing down the mountainsides will be filled with wine rather than water (see Joel 3:18)! God’s saving work in Israel will have effects on nature as well as people, enabling a bounty that matches the reestablishment of the people of Israel under a new David. Finally, Amos turns to the future of the people (perhaps both Israel and Judah), to be marked by peace and prosperity (9:14-15). Their fortunes (that is, general well-being) shall be restored, their ruined cities rebuilt and inhabited (see Jer 30:18; 31:38-40; Ezek 34:25-29), their vineyards and gardens will provide wine and fruit, and they, rather than others, will be able to eat the produce (see Isa 65:22; Jer 31:5, 12). Then, using the images of nature to speak of the future of the people of Israel (cf. Hos 14:3-7), Amos announces that they shall be planted (= settled) on their own land and—note the range of the promise—shall never be plucked up (= exiled) from the land again (see Jer 31:28). Thus says the Lord your God—in other words: count on it! How might this ending affect the readers of the book of Amos? This text is not an effort to say that God has decided to back off from the announced judgment of Israel. It is a word about salvation through judgment, about God staying with a remnant of the people through the valleys of the shadow of death and raising them up on the far side of catastrophe. Judgment is not God’s final word for Israel, but it is a necessary word. God passes Israel through the refining fires of judgment for the sake of a renewed future. Those who survive will be made part of a thriving Davidic world.

Obadiah

INTRODUCTION TO OBADIAH Obadiah is the briefest book in the Old Testament and traditionally has received little attention from interpreters. Historical and literary studies have been more common than theological expositions. Nothing is known about a prophet named Obadiah from other sources (though the name Obadiah is common in the Old Testament). It has been suggested that the meaning of the name (“servant of the Lord”) is the reason for the title of the book rather than a prophet with that name. But it is more likely that Obadiah is the name of an actual prophet. Obadiah conveys the word of God heard in the vision (v. 1), and God seems to be the speaker throughout (see vv. 1, 4, 8, 13, 16, 18), though vv. 19-21 are less clear. Obadiah belongs to a type of literature common in the prophets called oracles against the nations (OAN; see discussion in the “Introduction to Amos”). Edom is the nation that is particularly in view. Edom was long a neighbor of Israel, located on its southeastern border, extending from the southern end of the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqabah (about thirty miles in length and fifteen miles wide). In fact, there are more oracles against Edom in the Old Testament than against any other country, perhaps because of the close ties with Israel and their turbulent relationship over the centuries. While Edom is the specific people in focus, more than Edom seems to be in mind at key points in the text. In vv. 15-16, “all the nations” who have been involved in the violence against Israel come into view. Thus, the book cannot be viewed as anti-Edom in any narrow sense. The placement of the book among the Minor Prophets is not based on chronological considerations but is probably due to the reference to Edom in the hope oracles at the end of Amos (9:12; see also Joel 3:19). The “day of the LORD” theme in Obadiah is also common to both Joel and Amos. Many verses in Obadiah are similar to those found in other prophetic books,

160

Reading Hosea–Micah

particularly in other OAN (see especially Jer 49:7-22). In view of this reality, it has been suggested that Obadiah is drawn at least in part from a collection of prophetic oracles that were available. Compare especially Obadiah 1-5, 9, 16 with the oracle against Edom in Jeremiah 49:9, 12, 14-16, 22 (see also Ezek 25:12-14; 35:1-5; Amos 1:11-12; 9:1-15; Isa 63:1-6; 34; Mal 1:2-5; Rom 9:6-13; for detail, see Nogalski 2011b, 372; Raabe, 22–47). The dating of Obadiah is uncertain, but it probably originated at a time shortly after the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians in 586 BCE (see Raabe, 47–56). It is not entirely clear how Edom was involved in that event, though Obadiah 11-14 gives some details regarding the methods used by Edom against Israel at some point. Obadiah’s word of judgment against the Edomites is realized when the Babylonian empire brings them down as well; such an invasion probably took place under king Nabonidus in 553 BCE. Malachi 1:3 later suggests that Edom has been devastated, but the identity of the event is not clear from the historical record. Such questions of dating are difficult to discern not least because it is not always clear whether Obadiah speaks of a past event or a future event (cf. NIV and NRSV). Moreover, the identity of the speaker and the audience is not always made clear. The structure of the book is difficult to discern. It is common to recognize that vv. 1-7 focus on Edom’s judgment, vv. 8-14 on the rationale for that judgment, while vv. 15-21 move to more universal considerations (“all the nations”), announcing the consequences for Edom (and other peoples) and promising Israel’s vindication, with the return of the exiles and the regaining of its traditional borders.

MESSAGE OF OBADIAH The identity of the specific audience of Obadiah is not stated, though the book is likely intended as a word of hope for an Israel that has recently experienced disaster at the hands of the Babylonians and the Edomites. Such a conclusion suggests that Obadiah is spoken to Israelite survivors of the fall and destruction of Jerusalem, assuring them of a positive future. Obadiah is thus a word of hope and assurance to the people of God in a time of great difficulty and wonderment about their future. The “exiles” (v. 20) will be brought home and the lands promised to Israel will be restored (vv. 19-20). This word of hope is most fundamentally grounded in the promises of God. Note that while reasons are given for the judgment against Edom, reasons are not given for God’s commitment to the divine promises to Israel (see Raabe, Obadiah, 59–60).

Obadiah

161

Obadiah also has a sharp word of judgment against the Edomites for their betrayal of brother Israel/Jacob and their violence against the people of Jerusalem. Indeed, the language used against Edom is often heated and vehement. Hyperbolic language is used at times (v. 18; “no survivor”), probably as a way of speaking of the effective end of the Edomites as a people (see comparable language for Israel in Lam 2:22). These sharp words of judgment against Edom (see also Ps 137:7; Lam 4:21) probably reflect a time before the actual end of the Edomites as a people. At the same time, progress toward such an end may well have been far along. In view of Israel’s experience, these oracles against Edom would have been designed not to seek revenge (though this has been suggested) but to assist the people of God in moving through the crisis occasioned by the destruction of Jerusalem and the involvement of family members such as Edom/Esau in that debacle. This positive word about God’s future for Israel is announced (vv. 19-21), even though Israel is not portrayed as innocent (vv. 12-14, 16). Israel had been the object of divine judgment (reflected in the “you” of Obad 16), but a certain end will be visited upon Israel’s enemies, such as Edom and Babylon, and Judah will be restored. The history of the relationship between Israel and Edom through the centuries presents a complex picture. It ranged from friendly (Num 20:14; Deut 2:4-8; 23:7-8) to antagonistic (see 2 Sam 8:12-14; 1 Kgs 11:14-22; 2 Kgs 8:20-22; 2 Chr 28:16-19; Isa 63:1-6), not unlike the relationship between their progenitors Jacob and Esau (see Gen 25–36). Edom and its progenitor Esau are used interchangeably in these oracles, though Esau is more common (see vv. 6, 8-9, 18; cf. Gen 25:30; 36:1). That the progenitors of the Edomites and Israelites were actual brothers (Jacob and Esau, Gen 25–36) probably intensifies the antagonism. Note the repeated use of the word “brother” (vv. 10, 12) and the personal names “Esau” and “Jacob” (vv. 6, 8-10, 17-19, 21). This is a “family feud” of no little consequence! This theme of family betrayal and its far-reaching consequences is a key issue for Obadiah. The narrative goes far back to the Genesis story of the conflict between the brothers Jacob and Esau and now finds its way into the headlines once again. The story here focuses on the conflict of the descendant families of Jacob (Israel) and Esau (Edom); it is told from the perspective of the betrayal of Jacob’s family by Esau’s family. The effects are disastrous for the family of Esau. God’s created moral order will be effective in exacting justice, working through agents of various sorts. Brother Esau will suffer the consequences of his own deeds. A key theological issue for Obadiah is God’s created moral order. “As you have done, it shall be done to you; your deeds shall return on your own

162

Reading Hosea–Micah

head” (v. 15). This order of creation should not be understood in judicatory terms, as “punishment.” Rather, this creational reality has to do with the workings of an order—a moral order—that is “built into” creation and that God as Creator continues to oversee, though not with precision. To use an image of cloth, the created moral order is more like burlap than silk. People’s deeds will bear fruit (see Jer 6:19); their sins having been committed, they will boomerang back on their own heads (see Jer 14:16), though not inevitably. This angle of vision on these texts does not entail a “punishment fits the crime” perspective or a theory of retribution that entails “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth” (Exod 21:21-23; Deut 19:21). God does not introduce some new penalty into such situations; God as creator will let their sins have their natural effects.

COMMENTARY A Report to the Nations (Obad 1) A vision of Obadiah (“servant of God”) or revelation from God concerning Edom is announced. The basic content of the vision has two dimensions, a word of judgment against Edom and a word of promise to Israel. Edom is addressed by God in vv. 1-15, but Israel, which is addressed in vv. 16-21, would “overhear” this word from God and take heart from its revelation about the end of Edom. In the end, this is an assuring word to Israel. Verses 1b-4 are similar to the oracle against Edom in Jeremiah 49:12-16. It is not entirely clear whether one should translate these verbs as future (so NIV), as present, or as some combination thereof (so NRSV), which we follow here. In any case, this devastating future for Edom is understood to be a certain thing. A “report” from God has been heard by the prophet; the “we” of v. 1 suggests that this word originates from the divine council, the membership of which would include the prophet (see Jer 23:18-22; 1 Kgs 22; Amos 3:7). The word to be spread abroad by the “messenger” (the prophet) has to do with the future of Edom and Israel. The prophet is called to recruit the nations of the region to form an alliance and to rise up against Edom (see Jer 49:14). The messenger has been called to speak, not just to Israel but to “the nations” (v. 1; see “all the nations” in vv. 15-16).

Obadiah

163

Edom’s Pride (Obad 2-4) The initial word of the report spoken by God is a judgment oracle against Edom. Unlike many prophetic oracles, the reason for the judgment is delayed (vv. 11-14; see Isa 1:21-24 for the more common pattern). Edom’s status among the nations is to be turned on its head. In taunting words, Edom will move from living on the heights like eagles among the clefts of the rocks and among the stars of the sky to become the least among the nations. Its capital (Sela) was indeed located in the mountains. Edom thought its environs would protect it from its enemies, but it had another “think” coming. Although Edom had a high opinion of itself and challenged any nation to bring it down (see the prideful quotation of Edom at v. 3b), its place in the world would in fact be reduced from pride to humiliation (see the images of Isa 2:11-18; 14:12-15). God will see to that end for Edom. “I will bring you down”! While God is twice the subject of key verbs that lead to the destruction of Edom (vv. 4, 8), it is clear (here and elsewhere in the prophets) that God works in and through human and nonhuman agents to accomplish this end (see “Introduction to Obadiah” and at v. 15 for the moral order as agent of God). Edom’s Pending Destruction (Obad 5-7) Edom’s devastation is portrayed as past event here (so NRSV), but it could be anticipatory, certain to occur (see NIV). The sevenfold use of “you” could be emphatic. Edom is referred to as Esau just as Israel/Judah will be called Jacob (vv. 10, 17-18); the use of these personal names recalls the story in Genesis 25–36 and the conflict between the brothers. That a brother would treat his brother like this! This catastrophe for Edom likely occurred a generation or so after the fall of Jerusalem (see “Introduction to Obadiah”). How Edom has been destroyed (v. 5)! Edom’s fall is contrasted with those situations typical of both the human and nonhuman worlds (see Jer 49:9-10 for use of the same images). Typically, thieves would take only a few valuables; but Edom has been totally robbed of its wealth (v. 5). Typically, harvesters of grapes would leave some grapes behind (see Deut 24:21), but Edom has nothing left. Edom has not only been pillaged by thieves; it has been cleaned out (v. 6)! Typically, allies/confederates/friends will stand by and help out during difficult times (v. 7). But Edom has been deceived by its friends, defeated by those who were its former confederates, and trapped by those with whom it often shared meals. The people have been driven to the edge of their own land (that is, evicted from their homes).

164

Reading Hosea–Micah

As Edom betrayed its neighbor and friend, so will Edom also be betrayed by neighbors and friends. As Esau has treated his brother, so Esau will experience comparable treatment at the hand of his close allies. Who can understand such a thing! Edom is totally isolated among the world of nations! The reason becomes clear in what follows (see v. 15 for the general statement): What goes around, comes around! The Judgment of Edom (Obad 8-10) The “day of the LORD” becomes a repeated theme (vv. 8, 15) and seems to move the textual setting from past (vv. 5-7) to future, though it could be the near future. This is a day of reckoning, which will commonly mean an experience of judgment for some and deliverance for others (it is used in the prophets with respect to both Israel and other nations; see discussion in Joel commentary). In this context, the word about the day of the LORD is a word of judgment against Edom and deliverance for the Israelites. Ironically, those who are wise and understanding among the Edomites will be destroyed (v. 8; comparably, Jer 49:7), as will all of their military personnel (v. 9). That is to say, the lives of the leaders of Edom from every sphere of life will be shattered. Indeed, it is emphasized that “everyone” will be “cut off . . . forever” (vv. 9-10). Teman (the northern region of Edom) and Mount Esau (the mountainous region) are mentioned specifically, as if to make clear that no area of the country will escape. Strong words of destruction, affecting both external and internal (“shame”) life, are used to emphasize the degree to which the Edomites will be negatively affected (v. 10). An end of Edom is announced; they “shall be cut off forever” (see also v. 18; cf. Ps 137:7; Isa 63:1-6). Verse 10 seems to integrate the themes of Edom’s end (v. 10b; see vv. 1-9) and the reasons for it, slaughter and violence (v. 10a; see vv. 11-14). Indictment of Edom (Obad 11-14) Why such a judgment on Edom? The reasons are now stated in some detail, with no little repetition to strengthen the point. The reasons in vv. 11-14 are commonly introduced by “you should not have” (NRSV); NIV uses warning language, “You should not.” Perhaps purposeful ambivalence is reflected here, but the stress seems to be placed on what Edom has already done to Israel (or is in the process of doing) and the destructive future it now faces. “You should not have done this!” The word “day” associated with the indictment of Edom occurs ten times in vv. 11-14, following from the “day of the

Obadiah

165

LORD” in v. 8 and leading up to the “day of the LORD” in v. 15. The days of Edom’s evil deeds lead to its day of judgment. The “shame” reference in v. 10 may carry over into v. 11 and have reference to Edom’s indifference. That is, Edomites stood by and did not help while other nations pillaged Israel and “cast lots” for its property (that is, divided the spoils). Indeed, the Edomites were just like the other despoiling nations (v. 11)! Edomites gloated over what was happening to Israel, looking down on their “brother” (recall Jacob/Israel was Esau’s brother), indeed rejoicing over the devastation Israel had experienced and boasting of their part in the devastation (v. 12; see Ps 137:7). Again, a brother treating his brother like this! When Jerusalem had been destroyed, the Edomites entered its gates as if the city were now theirs. They looked with contempt on the suffering Israelites and, once again, looted the city (v. 13; see Mic 1:9). The Edomites “were like hyenas, taking the pickings after a death caused by some other animal” (Barton, 146). Notice God’s reference to Israel as “my people.” Even more, when the Israelites sought to escape, the Edomites interrupted their flight at every crossroads, handing over the survivors to their enemies (v. 14; see Ezek 35:5). The Day of the LORD (Obad 15-21) Verse 15 has been the subject of much speculation and at several levels. The first half of v. 15 moves to plural address (“all the nations”), while the last half of v. 15 reverts to the singular “you” (a reference to Edom). This observation has led some scholars to think that v. 15b concludes vv. 1-14 and v. 15a introduces vv. 16-21. The reference to Edom in v. 15b could, however, serve as an illustration of what is characteristic of the life of “all nations”: everyone will reap the effects of their sins—just look at Edom. The experience of Edom will be the experience of all nations on “the day of the LORD” (introduced in v. 8). Verse 15b states the judgment on Edom for all of their atrocities: as they have done to Israel, so shall it be done to them. Their deeds shall return on their own head. They will suffer the consequences of their own sins. This language is a succinct statement of the workings of the natural moral order, not a juridical claim (see “Introduction to Obadiah”). This judgment to be experienced by the Edomites is named “the day of the LORD,” not because God is introducing a specific punishment but because God is responsible for creating the moral order that has such effects. God will not introduce some new penalty into the situation; God as creator will let their sins have their

166

Reading Hosea–Micah

natural effects. This is an understanding of judgment in terms of the natural moral order, “what goes around comes around.” This order is characteristic of the way in which God created the world, and it is here being experienced by Edom and other nations. The announcement of the day of the LORD is not simply a word of judgment against Edom; it is a day that has “all the nations” in view. Even more, such judgment also entails the deliverance of Israel. Judgment and deliverance frequently appear together in the prophets; that is, deliverance becomes possible when the oppressor is judged. The identification of the “you” of v. 16 (plural) is also a problem. Some scholars (for example, Raabe, 202–206) think it is a plural reference to the Edom of v. 15b. If that is correct, the image of drinking illustrates the point of Edom’s experiencing the effects of its own deeds (v. 16). As Edom has satisfied itself by “gulping down” Jerusalem (= “my holy mountain”), taking all of its goods for its own pleasure, so also will other nations do the same to Edom. The nations drinking alcoholic beverages from the cup (with their negative effects) is a symbol used elsewhere for the judgment of God (see Jer 25:15-29) and is specifically applied to Edom in Jeremiah 49:12 and Lamentations 4:21 (cf. Ps 75:8; Jer 51:7; Hab 2:15-16). Most scholars, however, think the “you” of v. 16 refers to the judgment that the people of Israel have experienced (see Raabe). That is, just as Jerusalem has suffered judgment at the hands of the nations (Babylon especially), so shall the nations suffer judgment; they shall reap what they have sowed. Indeed, the enemy nations’ being “gulped down” shall be of such a nature that they will disappear from the face of the earth and become “as though they had never been.” The book concludes with the effects of this judgment, namely, the deliverance of Israel (vv. 17-21). A “remnant”—a more literal translation—from Jerusalem will escape from the onslaught (v. 17; see Joel 2:32). Mount Zion once again “shall be holy,” that is, the temple mount shall once again be distinguished by the presence of God—a rebuilt temple may be in view (see this theme in Joel 3:17). It may be, however, that the “remnant” of the people (not the place) shall be holy and they will be set apart to be God’s people once again (see Exod 19:6, “holy nation”). Indeed, the tables will be turned, and Israel will take possession of Edom. Once again, poetic justice is evident. In accomplishing this turnaround, the “house of Jacob” (southern Israel) and the “house of Joseph” (northern Israel) will be like a fire and a flame to Edom (= the house of Esau), reducing it to stubble (v. 18; see Isa 10:17 for this image). Indeed, the conflagration will be so severe that, hyperbolically

