Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32 b ll l/hb h

brill.nl/hbth

YHWH’s Call for Israel’s ‘Return’: Command,

Invitation, or Threat

Mignon R. Jacobs, PhD

Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA 91182, USA
jacobs@fuller.edu

Abstract
The call for Israel’s return to YHWH resounds in the prophetic text and utilizes various images
to illustrate Israel’s and YHWH’s behaviors. These images depict the strained relationship
between YHWH and Israel and the persistence of the Deity in maintaining the relationship.
This study focuses on Hosea 11 and Amos 4 as examples of the call and distinct perspectives of
the YHWH-Israel behavioral and relational dynamics. It looks at the place of the past, present,
and future in the formulation of the call to return and offers conclusions about the implications
of the analysis on the understanding of the YHWH-Israel relationship.

Keywords
Amos 4; Hosea 11; Israel’s return, theo-political, relational dynamics, YHWH’s call

Introduction*
The concept of Yhwh’s call for Israel’s return is seen throughout the pro-
phetic literature and expressed in various forms. Among the expressions
of this concept is the use of the verb ‫( שׁוב‬to return) including ‫ שׁוב‬plus
first common singular suffix (denoting restoration) or ‫( שׁוב‬denoting
repentance). The focus of this study is the concept of Israel’s return as pre-
sented in the extant form of Hosea 11 and Amos 4 and the noted inter-
textuality specific to these texts. I propose that while each text presents
the call in light of the relational dynamics between Israel and the Deity,
that each presentation includes particular dimensions of the call related to

*) This paper is an updated version of my presidential address for the SBL—Pacific Coast
Region (March 31, 2008).
© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/187122010X494740

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
18 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32

conceptual frameworks, included but not limited to relational-behavioral

(spousal and parental), agricultural, or theo-political images. Within these
conceptual frameworks, one discerns the nature of the call whether implied
or stated, an invitation or threat, or combinations of these nuances. With
the proposal that the theological dimensions of the texts are constituted
by theo-political and socio-domestic elements, I will examine the texts in
the interpretive framework of the following basic questions: How is YHWH
characterized with regard to behavioral and rational dynamics toward Israel?
What is the place of recalling the past in the call for Israel’s ‘return’? How
do the past and the nature of the YHWH-Israel relationship define Israel’s
behaviors?
This study is divided into two parts. Part I: The investigation of the text
looks at Hos. 11:1-11 and Amos 4:6-12, for their particular conceptuality
of the call for return. Part II: Synthesis of the investigation proposes read-
ings of the texts in light of theo-political and socio-domestic interpretive
frameworks.

I. Textual Investigation
Hosea 11 and Amos 4 are selected and juxtaposed in this investigation
because of their differences regarding the call for Israel’s return—namely,
conceptual images and proposed dimensions for understanding the
divine-human relationship (yhwh-Israel). The investigation notes the fig-
urative language used to portray the relational and behavioral dimensions
of Yhwh’s call to Israel and highlights the use of metaphor and similes
regarding yhwh’s action that encompasses the relational (parental and
spousal) vis-à-vis animal images. In addition the investigation asserts that
the divergence and convergences of these images are a part of the charac-
terization of yhwh but that no single image signifies the whole of that
characterization. Thus each text represents a part of the deity without sug-
gesting its relative significance to the whole.

A. Hosea 11:1-11

1. Presence of the call to return

The call for Israel’s return is inferred from the argumentation of the text,
namely Israel’s noted refusal to return. That refusal is the basis for defin-

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32 19

ing Israel’s experience with Egypt and with Assyria, yhwh’s struggle about
annihilating Israel (11:5), and the apparent hope for restoration (Hos. 11:
10-11). To say that text of Hosea 11 is difficult is only to begin to recog-
nize part of the interpretative challenge that confronts our understanding
of that text and the theology reconstructed on the basis of the text.
Among the difficulties are the images in Hos. 11:4 and the indictment
in Hos. 11:5. At issue in these verses is the nature of Yhwh’s behavior
toward Israel and the rationale for that behavior. While the textual diffi-
culties are not the focus of this discussion, in order to establish the basis
of the discussion a few observations about Hos. 11:4-5 are necessary.1
Through the deity’s voice Israel is said to have refused to return or repent
(‫)כי מאנו לשׁוב‬
There are two major trends regarding Hosea 11 that contribute to the
concept of the call for Israel’s return. First, the dominant view is to inter-
pret the particle of negation in 11:5aα as a preposition plus third mascu-
line singular pronominal suffix attached to the end of 11:4 and thus to
provide the object of the verb ‫( אכל‬in the hiphil “to feed”). In this option
scholars further emend the text to include the third masculine plural and
read 11:4b-5aα: “I bent down to them and fed them. They shall return to
the land of Egypt” (NRSV).2
The dominant reason for the emendation is to preserve a coherent per-
spective regarding the place and function of Egypt and Assyria in the
book of Hosea. Accordingly, on the basis of 8:13; 9:3 (punishment of
Israel) and 11:11 (depiction of restoration from Egypt to the land) Eide-
vall and Kakkanattu argue that 11:5aa be read as “he or they will return
to Egypt.”3 Fundamentally, the concern for some interpreters is the nature
of the deity’s action on Israel’s behalf.
The second option is to read the text as seen in the Masoretic Text keep-
ing the particle of negation at the beginning of Hos. 11:5aα: “I reached to

