The Study of the triad Pathos-Logos-Ethos in Hosea from a sub-Saharan African perspective

CHAPTER TWO

2. COMPARISON OF THE CONCEPTS OF PATHOS, LOGOS AND ETHOS BElWEEN HOSEA AND SUB-SAHARAN AFRICAN CULTURE

2.3 The Study of the triad Pathos-Logos-Ethos in Hosea from a sub-Saharan African perspective

Rebuke your mother, rebuke her, for she is not my wife, and I am not her husband. Let her remove the adulterous look from her face and the unfaithfulness from between her breasts.

Otherwise I will strip her naked and make her as bare as on the day she was born; I will make her like a desert, turn her into a parched land, and slay her with thirst. (Hosea 2:2-3)

Previously we looked at scholars' treatment of the question of metaphor in both secular and biblical literature. Here, we would like to approach it once more in connection both with the sub-Saharan African context, and with the text of Hosea. The biblical poetic text arouses various reactions among scholars and the debate around it is extensive. T-his brings us to the question of the betrayal of God. Both thepremiere vue³³ and a careful reading of this prophetic text raise the serious problem of ethics. The God defended by classical theologians becomes strange and the pathos of this God is in conflict with His ethic. In the text of Hosea, the holy God becomes the harlot, if we would consider seriously the reality of the covenant which displays the deep meaning of marriage. Here, God the husband has intercourse with the harlot and together they beget the children of

33The:firstsight.

adultery. The divine imperative for unconditional love becomes quite obvious when we read Hosea about the feelings that God displays as a betrayed husband. In the text, the voice of God expresses the sorrow of someone who is oppressed, and above all, is reduced to nothing (Hosea 1-3). lndeed, the text leads us to remark that in the place of love, God is abused (c£. Geisler 1971:73), and hence, He becomes aggressive and imbalanced (cf Hosea 2: 1-3).

It is regrettable that the monotheist scholars mostly insist on monogamy. Itis true that the Torah, as Jewish and Western classic theologians interpret it, emphasizes monogamy. But Hosea introduces another dynamic into the religious sphere. Perhaps this new dynamic means that in the religious sphere polygamy also opens the door for polyandry. As is known, polygamy is the way that the chauvinists of patriarchal societies justify both on one hand, the maximum exploitation of fertility because no fertility field should remain fallow and on the other uncontrolled sexual appetites. Men of these societies, where such practices are allowed, falsely viewed intercourse as love, thus, confirming their masculinity and power over women. But ifGod, in Hosea, as a supposed faithful husband has the liberty to chose Assyria, Babylon and Persia as other spouses, why cannot this right be given to Israel? We learn to be faithful by suffering the pains of betrayal and it seems that God is no exception. The new religious dynamic introduced by Hosea with a very subtle shift moves us to believe that the dehumanization of women extended into the religious sphere. Because the weakness of woman implies the weakness of man, the man of moral character becomes ironically weak in relation to the woman. Indeed, in

ID' opposition to what feminist and other protest theologians think, here Hosea stands\f

f

^·'Il,

l

- .... J,

sadistically led their victims to believe that they were rulers, and stronger than Hosea. In Baalism, apparently, women were as nothing and men obsessively engaged in violent sexual practice. But we think, once again, that the text of Hosea undermines such male arrogance.

Hosea warned the people against this illusion and against the sexual abuse that this illusion that sexual dominance was a source of power and against the eroticism that the devotees of Baal introduced into Yahwehism. But in Israel, men practised polygamy, without either the objection of women or strict Biblical condemnation (cf Deuteronomy 24: 1-4 and Mark 10: 1-12), as occurs in sub-Saharan Africa today. Ifpolygamy satisfies the ego of both men, and of God, as has been observed above, how is it that promiscuity and above all, polyandry causes suffering for men, and for God? Can fidelity not be required from both: the man and the woman and from God and Israel? Another ethical issue is that, ifGod found that Israel was unfaithful as His spouse, why did He not opt for a divorce? Geiseler (1971:207) says: ''Divorce is always wrong. The rule is this: a permanent, abiding, and unique relation is always right". He refers to the Bible by arguing that: "The scriptures are concerned with the permanence of marriage. The rule is to keep a unique love relationship going at all costs as long as it does not mean the perpetuation of an evil or lesser good in favor of greater good". We regret two things at this point: firstly, the fact that such ethical analysis tends to confirm the marital philosophy, as it is lived in sub-Saharan Africa, in which the woman remains an eternal slave due to the groom's marriage settlemenr⁴ system; and secondly, the fact that there