Obadiah

167

speaking, no one from Edom will survive (see vv. 9-10; for this image, see Joel 2:5; Mal 4:1). The book concludes on a more positive note regarding Israel’s future (vv. 19-21). The emphasis is placed on Israel’s regaining of lost territories and the reestablishment of the boundaries of the Davidic kingdom (see the Davidic theme of promise in Amos 9:11-12). The area described is remarkably expansive (and moves well beyond Edom, as also in Amos 9:12). The territories mentioned encircle Israel and include the following: Phoenicia in the northwest, the land of the Philistines on the west, the Negeb in the south, Edom in the south and west, and the Transjordanian area in the west. Some details are spelled out. Those who live in the Negeb (the southern arid region of Israel) shall possess Mount Esau (that is, Edom); those who live in the Shephelah (the western foothills of Israel) shall possess the land of the Philistines, including the land of Ephraim and Samaria (the northern part of Israel); and the tribe of Benjamin shall possess Gilead (that is, Transjordan). All of the most basic regions of the land that had been promised to Israel are here emphasized. The future of the “exiles” that had been scattered across the landscape (from the Assyrian conquest of 722 BCE) is also brought into the picture (v. 20). They shall be brought from Halah, a city in northern Mesopotamia (see 2 Kgs 17:6), and they shall possess the Phoenician coast as far north as Zarephath (a city between Tyre and Sidon). They shall also be brought from Sepharad (perhaps a city in Asia Minor) and given the towns of the Negeb to possess. Notice how specific and down-to-earth this word about Israel’s future is, with regained territories specified in view of the promise of land. Mount Zion shall constitute the center of this reestablished community of those who have been saved from their enemies and have recovered their territory (v. 21). They shall rule over the Edomites (= Mount Esau), and God’s kingdom—probably the Davidic kingdom is in view—will be established (see Joel 2:32).

Jonah

INTRODUCTION TO JONAH Jonah, the fifth book of the minor prophet collection, is named for its chief character. The reference to Jonah, son of Amittai (1:1), relates the book to an eighth-century prophet who spoke in support of Jeroboam II, king of Israel (786–746 BCE; 2 Kgs 14:25). At the same time, the book of Jonah itself never refers to Jonah as “prophet.” The reason for this historical connection is not clear, especially in view of the literary genre of the book. It may be that Nineveh (the capital of Assyria), responsible for destroying the northern kingdom in 722 BCE, serves as a type for wicked nations opposed to God’s purposes (see Nah 3:7; Zeph 2:13 for other testimonies to the wickedness of Nineveh). For God to be concerned about the positive future of Assyria could have been intolerable to some readers: how could God think of saving a nation that had so devastated God’s own people? On the other hand, Assyria was the agent of God in the judgment of Israel, and it was effective in fulfilling its God-given role in 722 BCE. Could this factor be what prompts God to respond in salutary ways with respect to the future of Nineveh? This would likely offend many an Israelite as well. The character Jonah may be considered a type representing certain pious Israelites who posed such questions regarding the extension of God’s mercy to the wicked. Such a perspective constituted a challenge to the confession of faith that Yahweh is “merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love” (Exod 34:6-7). The book of Jonah recalls this ancient confession (4:2) and argues that—with its addition about divine change of mind (see also Joel 2:13)—it is still decisive in thinking about God and God’s relationship to the larger world of nations. God’s way with the world, not simply with Israel, is the way of mercy in the face of deserved judgment.

170

Reading Hosea–Micah

Such a theological dispute may have surfaced in the post-exilic period, when Israel’s ongoing subjugation to a prospering foreign nation (Persia), related hardships, and the seeming failure of exilic promises raised questions about the fairness of God’s treatment of Israel (see Mal 2:17; 3:14-15). Such a dispute suggests a post-exilic dating for the book, though we cannot be more precise than that with any confidence. Literary Issues The book of Jonah is likely a literary unity, though scholars often debate such a claim. The four chapters of the book can be said to constitute a carefully structured design wherein Jonah and the outsiders (the sailors in Jonah 1 and the people of Nineveh in Jonah 3) are compared and contrasted. The outsiders come across as more responsive to the God of Israel than one of God’s own prophets! In pursuing such concerns, the book makes use of earlier motifs and traditions (Sodom and Gomorrah, Gen 18; Elijah, 1 Kgs 19; divine change of mind, Jer 18; confession of faith, Exod 34). The psalm in Jonah 2 probably functioned originally as an independent song of thanksgiving, but it has been adapted here to accommodate Jonah’s gratitude for being saved from drowning. Literarily, the book differs from other prophetic books in its absence of oracles (except 3:4) and its form as a story about a prophet. Moreover, while other prophets often contain oracles against the nations (e.g., Isa 13–23; Jer 46–51), only in the book of Jonah is the prophet called to deliver a word of judgment against such a nation in person. At the same time, the book is typically “prophetic” in that, in its most basic purpose, it speaks a word of judgment and grace to a specific Israelite audience, seeking to elicit amendment in their thought and life. Scholars have not finally settled on the identification of the genre of Jonah. Most understand that the book is not to be interpreted as an (auto)biographical or historical account, even though links can be established with historical realities (e.g., the city of Nineveh; the figure of Jonah in 2 Kgs 14:25). But the next step in genre identification has proved more difficult. Among the suggestions that have been made are parable, allegory, midrash, parody, satire, and didactic story. The book is likely to be identified as a satire that uses irony widely to depict Jonah and his perspective (see details in commentary). The concluding question of the book (4:10-11) is ironic and seems to be designed to prompt readers to consider a new theological stance regarding the issues being addressed. Whatever the specific literary form may be, the book is almost certainly imaginative literature that

Jonah

171

has been developed around a historical character (2 Kgs 14:25) for the purpose of engaging readers in theological issues. Most scholars agree that Jonah often uses exaggerated language, especially regarding the city of Nineveh (3:3-8; 4:11). The size of Nineveh—“three days walk across” (3:3)—assumes a city that would be fifty to sixty miles across. Moreover, reference to “the king of Nineveh” (3:6) is highly unusual; Nineveh is thereby treated more like a country than a city. The reference to Nineveh’s population as 120,000 (4:11) is also exaggerated (even if it refers to the entire population of the immediate area). In addition, this mammoth city, extraordinarily wicked (1:2), experiences a total conversion after one minimalist sermon! Even the animals are dressed up in sackcloth and ashes and cry out to God! One thinks also of the unprecedented idea (despite efforts to find parallels) that a fish swallowed a human being and vomited him up unharmed after three days. Also to be noted is Jonah’s composition of a psalm while enveloped in the belly of a fish, not least its unprecedented concentration of water/pit images (some twenty-two allusions). Moreover, a prophet of God becomes very angry at the divine response to Nineveh’s repentance (3:10; 4:1-2); indeed, Jonah had resisted God’s call to preach to Nineveh, not wanting to give God opportunity to be true to the divine character (4:2). Ironically, however, Jonah twice expresses great joy over his own deliverance (2:1-10; 4:6), but then expresses great anger over God’s failure to deliver him from the heat (4:9). The Exaggerated God of Jonah If the literary understandings suggested are accurate, a key question arises: is the depiction of the God of the book of Jonah also a product of the imagination, at least in part, rather than a traditional or straightforward portrayal? While the book itself has generated a wide variety of interpretations, little diversity exists regarding the interpretation of the book’s presentation of God. Ironically, scholars tend to interpret the God of the book in a straightforward way. But it seems likely that the exaggerated language that has been commonly recognized in many features of the book should also be applied to the characterization of the God of the book (for detail, see Fretheim 2007). The exaggerated language regarding God in Jonah relates entirely to God’s relationship to the natural order and to non-Israelites—from fish to worms, from sailors to Ninevites. These nonhuman creatures and nonIsraelite peoples are all remarkably non-resistant to God’s actions in and through them. How unlike Jonah! The rhetoric of exaggeration serves to intensify these differences. At the same time, Jonah often benefits from these

172

Reading Hosea–Micah

non-resistant responses, even in the midst of his own resistance. From the beginning to the end of the book, Jonah is in a resistance mode, from rejecting God’s call to expressing his sharp anger at God’s gracious response to the people of Nineveh. At the same time, for all of the difficulties God has with Jonah, God does not interrupt their remarkably open relationship with a decision to force Jonah’s compliance. I am suggesting here that readers of Jonah should bring their understanding of the God of Jonah more into line with the book’s exaggerated use of language and, more generally, its type of literature. If the fish and its capacities, for example, are recognized as high exaggeration, an intensification of incongruities, why not think of the God of the fish in the same terms? Notably, God’s actions in nature are depicted in ways that are almost casual, with no stress on divine power or any amazement on the part of the characters. What theological implications might follow if some of the language about God in Jonah is recognized as purposively exaggerated, perhaps even outrageous, to make a point? As such, the exaggerations help shape the message of the book. This ironic cast suggests that the author moves beyond direct statements about God to an imaginative effort with theological ramifications. I recommend that the purposeful and multiple exaggerations of God’s power and freedom in the book of Jonah constitute a foil over against which God’s character can be more clearly discerned, and God’s relationship to God’s people—often problematic—can be more sharply delineated. Indeed, might the book of Jonah be saying that, in and through the exaggerations, in spite of what readers may think (or hope for!), their God is not such a manipulative, all-controlling deity? Might the purpose be to challenge the perspective of readers who wish, perhaps desperately, that their God was actually like this so that they might be rescued from, say, disaster or foreign domination or debilitating disease? God should just step in and fix it! The book lays claim to the idea that, for all the seeming “miraculous” power of God, Israel’s God is not a magician who manipulates creatures, small or large, whenever it serves the divine purposes. God does not actually engage in these exaggerated activities, not least because such divine activity would seriously undercut creaturely responsibility. Certainly not all of the God language of Jonah is exaggerated. Several statements stand firmly in the tradition: God is the Creator of the world, even if confessed by a runaway believer (1:9). Notably, Jonah makes this confession and still resists, as if to suggest that he should have no difficulty fleeing from such a God. God is gracious and merciful and abounding in

Jonah

173

steadfast love, even if this confession is uttered by an angry and recalcitrant Jonah (4:2). God is a Deliverer who rescues the needy (2:2-9). God does relent from judging in view of God’s compassion for human and animal alike (4:2, 10-11). God does care about all creatures and, at least indirectly, commends their care to the reader. God’s actions in nature do bear some similarity with those cited in texts such as Exodus 14—the wind and the waves. Yet such divine actions seem to be of a different order than those depicted in Jonah. Nature in Jonah is more like Elijah’s ravens (1 Kgs 17:6), Balaam’s ass (Num 22), and Eden’s snake (Gen 3:1-15), all generally interpreted in legendary terms. Do the more traditional witnesses to God in the book of Jonah make necessary a straightforward interpretation of God as a micromanager of plants, fish, worms, and sultry east winds? The traditional testimony to God in Jonah seems to be combined with the piling up of exaggerated elements. Scholars, however, have generally understood that all of the God language of the book is to be interpreted in more straightforward ways. While understanding that Jonah was not literally swallowed by a fish and did not actually live in the stomach of a fish for three days, they often interpret God’s actions in a more literal way. Look how powerful this God is; even the fish and the worms obey him! It is strange, if not inconsistent, to consider many exaggerated materials as evidence of the unhistorical character of the book but not to include the God of the book in that assessment. The book of Jonah does not suggest that Israel’s God does not have the power to do these things, only that it would be contrary to the divine character so to act. For God to act in this way in the world of nature would be to violate God’s own creation, which includes God’s giving creatures, even nonhuman creatures, the “freedom” to be what they were created to be. The gift of such freedom to the creatures means that God is committed to a relationship with human and nonhuman alike, including God’s own people, which entails divine restraints and constraints in the exercise of power. God makes such a move for the sake of genuineness in the relationship and the honoring of the creature. This is so, even though this kind of relationship with the world entails risks, and human beings like Jonah can make life difficult indeed for God and for other creatures! Justice and Mercy The book of Jonah gives evidence of a deep struggle to understand the relationship between two divine ways of relating to the world, namely justice and mercy. On the one hand, Jonah’s understanding of justice is precise. You

174

Reading Hosea–Micah

reap what you sow. No exceptions. No blurring of the edges. Jonah will be more “just” than God is, even if it affects his own life in a negative way (made clear in 1:12)! On the other hand, God’s exercise of justice is not so precise. God’s justice is not a mechanical, precisely legal way of relating to human behaviors; it is tempered by mercy. In the words of 4:2, which Jonah cites to ground his refusal to go to Nineveh, God is merciful, “slow to anger,” and relents from judgment; God is patient and forbearing even in the face of the worst of human behaviors (cf. Rom 3:25). The divine relenting of deserved judgment is a problematic claim for God in Jonah’s view, and it is this particular divine characteristic in the confession (4:2) that probably elicits Jonah’s objection to the call to go to Nineveh. For Jonah, such a divine response is not a just way for God to relate to people like the Ninevites. Indeed, this very identity of God means that there will be no exact retribution for Ninevite behaviors, and Jonah cannot stomach that. The divine relenting of judgment (niham) is an element of the divine character that is newly noted in 4:2 for this common confession (paralleled only in Joel 2:13; cf. Exod 34:6-7). This “new” confession about God links the divine relenting and the divine mercy! They are both characteristic of God, and both come into play in this situation. God is moved by compassion with respect to Nineveh and relents regarding judgment. This unconditional divine mercy is more concretely noted in 4:10-11 and is a key factor in thinking about the divine decision in 3:10. In other words, the divine character lifted up by Jonah in 4:2 and affirmed in part by God in 4:10-11 specifically follows in the wake of God’s decision in 3:10 to honor Nineveh’s repentance. Jonah would no doubt also disagree with Jeremiah 18:7-11, which claims that, when such turnings take place, God is committed to reversing prior announcements of judgment. Interpreters often note that God’s response to Ninevite repentance in 3:10 seems at odds with 4:10-11, where God is compassionate toward the Ninevites with no repentant response in view. But it is notable that God’s question in 4:10-11 includes no conditional language, no suggestion that Nineveh’s repentance is a necessary condition for the exercise of God’s compassion. Indeed, human beings are there paired with animals in eliciting the divine compassion! God will spare them because of who God is and who they are. This is fundamentally in tune with Jonah’s claim of 4:2, which also states no conditions; God will be this kind of God, come what may. God is reported to turn from judgment when Nineveh turns in repentance (3:10), but given God’s claim regarding compassion in 4:10-11, human repentance is not absolutely necessary for God to make such a relenting move. This point is illustrated by Jonah’s own experience of God’s

Jonah

175

deliverance in the sea (Jonah 2; cf. the divine unilateral move in Isa 43:25). Jonah experiences the deliverance of God without being repentant! One basic point seems to be that if Jonah experiences such divine saving action without repentance, how much more must a repentant Nineveh experience deliverance! God is so compassionate because of the life situation of people and animals, not because of their repentance, and acts simply because God cares for all creation. God’s final question in the book indicates that God is “moved to spare” or “has pity” (hus) because of God’s compassion for these people, however wicked they may be, and for their animals. God’s justice is not said to be set aside in some capricious or indulgent way, but the life situation of the Ninevites prompts divine action. At the same time, this divine move does not mean that Ninevite repentance is irrelevant with respect to the shape of its future. While God’s relenting of judgment is rooted in God’s compassion (4:2), Nineveh’s repentance does give a more specific shape to Nineveh’s future. Jonah’s problem with God is a theological problem. The way in which he thinks about God is distorted. He does articulate traditional understandings of God, such as God is Creator (1:9); he even gives voice to Israel’s most basic confession about God (4:2), though he wants to restrict the range of its applicability. Jonah refuses to go to Nineveh not because he has little or no faith in God but because his thinking about his faith is wrongheaded. Thus, Jonah is not a type of the unfaithful people of Israel, rejecting God’s call to the Gentiles (or any other people) and seeking to escape from such responsibilities. The issue is not a condemnation of a narrow understanding of election, confined only to Israel. The concern of the book seems not even to be focused on the fate of the Gentiles as such. Rather, the focus seems to be on God’s compassionate behavior toward wicked people such as the Ninevites. Jonah’s disobedience to God’s call is theologically motivated. The issue is Jonah’s inadequate understanding of God and God’s actions of justice and mercy in the world. The exaggerated actions of God with respect to nature and Nineveh noted above are, then, a clever way of accompanying Jonah through a conversation designed to move Jonah theologically. And so the book ends with a theological question to Jonah ringing in the air, with Jonah’s response, indeed every reader’s response, waiting in the wings. How will he (and the reader) respond?