1)
The two textual difficulties in Hos. 11:5 are the presence and significance of ‫ לא‬at the
beginning of the verse (11:5aa) and the rendering of ‫ כי מאנו לשׁוב‬in 11:5b.
2)
Cf. Göran Eidevall, Grapes in the Desert: Metaphors, Models, and Themes in Hosea 4-14
(Stockholm, 1996), 172-73. He proposes an alternate image—not the parental but the
image of attending to an animal constrained by a yoke.
3)
Cf. J. Philip Kakkanattu, God’s Enduring Love in the Book of Hosea: A Synchronic and
Diachronic Analysis of Hosea 11,1-11 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 12, 23-24; Eide-
vall, (Grapes in the Desert, 176, 242).

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
20 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32

him and feed [implying the object him]. He will not return to Egypt.”4 In
this rendering of the text, 11:4 uses the image of lifting the yoke. While
appreciating the tendency in scholarship to read the image as a parent-
child and nurturing moment, the image of removing the yoke as a con-
tinuation of the release from bondage is compelling.5 The decision to
retain the MT is also predicated on the understanding of the deity’s image
and actions.

2. The portrayal of the deity’s relationship and Behavior

The depiction of Yhwh’s actions incorporates the tradition of the call or
adoption of Israel out of Egypt (Hos. 11:1) and is used as Yhwh’s justifi-
cation for dealing with Israel.
Yhwh’s actions of calling Israel results in Israel refusing Yhwh, thus
the tension between Yhwh’s call (‫ )קרא‬and Israel walking (‫ )הלך‬away. In
the pairing of the images Yhwh’s actions are rendered as futile in that the
call and the expected response are met with active resistance—namely,
walking away (Hos. 11:2).6 While some see the tension as ironic,7 one
may also see that possessive nature of the deity as a contributing factor in
Israel’s resistance to Yhwh.
Whether it is an existential question as Janzen asserts,8 wrestling with
the decision to destroy Israel is part of yhwh’s pattern to convince Israel
to return (11:8-9). To destroy Israel is to end the relationship; but to spare
Israel is to further destroy the foundation of the relationship—God as the
defining reality who sets the terms. God loses ground in keeping the rela-

4)
While assuming the 3rd masculine plural object suffix in 11:4b some versions also
retain the particle of negation in Hos. 11:5aa thus reading: KJV “. . . I laid meat unto
them. He shall not return into the land of Egypt . . .;” ASV “. . . and I laid food before
them. They shall not return into the land of Egypt . . .”
5)
Cf. Eidevall (Grapes in the Desert, 169) who argues for this reading against the tradi-
tional reading of holding the sucking child to one’s cheeks. The latter is seen in some mod-
ern translation (e.g., NOAB, NRSV).
6)
Cf. Eidevall, assets: “note the appearance of the word pair qara and halak. These verbs
in combination capture the relation between the act of calling or inviting, and the
expected reaction, the coming of the person(s) called upon. However, there is an anomaly
in the reported course of events: the people respond to the divine call by walking away
from Yhwh” (Grapes in the Desert, 169).
7)
E.g., Martin J. Buss, “Tragedy and Comedy in Hosea,” Semeia 32 (1984): 71-82 (esp. 76).
8)
J. Gerald Janzen, “Metaphor and Reality in Hosea 11,” Semeia 24 (1982): 7-44.

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32 21

tionship with one who blatantly refuses God (cf. Jeremiah 3-4). At stake
is the God’s decision to deal with Israel, namely, the choice to maintain
the relationship pattern. In the socio-domestic view, the tension is about
control of another person’s being—i.e., the inability of the deity to let go
of perceived control.9 Likewise, the self-counsel in Hos. 11:9 represents
the decision-making process to refrain from acting out of anger.

