Hosea 2: Structure and Interpretation
Published in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967-1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 293-313
The structure of Hosea 2 is approached in this paper from three aspects. The Þrst is that of formal structure; in particular I treat the question of the proper sequence of verses in the chapter-and therewith its logic. The second is that of the conceptual structure of the chapter: I argue that a single dominating set of relationships comes to expression in various conceptual modes. The third is that of the plot or narrative structure of the chapter: inasmuch as the poem presents a narrative, analysis of its relatively simple structure illuminates the meaning of the text./1/
In the Þrst section I am concerned solely with the unit vv. 4-17, since the question of sequence within that section is unaffected by the remainder of the chapter. In the second and third sections, however, I deal with the whole unit vv. 4-25, which clearly now forms an integrated poem,/2/ no matter whether vv. 18-25 originally was attached to vv. 4-17 or not./3/ The Masoretic verse numbering is used throughout; in most English versions/4/ any particular verse is numbered 2 less than in the mt.
1. Sequence
The current tendency is to regard at least vv. 4-17 of Hosea 2 as a unity, even if not originally a literary unity but a redacted, 'kerygmatic', unity./5/ Arguments for its stylistic and thematic coherence have now been frequently presented, and do not need to be rehearsed here./6/ But there is one crucial point over which commentators remain divided, namely, the correct position of vv. 8-9. In its present position this passage creates two problems:
(i) It breaks what would otherwise be a striking juxtaposition of belief and reality in vv. 7c and 10a:yywqvw ynmv ytvpw yrmx ymymw ymjl yntn [ybham] 7c
rhxyhw vwrythw gdh hl yttn ykna yk h[dy al ayhw 10a7c [My lovers] who give me my food and my water,
my wool and my þax,
my oil and my drink.10a But she does not know
that it is I who have given her
the grain and the wine and the oil.Israel attributes the gifts of fertility to her 'lovers' (the Baalim)-but mistakenly, for it is Yahweh who is the source of fertility.
(ii) The link between v. 15 and v. 16 is unclear, for the introductory kl ('therefore') of v. 16, which usually initiates a judgment speech/7/-such as would be appropriate after the last words of v. 15, hkjv ytaw ('and me she has forgotten')-in fact leads into a speech by Yahweh that is the very opposite of a judgment speech (hbl l[ ytrbdw . . . hytpm ykna: 'I will persuade her . . . and speak wooing words to her', v. 16)./8/
Consequently, many commentators have followed the lead of H. Oort's 1989 paper/9/ and have transferred vv. 8-9 to follow v. 15./10/ Most recently this view has been strongly urged by W. Rudolph, who argues that Israel's movement toward repentance in v. 9b, however self-regarding it may be, cannot be ignored by Hosea's God (as it is in the present form of the chapter) and certainly could not precede Yahweh's claim in v. 15b ('Me she has forgotten'). The translations of Moffatt, the Jerusalem Bible, and the New American Bible also have adopted this view and have inserted vv. 8-9 between v. 15 and v. 16.
Others have continued to maintain the secondary character of vv. 8-9,/11/ thus effectively setting aside the problem of sequential logic within the chapter.
However, H.W. Wolff has maintained, correctly in my opinion, that the mt order is still the most satisfactory one. His Þrst argument, that the transition from v. 9 to v. 16-if the suggested re-arrangement is adopted-is 'difÞcult',/12/ is hard to understand. But his second argument, that the wording of Israel's speech in v. 9b is deliberately antithetical to her speech in v. 7b is persuasive:ybham yrja hkla hrma 7b 7b
wvarh yvyaAla hbwvaw hkla hrmaw 9b 9b7b She said: I will go after my lovers.
9b And she will say: I will go and return to my Þrst husband.
Rudolph's riposte, that vv. 8-9 were later transposed from their original position following v. 15 because of the stronger formal connections between v. 7b and v. 9b than between v. 9b and v. 16,/13/ will persuade only those who are already convinced of the correctness of Rudolph's position, for it effectively concedes Wolff's argument about the signiÞcance of the relationship between v. 7b and v. 9b.