176

Reading Hosea–Micah

COMMENTARY Jonah Called (Jonah 1:1-3) The reference to Jonah, son of Amittai (1:1), relates the book to an eighthcentury prophet who spoke in support of Jeroboam II, king of Israel (786–746 BCE; 2 Kgs 14:25). Jeroboam II is a wicked but successful king (he reigned for over forty years); yet his name is not mentioned in Jonah. Nineveh was the capital of Assyria, an actual and potential threat to Israel over many years. Especially given its devastation of the northern kingdom in 722 BCE, Nineveh had become for Israel a symbol of evil (cf. “Hitler” in the decades since World War II) and the source for many bitter memories. The narrator does not report any dialogue between God and Jonah, but just reports on the actions of the principals. The issue is not what Jonah says or does not say (silence as such is not an issue); it is what he does. Questions raised by this story include these: Will Jonah’s resistance of God’s word and calling be successful? How will God respond to a disobedient prophet? Jonah’s feelings are not stated, but actions often speak louder than words; Jonah’s move to head in the opposite direction is revealing of his opposition to the call from God. Why would he be opposed? Jonah obviously has his reasons, but the narrator delays telling readers (until 4:2). Why this delay in telling readers? Perhaps the delay is a strategy to draw readers into the story. Most Israelites would probably be sympathetic to what Jonah does; in other words, for most readers the reason Jonah fled would be well known, and most Israelites would have done the same (or at least strongly considered it). Hence, most readers would not be surprised at what Jonah does. At the same time, they would wonder about a prophet acting in such a way and how God might respond to such a rejection. God’s call to preach to the people of Nineveh is problematic for Jonah. The reason becomes clear only at 4:2. This call creates the possibility that the destroyers of Israel might repent and God will respond in mercy rather than deserved judgment. Jonah’s sense of justice is violated by this divine move. Hence, to escape to a place where God’s call might be less compelling, he buys the most expensive ticket on a ship headed in the opposite direction— to Tarshish (probably in southern Spain). The repeated reference to Tarshish suggests Jonah’s determined focus. God “hurls” a storm in the wake of Jonah’s decision (1:4; it is the same word as “whirlwind” in Job 38:1). In response, the sailors “hurl” the cargo (1:5) into the sea, and eventually Jonah himself (1:12, 15).

Jonah

177

Jonah does testify that God is the Creator (1:9), but he still understands that he can resist God’s call, and he acts in view of such an understanding. Indeed, his trip to Tarshish, located far away from Nineveh and in the opposite direction, suggests an element of defiance on his part. Jonah even seems to use the confession about God to trumpet his resistance before others: God is my Creator and look what I can do! God responds to Jonah by working in and through a natural order that is not resistant to the will of the Creator (emphasized by exaggerated rhetoric; see “Introduction to Jonah”). Jonah’s action serves to intensify the idea that human beings can be resistant to God’s call. Though resisted, God persists, finding ways to interrupt Jonah’s recalcitrance. Yet, while God does succeed in getting Jonah to go to Nineveh, God does not succeed in shaping his graceless message (3:4), the belligerent anger with which he responds to Nineveh’s deliverance (4:1), or even his failure to recognize God’s graciousness toward him (4:6-11). These images of God do not suggest a God who is in control of the situation. Jonah Pursued (Jonah 1:4-16) Because Jonah’s flight subverts God’s intentions for Nineveh, God pursues the reluctant prophet through a storm at sea, not to visit him with wrath but to turn him around. On God’s use of wind, see 1:4 and 4:8; Exodus 15:10; Psalm 107:25. The storm provides a new context for decision-making but does not predetermine the results. The text depicts a succession of descents on Jonah’s part (1:3-17; 2:2): Jonah went down to Joppa, to the heart of the ship, into a deep sleep, into the sea, into the innards of a fish, and, finally, to the “belly of Sheol.” Such a progressive descent to death mirrors Jonah’s increasing distance from the call of God to go to Nineveh. To lighten the ship, the sailors sacrifice the cargo to their gods. Jonah, however, responds to the storm with nonchalance, closing his eyes to what God is about and descending into a deep sleep. The captain—who sees that prayer does not compel God (cf. 3:9)—ironically reminds Jonah of his religious responsibilities. When the lots pinpoint Jonah as the one who has occasioned the crisis, he is assaulted with questions. Responding incompletely, Jonah nevertheless confesses his faith. Ironically, this confession in time moves the sailors (parallel to the Ninevites in ch. 3) to worship the God of Jonah. But the confession does not stop the storm; in fact, the weather gets worse. What is at stake for God is not Jonah’s confession (Jonah is a man of faith) but his theologically informed disobedience regarding the call to go to Nineveh.

178

Reading Hosea–Micah

Attuned to the signs of transcendence, the sailors wonder how to stop the storm. Jonah confesses that he is the problem and, given his sense of justice that the innocent not perish for the guilty, offers to be thrown overboard to receive his deserved judgment. Even more, refusing to change his convictions, which presumably would have stopped the storm, Jonah will show God what justice means: he will take upon himself the punishment he deserves. God, however, refuses to be bound by strict canons of justice and mercifully delivers Jonah by means of a fish. The sailors, insightfully recognizing that Jonah’s death is not required, strive to return him to where he can be obedient. Their efforts fail to resolve the dilemma. In the wake of their failure, they offer a prayer to make sure that they are not blamed for Jonah’s death, just in case Jonah is innocent—this is, after all, a divine dilemma. One should not hold the sailors’ prayers to Israelite standards of orthodoxy, but (along with their actions) they prove to be effective. They finally grant Jonah’s request and throw Jonah overboard. The storm stops. Remarkably, the sailors respond to God like good Israelites would, with appropriate sacrifices and vows. These pagan sailors bear witness to the God of Jonah. Jonah’s God is affected by human prayer. The prayers of the sailors, and their actions with respect to Jonah, result in their deliverance (1:14-15). Later, Jonah’s prayer comes to God and is efficacious (2:7). Still further, the repentant prayers of the people of Nineveh result in a changed future: “When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind” (3:10). God is affected by people’s prayers, whether they are voiced by the people of God or by those who stand outside the chosen community. Jonah’s Response to God’s Deliverance (1:17–2:10) The prayer of Jonah has often been thought to be a secondary addition to the book, but this is unlikely. The complex character of this prophet of God—pious but disobedient, thankful but unrepentant—is made clearer by this psalm. The author likely draws on language and themes from the thanksgiving psalm tradition and weaves them into the tapestry of his personal story. God’s use of the fish to deliver Jonah from the sea brackets Jonah’s prayer of thanksgiving (1:17; 2:10). Notably, the fish, of unknown species, is not God’s agent of judgment. Rather, the fish is God’s instrument for saving Jonah from drowning in the sea and transporting him back to the place where God’s call can be restated. The prayer is not in anticipation of Jonah’s later deliverance, but in thanksgiving for his actual deliverance from the fish

Jonah

179

and the sea. The three days and three nights motif (1:17) is probably intended to reference the time it was thought to take for a journey from the underworld back to life. The belly of Sheol (2:2; see Ps 139:8) and the Pit (2:6; see Ps 103:4) are references to the world of the dead, thought to be located beneath the floor of the sea. The psalm is filled with irony. In response to his deliverance from drowning, Jonah sings a song of thanksgiving from the fish’s belly (with many parallels in the psalms, and hence traditional in its formulations; see 2:9; Ps 50:14). Jonah uses metaphors that are typically employed to describe distress, with water imagery being uniquely prominent here (see Pss 30; 42; 69). Jonah also uses these images literally to depict his descent to the doors of death. Jonah recalls his distress and his cries of lament to God as he is tangled up in seaweed and plunges toward the bottom of the sea; the door of Sheol is pictured as a prison with bars (the underworld of death). It felt like he was gone—“forever.” He recalls that he was cast away from God’s presence (concretized by reference to the temple), the source of life (2:3-6). Yet, because he has now been delivered from death (by the fish), he comes to realize that his prayer—which entailed his remembrance of God—actually did come before God in his temple (see Ps 18:6), and God acted on his behalf and delivered him from death (3:7). Ironically, in his prayer Jonah contrasts himself with the pagans who worship idols and cease to rely on the steadfast love of the Lord—failing to see that he has forsaken God as much as they have (2:8). Finally, he voices the key theme of divine deliverance (2:9; see Ps 3:8)—ironically, for he is no more deserving of salvation than the heathen Ninevites; he would limit God’s exercise of the mercy that had saved him. Ironically, guilty Jonah is the recipient of divine mercy. The prayer reveals no repentant Jonah, but God and the fish mercifully bring him back home nevertheless. The fish unceremoniously vomits him out onto a beach (2:10), soaked with three days of living inside a fish. What a sight he must have been! Jonah’s prayer expresses the belief that God has cast him into the sea and that he has been driven away, presumably by God, from God’s presence (2:3-4), though he himself took that initiative with the help of the sailors (1:12-15). So Jonah’s decision, the actions of other creaturely agents, and God’s own action are related in a complex way; at the least, this complexity indicates that God is not the sole actor in what has happened. This perspective on God is lifted up by the way in which God works through other creatures (the fish; bush; worm; wind). These exaggerated elements serve the point that God chooses not to act alone in the world but works in and

180

Reading Hosea–Micah

through agents, both human and nonhuman, none of whom are perfect instruments in accomplishing God’s purposes. Nineveh and God Repent (Jonah 3:1-10) This chapter depicts a common pattern in the Old Testament—threatened disaster followed by human and/or divine repentance followed by deliverance. Such a pattern is frequent in Israel’s experience (see Joel 2:13-14) and is portrayed in Jeremiah 18:7-11as being available to all peoples—including people such as the Ninevites. Still in need of Jonah, God repeats the call: Go to Nineveh and proclaim what I tell you. This word is reported in Jonah’s speech in 3:3, though it seems unlikely that Jonah repeated God’s words precisely. Hyperbole is pervasive. Nineveh is described in larger-than-life terms; archaeological work has not unearthed a city so large. The site of Nineveh, near the Iraqi city of Mosul, reveals a city three miles across, with an encircling wall of about eight miles. Ironically, again, the entire evil city repents at Jonah’s minimal efforts, executed under duress and without mercy in his heart. Even the animals repent (see Joel 1:18-20)! Such deliberately overdrawn details highlight God’s great mercy and the irony of Jonah’s unparalleled success. Jonah’s graceless word in the wake of his own experience of grace speaks Jonah’s own mind regarding a future for the city that he thinks would be just. He states a specific time for their doomsday. The “forty days” may be a round number for a longer period; but the number could also be purposely precise, perhaps in the interest of holding God to a timetable and giving Nineveh as short a time to repent as was reasonably possible. Such a specification of time is rare in the prophets (the only partial parallel is the “seventy years” of Jer 25:11-12 regarding the length of exile). Surprisingly, the Ninevites—everyone!—“believed God” (3:5) and spread the word until it reached the king. Led by their king (unnamed), parallel to the captain (1:6), the Ninevites engage in words and acts of repentance, of which fasting, sackcloth, and ashes are concrete signs (see Dan 9:3; Joel 1:14; 2:15). The king understands, however, that human repentance may not ward off judgment (“Who knows? God may,” 3:9). The king is understood to be theologically alert enough to know that repentance may issue in forgiveness but may not cut off sin’s consequences—a common reality in every generation. Israel’s God, who is affected by these actions, responds in love (4:2) by turning away from the judgment—because that move serves the divine will for the salvation of all.

Jonah

181

Notably, the words of a prophet of God are not fulfilled, though that is not unprecedented by any means (see Jer 26:18-19 with Mic 3:12). Jonah’s preaching is unconditional; the Ninevites are headed for destruction (3:4). Inasmuch as Jonah’s language of “overturning” is also used for the proverbial Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:25, 29), and Jonah is sharply angry at Nineveh’s salvation (4:1), its actual destruction is what Jonah has in mind with such language. At the same time, the Ninevites’ inner turning could be an ironic reference: Jonah preached one kind of overturning and got another (see Hos 11:8). In any case, Jonah is very angry (4:1) and continues to hope for Nineveh’s destruction (4:5). An Israelite prophet has failed, in both word and deed. Is Jonah then a false prophet (cf. Deut 18:22)? Has there ever been in Israel such an incompetent and recalcitrant prophet? God is able to work in and through his inept efforts, but the reader cannot help wondering what would have been possible with a fuller cooperation on his part. Remarkably, God changes the divine mind (3:10; 4:2; cf. 3:9; “relent” is another common translation): “When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil ways, God changed his mind” (3:10). God’s way into the future is genuinely affected by what human beings do and say. Such an observation means that God’s future is at least somewhat open; it is shaped by what happens in the divine-human interaction in view of God’s honoring of relationships. The king of Nineveh claims that God’s gracious response is not necessitated by the human response (3:9, “Who knows?”), and so, at least in his opinion, the future of Nineveh remains open. It might be noted that the occasional claim that God will not change the divine mind (Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29) usually has to do with God’s promises and hence does not contradict the divine change of mind in this text and elsewhere (e.g., Exod 32:14). To say that God “relents” with respect to judgment on Nineveh is not equivalent to saying that God forgives the Ninevites (cf. Exod 32–34 and the Moses-prompted divine moves from initially relenting to finally forgiving). A key distinction is assumed here between the forgiveness of sin and a reversal of the consequences of sin. The issue regarding Nineveh does not have to do with forgiveness of sin but with deliverance from the threat uttered by Jonah (as, comparably, the divine threat in Exod 32:14). That Nineveh is actually destroyed (in 612 BCE) is commonly noted by commentators; this state of affairs is probably in place at the time of writing (cf. Nah 1:2-3 with Jonah 4:2). This disastrous development for Nineveh has its parallels in other instances of divine relenting where, over time, an act of destruction follows (Amos 7:1-9). Times change, and an occasion of divine

182

Reading Hosea–Micah

relenting does not lock the future forever in place. God will take new situations into account in moving into the future. A Theological Debate (Jonah 4:1-11) What prompts Jonah’s anger at God? Is it God’s decision to spare Nineveh? Perhaps this is the case, though there is no indication that Jonah knows of God’s decision in 3:10. But he would likely infer this, for Jonah does see how Nineveh reacts to his preaching, and Jonah knows that God is one who would honor such repentant acts at some level. At the same time, Jonah may hope that God’s decision about the future of the city is still open. Perhaps his anger will convince God to get on with the destruction of the city. Jonah moves from deep anger in 4:1 to the familiar confession in 4:2. Readers are—finally!—informed of the reason he did not go to Nineveh. Jonah specifically relates the divine character in 4:2 to the divine decision in 3:10 to honor Nineveh’s repentance. But the element of the divine character that is especially noted is niham (“relent”)—it is added to the traditional list of divine attributes in Exodus 34:6-7 (as also in Joel 2:13). It is this additional claim about God that seems to engage Jonah in a special way in this situation. How can God even consider changing the divine mind regarding the judgment of such a wicked city? Thus, Jonah in 4:2 links divine relenting and divine mercy. They are both characteristic of God, and both come into play in this situation. The divine compassion noted in 4:10-11, working back through the claims about God in 4:2, is the ground for the divine decision in 3:10. Interestingly, in Exodus 32:14 God relents regarding Israel apart from any repentance on their part, with only Moses’ prayer in view. Consequently, it is possible that God would have changed the divine mind even apart from Nineveh’s repentance on the grounds of divine compassion alone (4:11). Jonah was concerned about such a possibility. God’s question in 4:11 includes no suggestion that Nineveh’s repentance conditions God’s relenting (as also in 4:2). God’s compassion prompts God’s response to the Ninevites’ repentance. God will spare them because of who God is and who they are. Jonah responds with profound anger at the divine reversal (4:1; words for anger are repeated three times). He objects to Nineveh’s salvation, but not because his words did not come true; the idea of divine reversal was common in prophecy (see Jer 18:7-11). Jonah then presents his case for originally refusing to go—a fear that God would be merciful upon a city for which judgment was clearly in order and would relent from that deserved judgment. Jonah does not disagree with the priority of God’s grace as such, but

Jonah

183

he will not be partner to its indiscriminate exercise. God has not attended to basic standards of justice in his “overlooking” the conduct of the Ninevites. In view of these developments, Jonah asks God to kill him (4:3; cf. Elijah in 1 Kgs 19:4), for he has been a participant in this act of injustice and hence deserves the sentence of death. Jonah will be just (as was also the case in 1:12)! But, again, God refuses the challenge and mercifully questions Jonah regarding his response to the salvation of Nineveh (4:4). God’s approach is of such a nature that Jonah is free to respond (hence, the question format): Is Jonah’s anger an appropriate response to Nineveh’s deliverance? Jonah does not respond verbally (see 1:6) and proceeds to challenge God with his resolve. God should take another look at the situation, and so Jonah decides to sit it out, overlooking the city; he will wait God out (4:5). God’s concern for justice is tempered by the divine slowness to anger (4:2). The exercise of divine justice is thus not absolutely prescribed, nor is it fixed in the way in which it functions. Indeed, many people escape from the consequences of their behaviors (cf. Jer 12:1) not by virtue of a divine decision but by a “looseness” or “unevenness” in the creational causal weave that God allows to be what it was created to be (the phrase “slow to anger” testifies to this kind of divine way of relating to the world). Jonah himself experiences such “looseness” in his journeys, and, insightfully, the king of Nineveh understands (“perhaps”) there to be no fixed link between deed and consequence (3:9). Both unrepentant Jonah and repentant Ninevites experience God’s slowness of anger and a creational order that does not function with precision, not least in view of the complexities of the situation (4:11). God’s mercy and graciousness and openness to relent, strongly affirmed by Jonah himself (4:2), temper the exercise of strict justice, but other factors may also contribute to the shape of the future. That God is “slow to anger” and, especially, that God is open to relent from deserved judgment is a part of the tradition with which Jonah disagrees. Not unlike Job’s friends, Jonah’s understanding of justice is strict and precise, almost mechanical. “You reap what you sow”—period, end of conversation! Jonah knows that God is merciful and gracious (4:2) but believes that those divine characteristics can obscure God’s role as executor of justice on the deserving wicked. Jonah will be more just than God is! At the same time, Jonah does not perceive that, in such a retributive system as he espouses, he himself should have been the recipient of the wrath of God! God engages in a conversation with Jonah about his anger and seeks to move him out of his resentment over what has happened to Nineveh (4:4, 8-11). Once again, in this interaction, Jonah is not blown away by divine