34 Wight (1978:127-128) uses the word dowry which is not correct because it carries on the opposite meaning of the true idea ofgroom's marriage settlementordot.

are few traces of the idea of marital interaction between God and the sub-Saharan African people in the religious sphere (cf Ephirim-Donkor 1998: 49-68i⁵•

It is true that for most sub-Saharan African religions, God is paradoxically father and mother. This double role of being father and mother or, in other words, being the guide and the provider does not mean that there is not sufficient proof to convince Israel to be faithful in marriage. Perhaps it is for this reason that Benezet Bujo (er Bujo in Balembo 1987:76) failed to face this question from both an ontological, and an anthropological perspective. Theologians commonly avoid involving God in adultery. Whatever the case, in focusing on the issue of the marital bond between God and Israel, the ethical question that any curious reader would raise would be whether Yahweh did unite Himself with Israel and blessed this marital bond? Before responding to such a question, we have to consider Heschel's (1996.voI2: 55) point that:

There are two pitfalls in our religious understanding: the humanization ofGod and the anesthetization of God. Both threaten our understanding of the ethical integrity of God's will. Humanization leads to the conception of God as the ally of the people, though the anesthetization of God would reduceHimto amystery.

In the case of our study, the possibility of the anesthetization of God is dismissed because we prefer the tautegorical to the analogical way of thinking. For the analogical way of thinking or objective dimension God is Atheopathetikos. God is the Theopathetikos in the

tautegorical or trans-objective dimension; because of this the anesthetization of God is excluded. We opt, thus, for the humanization of God by virtue of themarital affective drama found in the text. Thismeans that, from the perspective of patriarchy and the Sinai covenant, it is God who, paradoxically, blesses the marriage between Israel and Himself and unites Himself with Israel (cf Genesis 15 and Exodus 19-20). This is true because before the Torah the covenant was in existence (cf Heschel 1996.vol 2: 10). Then God's relationship with His partner was one of benevolence and affection, as Heschel says (cf Heschel

1996.voI2: 10). Comparing the covenant and love Heschel (1996.voI2: 10) asserts:

Anterior to the covenant is love, the love of the fathers (Deuteronomy 4: 37; 10: 15), and what obtains between God and Israel must be understood, not as a legal, but as a personal relationship, as participation, involvement, tension.

The covenant is an extraordinary act, establishing a reciprocal relation between God andman; it is conceived as a juridical commitment.

Inthe same way Neher (1955: 266-267) argues that:

Dne alliance entre les hommes et Dieu est une berit au meme titre qu' une alliance entre les hommes et d' autres hommes.

Mais le hesed de cette berit, la manifestation de son existence, ne peut pas etre juridique seulement, ni meme exclusivement morale. Elle a quelque chose d'affectif et d'intuitif Lorsque Dieu accorde une alliance

a

des hommes, le fait en soi constitue une grace; il a quelque chose d'exorbitant, d' incomprehensible. Auss~ la metaphore conjugale s' impose t-elle avec force et logique pour decrne cette alliance. Entre Dieu et Israel, il yale meme hesed qu' entre un homme et sa fiancee, un homme et son epouse. La relation conjugale, au sens plein que lui donnent les prophetes, ne s'epuise ni dans le contrat de mariage, ni dans la fidelite des conjoints, mais dans la connaissance (Os 2:22),

c'est a dire clans la rencontre d' amour et de fecondation.

C'est la le hesed desamants36.

Then what is the affective meaning of hesed des amants or, in other words, what does this language oflove mean in Hosea? Neher (1955:251) respondsby suggesting that:

n

signifie d' abord que lacormaissance accordee par leroah n' est pas seu1ement intime et penen-ante comme l'est toute connaissance sexuelle. S' agissant de la rencontre entre le divin et l' humain, la connaissance est d' ordre conjugal et . son symbole recouvre deux notions: ala fidelite constante de deux etres differencies par leurs sexes, s' ajoute le lien tout aussi constant de deux etres que peuvent temporairement separer l'espace ou la discordance de leurs sentiments. L' amour conjugal diff'ere du simple amour sexuel, entre autres, par sa persistance au dela de l' acte de rencontre. Meme separes par l' infini del' espace ou par l' infini du temps, les epoux se connaissent par la meme force d' amour. Et meme lorsque le sentiment del' amour vient a flechir chez l' un des

epoux,

^it suffit qu' it reste intense chez l' autre pour que la

1 · d' . 37

re anon amour reste acqwse .