Now, however, a further and perhaps stronger argument for the Masoretic arrangement of the chapter may be developed from the total structure of vv. 4-17, if the signiÞcance of the triple kl ('therefore') is properly appreciated. The structure is:Appeal to Israel to abandon her harlotry vv. 4-6
For (yk) (she) has played the harlot, 7a
For (yk) she has said, I will go after my lovers . . . 7b1. [Because she has played the harlot]
Therefore (kl) I will bar [her] way 8a
[viz. I will prevent her harlotry happening again] 8-9
But she (ayhw) does not acknowledge . . . 10a
[viz. that I am the giver of her gifts]2. [Because she does not recognize me as the giver]
Therefore (kl) I will take back [my gifts] 11a
[viz. I will prevent her from enjoying
what she has been enjoying] 11-15
But me (ytaw) she has forgotten. 15b3. [Because she has forgotten me (in the enjoyment of my gifts)]
Therefore (kl) I will persuade her . . . woo her 16
[viz. I will cause her to remember me 16-17
and (by implication) to abandon her harlotry].The kl ('therefore') sentences introduce the three movements in Yahweh's treatment of Israel: Þrst, he will prevent her harlotry occurring again (by barring her way, v. 8); secondly, he will remove his gifts of grain, wine, and oil (so that Israel may recognize that she is dependent on him, not on the Baalim); thirdly, he will resume his exclusive relationship with her, and restore his gifts to her. In the Þrst judgment speech she is deprived of access to what she believes to be the source of her well-being; in the second, she is deprived of the well-being itself; and in the third (remarkably) she has her well-being restored by the one who is its true source.
This developing movement is destroyed if we adopt the re-arrangement of vv. 7-8 to follow v. 15. The 'therefore' (kl) of v. 8a does not follow naturally upon 'me she has forgotten' of v. 15b, nor is the barring of her way to her lovers a natural sequel to the deprivations of vv. 1-14.
Two major exegetical decisions hang upon a recognition of the sequential structure of the poem:
(i) The third kl ('therefore') speech is entirely out of character: it is not a judgment speech at all, and must be seen as a delightful reversal of the expected, a bold rejection of the causal nexus between sin and punishment. Indeed, some have seen in the reference to Israel's being taken into the wilderness (rbdmh hytklhw, v. 16) a punishment, speciÞcally of exile,/14/ but even so the 'punishment' can only be the Þrst step in the process of renewal. And in fact the reference to the 'wilderness' seems to be less an indication of place than of 'a time and situation in which the pristine relation between God and people was untarnished and Israel depended utterly on Yahweh (cf. 13.4f.)'./15/ Thus vv. 16-17 are entirely unexpected-and illogical, given the nexus of sin and punishment, or even the impossibility of un-living the past. Yahweh's answer to Israel's ignoring him will be to turn the clock back and let her begin her history with him all over again.
We have here more than an ironic or novel use of the traditional language of the judgment speech (Gerichtsrede). It is a theologically creative and profound move that in effect negates the validity or effectiveness of punishment as a response to sin. In this non-judgmental 'judgment' speech (i.e. judgment in form but not in content) Yahweh announces that he will love Israel out of her unfaithfulness, and in response to her harlotry will woo her to himself and renew his gifts to her.
If, then, this speech of vv. 16-17 is both the climax of the divine speeches of vv. 4-17 and so much out of character with the preceding judgment speeches of vv. 8-10 and vv. 11-15, one may wonder whether the prophet (or redactor) saw these three decisions on the part of Yahweh as a sequence of actions God planned to take so much as a set of options he opened himself up to. Could the mood of this poem, then, be one of divine indecision-which issues in an unexpected and unconditioned act of grace? One would hardly imagine so were it not for the other glimpses Hosea gives us of God 'struggling with himself' (6.4; 11.8)./16/ To be sure, in the narrative of ch. 3, Hosea's symbolic marriage clearly develops through sequential stages of deprivation and renewal of relationship; but that same sequence need not be followed in ch. 2-except formally. Chapter 2 lends itself to a reading that can dispense with sequence on the historical plane, and present the judgments of imprisonment (vv. 8-10) and deprivation (vv. 11-15) as a sequence of possibilities that Yahweh passes in review, only to decide against them and for the third possibility: restoration (vv. 16-17).
(ii) The speech of Israel in v. 9b, 'I will go and return to my former husband,/17/ for it was better for me then than now' (hbwvaw hklaht[m za yl bwf yk wvarj vyaAla ), is not to be regarded as a speech of repentance or even 'semblance of repentance',/18/ but as a quite amoral decision on Israel's part, in which only her well-being plays a part ('better for me'). There is no expression of sorrow or sense of unfaithfulness in this speech; as is clear in v. 10, she does not even attribute her former (za) well-being to Yahweh; but only recalls that-by some coincidence, as it appears to her-she was 'better off with him' (neb) then than she is now.
Most commentators, indeed, have seen Israel's speech as indicative of a genuine sense of repentance, however shallow. Rudolph, for example, uses this admission on Israel's part as grounds for removing vv. 8-9 to follow v. 14; it would then be answered by Yahweh's encouragement in vv. 15-16. However, if we leave the Masoretic order undisturbed, the truly noteworthy fact is that Yahweh does not respond to this so-called profession of repentance-except to say, implicitly, that it is no repentance at all since Israel does not acknowledge that her previous well-being was his gift: 'she does not acknowledge that it is I who gave her the grain and the wine and the oil' (v. 10). Perhaps it is signiÞcant that the decision to 'return' to Yahweh comes as easily and unthinkingly to her as does the similarly worded decision to 'go after' her lovers whom she has just previously regarded as the source of her well-being (v. 7b).