184

Reading Hosea–Micah

rhetoric or divine power. God’s actions (4:6-8) contain some of the exaggerated elements in the story (see “Introduction to Jonah”). Even then, these divine actions take a “soft” approach to Jonah’s dilemma and serve to engage Jonah in a theological conversation regarding his response to God’s mercy and relenting. God thereby hopes to turn Jonah around theologically. God refuses to back off and sends upon Jonah not a baneful storm but a beneficial plant; rather than being exposed to the elements this time, Jonah is protected from them. God reinforces Jonah’s shade, adding a bush to his booth; ironically, God graciously delivers the one who is angry with God for delivering others. Ironically again, Jonah rejoices in his own salvation (as in ch. 2). Then God pursues the issue with worm and wind; the plant withers and Jonah wearies. God gives him a taste of the destruction he has wished upon others. In view of such give-and-take capriciousness, Jonah prefers death: God is not just. God persists and questions Jonah: Is his anger an appropriate response to the plant’s destruction (4:9)? A clever question! Either answer to the question impales Jonah. If his answer is negative (as it should have been), then Jonah will recognize that he is not in a position to make claims regarding what God does with God’s own gifts (the plant). God has the right to make such judgments. If Jonah’s answer is positive (as it was), then he tacitly acknowledges God’s right to respond to Nineveh as God pleases. Jonah himself (and any reader of the book) has received gifts from God apart from questions of justice, concerning which he can then make no claims. He has done nothing to deserve the gift of the bush and has put no work whatsoever into its emergence. Given his own experience, then, Jonah should not begrudge God’s generosity when God chooses to extend a comparable mercy to others—no matter how undeserving they may be. “Am I not allowed to have pity” is the sense of the opening clause of 4:11, expressing God’s freedom to have mercy (see Exod 33:19, “I will show mercy upon whom I will show mercy,” a sentence from the same context as Jonah’s quotation of Exod 34:6-7). God’s will is for the salvation of all—even the cows (see the New Testament usage of Jonah in Matt 12:38-41; 16:4; Luke 11:29-32). The ending divine question of Jonah (4:10-11) introduces readers to a deep divine concern. God could be described as deeply compassionate. God’s question indicates that God is moved by Nineveh’s weak and/or morally confused ones (from children to adults) and its animals (in view of potential disaster). What is happening in Nineveh has an effect on God. The verb hus, “concern for” (NRSV), refers to suffering action, action executed with tears in the eyes. The link between “moved to spare” and tears is expressed nega-

Jonah

185

tively in Deuteronomy 19:13, 21; Isaiah 13:18; and Ezekiel 5:11; 7:4, 9, where allowing tears to flow would wrongly deter the judgment. God’s concern entails a compassionate responsiveness. Here God vulnerably takes the evil of Nineveh upon the divine self. God bears the weight of its violence, the pain of a thousand plundered cities, including Israel’s. God’s tears flow instead of theirs. Remarkably, God does not have the last word; though God is the one who speaks last, a continuing conversation with Jonah is specifically invited. The book ends with a question, with the differences between God and Jonah unresolved. God seeks to convince Jonah of certain understandings regarding God; Jonah continues to resist God’s efforts to convince him. No divine success regarding a change in Jonah’s perspective is reported. Such divine difficulties do not seem to fit the image of God presented in the exaggerated elements of the book. But God is not said to be in control of the response, either of Jonah or the reader. The future remains genuinely open-ended at the end of this book. Jonah’s problem with God is a theological problem. His disobedience to God’s call was theologically motivated. It is not that Jonah disagrees with Israel’s basic confession about God (4:2), as we have noted, but he wishes to restrict the range of its applicability. His motivation turned out to be bad theology, not necessarily bad faith. God goes to the root of the problem by engaging him in words and actions that are designed to get his theological perspective turned around. If and when Jonah is convinced to make a theological turn, his disobedience and despair will likely take care of themselves. Thus, the exaggerated actions of God with respect to nature here (and earlier in the book) are not life-threatening, but a clever way of seeking to move Jonah through a conversation that is designed to move Jonah theologically. These various features relating to the God of the book of Jonah are revealing of a God who is deeply affected by the world, enters into relationships that honor the other in the relationship, and takes their interaction seriously. The effect of such an understanding is that God is shown to have limited God’s actions in such a way as to honor God’s promises and to enable this relationship to flourish, with creatures allowed by God to be what they were created to be.

Micah

INTRODUCTION TO MICAH The Historical Setting The ministry of Micah is associated with the reigns of three kings of Judah in the late eighth century BCE (1:1): Jotham (742–735), Ahaz (735–715), and Hezekiah (715–687). The reign of Hezekiah seems to be the principal setting (see Jer 26:18 and its quotation of Mic 3:12). Probable references to the fall of Samaria (1:6) and the invasion of the Assyrians under Sennacherib (1:10-16) suggest a primary setting for his oracles in the last quarter of the eighth century BCE (725–700 BCE). Micah came on the scene during the later years of the ministry of Isaiah, although no evidence exists that they had contact with each other. Micah was a native of a small yet strategically important (both militarily and commercially) fortified village about twenty-five miles southwest of Jerusalem named Moresheth(-gath; cf. 1:1, 14). It was probably one of the cities captured by king Sennacherib in the Assyrian invasion of 701 BCE (see 1:14). The most prominent historical feature of Micah’s setting is the military activity of the Assyrians, associated with the periods of the Syro-Ephraimitic war (734-732 BCE), the Assyrian destruction of Samaria (722 BCE), and the invasion of Judah by Sennacherib’s armies in 701 BCE (see 2 Kgs 18–19; Isa 37–38). It seems likely that the northern kingdom (Samaria) had already fallen to the Assyrians when Micah was written, and the south (Jerusalem) was now threatened. The book is set in a turbulent, battle-filled time, with deep and broad threats to the continuing life of the people of God in both northern and southern kingdoms. The name Micah (“Who is like Yahweh?”), reflecting the incomparability of Israel’s God, is fitting for a prophet who was active in such a context (see the claim about God in 7:18).

188

Reading Hosea–Micah

Efforts to locate Micah in the social fabric of his time have proved difficult. It is commonly thought that he belonged to no professional community or prophetic group. Micah seems to set himself apart from the community of prophets, at least the prophets of that time and place (see 3:5-8). Micah’s oracles are related to both northern kingdom (Samaria) and southern kingdom (Jerusalem/Judah) in 1:1, although concern for the latter dominates in the book as a whole. That both kingdoms are linked in terms of judgment and (potential) destruction becomes clear. While the eighth century BCE as a basic context for Micah is clear, more particular events are left somewhat vague, leaving modern readers often “at sea” in thinking through issues of historical setting. Whether the authors purposely intend this vagueness with respect to the eighth-century setting is not clear. The likelihood that the book was edited over the course of many years subsequent to the ministry of Micah complicates such considerations even more. Such an editorial process would tend to foster a softening of specific references to the prophet’s own time as well as a hesitance to impose later events back onto Micah’s time. Given these realities, how much of the book is to be specifically related to the ministry of Micah is debated. The specific reference to Babylon (4:10) and possible sixth-century realities (e.g., return from exile, 7:12) are often cited. Many scholars think that a core of the book (e.g., Mic 1–3) was later supplemented in view of ongoing events, perhaps extending into the postexilic period (see 7:8-20). But beyond that, little agreement exists regarding the history of redaction. Openness to significant levels of continuity that these chapters have with the eighth-century prophet and his context should be carefully considered, however (see Hillers). The Structure of Micah The structure of Micah is most commonly discerned in terms of three divisions (chs. 1–3; 4–5; 6–7). This division is modified to some extent in different studies. The modification to which I am most attracted is a division between Micah 2 (with its concluding salvation oracle, 2:12-13) and Micah 3; that structure is adopted in this commentary. How these three divisions are related to one another, and the flow of thought within each division, remains something of an enigma. Given such uncertainties, commentators may, finally, best honor the material by seeking to discern the flow of thought in the present form of the book as a whole. Generally speaking, the typical prophetic rhythm of indictment/ judgment/promise characterizes the book’s structure. Indeed, each of the

Micah

189

three major parts of the book, and the book as a whole, seems to have this tripartite structure, although it is not presented with the kind of precision we might like. 1. Micah 1–2. This first section of the book is dominated by divine indictments and judgment speeches, particularly against the wealthy classes for their mistreatment of the underprivileged. An initial focus is placed on the devastation suffered by Samaria (the northern kingdom), with a warning that this destruction threatens Judah (see 1:9). At the same time, this section concludes with words of hope (2:12-13). 2. Micah 3–5. The second segment of the book speaks of the people as a whole, although it focuses on Judah/Jerusalem. This section begins with sharp words of judgment and indictment but moves to familiar words of hope and promise (see 4:1-4; 5:2-5). 3. Micah 6–7. This third section extends the perspectives of indictment and judgment, makes urgent calls for reform (6:1–7:7), and finally moves to words of salvation and hope (7:8-20). This repeated theological pattern of indictment-judgment-promise is similar to that of other prophets in basic ways (e.g., nearly every prophetic book ends on a note of promise and hope). This basic rhythm is conveyed in and through a variety of types of literature. In addition to the traditional prophetic literary forms (indictment, announcement of judgment, and announcement of salvation), the genres of instruction, lament, and liturgy may be especially cited. The complexity of the composition of Micah may be signaled by the fact that Micah 3:12 is quoted in Jeremiah 26:18 (which also mentions king Hezekiah); the Jeremiah text is the longest quotation of one prophet by another in the Old Testament. Micah 3:12 was cited at the trial of Jeremiah during the reign of King Jehoiakim (609–598 BCE), shortly before the fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonians. It is notable that Micah 3:12, set over a century earlier when Jerusalem was threatened by the Assyrians, is remembered for not being fulfilled. God changed the divine mind about what Micah said about the future of Jerusalem in view of the prayer of Hezekiah. What standing, then, does the original prophecy have? Might such realities come into play with other texts? What about those texts that are, even today, not yet fulfilled? The Message of Micah The most basic theological foundation of Micah is familiar: Israel is God’s chosen people (2:8; 6:2-5) with whom God has journeyed from the time of

190

Reading Hosea–Micah

the ancestors, through the wilderness journey, and into the settlement in the land (7:15-20). Moreover, a robust creation theology is evident: God is Lord of all the earth (4:13), and various peoples, gifted with God’s wisdom (4:2) and recipients of God’s blessings (4:3-4), serve as God’s agents in the world (1:6-7); at the same time, they are subject (as is Israel) to a life of sin and reaping the consequences thereof (7:16-17; see 7:9). In addition, the above-noted rhythm of indictment, judgment, and salvation permeates its basic theological perspective. How to relate judgment and the promise of salvation is an important matter that Micah asks readers to consider, not least because they are not smoothly interwoven. That is to say, these themes are not related to Israel’s history in some step-by-step way. Rather, they are intermingled with one another in the text so that, say, in the midst of words of hope one needs to be reminded that a life filled with indictment and judgment continues apace. In fact, those realities might be said to be necessary for a movement toward hope. Judgment is necessary for God’s work of salvation in an ongoing way. So the readers of Micah will encounter these themes (and related types of literature) in a way that pushes and pulls them around theologically. The book of Micah moves one back and forth between judgment and hope. The rhetoric of indictment in Micah illustrates this point. This rhetoric is pervasive and complex and, again, permeates the whole. Socioeconomic considerations are a key to understanding Micah’s context. The language of “class warfare” could describe the situation. Indeed, the images used to indict Israel can be “off the wall”: “Should you not know justice?—you who hate the good and love the evil, who tear the skin off my people, and the flesh off their bones; who eat the flesh of my people, flay their skin off them, break their bones in pieces, and chop them up like meat in a kettle, like flesh in a caldron” (3:1-3; see also 2:1-2, 8-9; 3:4-11; 6:9-12; 7:1-7). Such sharp indictments focus on the more affluent members of Israel’s society. In standing over against the wealthier classes associated with the temple, military, and palace life, Micah is a spokesman for his village/rural community especially (but not exclusively). Specifics of the indictment are wide-ranging: greed, bribery, violence, contempt, misuse of weights and balances, mistreatment of the poor and homeless and disadvantaged. Indeed, Micah condemns wealth in and of itself, without qualification: “Your wealthy people are full of violence” (6:12). With its concern for issues of justice, Micah 6:1-8 is a text that is often regarded as the quintessential statement of prophetic thought (see below). Interestingly, as in Amos, idolatry is seldom cited (see 1:5-9).

Micah

191

But Micah does not end with indictment and judgment. Peace among the nations of the world is a key focus (4:1-4). More particularly, a concern for the future of God’s people is brought to the fore, especially the salvation of a remnant and the restoration of Zion (4:6-8, 13; 5:7-15). And special attention is given to repentance and forgiveness (7:9, 18-20). But, again, Micah recognizes that a long stretch of difficulties exists between now and the fulfillment of promises of God for the future. But the promises of God are what finally matter—and the book ends on that note! Micah is especially known for certain texts that have centered many a theological and ethical discussion through the centuries: Micah 3:8. “I am filled with power, with the spirit of the LORD, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression and to Israel his sin.” This word is a basic understanding of the call of the prophet. He is filled with strength by the spirit of God (associated with the prophets from early times), has been filled with insight into God’s word and will for this situation, and has been given proper “judgment and courage” (so JPS) to speak the appropriate word to a sinful Israel. Micah 4:1-5. “. . . they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (see Isa 2:2-4). This word of promise follows a sharply stated word of judgment (3:9-12). This text reveals the fundamentally pacifistic intentions of Israel’s prophets and their God. The God who goes forth with this word of peace is active to that end among the nations of the world. The effect of this divine work among the nations is that war-making equipment (swords and spears) will be reworked into food-producing instruments (plows and hooks with which to prune fruit trees). The end result is a world free of war—which passes judgment on all wars, past and present! This peaceful future is assured because God has spoken these promises. Even more, this vision charts a direction for the present. God’s work on behalf of the ways of peace will have an ongoing positive effect on the lives of the nations. Micah 5:2-5a. “But you, O Bethlehem of Ephrathah, who are one of the little clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to rule in Israel, whose origin is from of old. . . . And he shall stand and feed his flock in the strength of the LORD, and he shall be the one of peace.” These verses are very familiar to the Christian community and commonly read during the Christmas season (see Matt 2:6). Jerusalem has been besieged and the Davidic ruler humiliated. But God promises to raise up a new king who will rule truly as God’s representative, bringing peace.

192

Reading Hosea–Micah

This text considers it significant that Bethlehem is a “little” place, a common touch to God’s ways of working in the world (see 1 Cor 1:26-31). God chooses to work in and through agents that are not renowned for their worldly power but that draw on the “strength of the LORD.” This new king/shepherd will follow in God’s shepherding steps, provide for the needs of the people, and inaugurate a time of stability and security. A down-toearth understanding of the future of the people of God is thereby illumined, not a triumphant otherworldly perspective. Micah 6:6-8. “He has told you, O mortal, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” This text is a familiar summary of a key dimension of prophetic thought. What are the priorities in your relationship with God and others? Give yourself on behalf of others, particularly those who are needy, by doing justice and loving kindness. At the same time, walk humbly (or attentively) with your God. That action on behalf of the less fortunate and the journey with God stay together is important; the one will deeply affect the other. This move is not unlike Jesus’ combination of two other Old Testament texts (Mark 12:28-31): Love your God and your neighbor as yourself (Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18). Micah 7:18-20. “You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea. You will show faithfulness to Jacob and unswerving loyalty to Abraham, as you have sworn to our ancestors from the days of old.” The final verses of the book emphasize God’s faithfulness and the promise of divine forgiveness. With this kind of God there is hope for Israel’s future. Wonderful images of divine forgiveness are expressed: Israel’s sins will be cast into the depths of the sea and will have negative effects on their life no more. God’s promises to Abraham and Jacob, to which God will be unswervingly faithful and that give evidence of God’s steadfast love (hesed), will be continually applicable to this people. Even in the midst of their sins and their evil effects! God determines to be faithful to God’s ancient promises, come what may!

