2.9 METAPHORICAL LANGUAGE IN THE OT
2.9.1.5 Jeremiah
According to Brueggemann (1992:14,15) Jeremiah reflects a robust view ofYHWH. This is evident in Jeremiah's "liberated speech about God, his rich metaphorical language which honors no convention" for instance presented in Jer 2:2 as the abandoned bridegroom; in 2:13 as the fountain ofliving water; in 3:19 as a betrayed father; in 5:6 as a lion, a wolf, a leopard; in 8: 18 as a man with heart trouble; and in 18: 1 ff as a potter who discards mistakes and start over again. By means of imaginative poetry and rich metaphorical language, YHWH is presented as "a free, passionate God who presses Israel's speech to its imaginative limit" (PIS). Holladay (1989 2:77) comments that Jeremiah, although an unmarried man, speaks remarkably 'tenderly of women' and 'has an eye for a woman' as reflected in his use of metaphorical expressions. In his application of the marriage metaphor, he prefers the bride image and avoids harsh and ugly judgmental language in contrast to Hosea and Ezekiel. When using harlotry accusations he quickly passes over it. However, against the background of conflict, as proposed by Seitz (1989:3 and 6), Jeremiah's usage of metaphorical language reflects conflict: conflict within YHWH, between YHWH and the people and vice versa, conflict between the prophet,
himself and YHWH, and YHWH, his prophet and Israel regarding many issues including their idolatrous practices, and finally, conflict between YHWH, his prophet and the gods.
2.9.2 Deliberate makers of metaphor?
The question arises: Were the prophets aware of the fact that they were implementing metaphors and similes in their effort to describe God and his message? In answering this question, Korpel (1990:82) says:
"it is possible to demonstrate that writers of the holy texts of both Ugarit and Israel knew perfectly well that it is impossible to describe the divine in any adequate, realistic way. They managed as well as they could with human, every-day language, and they did so in a more or less systematic way. "
Korpel1further demonstrates by means of examples from the OT [e.g. the 'warrior' -God (Isa 42: 13) and 'fire' regarding theophany] that writers knowingly used similes and metaphors, but were also aware of the fact that it renders no satisfactory descriptions (e.g.
the visions and terminology of Ezekiel questioned by himself and the people).
2.9.3 Religious 'network' and 'root' metaphors
The above brief discussion illustrates that the OT prophetic literature and its authors were quite familiar with and competent in their handling of the multi-dimensional uses of metaphor. However, in addition, they were also skilled in implementing metaphors in a network or chain. Riccoeur (1976:64), in his effort to explain the relation between metaphor and symbol, makes the following important statement regarding network metaphors:
"One metaphor, in effect, calls for another and each one stays alive by conserving its power to evoke the whole network. Thus within the Hebraic tradition God is called King, Father, Husband, Lord, Shepherd, and Judge as well as Rock, Fortress, Redeemer, and Suffering Servant. The network engenders what we can call root
IKorpeI1990:86,87 and 620,621.
metaphors, metaphors which, on the one hand, have the power to bring together the partial metaphors borrowed from the diverse fields of our experience and thereby to assure them a kind of equilibrium. On the other hand, they have the ability to engender a conceptual diversity, I mean, an unlimited number of potential interpretations at a conceptual level. Root metaphors assemble and scatter. They assemble subordinate images together, and they scatter concepts at a higher level.
They are the dominant metaphors capable of both engendering and organizating a network that serves as a junction between the symbolic level with its slow evolution and the more volatile metaphorical level. "
In the same vein, Tracy (1979:89) comments that it is commonly accepted that all major religions are grounded in certain root metaphors. Such root metaphors "form a cluster or network in which certain sustained metaphors both organize subsidiary metaphors and diffuse new ones. These networks describe the enigma and promise of the human situation and prescribe certain remedies for the situation. " He argues that it is of vital importance that the study of metaphor and more specifically, the religious and theological use of metaphor, must receive more attention from scholars. The treatment of metaphors as 'decorative' substitution, mere 'stand-ins' for a 'real' literal meaning, has marked the history of Christian exegesis and preaching (p90). Fortunately, the interest and the approach to root metaphors changed for the good, due to shifts in hermeneutical methods and other factors. This resulted in a change from the substitution to modem interaction or tension theories in the analysis of metaphor, viewing it as productive of meaning (P95).
Soskice (1985: 112) makes a meaningful contribution to the topic by stating that in practice Christians tend to elevate one root metaphor (which she calls model) above others as central to their understanding and experience of their relationship to God. For example, the model of God as 'Father' in the NT is central for many compared to God as 'Judge', or 'King'. This is due to the fact that the model of God as 'Father' is more personal and intimate, and it provides them with an explanatory basis as well as a depiction of the reality of their relationship with him. The comment is also applicable to OT exegesis and theology reflecting a history of efforts to centralise one or other concept, to list a few, such as 'covenant' (Eichrodt), 'Kingdom' (Klein), 'God's Lordship' (K6hler, regards the ruler
ship and kingship as mere corollaries to His Lordship), 'communion between god and man' (Vriezen).l
Although scientists claimed in the past that they can only rely on empirical truth and therefore insisted on precise literal formulations, science, like theology, rests upon tentative and hypothetical metaphors, according to Mac Cormac (1976:99). He illustrates this by comparing basic root metaphors used in science and theology discourses. Science used the root metaphor, the 'world-as-organism,' up to the nineteenth century when a major shift to the 'world-as-process' as root metaphor has occurred. In the same fashion, Christian religion used the root metaphor 'religion-is-the-objective-truth-in-the-Bible'.
Subsequently it changed to 'experience-of-the-divine-in-human-life' (Schleiermacher), which led to the apologetic root metaphor 'religion-is-a-personal experience.' Mac Cormac (p98ff) concludes that both science and religion involve human experience, and neither could flourish without the language of metaphor. Because both must convey ideas of the unknown, both have the need to change and create new terminology, and offer new ways of understanding by means of conceiving analogies from existing knowledge and experience.