Wolff takes an unusual position in regarding the repentance, or at least the 'desire to return', as genuine enough, but the words of Yahweh in v. 10 as neither the response to nor the sequel of v. 9. For him, v. 11 with its introductory kl ('therefore') resumes at the same point as v. 8, which is also introduced by kl. If the suggestion made above is correct, that the three kl speeches represent alternative decisions that Yahweh contemplates making, it would be appropriate to view the three kl speeches as each beginning afresh from the point reached at the end of v. 7; so to that extent my view would be in accord with that of Wolff. But if indeed Israel's speech in v. 9b is evaluated positively by the prophet, it is improbable that Yahweh does not act upon it; so in this respect I cannot agree with Wolff. Israel's speech was, I believe, rightly characterized by Cheyne as 'not so much the expression of penitence, as of a longing to escape from the sense of misery'/19/ (or perhaps rather, frustration).
2. Conceptual Pattern
If now we turn to explore the conceptual structure of the whole poem (vv. 4-25), we come upon a delicate network of ideas, closely integrated but worked out with subtle variations both on the surface of the text and just beneath it.
The most fundamental concept in the poem, as it seems to me, is that of belonging; to that are related the opposites of not-belonging and belonging wrongly. In this text, belonging is expressed, obviously, in the legal language of marriage, with its opposites of (marital) separation and adultery. But it also realized in the language of several other conceptual spheres. In the verbal sphere, belonging takes the form of response (speaking and answering), with its opposites of speaking (without answering) and speaking wrongly. In the mental sphere, belonging is signiÞed by remembering, its opposites being forgetting or mis-remembering (remembering wrongly). In the spatial sphere, belonging is seen as being with, coming and returning, and its opposite as going, that is going away, and related terminology. In the sphere of action, belonging is expressed chieþy by giving, its opposites being withholding and removing or taking. In the sphere of affects, belonging is expressed by loving, its opposites being not loving, or loving wrongly.
For some readers a tabular presentation may be more effective. Thus we have:belonging ¥ not-belonging or belonging wrongly
marital marriage separation adultery
verbal response no response wrong speaking
(speaking & (speaking
answering) without answering)mental remember-ing misremembering forgetting
spatial being with, coming going going away
returning going wrongactional giving withholding false 'giving'
removing takingaffective loving not loving loving wrongly
All of these conceptual structures are in evidence in Hosea 2, many of them expressis verbis in the text; and in sum they account for virtually the whole material of the poem.
Belonging is the crucial datum of the poem: Israel belongs to Yahweh, Yahweh belongs to Israel. But the poem begins at a point where the relationship of belonging has been negated: Israel has behaved as if she were no wife to Yahweh (ytva al ayh, v. 4a), and Yahweh is consequently/20/ unable to act as husband to Israel (hvya al yknaw, v. 4a). To be more exact, he can still exercise husbandly functions of authority over her, to the extent of stripping her of his gifts (vv. 5a, 11), or invoking legal processes against her./21/ But this is not what Yahweh expects of marriage: he intends by marriage a 'speaking to the heart' of Israel (hbl l[, ytrbdw v. 16), and a loving response (hn[, v. 17b) from her, an intimate address with the term 'my husband' (yvya) rather than a respectful address with the term 'my lord' (yl[b, v. 18), and a permanent 'espousal' (cf. nab)/22/ (°ytcraw, vv. 21 bis, 22) in which he will guarantee as bride-price/23/ integrity (jb) or salvation (Wolff),/24/ justice, unfailing devotion (neb), love, and Þdelity (neb). Israel (or its offspring)/25/ is intended to belong to Yahweh as 'sown by God' (Jezreel), the beloved one (reversal of Lo-ruhamah), and 'my people, my kin' (ym[) (vv. 24-25).
But as it is, we learn Þrst (v. 4a) that the belonging (of marriage to Yahweh) is negated, secondly that Israel has created for herself other forms of belonging (harlotry, adultery, v. 4b), and thirdly, that she now regards herself as belonging to her 'lovers' (vv. 7b, 9a, 12, 14b, 17b), namely the Baalim (cf. vv. 10b, 15a, 19). There is not only a negation of right belonging, but a misdirection of belonging. If some distinction exists in Biblical Hebrew between an 'to commit adultery' and hnz 'to act as a harlot',/26/ Israel has not only broken faith with Yahweh (cf. hypwpan [v. 4b], probably 'the ornaments gained through her adulterous behaviour') but has also become a common prostitute (cf. hynwnz [v. 4a], probably 'the gifts gained from her harlotry'). It is not simply that she has attached herself to someone other than Yahweh, but that by consorting with the Baalim (plural) she has become promiscuous. Thus the concept of belonging has been Þrst negated, then misdirected and Þnally effectively done away with: in belonging to gods all and sundry, she belongs to none in particular.