COMMENTARY Critique, Judgment, Lament (Mic 1:1–2:13) Micah begins with a series of indictments and words of judgment directed against the people of God in Israel/Samaria. Words of lament accompany the

Micah

193

words that announce the devastation (1:8-9, 10-16; 2:1, 4). This section concludes with a word of hope (2:12-13). Superscription (Mic 1:1)

The superscription is similar to that found in other prophets (e.g., Amos 1:1). The word of the Lord is what he “saw” (see Hos 1:1). The entire book is identified as “the word of the LORD,” although the specific speakers may vary. Such an identification claims a certain standing for what follows: Reader, what follows is the word of God! Micah’s hometown, Moresheth (see 1:14), is a rural village about twenty-five miles southwest of Jerusalem. This small town stands outside of the political, military, and religious establishment of Jerusalem; but Micah makes it clear that these leaders have had a negative impact on his community. Micah’s primary audience during his ministry of uncertain length is his home area of Judah during the reigns of three Davidic kings: Jotham (742–735 BCE), Ahaz (or Jehoahaz; 735–715 BCE), and Hezekiah (715–687 BCE ), especially the last named. Micah also spoke to Israel, but it is not always clear which texts are directed specifically to that community; the only specific mention of the northern kingdom in this opening verse is the reference to Samaria. Threats to the Future of Samaria (Mic 1:2-16)

Micah 1 may be divided into two segments, the announcement of judgment against both Israel and Judah (1:2-7) and the lamenting response to that announcement, given the suffering that would follow (1:8-16). Micah’s home area is among those villages that are deeply affected (1:14). The section begins with an imperative (1:2; “Hear”), and Micah 1:2-16 uses eight imperatives altogether, giving these verses a sense of urgency. The chapter’s focus is placed on God’s judgment of Samaria/Israel, but Micah’s angle of vision is southern. He sees the destructive Assyrian armies at work in the northern kingdom and determines that Judah, given its apostasies, is threatened with a comparable fate (1:9). While the speaker is not always easy to identify, it is probably God throughout (see the “I” in 1:6, 15). At the same time, the ambiguity regarding the speaker of 1:8-9 (“barefoot and naked” with “my people”) suggests that in these verses we are hearing both prophet and God. Or, more precisely, we are hearing the prophet as the embodiment of the word of God. Lament is the primary literary form used in this section and is stressed in the opening and closing verses.

194

Reading Hosea–Micah

The audience for this chapter is not always made clear. While 1:2-4 suggests a universal audience, 1:5-9 is more limited to Israel and Judah; 1:10-15 reaches out to include non-Israelites once more (Gath is a Philistine city). Finally, 1:16 (a feminine imperative) may refer to Samaria in view of the reference to exile—and hence would be parallel to 1:8, though Jerusalem is more commonly suggested. The opening segment centers on God’s coming in judgment (1:2-4, 6-7a), prompted by Israel’s sin (1:5, 7b). The point is sharpened in God’s own words (“I”; 1:6-7). God’s personal word of judgment is followed by God’s/prophet’s personal lament (1:8-9) and the weeping of affected towns (1:10-16). The specific historical setting of these verses is unclear, but the towns listed in 1:10-16 are all located in or near Judah. It is likely that these words, full of lament, relate to the invasion of Israel by the Assyrian armies in the period 722–701 BCE (see 2 Kgs 17-19; Isa 36-37). God is coming in judgment (vv. 2-7). Micah begins by calling for everyone’s attention: Hear, you peoples, all of you! While an Israelite audience is primarily in view, he gives his message a universal perspective, applicable to all peoples. The nations (such as Assyria) will be involved in what is about to happen (judgment). God is coming to accuse them, to witness against them (not to ask them to be a witness against Israel; cf. 6:1-2). A key phrase in 1:2, however, could be translated as a witness “among you” (REB) rather than “against you.” If this likely translation is accurate, the nations would be called to be God’s agent in the judgment against Samaria that is now to be announced (1:3-7; see 2 Kgs 17:7-13). A courtroom setting, sometimes suggested, is unlikely. Micah announces a divine appearance (theophany): God is coming from heaven, “his holy temple . . . his place” (1:3), to the “high places of the earth/land” (usually open-air sanctuaries for the practice of religious rituals) for purposes of judgment. In the wake of God’s coming, the natural world is pictured as caught up in convulsions (1:4, 6). Everything in God’s path will be laid waste—a reality that can be viewed in the descriptions of 1:10-16. These images of natural disaster are emblematic of God’s coming in judgment in and through human agents (not actual occurrences in nature). At God’s coming, the mountains will melt, like “wax near the fire” (see Ps 97:5) and like waters rushing down the mountainside. Every valley shall be turned into a yawning abyss! From another angle, the sins of Samaria/Jerusalem (1:5) will not simply have local consequences; they will have cosmic effects. God is on the way! In judgment! Nothing will be able to stand against him.

Micah

195

God’s appearance is for purposes of judgment. What Israel has done is what prompts God to “leave home,” as it were, and take these strong, judgmental actions. As 1:5 states (“All this is for . . .”), judgment is called for in view of the transgressions/sins of Israel/Jacob. The mention of both Samaria and Jerusalem (the capitals of north and south) makes clear that the entire country is responsible and endangered, although the emphasis here seems to be placed on Samaria (see 1:5-6). These “sins” and “transgressions” could be especially related to the idolatrous practices of their worship (see 1:7), but the range of images suggests that sins of every sort are in view. As such, Jerusalem (including its temple but not limited to that) is, remarkably, imaged as a “high place” (see 1:3)! That’s like calling a church a brothel! The rhetorical questions in 1:5b ask that the reader supply an obvious answer: the problem is the sins of Israel (Jacob, Samaria) and Judah/Jerusalem, nothing or nobody else. What happens to Samaria in view of its sins is dealt with first (1:6-7); this leads to effects regarding Jerusalem, for the judgment has reached its gates (1:9). They are united in their sin and, potentially, its consequences. God is the subject in 1:6-7 (“I”), more closely specifying the devastating effects of the judgment. Samaria will be so fully destroyed—the stones of its buildings thrown about by rushing waters (see 1:4) and its foundations undermined—that it will become an open field for planting vineyards (1:6; similarly, 3:12). Its idolatrous images will be smashed to pieces! Its ill-gotten wealth burned up! The most basic reason for the judgment is infidelity—in the broad sense of the term. Consorting with other lovers (whether religious, political, or commercial) was the means by which wealth had been gathered (1:7d). They sell themselves to gain favors from other nations. All these means will be destroyed. In judgment, the people shall be so devastated that they will be reduced to (actual) prostitution to maintain their livelihood or be reduced to slavish dependence on other nations for life itself (1:7e; see Isa 23:17). More simply, all of their ill-gotten wealth shall revert to those from whom it was originally gained (see 6:12 for a link between the wealthy and violence). What goes around comes around! These themes will be repeated in the balance of the book. The countryside is laid waste (vv. 8-16). These verses probably reflect the time of the Assyrian king Sennacherib, whose armies swept through Judah to the gates of Jerusalem in 701 BCE. Sennacherib did in fact focus his initial assault in 701 BCE on the governmental city of Lachish (1:13; for a comparable listing of towns that lie in the crosshairs of marauding armies,

196

Reading Hosea–Micah

see Isa 10:27-32). The prophet’s own home village (Moresheth-gath, v. 14) is said to be deeply affected as the Assyrian armies march toward the gates of Jerusalem. How these verses set in 701 BCE are to be related temporally to 1:2-7 is uncertain. They may refer to an attack on Samaria twenty-plus years earlier; this could mean that an editor later collapsed these reactions to destruction, perhaps without realizing the temporal difference. At the same time, some interpreters think there is sufficient ambiguity of reference so that readers could “plug in” different invasions. This is suggested by the presence of several apparent wordplays (see the list in Nogalski 2011b, 531) that suggest a more general approach to an advancing calamity (v. 12, “the inhabitants of Maroth [= Bitterness] wait for something sweet”). But, while ironies are clearly present (see below), these verses are still to be read as reflecting an actual invasion of an army, sweeping across the countryside, wreaking havoc all along the way on people, land, and animals. In 1:8-9, either God or prophet speaks; if God, they are striking images to be used for God! More likely, the prophet speaks as a vehicle for divine immanence or an embodiment of the word of God (“my people”). These verses express a personal reaction to the impending doom and gloom of Samaria (“for this”; cf. Amos 5–6). Many think that Micah’s lament was his response in view of being forced to flee from his hometown to Jerusalem. Deep sorrow and lament! The prophet again draws on images from the natural world (the haunting howls/screeches of jackals and ostriches, which often frequent ruins; see Job 30:29; Isa 34:13). He engages in mournful laments and wailings as well as the removal of his clothes (see 1:11). While going barefoot is part of a mourning ritual (2 Sam 15:30), the nakedness is probably a symbolic act, similar to that of Isaiah (20:2-4). As such, his actions are emblematic of the coming disaster, including the taking of prisoners into exile (see 1:16; Amos 2:16). The wound of Samaria is pronounced as “incurable” (1:9; see Jer 15:18), and it has now crossed the border into Judah and Jerusalem. The sorrow is intensified because it is a sign of things to come for Judah and Jerusalem (1:9; “for”). The lament continues in 1:10-16, culminating in the call to mourn (1:16). Most basically, these verses resound with God’s/the prophet’s response to the fate of surrounding settlements in the wake of the Assyrian onslaught. All the towns that can be identified (several cannot be) are southwest of Jerusalem and would be close to Micah’s hometown, Moresheth-gath (1:14; see 1:1). These towns are caught up in the judgment announced regarding Judah (1:9). Indeed, the text makes it sound like the sweep of the

Micah

197

Assyrian armies is actually underway and threatens the very city of Jerusalem (see 1:9, 12). They are as good as gone! The phrases, “tell it not” and “weep not at all” (1:10), are probably an effort to hide the actual situation from the enemy so that they do not gloat (see 2 Sam 1:20). This language probably indicates how bad things are. Note that Gath is a Philistine city, and hence its inhabitants would be considered outsiders. To “roll in the dust” is a mourning custom, as is nakedness (see 1:8). As the people shamefully march into exile (over 200,000 people are said to have suffered such a fate), they are ignored by the inhabitants of the cities (Zaanan; Bethezel) through which they pass (1:11). The judgment of God on Jerusalem is raised again in v. 12b (see 1:9). Some commentators think that the cities in 1:10-12 have already been overrun, while those in 1:13-16 are yet to be conquered. The sins of God’s own people have deeply affected the life of all. The reference to chariots/steeds (1:13) is probably a satirical reference to their use in flight from invading armies. Harness them; you will need them! The reason these cities are caught up in this destructive army march is explicitly stated in 1:13: the “transgressions of Israel” had spread like an infection throughout “daughter Zion,” signaling its end. The “daughter Zion” is a reference to the personified city of Jerusalem or, more broadly, Judah (see 4:8, 10, 13; 7:8-20; commonly used in Isaiah and elsewhere). Speaking satirically again, daughter Zion is to give “parting gifts” to some of its cities that have been overwhelmed by Assyrian armies (1:14). Say goodbye to them! The reference to the village of Achzib (perhaps near Lachish) may be related to the Hebrew word for “deceive.” Such parting gifts will, of course, be nothing more than deception, even for kings. Continuing in a satirical vein, in the wake of the conquering Assyrian armies, the “glory of Israel” (Israel was anything but glorious!) shall spread to the south and end up in a cave (1:15; Adullam was long recognized as a hideout for fugitives, including David; see 1 Sam 22:1-2; 2 Sam 23:13). Jerusalem, daughter of Zion (1:13), is addressed in 1:16 as a woman in grief (feminine singular pronouns are used), and she is called to various mourning rituals for her beloved “children,” a reference to all the towns that have been named. Residents of the cities named have apparently already been taken into “exile” (there was a partial exile of the inhabitants of these towns to Assyria in the eighth century). Jerusalem is next! All she can do is lament! “Worshiping idols means worshiping things that masquerade as gods.” And there are a lot of masquerades going on. Some have to do with the use of language.

198

Reading Hosea–Micah

A Focus on Issues of Social Justice (Mic 2:1-13)

This chapter could be outlined in the following terms. Micah 2:1-5 cites specific issues of social justice that have occasioned the announcement of judgment made in the first chapter. This brings about the sharp indictment of certain “land-grabbers,” more affluent members of the community (2:1-2). The indictment is followed by another announcement of judgment (2:3-5), introduced by “therefore” (a word that commonly occurs between indictment and judgment in the prophets, e.g., see the repeated uses in Jer 5–6). The announcement of judgment leads to a disputation: the voicing of objections by the people (2:6), to which the prophet responds with some sarcasm (2:7-11). The chapter ends on a positive note, addressed to a surviving remnant, using images of God as a shepherd and a king (2:12-13). At the same time, the lamenting character of the material (2:1) continues: Alas! The verses of this chapter have proved to be difficult to translate. On translation issues, see Jenson, 118–30. Condemnation of the affluent (vv. 1-5). Who is speaking and who is being addressed? Initially, the varied references to “they” (2:1-2), “this family” (2:3), and “you” (2:3-5) should be noted. Generally, the affluent in Jerusalem/Judah are being addressed in each of these cases. They seem to be especially the wealthy people in the community who have laid heavy burdens (taxes and other penalties) on the rural areas and small towns (such as Micah’s home). An exercise of power by the privileged is the center of the condemnation. But, then, in 2:4, “they” refers to Israel’s detractors who, noting Israel’s plight, engage in a taunt song (it could be “about you” as in REB rather than “against you”; cf. Hab 2:6; 1 Kgs 9:8-9; Jer 22:8-9). These detractors then quote those who are suffering the consequences of the behaviors of the affluent, who are complaining about their experience of judgment (2:4b). The pronominal references to those who are quoted move somewhat confusingly from “we” to “my,” me” to “our.” The announcement of judgment continues in 2:5 (“therefore”). The opening word (“Alas”; 2:1; sometimes this word identifies a “woe oracle”) is a signal to the hearer/reader that something calamitous (and sad) is about to happen to the people being addressed from the house of Jacob/Israel (2:7, 12). Micah satirically depicts those affluent landowners and creditors who seek to accrue (more) property and wealth; they lie awake at night scheming of new forms of wickedness to carry out on those less fortunate than themselves (2:1; cf. Amos 4:1; 5:12; 6:4-7). When morning comes—in the bright light of a new day—they follow through on their

Micah

199

newly developed plans. And they can do so simply because they have the power to do it. We did it because we could! With profit! While 2:1 speaks generally of the people who devise wicked schemes, 2:2 gives a key example of such evil deeds. Their schemes focus on possession of land, the most basic form of wealth in ancient Israel (2:2; see 2:9; Isa 5:8-9). These predators not only covet (as in Exod 20:17) the fields and houses of others; they take them away by force! They oppress householders so that they lose their homes. They swindle people out of their land—their family property or “inheritance” from God, which was a gift of God to be passed down through the generations as a trust (cf. Naboth’s resistance to King Ahab, 1 Kgs 21:2-3). All such activity on the part of the affluent was in the interests of accumulating more and more land/wealth for themselves at the expense of those less fortunate. In response (“therefore,” repeated in v. 3 and v. 5) and with direct address (“you”), God announces a plan for judgment (2:3-5). It is an “evil” plan (that is, disastrous, the effects of their evil deeds; see Jer 18:11; the word “evil” is repeated) directed against “this family” (=the affluent land-grabbers, united like a family in their perverse efforts). The “evil” deeds (2:1) reap “evil” consequences (2:3); what goes around comes around (see Obad 15). What God will do to them in judgment (through agents, of course) is likened to putting a rope around their necks that cannot be removed. They will walk shamefully (perhaps into exile, see 1:11) with lowered heads. Hanged forever! But that judgment of the affluent, it is important to remember, will endanger all Israelites (see the discussion of Abraham with God about the innocent and the wicked suffering the same fate in Gen 18:22-33). In effect, the entire people of Israel are put at risk because of the behaviors of a few. God’s “devising” of such a plan (2:3) is the same language as the people “devising” schemes in their beds (2:1). Poetic justice! Note that God’s planning (2:3) is distinguished temporally from God’s judgment (2:4; “on that day”). Time is real for God (e.g., God is “slow to anger”; see Isa 48:3), not just for the recipients of the judgment. That coming time will be so disastrous that no one will be able to walk with his head high (see the “evil time” language in Amos 5:13). Those who observe the predators undergoing this disaster (2:4; “they”) will ridicule them (a “taunt song”). They will mock the land-grabbers by having them recite a bitter lament in which God is blamed for acting unjustly against them: “We are utterly ruined, for God has taken away the inheritance of my people (land) and given it to those who have defeated me.” Note the move from “we” to “my” and “me.” My inheritance!? But they are

200

Reading Hosea–Micah

the victimizers, not the victims, however much they selfishly complain to the contrary. Again, poetic justice! They will experience precisely what they have inflicted on others—powerful ones such as the Assyrians (“captors”) will dispossess them of their ill-gotten land—by force. And, as had been the case with the disenfranchised and poor, no one will be available to cast lots on their behalf in the assembly of the Lord (a legal gathering; see Josh 18:6, 10) to have the stolen property returned to them. Implicit in this word is that the poor will be able to get their land back! When the time for redistribution of land does come (after the exile), the victimizers will have no part in it. The land will be given back to those from whom it was stolen. Prophet and people in conflict (vv. 6-11). This disputation speech (2:6-11) begins and ends with the theme of preaching (vv. 6, 11). The prophet Micah reports the negative response to his preaching about the coming judgment by those he has charged in 2:1-5 (2:6-7c; the quotation should probably include the opening lines of 2:7; cf. JPS). They preach right back to him (cf. Isa 30:10-11): “Stop preaching to us about such things (the plural verb suggests that Micah has company)! We are not to blame! You are wrong to think that shame will overtake us. You should not be saying that the house of Jacob is condemned! In reply to your rhetorical questions: God’s patience with us has not been exhausted. These ominous developments of which you speak are not God’s doing! God is not out to get us!” The prophet/God (“my”) replies (2:7d-11), “My words have good effects for those who are upright. But you rise up at my words and treat me (and my people) as an enemy. You strip the clothes off those who speak peace (see 3:2-3), are trusting, and have no thoughts of war. You drive women and children from their homes, which is my inheritance—‘glory’—to them (2:8-9 are a graphic reiteration of 2:2, not a part of God’s judgment). Get out of here! As you have driven out women and children, so there is no resting place in this land for you (2:10)! As you have done to others, so shall it be done to you! Your unclean, filthy practices are destroying this place.” In a sarcastic mode, the prophet concludes, “The only kind of preaching you would accept would be ‘empty falsehoods’ and words that encourage you to indulge in beer and wine! Instead of seeking to escape from reality (such as liquor would bring), get real!” Promise in the midst of judgment (vv. 12-13). God is the speaker of these verses. The rhetoric of the prophet shifts decisively (it may be anticipated in 2:5). Some scholars think the word of judgment continues (e.g., Mays). Some see it as a later addition. But these words are coherent where they presently stand, especially if it is remembered that the subject of these