3. The Portrayal of Israel’s behavior

Concerning Israel’s behavior, the tradition of the Egypt experience as sig-
naled in 11:1 (past), 11:5 (present), and 11:11 (future) is highlighted.
Return to Egypt. I argue that the text does not represent a reversal of the
exodus as in 8:13 and 9:3 and that the competing images of the deity’s
interaction with Israel be held in tension. This is not a reversal of the exo-
dus but a refusal to reverse it.10 To emend Hos. 11:5 on the basis of Hos.
8:13 and 9:3 one would (a) facilitate the image; (b) lose a key piece of the
image on an assumption regarding the whole and (c) presume the con-
stancy of the deity’s reasoning, and activity—the latter not supported in
the context of Hos. 11:8-9.

Though they offer choice sacrifices, though they eat flesh, the LORD does not accept
them. Now he will remember their iniquity, and punish their sins; they shall return
to Egypt. (NRSV Hos. 8:13)
AND
They shall not remain in the land of the LORD; but Ephraim shall return to Egypt,
and in Assyria they shall eat unclean food. (NRSV Hos. 9:3)

The reversal is more than a geographical reassignment of the people but

also a re-conceptualization of the exodus event itself. Thus while the exo-
dus out of Egypt was represented as deliverance from bondage (salvific),
the reversal is represented as punitive. Presumably, the punishment would
put Israel in circumstances less desirable than that in Canaan—the prom-
ised land.
Even so, the reversal would be the ‘easy out’ for Israel who by its behav-
ior wants out of the relationship—appealing to Egypt for help, longing

9)
For discussion of these dynamics in Ezekiel see Linda Day, “Rhetoric and Domestic
Violence in Ezekiel 16,” Biblical Interpretation 8 (2000): 205-30.
10)
Contrast Kakkanattu, God’s Enduring Love, 23-24; Eidevall, Grapes in the Desert, 176.

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
22 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32

for Egypt as the place of refuge over and against reliance on yhwh for
such refuge. To return them, while appearing as a punishment would be
to play into their desire. Since the deity’s struggle with Israel is to foster
loyalty and maintain the relationship (apparently by any means neces-
sary), it would hardly seen surprising that yhwh’s struggle is to preserve
Israel’s existence in order to keep the relationship. This decision to main-
tain would gnaw at the deity’s impulse to annihilate them (cf. 11:9). I there-
fore contend that the perspective in Hos. 11:5 represents yhwh’s attempt
to stop the “exodus to Egypt”—namely, the movement and settlement in
Egypt prompted by perceived needs and the possibility of meeting those
needs in Egypt or in partnership with Egypt.11 Part of the “exodus to
Egypt” is Israel’s collective memory and learned dependence on Egypt for
survival—e.g., the movement to Egypt when Canaan experiences famine
(Abraham; Jacob’s family). In the latter instances, the hope of survival lies
in Egypt rather than in Canaan. The deliverance of Israel from Egypt thus
represents both the deliverance from bondage and the loss of a viable sub-
sistence base. The memory of Egypt encompasses these dimensions of the
exodus experience, i.e., deliverance and loss. The exodus experience is as
much about liberation from Egypt as it is about desired liberation from
the relationship with yhwh, the liberator. These two sides form Israel’s
relationship with Yhwh (liberator) and yhwh (jealous relationship part-
ner), whether parental or spousal.12
Israel’s return to YHWH (11:10-11) is presented using animal images
vis-à-vis the human and relational images earlier in Hosea 11. The image
of Yhwh returning a trembling Israel hardly connotes a joyous return.13
11)
Cf. Eleazar S. Fernandez, “Exodus-toward-Egypt: Filipino-Americans’ Struggle to Real-
ize the Promised Land in America,” in Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the
Third World (rev. and exp 3d ed; ed. R. S. Sugirtharajah; Maryknoll, New York: Orbis
Books, 2006), 243-46. The exodus-toward-Egypt includes both the exodus (emigration)
and the settlement (immigration) and extends beyond a momentary struggle for liberation
(244).
12)
Cf. Helen Schüngel-Straumann, “God as Mother in Hosea 11,” Theology Digest 34
(1987): 3-8.
13)
Several uses of the verbal form ‫ חרד‬denote trembling in response to a situation, nation
or person, e.g., (Gen. 27:33; 1 Sam. 14:15; 28:5; Isa. 19:16; Ezek. 26:16; 32:10). The use
of the verb with various particles to denoted direction include, ‫“ מן‬trembling from”, Hos.
11:10); ‫“ אחרי‬to following him trembling” (1 Sam. 13:7); and ‫“ אל‬to turn trembling to”
(Gen. 42:28). Regarding the use of the feminine singular noun ‫“ חרדה‬trembling, fear”
denoting see Isa. 21:4; Jer. 30:5.