He proceedsby arguing that

36A covenant between men and God is aberitinthe samewaythat we have a covenant between men and other men. But thehesedof thisberit,the evidence of its existence, cannot be simply a legal matter nor even nor exclusively a moral one. Thereisin it something intuitive and emotional. When God grants man a covenantthisfact in itself constitutes a grace andthiscovenant hidden something incomprehensible about it. Thus the conjugal metaphor of conjugality suggests itself strongly or logicallytodescribe this covenant.

Between God and Israel thereisthe samehesedas exists between a man and his betratled, a man andhis wife. The conjugal bond, inthisfull sense according to the prophets,ismorethansimply a homage contract or the fidelity of the of the partners to one to other, it lies in the knowledge (Hosea 2:22) which means the encounter of love and fertilization. This is what means thehesedof lovers.

37First ofallit implies that the knowledge granted by theruah, is not only intimate and penetrating as a kind of sexual knowledge. Inthe matter of the encounter between the divine and the human being, knowledge can bedescribedas conjugal bond and this comprises two concepts: to the enduring fidelity of two beings of different sex, must be added the equally constant bond of tow beings who may be temporary divided by space or the discord of their emotions. Conjugal love differs from the simple sexual love, by its

Le symbolisme conjugal perrnet ainsi de decrire non seulement une alliance, c' est

a

dire une communication entre deux &res, mais une veritable dialectique de l' alliance. Car, d' une part, celle-ci reJie deux &resqui restent necessairement differents, en tant qu' individualites sexuelles, mais qui sont perpetuellement ressemblants par l' identite de l' amour qu' ils eprouventl' un pour l' autre; et, d' autre part, la relation conjugale implique un jeu de proximite et de distance, de jaillissement et de lassitude, de connaissance et d' infidelite, qui la rattaehent

a

^{un etemel}

mouvement. Ce mouvement ou, si l' on prerere, ce caractere dramatique du symbolisme conjugal, est decisif dans l' adoption du symbole par la Bible. Celle-ci y trouve une resource pour exprimer ce qui, dans sa conception generale du monde, est essentiellement mouvant et dramatique: l' histoire³⁸.

From Heschel's and Neher's perspectives it is, thus, possible to deduce that the maritalbond was a new meta-historical act. Ifone partner breaks the unique marital relation by sexually joining himselfor herself to another, then both the permanence and uniqueness of the bond is broken, as Geisler explains (cf Geisler 1971: 207). Indeed, Geisler's point is applied to the case of Gomer in Hosea. We can argue that the permanence of the marital bond transcends the ethical dimension and goes into the affective. Heschel (1990.vol 2: 10) affinns this by saying that pathos is more than the mere fact ofestablishing a covenant. He argues that pathos implies a constant concern and involvement (cf Vanhoozer 1990:62); it is conceived as an emotional engagement (cf Heschel 1996.vo12: 10). Ifwe understand Heschel's argument, then divorce in this case, is not a pathetic issue. It concerns the covenant, in which only two forms of relationship between God and the people are possible:

the maintenance or the dissolution ofthe covenant (cf ibid. 1990.vo12: 10).

38The symbolism of conjugality helps to describe not only a covenant, meaning a communicative bond between two beings, but a veritable dialectic of covenant. For, a one hand, the covenant unities two beings who remain essentially different, inthatthey are sexual individuals, but who are forever similar because of the love. They bear each other on the other hand the conjugal relationship implies a game of proximity and distance, enjoyment and lassitude, surging and infidelity which ties it to perpetual movement. Because of thismovement, orifyou prefer,thisdramaticnatureof the symbol of conjugality, ithasbeen adoptedby

Bujo (Bujo in Balembo 1987: 99) suggests another interesting point, which is that of the existence of the marital bond as marriage par etapes. This means maniage which goes through a long process and takes a long time to reach fruition Such mani.age starts from the day of public engagement to the day of the birth of thefirstson or daughter. The community fixes the day of birth of the son or daughter as the time of the fruition because they would like to be sure that the woman who is involved in this marital bond is not sterile. Ifwe would be honest with Bujo, this type of marital bond implies two things: the perpetual domination ofman and the painful slavery ofwoman.

According to our Vlew, this understanding is not essential to the sub-Saharan African culture, which is closer to the tautegorical or trans-objective dimension and is not mere legalism. Indeed, Bujo (cf Bujo in Balembo 1987: 99-101) fails to consider the psychological damage that an obsolete ritual such as a groom's maniage settlement causes to a woman because he wrongly assumes that it is concerned about women's well being (cf Drewal and Drewal 1990: 73-75). Ifin sub-Saharan African traditional society the end of the marital process is linked to the proof of infertility, in the modern situation this criterion becomes arbitrary: we now know that a man can also be sterile. Also, the criteria of using the birth of a son or daughter, as the mainstay of the affective bond is a display of flagrant chauvinism. The period of putting all the guilt on the woman and using her as a mere slave is over. Analyzing the consequences of a breakinthe marital bond, from the psychological prism of Gaston Berger, we can perceive that such a break-up of relationship causes the co- partners to become inactive and apathetic, as Gaston Berger (1965: 65) observes:

Os nao-emotivos inativos Mo tern, por assim dizer, _r~o pessoal. Seguem os habitos ou obedecem

as

circunstancias...