In the verbal sphere mutual belonging comes to expression in dialogue, speech and response, question and answer. Here in Hosea 2 the status of the belonging relationship is strikingly reþected in several facets of the speaking. Throughout vv. 4-15, it is effectively Yahweh alone who speaks. Israel speaks brieþy three times, but never by way of response to Yahweh: once it is to express her abandonment to her lovers (v. 7b), a second time to gloat over the gifts she believes she has had from them (v. 14), a third to wish, with the same degree of selÞshness, that she were back with her husband where she was 'better off' than she is now (v. 9b)./27/
Then we might observe that throughout vv. 4-17 Yahweh never speaks directly (in the second person) to Israel./28/ This is on his part an alienating device, or at least a signal of his own sense of alienation from Israel. Only in v. 16, in the unexpected speech of non-judgment, does he declare his intention of speaking to her (htp, bl l[ rbd: 'persuade', 'woo'), while his expectation that she will respond (hn[) comes in the next verse (v. 17b). Even so, it is not until the set of three vignettes of the time of restoration (vv. 18-19, 20-22, 23-25) that he addresses Israel directly: 'you will call me "my husband" ' (v. 18), 'I will espouse you to me for ever' (vv. 21-22). The climax of responsiveness is reached, after a depiction of a virtual orgy of responsiveness on the part of the entire creation (see 'answer' [hn[] in vv. 23-24), when the simple words are exchanged between Yahweh and Israel: 'You are my people', 'my God' (rmay awhw hta Aym[ ym[Aall ytrmaw yhla , v. 25b). The role of speaking in the poem, then, is entirely consonant with the movement in belonging-ness, and so reinforces and bears out the major concept of the poem.
With one aspect of the role of speaking in the poem, however, a difÞculty arises, Israel's children are in v. 4 addressed directly by Yahweh and told to 'protest against' (nab)/29/ their mother Israel; thus although Israel is not herself addressed, her children are. But they never do protest against their mother! Why is this? Because they have nothing to say their very existence is itself a protest against their mother, for they are 'children of harlotry' (µynwnz ynb, v. 6). It is for this reason that they disappear entirely from the main part of the poem. In that they, as Israel's children, are distinct from Israel,/30/ they can be called upon to protest against Israel, but their inherited nature, and also-if this is meant-their bastard status,/31/ tie them so closely to their mother Israel that they cannot speak against her. Put another way, inasmuch as Israel's children are Israel itself in its capacity to criticize itself, they do not speak since Israel is morally incapable of criticizing itself. Only in the Þnal scene of restoration (vv. 23-25) do Israel's children reappear. But here they are no longer a symbol of protest against Israel; here they symbolize its reintegration with the divine will. Thus Yahweh will show love for Unloved (Lo-ruhamah, v. 25b), as against his declaration in v. 6a, 'Her children I will not love' (µjra al hynbAta). The reversal effected by the play on the name Lo-ruhamah makes it imperative to see in the Jezreel, Lo-ruhamah and Lo-ammi of vv. 24-25 the children of Hosea in their role as symbols of all Israel./32/ Thus although the poem began with an address to unspeciÞed, anonymous, children of Israel, at its end it can be understood only by reference outside itself to the children of Hosea in ch. 1./33/ Here, as there, the children do not differentiate Israel from Israel, or one group in Israel from another group; each symbolizes the relation between Yahweh and all Israel.
The relationship of belonging comes to expression in this poem also in what we could call for convenience the mental sphere, in the form of remembering. It is the language of remembering and not remembering that comes to the surface at the critical moment of the poem: the transition from the second judgment speech to the third (non-) judgment speech. All that Yahweh holds against Israel is blurted out in the one brief, potent utterance that is explicitly designated a 'word of Yahweh' (hwhy µan):/34/ 'me she has forgotten' (hjkv yta v. 15b). Mays writes well when he says of that word that it 'mingles anger and anguish, accusation and appeal; it summarizes in a word the guilt of Israel and the problem of Yahweh'./35/ More than that, it expresses the essence of not-belonging. Israel has not only forgotten the memories she shares with Yahweh; she has forgotten the husband who created those memories. All she remembers of him is that she was 'better off' then (v. 9b). What she does remember is what she misremembers: her vines and Þg-trees she remembers as the payment from her lovers (v. 14): the days of festival for the Baalim have not been forgotten (cf. vv. 13, 15), but were they not supposed to be festivals for Yahweh (note the presence of the sabbath, v. 13)?