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32 23

Rather it connotes fear/dread. Even so the text designates yhwh as the

agent of the return “I will return them to their homes” (‫והושׁבתים‬
‫)על־בתיהם‬. In light of the tension in the text, one wonders about yhwh’s
perceived struggle to annihilate (‫ )שׁחת‬Israel, namely, about the nature of
the ‘call to return.’14 The rationale seems to indicate that Yhwh’s struggle
is about destroying and maintaining the relationship.15 Choosing to main-
tain the relationship in this respect meant returning Israel to the location
designated by Yhwh as their home, away from Egypt and Assyria (pre-
sumably not their home). The return then is about location and relation-
ship—the location being a signifier of the relationship. The irony of the
reference is that for Israel and its persistent longing for Egypt, Egypt is
more home than the home that yhwh sought to provide.
The restoration in Hos. 11:10-11 may then be perceived as a decision
to restore Israel to a relationship that Israel may not want. From a socio-
domestic perspective it reads like a drama—a parent returning a runaway
child with all of the implications of the child reentry into a family systems
from which that child clearly wants to escape; or an abusive spouse ‘tak-
ing’ his wife home after she tried to escape. Since the text of Hoses 11
uses the parental image in recalling the Egypt experience, I am inclined to
see Hos. 11:10-11 in the parent-child model advanced through the ani-
mal simile of trembling birds (Israel) responding to the ferocious lion
(Yhwh).16 In this conceptual field, the image is not that of a loving par-
ent but rather of the strained relationship compelled by the dominant fig-
ure over the subjugated being. Whether that image evokes love is a
question for the text’s understanding of love. The text does not explicitly
speak of yhwh’s love for Israel in the rationale for calling Israel to
return—forcibly or otherwise.17

14)
Cf. the usage regarding Israel (e.g., Hos. 11:9; 13:9) and David (2 Sam. 1:14).
15)
Cf. Janzen, “Metaphor and Reality,” 7-44 regarding the nature of the question whether
rhetorical or existential. Kakkanattu’s (God’s Enduring Love, 75-76, 81-88) argument con-
cerning the options within the deity’s question and resolve (Hos. 11:8-9) clarifies the
choice to preserve Israel as compared to the choice to destroy other nations.
16)
Cf. Göran Eidevall, “Lions and Birds as Literature: Some Notes on Isaiah 31 and
Hosea 11,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament 7 (1993): 78-87.
17)
Contrast J. Randolph Jaeggli, “There Is Hope (Hosea 6:1-3; 11:1-11; 14:1-9),” Biblical
Viewpoint 30.2 (1996): 29-35.

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
24 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32

B. Amos 4:6-12
The image of coercion is also seen in Amos 4 depiction of Yhwh’s repeated
attempts to secure Israel’s return to relationship with yhwh. The concept
of the call for ‘return’ (‫ )שׁוב‬in Amos 4 is part of the indictment of Israel
for its idolatry and societal infractions. On a whole, the indictment uti-
lizes the socio-domestic conceptual framework, and specifically the use of
coercion to gain the compliance of a subordinate or dependent and the
justification of that coercion. The text uses the tradition of the plague in
Egypt (‫דבר‬, Amos 4:10; cf. Exod. 5:3; 9:3,15 Lev. 26:25; Num. 14:12
Deut. 28:21) as well as the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah18 as tools
in its argumentation and presentation of Israel’s reluctance to return to
Yhwh.

1. Presence of the call to return

The call to return is not explicitly stated but implied in five uses of the
formulaic refrain “but you did not return to me” (‫ )ולא־שׁבתם עדי‬to rep-
resent Israel’s nonconformity to yhwh’s expectation (Amos 4:6, 8, 9,
10,11). Likewise, the multiple actions against Israel denote Yhwh’s effort
and perhaps justification for the persistence evident in the increased sever-
ity of the coercive actions. Here the text does not speak of the nature of
the relationship between yhwh and Israel. Instead, the elements of suste-
nance and existence dominate the image of Yhwh’s attempt to have a
relationship with Israel.