E

natural que sejam os menos afetados. Os ap3.ticos comportar

-se-ao,

relativamente

as

foryas extrenas que se exercem sObre e1es, como se estas fossem uma mao muito pesada, cuja traject6ria e dificil modificar. Seu

peso-

isto e, a resistencia de seus h3bitos-garante-lhes a independencia e uma autonomia proporcional em rela~o ao meio. Sua forma de adaptar-se

e

iporar, deixar agir, fingir-se de morto, sua forcra e adainercia3 .

We have some reservations about Berger's allegations being necessarily applicable in the case of our thesis, because, evenifdivorce fits in such a sphere, as we assert above, westill believe that, in the Torah, in a marital bond both partners have feelings and responsibility;

they are not moved like mere straw. That iswhy, for our thesis, we think. that the affective interpretation of a legalistic either-or ethic has to be replaced by a dynamic multiplicity of either-may be relationships (cf Heschel 1996.vo12: 10). This latter viewis similar to that of the sub-Saharan African people and, particularly, the Bantu. Mulago (1980: 175) defines this ethic thus: "Est une ethique vitale, non legaliste ou juridique elle est au service de la vie',4(). The same sub-Saharan African ethic is sustained by continuous and sincere affective dialogue (A6'Yos), in spite of tension, interference and risk^41. The question that follows is how ethics is seen in the text ofHosea?

dramatic: human history.

39 The no-emotional inactive persons do not express personal feelings. They just follow or obey which the circumstances determine. Forthat reason what people do often not affect them. Inopposite to them, the apathetic persons are oftenaffectedbythe external influences,these external forcesrepresent a heavy hand placed upon them and they fuce difficulties to change their decisions. This external hand or force also representstheapathetic mechanism of defensetoresistagainsthis or her own behaviour. Most ofthetimethis resistance guarantees to the apathetic person independence and a proportional autonomy inrelation to his environment The apathetic person preferstoignore whathappenaroundhim,feigntobeabsentanddead.His forceisinertia

40This ethic is a vital ethic, itisnot legalistic or juridical and itis usedfor life.

41 It is lamentable that Geisler did not explore as Christian his patheticaspectinhis valuablewritingon Ethicalconcerns.

I willnot showmylove to her children, becausethey are the children of adultery. Their motherhasbeen unfaithful and has conceived"them in disgrace. She said, I will go after my lovers, who give memyfood andmywater, mywool and my linen, my oil and my drink. She has not acknowledged that I was the one who gave her the grain, the new wine and oil, who lavished on her the silver and gold which they used for Baal... So now I will expose her lewdness before the eyes of her lovers; no one will take her out of my hands.... I will punish her for the days she burned incense to the Baals; she decked herself with rings and jewelry, and went after her lovers, but me she forgot, declares the LORD. (Hosea 2:4-13)

In our pursuit of the analysisof characters, the above text shows two serious and conflicting problems in the study of characters. We have, on the one hand, the spouse who is amorphous and of unstable personality. On one other hand, we have the man who is phlegmatic. In the text, this woman represents a feminine version of King Solomon. She breaks the chain of male oppression and, as amorphous as sheis, unfortunately falls in the pitfall of the abuse of liberty. However, before considering her character and her libertine attitude, this woman raises serious ethical questions about the use of hberty. From an existentialist point of view and, specifically, to borrow a Sartrean phrase, Gomer seems to betant6t libre et tant6t esclave⁴²(cf Sartre 1949: 516). Sartre (1949: 518) saysthat:

Desormais l' ensemble du mieos determine sera neeessaire- ment saisi par la spontanime comme un pur transcendent, c'est

a

dire comme ce qui estneeessairement dehors, comme ce qui n' est pas elle. Cette negation interne n'aurait donc pour efi'et que de fondre le mieos dans le monde et it existerait, pour une libre spontaneite qui serait

a

^{la fois}

volonte et conscience, comme un object quelconque au milieudumonde^43.

42Paradoxicallyafreepersonandaslaveone.

43But then the spontaneitywillexist preciselyonlyinsofaras it denies concerning itselfthatitispassions.