The reinstitution of belonging is marked-even, it may be, accomplished-by a remembering, a calling to remembrance: Israel will be led through an experience that will recall 'the days of her youth' (hyr[wn ymy, v. 17), 'the day she went up from the land of Egypt' (µyrxmAram htl[ µwy, v. 17). Along with that renewal of memory will go a forcible forgetting, a blocking out of the memory of those to whom Israel has wrongly belonged: 'I will remove the names of the Baalim from her mouth and they will be remembered (wrkzy) by name no more' (v. 19)./36/ Even the word 'baal' ('lord') is to be expunged from the vocabulary of marriage (v. 18), lest the memory of the Baalim should present itself before Israel again.
A further clear marker of the relationship of belonging/not belonging is in this poem the spatial terminology. Going (away) is the sign of severance of belonging: Israel has announced 'I will go after my lovers' (ybham yrja hkla, v. 7). Her going is thoroughly determined. She will chase after (dr) them (v. 9). This is not only a sign of her unusual persistence as a prostitute, running after her lovers instead of waiting for them to come to her./37/ It is also a symbol of her deliberate alienation from her husband. His attempt to put an end to her wrong belonging naturally then takes the form of barring her 'way' (°rd) with a thorn-hedge, or building a stone wall before her so that her 'paths' (hytwbytn) to her lovers are blocked (v. 8)./38/ Israel's casual and unaccomplished wish for her former privileges is a desire to 'go and return' (hbwvaw hkla, v. 9), to Yahweh, i.e. to 'set off and return' to him. Being with her lovers is a being away from Yahweh.
Yahweh also uses the spatial terminology when he announces his restoration of Israel: 'I will bring her' (hytklh) to the wilderness, 'and I will speak wooingly to her' (hbl l[ ytrbdw, v. 16). hytklh, as the hiphil of °lh, may not at Þrst appear to signify a bringing near, but in fact it is used regularly for leading or bringing./39/ In any case the wilderness is plainly the place where Yahweh will be: it is there that he will 'speak to her heart' (hbl l[ ytrbdw, v. 16), 'from there' that she will receive from him his gift of the restoration of her vineyards (µvm hymrkAta hl yttnw, v. 17a), and 'there' that she will respond to him (hmv htn[, v. 17b). That last 'there' (lit. 'thither') itself signiÞes movement towards Yahweh, a coming to Yahweh: a verb of motion is probably implied by the constructio praegnans of the syntactic connection of 'answer' (htn[w) and 'thither' (hmv)./40/ Movement along with Yahweh also underlies the reminiscence of the day of Israel's 'coming up' from Egypt (µyrxmAram htl[ µwy, v. 17b), which will be lived through again at the time of Israel's rehabilitation. Likewise she will come along with him into Yahweh's land through the traditional point of entry into the land, the valley of Achor leading up into the hill-country from Jericho; this time Israel will move not into a valley of 'trouble' (Achor, rwk[, v. 17a; cf. Jos. 7.24-26) but through a 'gateway of hope' (hwqt jtp, v. 17a). Israel's Þnal destiny is to be Þrmly planted in Yahweh's land: in the phrase 'I will sow her for myself in the land' (rab yl hyt[rzw, v. 25), the reversal of movement away from Yahweh initiated by Israel's passion for the Baalim has come to a full stop. Israel no longer suffers the self-cancelling and ineffectual motion of going and coming, and now comes to rest in a place where she will put down roots-so the imagery implies-and where her planted-ness will announce her belonging-ness: 'I will sow her-for myself (yl)'.
If we now analyse the actions that take place in the poem, we discover that-except for those that have already been dealt with-most actions involve giving or withholding. Giving appears both as 'false' (or wrongly attributed) giving (which turns out to be taking) and as true giving. Giving is also negated as withholding or removing. The triple pattern of belonging/not belonging/belonging wrongly is again worked out-here on the level of what is done for (given to) or not done for (given to) Israel. It is only natural that the ownership implicit in Israel's belonging to Yahweh or to the Baalim should express itself in gifts made by the superior to the inferior, by the owner to the owned. (Only twice does the owned appear to 'give' to the owner; see the comment on vv. 10b, 15a below.)