2. The portrayal of the deity’s relationship and Behavior

The coercive actions taken against Israel may be grouped into two catego-
ries: the destruction of basic sustenance (Amos 4:6-9) and destruction of
life and existence (i.e., existence as a people/nation) (Amos 4:10-11). In
regards to the basic means of sustenance yhwh claims to have deprived
Israel.19
18)
The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is used to denote annihilation of a people
because of their corruption. Thus, the comparison to the deeds done to Sodom and
Gomorrah indicates both the extent of the destruction as well as the justification of that
destruction.
19)
In this first person Yhwh speech, Israel is identified by the second masculine plural
pronominal suffix (‫ )־כם‬as well as by the person, gender, number sufformative in the for-
mula of noncompliance (‫)ולא־שׁבתם עדי‬.

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32 25

a. the actions
As with the destruction of the means of sustenance, so with reference to
life and existence, the mode of destruction is identified then explicated
through several actions. Thus Yhwh sent (‫ )שׁלח‬plague, Yhwh killed
(‫ )הרג‬those who constitute the defense force of the nation (i.e., the young
men), Yhwh deprived the nation of its horses (Amos 4:10).20 The final
line portrays a situation of stench being dominant in their midst (presum-
ably stench of the dead). The final action which yhwh claims as a part of
the arsenal against Israel is overthrowing (‫ )הפך‬some of Israel. In this
instance, the memory of Sodom and Gomorrah functions as an exemplar
of Yhwh’s past dealings (Amos 4: 10-11; Lam 4:6)21 and becomes the
basis of Yhwh’s present and future actions (cf. Lam 4:6).

b. the rationale and the goals of the actions

If one perceives a progression in the severity of the actions taken against
Israel, the rationale would be the prior nonconformity to Yhwh’s expecta-
tion for Israel’s return. Accordingly, each action attempts to bring about
Israel’s compliance—namely, its return to relationship with yhwh. The
further rationale for Yhwh’s mode of calling for Israel’s return is expressed
in the declaration of intent “therefore, thus I will do to you, Israel” (‫לכן‬
‫)כה אעשׁה־לך ישׂראל‬. In addition, the self-identification in Amos 4:12 not
only clarifies the being who behaves in this coercive manner toward Israel
but also identifies that being with the fundamental elements of earth and
season—thus as a being who dominates and who clearly has the power to
transcend the relationship with Israel.
Yhwh’s actions are systematic and sustained moving from lack of food
for immediate consumption, to withholding the rain for production
(before crops could have an opportunity to grow), to the calculated effect
on the people (their effort to find water), to the devastation of vegetation
by blight and mildew and locust (cf. Hag 1:7ff; Deut. 28:22). And per
chance Israel does not return, yhwh would start killing off the most val-
ued of the community. One can only imagine the utter devastation envi-
sioned by this systematic and thorough strategy for securing Israel’s
20)
Note the formulation ‫ עם שׁבי סוסיכם‬typically translated (NRSV “I carried away your
horses”).
21)
Cf. Gen. 19:21, 25, 29 and the memory in prophetic literature, e.g., Jer. 20:16;
Lam. 4:6.

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
26 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32

compliance—and all this for a relationship with a people who resists the
relationship. Ought we not to consider the socio-domestic aspects of this
call to be that of a threat of destruction rather than an invitation to rec-
oncile?
Why the threat, intimidation, and such persistence? Perhaps it is the
deity’s determination to keep the relationship; or perhaps it is an attempt
to destroy the object of one’s pursuit thus evidencing the tension between
preservation and destruction; or maybe the deity attempts to maintain the
relationship by creating dependence on the deity (cf. The murmuring
tradition—the people’s hunger, thirst, and their complain, Exodus 14, 15,
16, 17, Numbers 11, 20)

II. The Call within the Relational Conceptual Frameworks

A common tendency is to identify with the voice of the text and its repre-
sentation of the relationship without adequate consideration of those
characterized by the voice. The readers’ identification with the deity’s
voice often results in the acceptance of the portrait of Israel and insuffi-
cient examination of the meta-issues involved. If one trusts the voice of
the deity in characterizing Israel then one must also trust the portrayal of
the deity inherent in the characterization because the depiction of Israel is
as much about Israel as it is about the deity. The behaviors and the ratio-
nale for all involved are thus decisive to the conceptual framework of
yhwh’s call for Israel’s return. In this relational and behavioral scenario,
the text is on the deity’s side and the voice of the text is the deity’s. We do
not find the voice of Israel in Hosea 11 or Amos 4. Is it any surprise that
the voice of the text sides with the deity and by implication discredits
Israel? By identifying with the voice of the text one misses the violence
done to Israel (the unvoiced character in the text). The confidence with
which the text portrays yhwh’s call for Israel’s return suggests the norma-
tivity of Yhwh’s behavior or at least the possibility that the hearer would
understand the nature of that call and the expected response.
The reader determines the significance of the image for understanding
the whole and that determination is dependent on interplay of factors
contributed to the interpretation by both the text and the reader.22 The
22)
Antje Labatin, “Metaphor and Intertextuality: ‘Daughter of Zion’ as a Test Case,” Scan-
dinavian Journal of the Old Testament 17.1 (2003): 50-51. “. . . the meaning of a metaphor