Micah

201

verses is not to be precisely related to those that are condemned earlier in the chapter. Rather, the focus is placed on “the survivors of Israel”; they may be identified with those who survived the Assyrian invasion of the north and fled to the south. It seems best to regard these verses as a word of deliverance. God is portrayed as a shepherd who leads the survivors to good pasture (not to destruction!). Indeed, these verses serve to conclude the first major section of the book of Micah (1:2–2:13), and, given the pattern of the book (and the prophets more generally), this kind of positive word is what the reader would expect. Such a positive theme plays a role not unlike those in other prophetic texts (e.g., Jer 3:14-18). For Israel’s God, judgment is never the end; judgment makes possible a new beginning; indeed, judgment is often necessary in order truly to begin again. Remarkably, at least some of the people of Israel that the prophet has been indicting—the survivors—are herein viewed on the far side of the promised disaster. These scattered survivors (exiles) are now being gathered by God (depicted as shepherd) and brought home (into their own folds and pastures). So many will return that the land will be a noisy place (see Isa 49:19-21)! The enigmatic 2:13 probably summarizes the prior verse with a different image (see 4:6-7; Isa 27:12-13; 49:8-12; 52:11-12; Jer 23:1-6; Ezek 34:11-31): God will break out (see 2 Sam 5:20; 6:8) through the gates of the cities of their captivity (their pens)—military agents that enable such a move are probably in mind. God, as their shepherd and king, will lead them back home (shepherd is an image for king, 5:2-6; see 7:14; Ezek 34:23-24). This may be an image for a new exodus (see Isa 49:9-12). Corrupt Leaders (Mic 3:1-12) This chapter begins the second segment of the book of Micah (3:1–5:15), although many scholars think it concludes the first part. The chapter is introduced by “Listen” (cf. “hear” in 3:9; see also 1:2 and 6:1). In many ways these chapters reiterate the indictment-judgment-restoration rhythms of 1:2–2:13. The opening “I” probably refers to the prophet Micah (as in 3:8), and the entire chapter is to be ascribed to him (at times quoting God, 3:5-7, and the false prophets, 3:11). In view of the phrase, “And I said” (3:1), the words in this chapter may refer to something the prophet has spoken in an undetermined past time, perhaps to a different audience. The prophet focuses attention on the leaders of Jacob/Israel (Judah/Jerusalem is likely in mind, see 3:8-10; 4:2; 5:7-8) and their irresponsible activities: rulers (3:1-4);

202

Reading Hosea–Micah

prophets (3:5-8); all of them (3:9-12, and priests in v. 11). Note the strong direct address (“you”) at the beginning and end of the chapter. In so identifying with “my people” (3:2-3, 5) Micah’s words flow into God’s words (see 3:5). Abuse of Power on the Part of Israel’s Leaders (Mic 3:1-4)

The rulers of the northern kingdom (Israel)—political, judicial, military— are addressed with a sharp rhetorical question: “Should you not know justice (mishpat)?” Of course they should! But they do not! Concern for issues of justice is central to the faith of Israel, not least on the part of the leaders of the community. Deuteronomy 16:18-20 offers a sharp statement of the concern for justice on the part of Israel’s officials. But, instead, these leaders “hate the good and love the evil” (see Amos 5:14-15; Isa 5:20); their “leadership” is filled with unjust practices that have had cruel effects on people, especially the poor and disadvantaged. Then, ironically, they will come to experience the other meaning of the word mishpat, namely, judgment! Micah uses especially violent images to depict the nature and effect of their abusive activities on “my people” (3:2-3; perhaps quoting God). The image of a butcher cutting up human beings to prepare pieces of their bodies for eating is, more precisely, the actions of a cannibal. The image of a wild beast tearing up its prey seems not far away. Such vivid and violent images have considerable power to impress the effects of personal abuse upon the mind of the reader. They are intended to shock. The policies and practices of Israel’s leading classes have depleted the people’s energies and gutted their very lives. As 6:12 puts the matter, without qualification, “Your wealthy are full of violence!” The leaders of Israel are the ones most basically responsible for the tragedy that has hit the people and the violence they are experiencing. The word of judgment on these leaders follows in 3:4. When the day (of disaster) comes for them—and it will come!—and they cry out to the Lord, God will not listen to their prayers (as in Isa 1:15; Jer 7:16; 11:11; 14:11-12). God will not be available to them because of their evil deeds. It is not that God will be absent; in fact, God will be very much present—in judgment. God will block any access to help for them, just as they have prevented many of their subjects from receiving help when they “cried” to God in their times of trouble. Once again, what goes around comes around. In the language of 3:1, they shall “know justice/judgment” in fullest measure! Indictment of the False Prophets (Mic 3:5-8)

This segment has a similar rhythm. In 3:5, the false prophets are indicted as mercenaries, misleading the people by gearing their message according to

Micah

203

how well their pockets are lined. They have words for sale! Micah is not condemning pay for work (a legitimate practice in Israel), but a corruption that manipulates the audience in view of personal rewards received (is something like a “prosperity theology” in mind?). When it is to their monetary and socio-political advantage, these prophets will preach easy and comfortable words (see Jer 6:14; 8:11). When they are being criticized or monetarily neglected, they will lash out with harsh words. Such practices will mean that the wealthy have an “inside track” to receive the affirming words of such a prophet. The judgment follows in 3:6-7 (“therefore”): the prophets will be denied any insight or revelation into God’s ways—all will be night/darkness/ “sunlessness.” Everything will go black, with no vision received, no insight made available. The night was a common time in which visions were received (see Job 4:12-16), but night for these prophets/seers/diviners will yield nothing (3:7; see 5:12). The use of various words for prophetic figures (prophets, seers, diviners) probably intends to “cover the waterfront” of those who claim to have received visions from God. No one is exempt from this judgment! All who claim to be recipients of a revelation from God, however it has been received (whether through visions, dreams, voices in the night, or other vehicles—all of which could be considered legitimate in and of themselves), are here guilty of misusing their office and stand condemned. As a consequence, with no insights from God forthcoming, the night will become oppressive, and these prophetic figures will suffer disgrace and shame as they move among their people. Perhaps they will be shunned like a leper whose upper lip is to be covered (Lev 13:45). Their lips should have a word from God available to speak, but there is nothing to say. God is silent! As they had no genuine word from God for their people, so God has no word for them. Micah, in obvious debate with these “fellow prophets,” proceeds to state his own credentials (3:8; cf. Isa 11:2; 61:1; Ezek 2:2). He is filled with power or strength by the spirit of God; the gift of the spirit is associated with the prophets from early times (see 1 Sam 10:6; 1 Kgs 20:23). He has been filled with insight into God’s will for this situation and given proper “judgment and courage” (so JPS) to speak the appropriate word to Jacob/Israel. He will convict them of their sinfulness, even though he may well suffer the consequences in his personal life. God’s word here links with Micah’s personal gifts to enable genuine insight and action (see Moses in Exod 2:11-22, whose gifts shape God’s calling).

204

Reading Hosea–Micah

The End of Jerusalem (Mic 3:9-12)

This segment functions as a kind of summary: all of Israel’s religious and political leaders are sharply condemned—rulers, priests, prophets (3:9-11)— and judgment on them is announced (3:12). Judah and Jerusalem are the focus of the prophetic word. A remarkable range of condemned practices is listed: they detest just practices; they do not act with impartiality in their daily relationships and activities; they build up the city of Jerusalem “with blood,” that is, through the use of unpaid or cheap labor (see Jer 22:13-17); they do not deal equitably in the courts; the religious leaders, both priests and prophets, teach and preach only if the price is right. Yet, in spite of all of this, they claim special privilege (“lean upon the LORD”) in their relationship with God: “God is with us, and that means that no calamity will come our way. We are protected by God from any disaster!” Apparently, they believed that the covenant with David (see 2 Sam 7:12-16) protected them from such a future. Interestingly, even faithful people cannot make such a thoroughgoing claim regarding divine protection in their lives! Following this indictment, God announces a sharp judgment (3:12). Jerusalem/Zion will experience such disaster that the area will once again be able to be plowed as a field and the temple area will become only a minor shrine in the woods (see 1:6 for comparable language regarding Samaria, which suffered such an end as well). Had this prophetic word come to pass (see below), it would have effectively put an end to Israel, the people of God. This announcement of judgment is of no little import in that it is the only prophetic text that is fully quoted by another prophet (see Jer 26:1819). Notably, the Jeremiah text claims that this prophecy was not fulfilled because God “repented” (changed the divine mind) in view of Hezekiah’s prayers. From the testimony of Jeremiah 26:3 (comparably, Jer 36:3), where God’s positive purpose in Jeremiah’s preaching of judgment is announced, one could say that Micah’s prophetic word was effective: Jerusalem was not destroyed. That Jerusalem was later destroyed in 587 BCE could conceivably mean the “reinstatement” of Micah’s word for a new time and place. But such language would not be a helpful way of thinking through this issue. The later destruction of Jerusalem was not a necessity because Micah spoke what he did. Micah’s word was not suspended for a time, “lying in wait” for some more applicable day. God’s changing of the divine mind regarding Micah’s prophecy was a genuine change. A new situation had to develop for the kind of word that Micah spoke to be applicable once again. At the same time, even when Babylon destroyed Jerusalem in 587 BCE, the city was not reduced to a

Micah

205

plowed field or a wooded height. Micah’s word did not come to pass as spoken even then. Jerusalem has survived through the centuries. A Promising Future (Mic 4:1–5:15) This section of Micah moves away from the issues of indictment and judgment in 3:1-12 to visions of hope and salvation, following the pattern of Micah 1–2. Micah 4 begins with the hopeful end result (4:1-5), focuses on the remnant (4:6-8), moves to the present (“now”) situation of the author (4:9–5:6), returns to the remnant (5:7-9), and concludes with material that stands between the difficult present situation and the end result (5:10-15). Micah 4 opens with a reference to a future time (4:1, “in days to come”) and continues in that temporal vein with “in that day” (4:6). Then, three segments follow that begin with the word “now” (4:9-10; 4:11-13; 5:1-6), describing a situation contemporaneous with the author. Each of these segments is introduced by a situation in which Israel has been placed in some jeopardy, and each concludes with a promise. These three “now” segments are surrounded by promises about the “remnant” (4:6-8; 5:6-9), a hopeful sign for the future. Given the announcement regarding the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple (3:12), the reader may be surprised that a bright future for Jerusalem is immediately described. Yet, as we have seen, the rhythm of judgment and salvation typifies the book of Micah, and so this textual move will reinforce earlier convictions (2:12-13) that God’s judgment is a means in and through which salvation will be accomplished. The destruction of Jerusalem is not God’s last word with respect to the future of the chosen people. Scholars are not agreed regarding the time and place of the origins of these chapters. Many assign (portions of ) them to the exilic or post-exilic period, even drawing parallels between the end of first Isaiah (chs. 1–39) and the beginnings of second Isaiah (chs. 40–55; see Nogalski 2011b, 558–59). But temporal uncertainty reigns. That 1:1 places readers of the entire book in the reigns of the kings that are cited therein is not unimportant. They Shall Not Learn War Anymore (Mic 4:1-5)

Micah 4:1-3 is nearly identical to Isaiah 2:2-4, although 4:4 has no parallel in Isaiah and 4:5 has only a thematic resemblance to Isaiah 2:5. The relationship between these texts is often debated, with no certain resolution. It is important to remember that Micah and Isaiah were near contemporaries, but it is not known if one prophet depended on the other or both of them

206

Reading Hosea–Micah

depended on a third, unknown source. The last-noted option seems most likely to many interpreters. This section begins by speaking of an indefinite future time (“in days to come”); it is not made clear how distant a future the author has in mind. Jerusalem is described as a virtual magnet of great prominence, attracting other peoples into its orbit, functioning as a gathering place for many nations. This text is not a prophecy about a new Davidic empire, however; it is a promise associated with the centrality of the word of God, not just for Israel but for the world. Israel will mediate that word, but such a development does not envision a new political empire, not least because the text goes on to speak of the absence of the military and its trappings. These images depict a time when conflicts have ceased and peace reigns. This changed status for Jerusalem (and it is ongoing) is depicted in terms of the height of the mountain on which its temple stands; it is higher in the sense of being more prominent than all other temple hills in other nations, not literally higher (cf. Ps 48:1-2; Ezek 40:2). This promise stands in sharp contrast to the image of Zion/Jerusalem just presented in 3:12 (cf. the changed status of Mic 3:12 in Jer 26:18). This is a new word of God for a new time and place. This standing for Zion draws other peoples to Jerusalem—as agents of peace rather than warfare. Remarkably, these peoples are quoted as eagerly (!) inviting still others to begin a pilgrimage to the mountain that goes by the name of the God of Israel (4:2). The pilgrimage is envisioned as a regular occasion (as in Israel’s worship, see Ps 122:1-4), not a one-time event. Interestingly, these peoples not only know the name of the God of Israel but also desire to be taught in the “ways” of this God and to walk in those ways in their daily lives (Pss 25:4-10; 27:11; see Zech 8:20-23). For this development, the prophet uses the image of a “path,” a well-charted course toward a specific destination. The path is God’s path, long existent and well worn by the community over time (see Ps 23:3; Prov 2:9). The path is an image for the “instruction” of God (torah) and “the word of the LORD” (4:2b). Much more is at stake here than a style of life or a guide for living. The path has to do with an entire relationship that is steeped in the word of God and, in turn, shapes one’s identity and way of being in the world. The last two lines of 4:2 should probably be included in the quotation of the nations that began earlier in the verse (contra NRSV). It is important to note that these peoples have not taken up this initiative on their own; rather, the word of God to which Zion witnesses has come to them. God’s instructional word has flowed out of Jerusalem through Israel to the nations (4:2b), and it will continue to do so, attracting still other

Micah

207

peoples to what it has to say. The peoples are not establishing a new home in Jerusalem; these nations will continue to exist and enjoy “their own” vines and fig trees and their own homes (4:4; see 1 Kgs 4:25). Important distinctions among these peoples, even religious distinctions, will persist (v. 5). At the same time, Zion shall be a source of ongoing instruction in the word of the God of Israel for these peoples (see 4:2). One of the significant dimensions of this “instruction” relates to issues of war and peace. Micah 4:3 is an oft-cited verse, revealing the fundamentally pacifistic intentions of Israel’s prophets and their God. The God who goes forth with this word of peace is active to that end among the nations of the world. God will work in and through their decision-making powers (“judge”) to adjudicate peace-making relationships of various sorts (e.g., treaties). The effect of this divine work among the nations is that war-making equipment (swords and spears) will be reworked into food-producing instruments (plows and hooks with which to prune fruit trees). The end result is a world free of war—which passes judgment on all wars, past and present! People shall no more brandish swords against one another; they will no more be fearful with respect to their personal security. Indeed, peace shall become so pervasive that people will not even know how to wage war any more (contrast Judg 3:2 and Joel 3:10). They will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labors, can be assured of enjoying “their own” land and its produce (see Zech 3:10), and will not have to be afraid that the words or actions of others will threaten their future. And this peaceful future is assured because God has spoken these promises. Even more, this vision is not simply a future matter; it charts a direction for the present. The presence of such a vision will help shape a sinful world where wars continue to be fought and will move it decisively over time in a peaceful direction. Hence, it is important for the reader not to consider this language in totally futuristic ways. God’s work on behalf of the ways of peace will have an ongoing positive effect on the lives of the nations. The response of the people to this promise comes in 4:5 (“we”). Somewhat surprisingly, they recognize that in such a peaceful world not everyone will worship the same god. To take a somewhat different angle without denying that point, 4:5 recognizes the present situation of the faith and life of other peoples, with their future faith and life having been charted in 4:2. This change among the nations of the world will not be a sudden reversal, but emergent over time—a highly realistic understanding that emphasizes the continuing import of the witness of the people of God and the ongoing pilgrimages to Zion of these peoples for instruction in the word

208

Reading Hosea–Micah

of God. In any case, in an almost matter-of-fact way, 4:5 acknowledges that other peoples do walk (or will walk) in the ways of their respective gods. Notably, even with such sharp religious differences, peace among peoples will reign. Even in the midst of this ongoing cacophonous religious world, Israel promises to continue to walk in the name of its God—forever (expressed as exhortation in Isa 2:5, “let us walk”). Gathering the Remnant (Mic 4:6-8)