Yahweh, as Israel's husband, has in fact 'given to her' (hl yttn ykna) her grain, wine and oil, and has 'lavished upon her' (hl ytybrh) silver (v. 10). This motif of gift as a token of Yahweh's ownership (and so of Israel's belonging) appears frequently, though often beneath the surface of the text (that is, explicit words for 'giving' are not always used). So, for example, in v. 11b the syntax of the line, literally 'and I will snatch away my wool and my þax to cover her nakedness' (rmx ytlxhw(htwr[Ata twskl ytvpw) implies the existence of a prior gift: PeshiÝta and Targum and several modern versions have inserted some reference to the gift in order to make sense./41/ Thus neb, for instance, has 'I will take away the wool and the þax which I gave her/42/ to cover her naked body'. Similarly, the clothing that Yahweh has provided her with as part of his husbandly responsibilities (cf. Exod. 21.10) is not even mentioned explicitly (v. 5a), but is implicitly regarded as a gift from Yahweh. The fertility of her land (or, of Israel as land) is, again, not explicitly said in v. 5b to be Yahweh's gift, but such is meant to be understood by the reference in v. 10 to the grain, new wine and olive oil as given by Yahweh, or by the references in v. 11 to 'my grain, my wine, my wool, my þax'. Even what Yahweh himself speaks of as her possessions, 'her vines and her Þg trees' (htnatw hbpg, v. 14a) are plainly only hers as gift. So it can be said at the time of restoration 'I will give her . . . her vineyards' (hymrkAta hl yttnw, v. 17a); she has, and will have, nothing but what she has received. As gift, and thus as a further sign of her belonging, she is to receive the transformation of the 'Valley of Trouble' into the 'Gate of Hope'; the valley, if it is rightly identiÞed as the Wadi en-Nuw'ime,/43/ is in itself and literally a place of fertility, but is equally and symbolically a foretaste and ajrrabwvn of the fertility of the restored land as a whole.
The relationship of belonging is to be fully reinstituted by the plentifulness of giving that is the particular theme of the second of the 'in that day' vignettes (vv. 20-22). First of Yahweh's gifts is the 'covenant' that Yahweh will make for them (tyrb µhl ytrkw, v. 20a) with animals and birds; that is, he is the covenant mediator who establishes harmony between Israel and the creatures that are potential enemies of the people, their crops and their vineyards. This covenant forms a protection for the products of the earth's fertility. Israel's well-being is further safeguarded by Yahweh's abolition of war (v. 20b) and gift of security: 'And I shall make them lie down in safety' (jfbl µytbkvhw, v. 20b). Of surely greater signiÞcance still are the gifts Yahweh makes by way of his bride-price for Israel. The allegory is necessarily defective at this point, in that Israel has no father to whom the bride-price can be paid. Yet precisely for this reason Yahweh's gifts become more effective, for it is clearly Israel itself that will receive integrity, justice, unfailing devotion, love and Þdelity (qdx, fpvm, dsj, µymjr, jnwma, vv. 21-22). These gifts do not, I think, merely denote qualities of Yahweh's relationship to Israel, but aspects of behaviour that Israel itself will internalize. The inconstant, faithless Israel will become Yahweh's faithful wife again, and Yahweh will Þnd in her those qualities he has a right to expect from his people (cf. 4.1).
Giving thus appears throughout the chapters as clear marker of the relationship or belonging. But equally pervasive is the equation of withholding or removing with Israel's not-belonging to Yahweh. Yahweh's Þrst appeal to Israel is that she should 'remove' (rstw, v. 4b). from her person the tokens of her not-belonging to him (the 'signs' of her adultery or harlotry); should she not voluntarily remove the symbols of her not-belonging he will remove the symbols of her belonging: 'I will strip her naked (hmr[ hnfyvpa)', and 'set her (i.e. expose,/44/ exhibit/45/ her) as on the day she was born (hdlwh µwyb hytgxhw)' (v. 5a). The same motif recurs in vv. 11-12: because Israel as spent Yahweh's gifts upon Baal (l[bl wc[ bhzw . . . sk; v. 10b), misappropriating the symbols of her belonging to Yahweh to strengthen her relation of belonging to the Baal, Yahweh will remove the raw materials for her clothing in order to demonstrate that she no longer belongs to him. That is, directly following upon Israel's defection to Baal (l[bl wc[, v. 10b), the second judgment speech announces: 'Therefore . . . I will snatch away my wool and my þax given to cover her nakedness (htwr[Ata twskl ytvpw yrmx ytlxhw)' (v. 11), and 'Now I will expose her shame in the sight of her lovers (hybham yny[l htlbnAta hlga ht[w)' (v. 12). To be removed also, by forced cessation (ytbvhw), are her 'pleasures' (hcwcm), 'her feasts, her new moons, her sabbaths, and all her appointed festivals' (v. 13). Yahweh will also remove, by devastation (ytmvhw), 'her vines and her Þg trees' (v. 14). Yet Þnally, at the time of restoration, Yahweh's renewal of his relationship will take place by a removal: a removal from her mouth of the names of the Baalim (hypm µyl[bh twmvAta ytrshw, v. 19; cf. rstw, v. 4a), a removal also, by destruction (rwbva), of the weapons of war/46/ from the land (v. 20c), so that all disharmony can be resolved in security (jfb, v. 20c) and in responsiveness (cf. hn[, vv. 23-24).