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32 27

interpreters’ perception defines the theological construction done on the

basis of the text. In this phase of perception the metaphor and reader con-
nect with each other and pull on the elements with which the interpreter
is already acquainted. That connection brings the impression and regu-
lates what may be perceived. Consequently, some interpreters, based on
their experiences may be more apt to perceive certain images than others.
So for example, in the interpretation of Ezekiel 16 many interpreters do
not perceive the detrimental aspect of the relationship between the female
( Jerusalem) and the male (deity); yet these interpreters identify with the
voice of the text and attribute negative behaviors to female ( Jerusalem).23
Regarding Hosea 11 and Amos 4 many applaud Yhwh’s love as tolerant,
compassionate, and even long-suffering toward Israel while overlooking
the suffering imposed on Israel by the deity’s determination to maintain a
relationship.24
My effort above was to discern various dimensions and hence to widen
the range of possible hearings of yhwh’s call for Israel’s return. What fol-
lows is a synthesis of the investigation, looking first at the nature of the
call and second at the use of past experiences as rationale for the mode of
the call.

A. Nature of the call (invitation and/or threat)

The investigation of the text shows the place of the concept of Israel’s
return to Yhwh as a part of the larger conceptual framework of the text.
The use of metaphors promotes various images of the deity but also forms
the ideology of the writer/author. By using the metaphor, the writer relies
on the hearers for specific ideas being conveyed. The effectiveness of the
metaphor relies on the connection between the language of the text and
the understanding or making sense of the metaphor. Several images

is first raised when it is perceived by anyone. That means, interpretation of a metaphor is

erected through perception. The power of the metaphor to generate as impression of what
the text might wish to express has to be taken seriously.” (51)
23)
For further discussion about analogous images in Ezekiel 16 and Jeremiah 3-4 and
details about how various interpreters respond to the texts see: Day, “Rhetoric and Domes-
tic Violence,” 225-28; Mary E. Shields, “Circumcision of the Prostitute: Gender, Sexual-
ity, and the Call to Repentance in Jeremiah 3:1-4:4,” Biblical Interpretation 3.1 (1995):
61-74.
24)
E.g., Kathyrn Chapman, “Hosea 11:1-4—Images of a Loving Parent,” Review & Expos-
itor 90 (1993): 263-68 (esp. 264-65).

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
28 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32

converge in the conceptual framework that allows for viewing the text from
various vantage points. I propose two such vantage points or dimensions of
inquiry—namely the theo-political and the socio-domestic dimensions.

1. Theo-political dimensions
The concern about Israel’s relationship with other nations is about exclu-
sivity, dominance, and the expectation for loyalty. The ‘call to return’ is
political by nature as are all the texts that situate Israel existence in rela-
tionship to other nations. Israel’s desire for ‘exodus to Egypt’ is as much
about the political as about the relationship with the deity, thus the theo-
political aspect.25 From the perspective of Jeremiah 3-4, Israel cannot be
dependent on other nations and be exclusive to yhwh. One may then
ask, has there been a liberation from Egypt? The efforts to return or using
the return as a threat indicates that the liberation though in process was
incomplete. Memory and effort to return to Egypt are parts of one reality.
Memory of the past fuels desire for return there. Return from Egypt is
part of Yhwh’s promised restoration to Israel (Hos. 11:11). But the return
to Egypt is characteristic of Israel’s early history. It is as much a part of
Israel as the exodus out of Egypt.
In a theo-political reading, Egypt and Assyria while political entities
constitute the focus of Israel’s apostasy.26 The deity uses them as points of
reference to hold Israel to a standard of behavior. Whatever the extent, to
mention the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the annihilation of
Admah and Zeboiim is to threaten Israel with annihilation as a way of
getting Israel to return to yhwh.