The prophet moves on to characterize “that day” of peace more fully (see “days” in 4:1); this time God is the speaker. Scholars differ regarding the historical setting reflected here; the identification of the “remnant” ranges from the survivors of Assyrian onslaughts (722 and 701 BCE) to those who survive the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. These verses lift up the positive future God has in store for those whose outlook now looks bleak indeed. God will “gather” (see 2:12 for this metaphor) those who have been injured but cannot move into such a future on their own—the lame and those who have been exiled. These groups are “those whom I (God) have afflicted” and “cast off ” (see the comparable promises of Ezek 34:11-16; 37:24-28; Zeph 3:18-20). God here explicitly recognizes the divine role in the judgments that have devastated Israel and sent many into exile (see 1:6-7), using agents such as the Assyrian armies. God’s actions will now enable this bedraggled group of survivors to take up a new life and become a strong nation once again. The language of “remnant” is introduced in this context, but not with reference to a (faithful) group within Israel. This is an image that recognizes that many people had been lost in those difficult times; they are the “survivors” with whom God will make a new beginning (see 2:12). The next verse (4:8) turns to the reader with direct address. Its opening, “and you,” is matched by the opening words of 5:2; both verses name the people in terms of key cities with respect to Israel’s future (Jerusalem and Bethlehem). It is as if the word spoken about a glorious and peaceful future must now, if it is to be an effective word, be spoken directly to these survivors of the world’s wars. The survivors are initially portrayed as the flock and the daughter of the “tower”/“hill” of Jerusalem, synonymous with Mount Zion, which function as metonyms for the people of Israel. The people will thrive once again. Prominence and dominion shall return to this people and this land, not unlike Israel’s situation under David. The repetition of “daughter” for Jerusalem/Zion (4:8 [twice], 10, 13; cities are feminine in Hebrew) is probably related to the birthing images in this context (4:9-10; 5:2-3; see Isa 49:14-21; Jer 4:31; 6:23-24). This female

Micah

209

image may also anticipate the beauty and intergenerational stability of Israel in its new world. And the Lord will reign over them from Mount Zion—forever (4:7; see the king-shepherd metaphor in 2:12-13; 5:2-6). The ruling metaphors of 4:7-8 probably have reference to a king from the “former” Davidic line in and through whom God will rule over God’s people again (see 5:2). This promise of one who is to come is contrasted with the three uses of “now” that follow (4:9–5:1). A Promise in the Midst of a Difficult “Now” (Mic 4:9–5:5a)

Having made the essence of the promised future clear, the prophet addresses Israel’s current anxiety about such a future. Each “now” (4:9-10 [twice], 11; 5:1) introduces a word about calamities Israel is presently experiencing and is followed by a word of promise (4:10, 13; 5:2-5a). This movement from judgment to salvation, from suffering to redemption, is a basic rhythm in Micah and in prophetic thought more generally. Judgment is believed to be inevitable for a sinful people (see 1:13); it is only through judgment (and the suffering that it brings) that salvation can become a reality for this community. Jerusalem is a city that is “now” filled with pain and lament so sharp that it is likened to a woman in labor (4:9; see the image in 5:3). The question is asked: “Why this cry?” It could be that the reigning king is hopeless and is not able to be of help to the people, and so in effect there is “no king.” Or, more likely, the king/counselor could be a reference to God who is (mistakenly) thought by the people to be absent (4:9; see Jer 8:19; Isa 14:24-27). God is present and active among you! The prophet, remarkably, encourages them in their lament (“writhe and groan”), naming for them the proper response to the devastating events of the present. Why? The pains of their experience are not only like labor pains; they are labor pains. Through such pains Israel is giving birth to its future (see Isa 66:7-9). The nations (explicit in 4:11) participate in this development; they will lead the people of Israel out of the city and through the open country as they make their way to exile in Babylon (each stage is more threatening to life). Remarkably, Babylon is mentioned in this eighthcentury prophet; this suggests that a Micah text lives on beyond its own time and is being applied to a new historical situation (see the use of 3:12 in Jer 26:18-19). From wherever they may be in exile, God will “rescue” them and “redeem” them—two strong theological words for God’s saving act on behalf of the exiles (4:10; see Isa 52:12).

210

Reading Hosea–Micah

Once again, the “now” situation is sounded (4:11). The rampaging armies of “many nations” (not just the Babylonians) are assembled against Israel—vowing, in their own words (cf. 7:10; contrast their words in 4:2), to take the city of Jerusalem, to humiliate its citizens and its holy places, and to enter into the city so they can see it with their own eyes (= gloat). Note the sharp contrast between the negative image of the nations of 4:11-13 and the positive image of the nations in 4:1-5. The future situation of the nations in 4:1-5 is contrasted with the “now” of the nations in 4:11-13. At the same time, their “now” serves their future. These nations—in spite of all their work as God’s agents—are not aware of the plans and designs that God has for them and for Israel (4:12; see Isa 45:4 on Cyrus; Jer 50:45-46). Using the image of a harvest, God commands Israel to become God’s agent to “thresh” these nations, likened to sheaves on the threshing floor (4:13). The threshing image suggests that God’s concern is for a positive end (see 4:2) for these nations (separating the wheat from the chaff; see Hos 10:11), although that will occur only through judgment. Pictured also as an animal with horns and hoofs made out of unbreakable iron and bronze, Israel will be empowered by God, and many nations will be severely judged for their transgressions. But Israel’s activity in and through this conflict will not be for the purpose of building their own empire. They are to devote all that they gain from such conflict to the Lord (its rightful owner) rather than enrich themselves. Another “now” specifies daughter Zion’s current situation (5:1 [4:14 Heb]; the “you” is feminine). Jerusalem is besieged, surrounded by armies that are not identified; the reference probably intends the invasion of Sennacherib in 701 BCE (“walled around with a wall”; an uncertain translation). The king of Israel is being humiliated and insulted (struck on the cheek). Notably, the “ruler of Israel” is mentioned in such general terms that no identification is possible, although it should be asked whether God is the “ruler” in view here. Many think this ruler represents King Hezekiah (not least in view of “Assyria” in 5:6; see 1:8-16). The promise associated with Bethlehem and its ruler that now follows (5:2-5a) is a response to this current situation. God will raise up a ruler who will make sure that Israel is secure and lives in peace. Bethlehem, a village six miles south of Jerusalem and home of David, is now addressed as a person (masculine). The “for me” of 5:2 suggests that this opening verse is a word from God. This word is a promise in response to the “now” of 5:1. At the same time, the birth of this child is an event that occurs for God, not just for the world. In parallel with the promise of the restoration of God’s rule in Micah 4:7-8, a strong hope is repeated that God would raise

Micah

211

up a ruler from the line of David (David was anointed king in Bethlehem, 1 Sam 16:1-13). This ruler would reverse Israel’s fortunes (see 2 Sam 7:8, 12 for similar language in Davidic covenant texts). The text considers it significant that Bethlehem (also called by its clan or district name, Ephrathah, see Ruth 1:2; Ps 132:6) is a “little” place, which is parallel to David’s modest beginnings. As commonly in God’s ways of working in the world (e.g., 1 Sam 16:1-3; Isa 53:1; 1 Cor 1:26-31), God chooses to work in and through agents that are renowned, not for their worldly power but because they draw on the “strength of the LORD, in the majesty” of God (5:4). The origin of this royal line is “from of old, from ancient days” (5:2), a reference to a “former dominion” (4:8) that stretches back several centuries to the time of God’s promises to David (2 Sam 7:4-17). But between the present difficult time (“now”) and this anticipated rule of God’s chosen one, the people of God (“them”) will experience great hardship, likened to a period of labor pains (5:3). The reference to childbirth links this text with 4:9-10, which refers to Zion’s labor pains. So also in this context, Israel’s labor pains are in view, not the labor pains of the mother of the coming ruler (though it is commonly so thought). “Therefore,” God will “give them up” (5:3; see also Ps 81:12; Rom 1:24-28) to the consequences of their own sin and they will enter a time of judgment. But God will not give up on them! This language probably refers back to the siege noted in 5:1; the people of Israel will live through such a time “until” the child is born! Only after this period of suffering has been endured will the new birth of God’s people take place (see Isa 7:14; 49:19-21; 66:7-9). The scattered and exiled remnant of the people (from both north and south), “the rest of his kindred,” will be restored to their homeland. While this reunification of kindred probably has reference to the tumultuous events of the time of Hezekiah (see 1:8-16; 5:5b-6), the experience of the later Babylonian exile may also inform this language. When the reunification of the scattered Israelite family has occurred, the new king/shepherd will follow in God’s shepherding steps (see 2:12; 4:6-8). He will provide for the needs of the people (“stand and feed his flock”), and they will once again “live secure” in the land. This new king, who embodies the peace of God, will “be great to the ends of the earth” (a great reputation, not necessarily universal rule; see 2 Sam 7:9) and inaugurate a time of stability and security. A down-to-earth understanding of the future of the people of God is thereby illumined, not a triumphant otherworldly perspective. The earthiness of the vision is important to recognize.

212

Reading Hosea–Micah

These verses are familiar to the Christian community; they are commonly read during the Christmas season. Micah 5:2 (with some additional phrasing from 2 Sam 5:2) is referenced by the wise men in response to King Herod’s question about the place in which the Messiah would be born (Matt 2:6). The link between the town of Bethlehem and an expected one from the line of David would have been known in Micah’s time (and later). So the specificity of the Bethlehem reference should not be reduced to an unusual “prediction,” but honored as genuine insight into the positive future that God has in store for this people during a time of great difficulty for Israel and its king (see 5:1). Jerusalem has been besieged and the Davidic ruler humiliated. But God will raise up a new king who will rule truly as God’s representative, bringing peace. New Testament authors were able to interpret this promise in ways that reached beyond the time of the prophet and linked it with the coming of the Christ child. They recognized that the words of the prophets were able to live again in a new time and place. A Complex Future (Mic 5:5b-15)

The continuity in the verses of this segment is often questioned. A future orientation seems to be basic. Micah 5:5b-6 seems to reflect the people’s point of view (“we”) with a response in 5:7-9 from an uncertain speaker (perhaps God), and 5:10-15 are words of judgment spoken by God. The flow of thought is difficult, moving from themes of deliverance to those of judgment (the opposite of the immediately prior sections). Perhaps these textual uncertainties are a way of recognizing the difficulty and complexity of the “now” for the people of God. The Assyrians (from “the land of Nimrod,” see Gen 10:8-11) appear on the scene in 5:5b-6; reference to them coming into Israel and treading on the soil both opens and concludes this brief section. The historical context is uncertain. Some scholars reference the Assyrian Sennacherib’s invasion in 701 BCE; others think of “Assyria” as a code word for any enemy that threatens Israel. The original reference was likely context-specific, but the images are used in such a way that their import cuts across centuries of readers and their experience. The Assyrians constitute a violent threat to the people of Israel. Yet, in the face of their (certain?) incursion, Israel will raise up an adequate number (= seven/eight, see Eccl 11:2) of rulers/shepherds and will subdue the Assyrians, rescuing the Judahite community from oppression. The identity of these rulers/shepherds is uncertain (perhaps tribal leaders). Their use of the sword is striking compared to the peaceful ruler/shepherd of 5:2-5a. This shift in images may suggest that the shepherd’s rule is not necessarily devoid

Micah

213

of violence when faced with violence (see 5:8-9). In the journey toward the “one of peace” (5:5a), the use of violent means may be necessary. Micah 5:7-9 returns to the theme of the “remnant” (4:6-8) that God will rescue from among the nations (see also 2:12; 4:10; 5:3b; cf. Jer 31:7-9). The people of Israel are a remnant in that world; they are “surrounded by many peoples” (note that the phrase is repeated). While this language could refer to Israel in exile, it seems more likely to describe the remnant’s activity among Israel’s diverse population in their familiar homeland. The two images used for this remnant are diverse, relating both to supporting activity (5:7) and judging action (5:8-9). On the one hand, they are like the dew and the rain, which falls naturally—does not “depend upon people”—and affects everything in a positive way (see 2 Sam 23:4; Zech 8:12; for a negative view of dew, however, see 2 Sam 17:12). The remnant will thrive, as will those who receive them. On the other hand, the remnant is described as a wild animal, ripping open the bowels of its enemies. Here the remnant is an instrument of divine judgment; the tables will be turned and the conquerors will become the conquered. This remnant’s effective action against their enemies is made a matter of divine promise (v. 9). In 5:10-15, introduced by “in that day” (the day of the remnant, see 4:6), the news for Israel seems to move from good to bad, from deliverance to judgment. But the word of judgment must be closely related to 5:7-9 and the word about the remnant. The reference to the people who are judged in 5:10-15 refers back to the repeated theme in 5:7-8, “surrounded by many peoples,” and to the promise of God in 5:9 to “cut off ” their enemies (the verb is repeated four times in 5:10-13). Additionally, the language of 5:9 has reference not only to other nations but also to certain Israelites. Surrounding the remnant are adversaries and enemies both within Israel and without (5:9; cf. the internal enemies in Isa 65:5); they must be brought to judgment, along with the “nations” of 5:15. God is the strong subject of this judgmental activity, which is repeated in each verse (“I will cut off ” and “uproot”) and summarized in passionate language in the concluding verse (5:15). The objects of the divine judgment are those who perpetrate violence, sorcery, and idolatrous activity among the people of God and beyond (see Hos 10:12-14). The language of “pillars” and “sacred poles” (5:13-14) refers to stone and wooden monuments associated with the idolatrous worship of Canaanite deities, both within Israel and without (see Deut 16:22; 1 Kgs 14:15, 23; 15:13; 2 Kgs 17-18). More generally, these various evil activities are realities on which these unfaithful ones depend for life and health rather than on Israel’s God. They will suffer

214

Reading Hosea–Micah

the consequences of their behaviors, and the effect for the faithful will be good: Israel will be purified. God’s action of “vengeance” will be exercised in “anger and wrath.” The language of “vengeance” should not be understood in judicial terms, but more simply as a recognition that the moral order will indeed function in ways that the Creator of that order designed. What goes around comes around! God’s “anger, wrath” is emphasized in this context, for the evil of these peoples is not a matter of indifference to God. For God to become angry is, of course, a recognition that God’s will is being successfully resisted. God’s response is to move to overcome the negative effects of that reality. The effects of this divine action (note the repeated “I”) will entail the following: the end of armaments, so that God alone will be the people’s strength (5:10-11); the end of soothsayers, so that the word of the Lord can be heard again with clarity (5:12; see 4:2); and the end of idolatry, so that the people will walk only in the ways of the Lord and worship God alone (5:13-14). From Judgment to Mercy (Mic 6:1–7:20) This block of material consists of segments similar to earlier texts in Micah. Once again, the prophet turns to indictment and judgment (6:1-16), moves to lament (7:1-7), and concludes with words of promise and encouragement (7:8-20). Liturgically influenced elements pervade these verses, from entrance liturgy (6:6-7) to lament (7:1-10) to prayer (7:14-17) to benediction (7:18-20). That alternating speakers (not easy to identify!) are characteristic of these verses also suggests a liturgical setting. Notably, important references to Israel’s earlier story with God are recalled along the way (6:4-5; 7:14-20). For all the difficulty of the situation faced by the community, Micah lifts up issues of continuity. God has made promises, and God will be faithful to them, come what may. The historical situation is not made clear. An original setting during the reign of King Hezekiah in the late eighth century is likely. At the same time, suggested links to the exilic and even postexilic period (e.g., the rebuilding of city walls and restoring of national boundaries, 7:11) may reflect expansions of the text over the years in view of new situations for the community. What Does the Lord Require of You? (Mic 6:1-8)

God brings an indictment against Israel. The language of “(covenant) lawsuit” is sometimes used for this segment, but that seems an unlikely designation in that such language tends to reduce these verses to matters of

Micah

215

legal import. The fundamental issue at stake between God and Israel has to do with a relationship that has been ruptured and that needs close and sharp attention. Notice the repeated use of the word “what” (6:3, 5, 6, 8), which serves to raise questions and issues that are to be addressed by both people and God in every generation. The identification of the speakers is disputed. From one point of view, the passage begins with a word from the prophet to the people (“Hear”); he quotes what God has to say to the people (“plead [= state] your case before the mountains”). “If you have an issue with God, then let’s hear it (see 6:3, “Answer me”)!” A less likely interpretation of these opening verses has the prophet asking the people to “hear” the “case” that God has to make, with the balance of 6:1 (“rise . . .”) being addressed to God, whose response follows (6:2-5). In either case, the prophet refers to God in both first and third person in 6:1-5. The text moves to the words of a spokesperson for the people (6:6-7) and then returns to the prophet (6:8). The last-noted verse captures the heart of the issue at stake between God and people not only in Micah but also for the Old Testament more generally (compare Matt 22:36-40). The mountains (stable foundations of the earth) are asked to enter into the dialogue as witnesses of what has happened to the God-Israel relationship. God’s “controversy” with Israel is played out before an audience that consists of all of nonhuman creation (6:1-2), recalling 1:2-4. These creatures are often called on to provide a testimony regarding what either human beings or God have done (e.g., Deut 4:26; 30:19; Pss 69:34; 96:11-12; Isa 1:2; 44:23; Ezek 36:1-7). They can be trusted to tell the truth because they have been present throughout the history of the world and have observed all that has taken place. That such creatures are inarticulate will limit their witness, however. What the people have done that occasions God’s response is not altogether clear, especially in view of the agonizing and sorrow-filled questions to them (see also “O my people!” in v. 5). This emotion-filled divine language is certainly not your typical courtroom or legal rhetoric (6:3)! The word “accusation” does not seem right for what God has to say. The rhetoric used suggests that the people have been complaining about God’s treatment of them, perhaps especially in view of suffering they have undergone. God’s basic reply is, “Make your case; let’s put the issue on the table: What have I done that you should respond with such charges against me? Answer me!” The openness of God to engage in such a dialogue with the people is remarkable (cf. Gen 18:25 for Abraham’s questioning of God about Sodom and Gomorrah). Notably, God genuinely interacts with the people about

216

Reading Hosea–Micah

their concerns; God does not dismiss their complaining as inappropriate or bring them into court because they have dared to question God! Quite the contrary, God develops reasons as to why they should be appreciative of God’s activity in their story. God responds by providing a brief history of all that God has done for them through the years (6:4-5; see Deut 15:15). Given this story of what God has done on behalf of the people, they should be more grateful than their complaining suggests. Those “saving acts of God” on Israel’s behalf include (cf. Pss 78; 105): the exodus from slavery in Egypt (Exod 1–15); the leadership of Moses, Aaron, and Miriam (a striking, if rare reference, see Exod 15:20-21); the deliverance from the Moabite king Balak through the agency of Balaam as the people made their way through the wilderness to the promised land (Num 22–24); and the climactic move into the promised land itself, described using an apparently familiar shorthand: from Shittim, east of the Jordan, to Gilgal on the west (see Josh 2:1; 3:1; 4:19; 5:19). Such divine actions are indeed “saving” in that they have directly addressed Israel’s daily walk in a way that has brought life, health, and well-being to both individuals and community. The purpose of this listing of divine activity is stated clearly: “that you may know the saving acts of the LORD” (v. 5). They are to “remember” in order that they might “know,” that is, come to a fuller realization of what God has done. This divine speaking may suggest that the people have forgotten the importance of God’s saving activity on their behalf through the years. What God has done over the course of Israel’s journey is a crucial centering matter and a renewed focus on God’s saving actions will both (1) ground and (2) give shape to understanding the human activity in the verses that follow (6:6-8). Given all that God has done, the people ask (in first person singular through a spokesperson) what God expects of them in view of “my transgression” and the “sin of my soul” (6:6-7). What sort of worship practices are in order? The question is similar to that raised in the temple entrance liturgies of Psalms 15 and 24: what is the basic response that the people are called to make as they approach the worship of their God? Or, to put it crassly, how much do I, a sinner, have to do before God will be satisfied? “With what” (v. 6)? The list ranges from the traditional to the extreme: burnt offerings, costly year-old calves, large numbers of rams, and even larger numbers of “rivers of oil.” The listing moves upward toward a climactic point: would the sacrifice of my firstborn child do? Given the divine request of child sacrifice in the Abraham/Isaac story (Gen 22:1-19), this option is not out of order to bring into the conversation with God. With what?!