As for those to whom Israel belongs wrongly, the Baalim, it is noteworthy that Israel regards her relationship with them as cemented by gifts from them. She speaks of them as those who 'give me my bread and my water, my wool and my þax, my oil and my drink' (mjl yntnywwqvw ynmv ytvpw yrmx ymymw, v. 7b). She speaks too of her vines and Þg trees as what 'my lovers have given me' (ybham yl Awntn rva, v. 14b). Yet, as we hear in v. 10, this is a false attribution: not only is it Yahweh who has given Israel her well-being, but the Baalim have given her nothing. They have only taken. Her vines and Þg-trees are in fact no gift: even Israel recognizes that they are wages, her 'hire' (hnta)/47/ as a prostitute (v. 14a). What is more, the natural resources of the land, far from being the gift of the Baalim, have in fact been spent upon the Baalim: 'Silver and gold I lavished upon her, but they made it over to (or, into/48/) the Baal' (l[bl wc[ bhzw hl ytybrh skw) (v. 10b)./49/ For them Israel burns incense and decks herself out with rings and jewellery (htyljw hmzn d[tw µhl ryfqt , v. 15), at her own expense, presumably. Even while Israel remains devoted to the Baalim, she recognizes that she is 'worse off' with them than with Yahweh (v. 9b). Everywhere the Baalim are represented as being on the receiving end-of Israel's possessions and of her affection (vv. 7b, 9a); and, when Yahweh steps in as Israel's enemy,/50/ the Baalim are nowhere to be found: 'there is no one to deliver her from my hand' (hnlyxyAal vyaw(ydym, v. 12; cf. 5.14).
Finally, the relationship of belonging/not belonging/belonging wrongly is worked out in the sphere of affective language. Right belonging is expressed throughout this chapter with the root µjr, traditionally translated 'have pity on' but probably to be understood as 'love'. The verb bha, 'love', is reserved for the illicit love of the Baalim. Yahweh's idea of marriage is of a permanent espousal in 'love' (µymjr . . . µlw[l, v. 21), to 'love the unloved' (hmjr alAta ytmjrw, v. 25). But so long as Israel remains bound to her 'lovers' (hybham, ybham, vv. 7b, 9a, 12a, 14b, 15b), Yahweh will have no love for Israel (strictly speaking, for her children: µjra al hynbAtaw, v. 6). Israel's movement from commitment to her 'lovers' to commitment to her husband is brought about through his affection: his persuasive speech (hytpm/51/) and wooing words (hbl l[ ytrbdw, v. 16). Yet again the triple category loving/not-loving/loving-wrongly expresses the essential conceptual pattern of the poem.
What exegetical results does this study of the conceptual patterns in Hosea 2 yield? Like most structural studies, the foregoing cannot be claimed to produce large-scale exegetical gains. Such are won generally from the lexicon, the concordance, the history of interpretation, the contribution of extrabiblical studies: that is, by not concentrating so narrow-mindedly upon a single chapter. The gains that arise from a closer focus, which are gains one hopes to have acquired from this study, are these: (i) Observation of the conceptual pattern that is common to both vv. 4-17 and vv. 18-25 makes it clear that the whole is an integrated work. No matter whether it has been such ab initio, nor whether all of the chapter is genuinely Hosean, the integrity of the piece as it has been demonstrated above makes it impossible to interpret its elements in isolation from one another. This is a literary gain that can have exegetical signiÞcance. (ii) Our detailed exploration of the concept of belonging is a way of experiencing the almost obsessional quality of the prophet's concern with Israel's relationship to its God. No new factual or exegetical information may have been acquired, but 'close reading' of a powerful text like this poem exposes the reader to its force. This is an aesthetic gain that brings the reader closer to the world of the poet (or else, perhaps, alienates the reader); in either case the poem can come to life, whether to attract or antagonize the reader. When it does, it may not produce 'exegetical' results, but one of its potentialities is released: and that is surely an aspect of interpretation. (iii) Preoccupation with the conceptual system that structures the poem can lead to hermeneutic-which is not the same thing as exegesis (at least in its atomistic ICC sense) but which is the goal of exegesis. 'Exegesis considers the text as a "closed system" of signs . . . Hermeneutic prolongs the discourse of the text into a new discourse . . . what the text means for the modern interpreter and the people of the culture.'/52/
3. Plot
Earlier I have suggested that the kl speeches need not perhaps be read sequentially, but are open to being understood as a series of options Yahweh passes in review. Even if this is correct, the poem presents itself in a linear form-in a narrative shape, that is-and only teasingly allows us to play with the possibility that it may be read horizontally as well as vertically. This short section of my paper is an attempt to analyse the movement of the poem in narrative (sequential, linear, vertical) form.