25)
Walter Brueggemann, “At the Mercy of Babylon: A Subversive Rereading of the
Empire,” in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence, (ed., Martin Kessler;
Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 129-133. He discusses the theological and political
rhetoric and contends that “speech is characteristically and inevitably a political act, an
assertion of power that seeks to override some other rhetorical proposal of reality” (131).
26)
Else Kragelund Holt, Prophesying the Past: The Use of Israel’s History in the Book of Hosea
( JSOTSup194; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995), 130-32. Holt discusses Ezekiel
16 perspective on Jerusalem as the unfaithful woman, noting that Ezek 16:1-43 as a part
of the “finding in the wilderness” tradition and more specifically an election tradition. Cf.
Day, “Rhetoric and Domestic Violence,” 205-230; Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes, “The
Metaphorization of Woman in Prophetic Speech: an Analysis of Ezekiel xxiii,” VT 43
(1993): 162-70.

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32 29

2. The socio-domestic dimensions

Within this dimension, the motivation for Israel to return to Yhwh is
external pressure from the deity as compared to the internal motivation to
meet a need by returning to Egypt or staying away from Yhwh. The eco-
nomic dependence of a woman on a man tends to facilitate that woman’s
staying in a relationship. Seeking help from others may indicate the readi-
ness to leave, to find alternate means of support apart from the abuser.
The abuser in some instances may ignore the abused until she is desperate
for help or the abuser may create conditions so that the abused is solely
depended on the abuser for help. Should we not also consider this as a
part of the conceptual framework of Amos 4? The horror of the character-
ization is the image of yhwh as the agent who devastates. Yet another
horror even as difficult to endure is embracing the violence against the
people whom God claims to have selected, and the blatant justification of
God’s actions as the right of the deity to punish a disobedient people or
covenant partner.
The pattern of a batterer stopping the coercive behavior when compli-
ance is achieved may also be seen in the portrayal of yhwh’s call for Isra-
el’s return. Listening to the voice of Yhwh through the prophet we are
apt to be deaf to the implications of the deity’s actions on Israel. Or per-
haps we hear the implications and defend yhwh because we may perceive
all actions done by the deity to be justified or at the least acceptable.27
Thus we may argue that Israel’s behavior lead to God’s judgment and that
God punished to teach a lesson. In this understanding, the punishment is
justified as a way of teaching a lesson. But from the socio-domestic view,
punishment is coercive and dare I say abusive. The text is not horrified by
the claim. It is noticeably silent about Israel’s fear. But does the reader
now hear the horror of the claim and understand why Israel would fear
God and resist returning to God?

B. Use of history as the basis of the call

Both Hoses 11 and Amos 4 use the past to justify Yhwh’s actions and the
implicit command to return. The ‘call to return’ is command—that is, the

27)
Cf. Richard D. Patterson, “Parental Love as Metaphor for Divine-human Love,” JETS
46.2 (2003): 205-216 (esp. 210). He argues for the punishment as a way of teaching Israel
a lesson.

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
30 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32

formulation and mode of the address. As with any command the respon-
sibility lies on the recipient to adhere to or to reject the command. To
adhere would mean to conform to the expectations inherent in the com-
mand. Thus for the deity to command Israel to return would be to com-
municate the expectation that Israel would. Presumably, the language
suggests that Israel was with yhwh and diverted from yhwh. To return
means a change of course. The image of Israel as prostitute in Jeremiah
3-4 reflects the situation of going away from God. Accordingly, Jer. 3-4
depicts the background wherein even the ancestors went away from yhwh
(cf. Zech. 1:3-4 and Mal. 3:6-7). The command therefore recognizes a
long-term separation of God and God’s people during which time the
people persisted in their behavior—following other gods, etc.—while yhwh
persisted in chasing after Israel.
At first glance, the deity’s persistence may appear appealing for those
who perceive the persistence as an act of love. Upon closer inspection and
not denying love as a reason for the persistence, the behavior appears
less appealing in light of the nature of the persistence and the intended
effects on Israel. God punishes Israel based on Israel’s misbehavior. The
text makes this connection and presents it as just, putting the deity in the
right and the less powerful (voiceless) in the wrong. I have noted this cor-
respondence between accusation and announcement of judgment with
the awareness of the conceptual framework where the link may be deemed
just. But the clarification of who voices the intended destruction is like-
wise part of the portrayal. At once the contrast is between the dominant
being and the small and defiant people. The juxtaposition brings about
the profundity of the horror and an admiration of the resistance (however
futile).
Can we simply dismiss the coercive behaviors because the deity does
them? It is the divinity of yhwh that accentuates the horror and the rea-
son for Israel to be afraid. While I do not deny God’s love, I question the
wholesomeness of that love and assert that that love not be romanticized.
Yhwh’s call for Israel’s return is usually coercive and threatening; none-
theless that call is representative of God’s character.