Micah

217

One is given to wonder about the expectations of God for the community or, more accurately, the people’s understandings of those expectations. Were all of these suggestions serious ones? Were they purposely hyperbolic, perhaps to make a point about the seriousness of the question? Or is this simply an attempt to “cover the waterfront” of possibilities? “God, I’m willing to do anything!” The expressed willingness to sacrifice a child suggests an element of urgency. But the answer in 6:8 calls the questions of 6:6-7 into question. The basic issue at stake is not the nature and number of one’s sacrificial acts. In effect, no offering that can be brought before the Lord is finally sufficient to enable one’s rightness before God. Worship practices in themselves are not irrelevant, but they are insufficient in themselves as a response of the sinner before God (see Isa 1:12-17; 58:1-9; Hos 6:6; Amos 5:21-24). At the same time, what people do in response to their God is not irrelevant. “What is good?” is an important question. It is a question that God has already answered; “he has told you” (6:8). The long-standing tradition is clear about this; see Hosea 12:6 for and earlier articulation of these themes. What are the priorities? What is most basic in this relationship with God? What does the Lord require of “you” (note the personal dimension): to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with “your” God. The orientation toward both neighbor and God is clear. In effect, one is to give one’s self on behalf of others, particularly those who are needy, by doing justice and loving kindness (or “steadfast love”). This is the heart of what God desires from the people. The following verses (6:10-12) will illustrate in a concrete way what justice and kindness entails. At the same time, one should walk humbly (or attentively) with one’s God. The “walk” with God (4:2; see Deut 26:17; 28:9; 30:16) has to do with life’s journey and the shape thereof. That action on behalf of the less fortunate and the journey with God stay together is important; the one will deeply affect the other. This move is not unlike Jesus’ combination of two other Old Testament texts (Mark 12:28-31): Love your God and your neighbor as yourself (Deut 6:5; Lev 19:18). God’s Charges against Jerusalem and Their Effects (Mic 6:9-16)

In the wake of the indictment of 6:1-8, and further specification of wrongdoing in 6:10-12 and 16a, God announces that judgmental effects will be forthcoming against Israel (see the “therefore” at 6:13, 16b). In other words, the people have not followed the standard articulated in 6:8, and hence God’s word of judgment cries against “the city”—Jerusalem is primarily in view (6:9). In such a situation, it will be wise to fear the name of the Lord! “So listen up! Jerusalem has followed in the footsteps of Samaria.” The sad

218

Reading Hosea–Micah

story of an unfaithful Israel is referenced by two of its more notorious monarchs from the ninth century (Omri and Ahab; see 1 Kgs 16:25-34). Jerusalem will suffer comparable consequences (6:16). God’s exasperation with the people is expressed through a string of rhetorical questions (6:10-11). “No, I cannot forget! No, I cannot tolerate! I would not be true to myself if I did!” The specification of sins in 6:10-12 helps flesh out the words about justice and kindness in 6:8. The text is remarkable for its focus on economic matters, Israel’s “ill-gotten treasures” (6:10; NIV), and its use of personal references to speak about impersonal objects: wicked scales, dishonest weights. The way in which people use such instruments gives them a standing in the community that parallels their “users.” One of the basic means for the accumulation of wealth in Jerusalem has been the use of weights and measures that benefit the merchant at the expense of the needy customer. The measure used is inaccurate, indeed rigged (“scant”; “short”); the same issue is addressed in earlier prophets (see Hos 12:7; Amos 8:4-6) and is grounded in the law (Lev 19:35-36; Deut 25:13-16). The condemnation follows without qualification: “your wealthy” people are full of violence (6:12). No excuses are acceptable. “If you are wealthy, you have treated others with violence—no ifs, ands, or buts. You have built up treasures for yourselves on the backs of people less fortunate than yourself. You have become what your practices are!” Moreover, the dishonesty of their weights and measures is matched by the words of their mouths—filled with lies and deceit (6:12). The “therefore” of 6:13 interprets the present situation in the land. A strong emphasis on direct address (“you”) persists through 6:16. “In case you were wondering about the societal chaos you are enduring, this reality is just the beginning of judgment for your sins. Indeed, the situation is so far gone that even your best efforts will not bring the results you might expect (6:14-15; see Deut 28:30-31, 38-46, sometimes called “futility curses”). The normal rhythm of life will be disrupted, and your actions will not produce typical results (Zeph 1:13). You shall eat but not be satisfied; you shall save but not accumulate wealth; you shall sow but not reap; you shall press olives but not anoint yourselves with the oil; you shall crush grapes but drink no wine. And anything of yours that is left will be subjected to destruction and desolation.” Note the emphasis on food and drink, basic daily needs (contrast 4:3-4). The indictment/judgment rhythm of 6:10-15 is briefly recapitulated in 6:16. The people of Judah/Jerusalem have followed in the steps of two of the worst of the northern kings, Omri and Ahab (see 1 Kgs 16:25-34; 18; 21)—

Micah

219

“Therefore.” The people of Judah/Jerusalem will suffer the same consequences as did Israel. Their land will suffer desolation, they will be ridiculed by others who see their downfall (see Jer 18:16; Zeph 2:15), and they will suffer the “scorn of the nations” (NIV). Woe Is Me! (Mic 7:1-7)

This chapter has sometimes been identified as a liturgy, with various voices; but the whole can be understood as the word of the prophet or a faithful member of the community (evident in 7:7), portrayed as a personified city (“me” is feminine). Once again, the speaker voices sharp laments at the state of the society (7:1; see 1:8-9; 4:9-10): “Woe is me!” The judgmental effects that have been described in 6:9-16 are now woven into the content of a lament (7:2-6). My expectations have been dashed. My situation is like one where the crops have been harvested, but the workers/owners have not left anything behind (as the law specified they do; Deut 24:19-22; Lev 19:9-10). And so I find nothing to eat (7:1). Faithful/upright people (7:2; the same language used in 6:8) used to live in the land (and would tend to these laws), but now these same people are skilled in doing evil (7:3). No one is upright (see Jer 5:1; Ezek 22:30)! Like robbers, they lie in wait to steal from others or kill them; they take bribes and pervert justice. And they are “skilled” at doing this! The officials should be able to be trusted, but they are cheaters, and the powerful can get whatever they want. They twist every situation to their own advantage. Even the best among them are like briers and thorn bushes, out to get/prick everyone who passes along their way! The time of their judgment, announced by the prophets (=sentinels), is at hand; everything will be thrown into confusion (7:4). The debilitating effects of their behaviors now move to the personal and the familial (7:5-6). You used to be able to trust friends and loved ones and speak to them in confidence (see Jer 9:4-8). But no more! Even members of the same family are at war with one another. Everyone in the community, even those who are in the most intimate of relationships, has been adversely affected. A lamentfull situation indeed! The prophet initially concludes his lament over what has taken place in this community with an expression of trust and confidence; God is present and God will hear (7:7; see Hab 3:17-18). Looking to the Lord and waiting patiently for the day of God’s salvation is the stance taken. Given the pervasive failure of human communities such as family and society, God is the only one in whom one’s hope can be placed (God is mentioned three times

220

Reading Hosea–Micah

in this verse as a way of making this point clear). This kind of conclusion is typical of many lament psalms (e.g., Ps 38:15). A Concluding Liturgy of Hope (Mic 7:8-20)

Issues of human repentance and divine forgiveness are raised in this final section and play a central role. In 7:9, the repentance of sin is stated sharply and clearly: “I have sinned.” In 7:18-20, God’s forgiveness takes center stage and concludes the book. In effect, God’s word to the community is direct: “You are forgiven!” Various speakers continue to be represented in this concluding segment (prophet, God, people), probably reflecting a liturgical context. Strong recollections of Israel’s earlier story with God permeate this section (7:14-15), climaxing with reference to God’s promises to the ancestors (7:20). The note of confidence in first person speech present in 7:1-7 continues in 7:8-10. The speaker is probably personified Jerusalem (“me”). This word is directed into the face of the gloating enemy, the identity of which is disputed (probably Assyria; some think Edom). The language to Assyria speaks of a reversal of the present pain-filled time. “Don’t gloat over my situation: God will raise me up when I fall; God will be a light in my darkness” (this theme is stressed in both 7:8 and 7:9). In the meantime, it is clear that my sin (“I have sinned”) has had sharply negative effects on life (= the judgment of God). But God will now take my side and bring me into the light of a new day. God will see to my vindication (= righteousness, salvation) in the face of my enemy (personified as female), whose shame and downfall shall be evident to everyone (see Obad 10). The question of the enemy: “Where is your God?” (see Ps 79:10; Joel 2:17), will be answered! Judgment will fall on Israel’s enemies, who will be trodden under foot like so much dirt (see Nah 3:14). In effect, they will cease to exist because of their evil deeds. And God will be vindicated, too. The speaker in 7:11-13 seems to be the prophet announcing God’s word to Jerusalem regarding a reversal of its fortunes. The context is often thought to be the rebuilding of Jerusalem’s walls in association with the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. But, given the larger Assyrian context, it more likely refers to the building of walls by Hezekiah in the wake of the Assyrian attack in 701 BCE (see 2 Chr 32:5). The walls will be rebuilt! Its present (restricted) boundaries shall be extended (7:11). The reference may have been extended to Babylon in view of later experience. God then promises the return of the exiles that had been scattered in the wake of Assyrian incursions in the time of Hezekiah. These exiles are the most likely identification of the “they” in 7:12, although the later Babylonian

Micah

221

exile is often thought to be the reference (and could be in the mind of later transmitters of the text). The exiles will come home from all the nations across the Middle East where they have been thrown, from sea to sea and mountain to mountain—including Assyria, Egypt, and the Euphrates River area. But not everything will be brought back to its natural state. The “earth will be desolate” as a consequence of what human beings have done (7:13). This damage to the earth is a probable reference to desertification effects of Assyrian (or Babylonian) armies, common in that time in that part of the world. God is next addressed in prayer-like cadences (7:14), followed by a brief divine response (7:15; see NIV and NRSV footnote, “I”). God is described as a shepherd and is called to act on Israel’s (the flock’s) behalf in ways that are exodus-like: delivering them from their enemies and their isolation, tending them in the wilderness, feeding them in the land (Bashan and Gilead are key cities in the northern Transjordanian area). God responds by promising them “marvelous things” as in Israel’s post-exodus years. On behalf of the people, the prophet voices a promise and describes the effect of God’s activity on Israel’s enemies (7:16-17). They will “see and be ashamed” at how they have used their power and what they have done. They will be so ashamed that they will not be able to speak or hear (7:16). Indeed, these enemies will be deeply humiliated by their violent behaviors; their degradation is portrayed in the use of images of snakes and other crawling creatures (see Gen 3:14). As they emerge from their places of former strength, the enemies will speechlessly stand before Israel’s (“our”) God—and before God’s people (“you”)!—in fear and trembling (7:17). The final verses of the book (7:18-20) shift back and forth between second and third person in their address to God and their testimony about God. The prophet (and/or redeemed people) makes public claims about God while expressing confidence in God’s faithfulness. No God is like this God (recalling the meaning of Micah’s name; 1:1)! With this kind of God there is hope for Israel’s future! After making confessional claims about God (7:18), more divine promises are specifically stated in hymnic form (7:19-20). The focus of this final segment is on the forgiveness that is God’s to grant, a theme deeply set within Israel’s tradition (see Ps 103:8-10). Parallels with the confessional statement about God to Moses in Exodus 34:6-7 are especially strong (this Exodus text is also cited—and expanded!—in Joel 2:13 and Jonah 4:2). God’s anger is laid aside and clemency is shown. Wonderful images of divine forgiveness are expressed: Israel’s sins and their effects will be ground into the dust (an image used for the enemy of the people in 7:10). Israel’s sins will be cast into “the depths of the sea” (see the

222

Reading Hosea–Micah

image in Jonah 2:3) and so will have negative effects on their life no more. God’s promises to Abraham and Jacob, to which God will be unswervingly faithful and give evidence God’s steadfast love (hesed), are recalled. This recollection constitutes a claim that these ancient promises will be continually applicable to this people. Even in the midst of their sins and their evil effects (see Gen 17:5-8; 28:13-15; Jer 30:3; 33:26; Luke 1:55)! The earlier explicit word about Israel’s repentance of sin (7:9) is no doubt in mind here, and that provides an important recognition on Israel’s part of the centrality of this theme (it embraces the section, 7:8-20). God determines to be faithful to God’s ancient promises, come what may!

Works Cited

Barton, John. 2001. Joel and Obadiah: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster. Birch, Bruce C. 1997. Hosea, Joel, and Amos. Westminster Bible Companion. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. Crenshaw, James L. 1975. Hymnic Affirmations of Divine Justice: The Doxologies of Amos and Related Texts in the Old Testament. SBLDS 24. Missoula: Scholars Press. ———. 1995. Joel: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24C. New York: Doubleday. Everson, Joseph. 1974. “The Days of Yahweh.” JBL 93:329–37. Fretheim, Terence. 1984. The Suffering of God: An Old Testament Perspective. OBT 14. Philadelphia: Fortress. ———. 1994. “The Book of Genesis.” In NIB 1, 319–674. Nashville: Abingdon. ———. 1999. First and Second Kings. Westminster Bible Companion. Westminster John Knox. ———. 2002. Jeremiah. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 15. Macon: Smyth & Helwys. ———. 2005. God and World in the Old Testament: A Relational Theology of Creation. Nashville: Abingdon. ———. 2007. “The Exaggerated God of Jonah.” Word & World 27:125–34. ———. 2010. Creation Untamed: God, the Bible, and Natural Disasters. Theological Explorations for the Church Catholic. Grand Rapids: Baker.

224

Reading Hosea–Micah

Heschel, Abraham. 1962. The Prophets. New York: Harper and Row. Hillers, D. R. 1984. Micah. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress. Jacobson, Diane. 1996. “Hosea 2: A Case Study on Biblical Authority.” CTM 23:165–72. Jensen, Philip Peter. 2008. Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 496. New York: T. & T. Clark. Koch, Klaus. 1979. “The Old Testament View of Nature.” Anticipation 25:47–52. MacIntosh, A. A. 1997. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Hosea. ICC. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. Mays, James Luther. 1969. Hosea: A Commentary. OTL. Philadelphia: Westminster. McKane, William. 1986. Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Volume 1. Pages 1–25. ICC. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Nogalski, James D. 2011a. The Book of the Twelve: Hosea-Jonah. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 18a. Macon: Smyth & Helwys. ———. 2011b. The Book of the Twelve: Micah-Malachi. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary 18b. Macon: Smyth & Helwys. Paas, Stefan. 2003. Creation and Judgment: Creation Texts in Some Eighth Century Prophets. Boston: Brill. Raabe, Paul. 1996. Obadiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 24. New York: Doubleday. Rolvaag, Ole. 1927. Giants in the Earth: A Saga of the Prairie. Perennial Classics. New York: Harper & Brothers. Simkins, Ronald. 1991. Yahweh’s Activity in History and Nature in the Book of Joel. Ancient Near Eastern Texts & Studies 10. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen. Sweeney, Marvin. 2005. The Prophetic Literature. Interpreting Biblical Texts. Nashville: Abingdon. Weems, Renita. 1995. Battered Love: Marriage, Sex, and Violence in the Hebrew Prophets. OBT. Minneapolis: Fortress. Yee, Gale. 1996. “The Book of Hosea,” in NIB 7:195–336. Nashville: Abingdon.