Again, a tabular presentation may simplify the discussion:1. Yahweh Þ Ð Israel
2. 4aa Yahweh Þ Ý Israel Þ Baal(im)
3. 4bb Yahweh Ý Ý Israel Þ Baal(im)
4. 8-9a Yahweh Ý Ý Israel Þ Ý Baal(im)
5. 9b Yahweh Ý Ð Israel Ý Baal(im)
6. 14 Yahweh Ý Israel Ý Baal(im)
7. 16 Yahweh Þ Israel Ý
8. 17b+ Yahweh Ð Þ Israel (Ý)
('I') ('she') ('they')The plot-schema is to be read thus: Preceding the action of the narrative/poem, Yahweh and Israel relate reciprocally (line 1). As the poem opens, we Þnd that Israel has begun to relate to the Baal(im)-which is impossible to combine with the relationship with Yahweh. So although Yahweh still wishes to be husband to Israel. Israel has blocked that relationship ('she is not my wife', v. 4aa, line 2). This results (line 3) in Yahweh's abandoning a normal marital relationship with Israel, so that there is blockage on his side as well as hers ('I am not her husband', v. 4ab). Meanwhile Israel remains tied to the Baal(im) (line 3). (Note that Israel's relationship to the Baal(im) is always a one-way trafÞc system; there is nothing reciprocal here.) The next move in the plot is instigated by Yahweh: he sets up a blockage between Israel and the Baal(im) (line 4). Although Israel is still determined to go after her lovers (vv. 7b, 9a), her path to them is blocked (v. 8). In the next movement (line 5), Israel contemplates a return to Yahweh (v. 9b), but Þnds that route also remains blocked because she does not 'know' Yahweh and his gifts (v. 10). The result is stalemate (line 6). The three personae remain, but the lines of communication between them stay blocked: Israel is trapped. The only way out of stalemate is for Yahweh to act by removing the blockage between himself and Israel (line 7); this he does by his initiative in v. 16. The Baal(im) disappear from the scene, though the barrier erected by Yahweh between Israel and them still remains, in that he removes Israel entirely from the sphere of their inþuence by taking her into the desert (v. 16). Finally (line 8), the reciprocal relationship between Yahweh and Israel is restored: Yahweh speaks and Israel answers (vv. 16-17). The Baal(im) are remembered only to be forgotten (!, v. 19), so that the barrier between Israel, and them may for all intents and purposes be ignored, though no doubt it still exists. The state of harmony presupposed, by the poem has, at its end, been restored (cf. lines 1, 8).
What signiÞcance does this analysis of the plot of Hosea 2 have for the interpretation of the poem? Obviously, insofar as this is a narrative poem, analysis of plot lays bare the essentials of what is going on in the narrative, and so serves as orientation to our reading of the poem. It brings to the forefront of attention the fact that this poem is not a description or perception of the way things are, but is a literary work with a dynamic that moves the way things are toward a resolution. Once we are alerted to the dynamic of the poem we cannot be contented with the methods that are usually thought to be adequate for interpretation: textual criticism, philology, atomistic exegesis, form-criticism, rhetorical criticism, or even the structural approaches employed in this study. Even my foregoing analysis of the conceptual structure of the poem, in concentrating attention upon the way the poem is, leaves almost entirely out of account this further element of the way the poem moves.
But what, Þnally, if the poem is to be read, as I have suggested earlier, not as a purely sequential narrative, but as a set of options that Yahweh passes in review? Then analysis of plot actually demonstrates why Yahweh must refuse the Þrst two options (introduced by the kl sentences of v. 8 and v. 11) and decide in favour of the kl of v. 16. It is because the Þrst two options lead nowhere, or at least, lead only to a Þxation of the unacceptable state of affairs that has called forth the initial 'protest' (wbyr) of the poem. The Þrst option blocks Israel's path to her lovers but does not restore her to Yahweh. The second option leads only to destruction and punishment, and perhaps to the elimination of Israel itself; this option tends to the removal of the very possibility of reconciliation. The third option, on the other hand, in restoring the relationship of Yahweh and Israel, does not issue in a cul de sac of a future, but opens up the way for a movement that will continue long after the poem is over./53//
//