Conclusion
Who is threatening the relationship between the deity and Israel? Israel
seems to behave as it wishes. God is challenged by Israel’s behavior and

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32 31

seeks to change Israel. One option would be to accept Israel as is and to

deal with all the dimensions of Israel’s memory—namely, of the dual sig-
nificance of Egypt and the natural tendency to be influenced by one’s sur-
roundings (namely, the process of acculturation). The alternative is what
we see in the Yhwh-Israel relationship depicted in the prophetic literature
and elsewhere. The Deity attempts to control Israel even to the point of
severest punishment and annihilation. By these actions, the relationship is
also maintained but is tumultuous at best. The Deity appears to be angry,
abusive, and to whatever extent the deity loves Israel, that love is filtered
through promises, threats, and punitive actions. The restoration of Israel
while seeming to be part of God’s desire for relationship may be an attempt
to control. I surmise that the basis of Israel’s motivation while it is not
stated may be “fear of God”—the horror of being close to a being who
can, has, and does punish at will. These are all choices of the Deity, to
love, punish, not to punish, to stay, to leave, to abandon, to restore the
covenant with Israel. Israel’s resistance to ‘return to’ yhwh’s is defined by
the relationship. Israel’s resistance may be part of the realization that the
relationship with the deity, on the deity’s terms, does not result in a prob-
lem-free existence, and that maybe life apart from the deity could be just
as good if not better. The concept of yhwh’s call for Israel’s return belongs
to this complex conceptual framework of yhwh’s desire to restore a reluc-
tant Israel to a tumultuous relationship.
The destruction of Israel is also a distinctive aspect of the relationship.
Perhaps the identity of yhwh is also affected by the nature and existence of
the relationship, namely, the one with whom yhwh has selected to have a
focused committed relationship has rejected yhwh and yhwh has punished
and threatened the ‘selected’ covenant partner. Yet the threat to annihilate
is tempered. Is God’s hesitance due to God’s dependence on the relation-
ship with Israel? This examination looked at the vulnerability of the Deity
in wanting the relationship with Israel—but that vulnerability is part of the
abuse pattern that defines the yhwh-Israel relationship. This examination
concludes that the ‘return’ to yhwh is part of the prophetic portrayal of
passion and mutability of the Deity, just as capable of love as of annihilat-
ing the object of that love. Might the persistence to punish be a reflection
of yhwh’s perceived failure in the relationship, namely that Israel’s misbe-
haviors reflect badly on God—whether as parent or as spouse?28

28)
Stuart Lasine, (“Divine Narcissism and Yahweh’s Parenting Style,” Biblical Interpretation

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute
32 M.R. Jacobs / Horizons in Biblical Theology 32 (2010) 17-32

This investigation highlights God’s grasp to maintain control in a rela-

tionship with Israel and the basis of the call, invitation, and threat for
Israel’s return. Also highlighted is Israel’s refusal to return exercised as
resistance and struggle for release from the relationship with the deity.
Returning to the questions posed at the beginning of this discussion:
How is YHWH characterized with regard to behavioral and rational dynam-
ics toward Israel? What is the place of recalling the past in the call for Israel’s
‘return’? How do the past and the nature of the YHWH-Israel relationship define
Israel’s behaviors?
I conclude that since the concept of return to yhwh is fundamentally
about relationship and specifically about the behaviors of the parties in
that relationship:

• that the one calling for the return sets the criteria for the return
(what constitutes the return).
• that whether as an invitation or threat, by issuing the call for return,
yhwh reveals the desire to Israel and thus displays Yhwh’s character-
istics and expectations about the relationship.
• that the past, present and future are intertwined in the call for return
and determines yhwh’s course of action, the extent of the actions,
and the range of Israel’s response to the call for return.
• that yhwh’s persistent call for return likewise portrays the divine-
human relationship and in this portrayal a power dynamic. In this
portrayal, Israel’s response to yhwh’s call for return is understand-
able. It is understandable that Israel resists a relationship defined by
control and exclusivity.

10 [2002]: 36-56) notes that part of the narcissism of parents is a concern about how the
child’s behavior reflects upon the parent. In particular, the model of parent-child applied
to God and Israel raises questions about how Israel’s behavior as God’s elect reflects on
God and how then God’s behavior towards Israel is also defined by that dynamic. Cf.
idem, Knowing Kings: Knowledge, Power, and Narcissism in the Hebrew Bible (Atlanta: Soci-
ety of Biblical Literature, 2001).

Downloaded from Brill.com05/28/2021 01:21:29PM

via Pontifical Biblical Institute