Engaging the Doctrine of Marriage. Matthew Levering

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ views of women.”

      93. Frishman, “Why Would a Man Want to Be Anyone’s Wife?,” 44. Bromiley offers some cautions in this regard: not only is it true that “the prophetic understanding of God as the husband of Israel obviously does not conform to the actual situation in normal human marriages,” but also “[s]ome prophets do not use the comparison with marriage at all. Even in those who do, it occupies only a relatively small amount of space. Hosea, for whom it has a shattering significance, still uses his lively poetic imagination to describe the people not only as an unfaithful wife but also as silly doves (7:11), a stubborn heifer (4:16), and even a half-baked cake (7:8). For Hosea, Israel is also a luxuriant vine (10:1) and a refractory child (11:1). Ezekiel can also give very realistic depictions of the actual sins and idolatries committed by the people (see 8:7). Jeremiah, too, uses the metaphor of disobedient children (3:14) and an implied comparison with scattered sheep (3:15) in the very same context in which he speaks of the unfaithful wife. God himself appears not only as the faithful husband of unfaithful Israel but also as the good shepherd (Jer. 23:3; Ezek. 34:11), the father (Isa. 64:8), the liberator (Isa. 40), and the mother (Isa. 66:13)” (Bromiley, God and Marriage, 33).

      94. As will be clear, I read the biblical texts as a canonical unity formed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. By contrast, for a historicist view of the biblical texts, see for example Muir, “Accessing Divine Power and Status.” See also Troeltsch’s “Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology.” Soloveitchik aptly observes, “When we study the Bible, we must be concerned about two things. We must understand the semantics of the word, and we must understand the spiritual message of the Bible. There is an enormous literature of biblical criticism, and the problem with that literature is that it completely misses the spiritual message” (Abraham’s Journey, 17).

      95. For critical discussion, see Shields, Circumscribing the Prostitute; Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors.

      96. Peggy L. Day warns against “reconstructing alleged social reality” on the basis of such biblical texts, and specifically she shows that it is a mistake to conclude from texts such as Hosea 2:4–5 that “prostitutes and adulteresses in ancient Israel were stripped naked as a punishment for engaging in these activities” (Day, “Metaphor and Social Reality,” 63). See also Day, “Adulterous Jerusalem’s Imagined Demise.”

      97. For a sharp critique of Hosea, see Moughtin-Mumby, Sexual and Marital Metaphors, 206–68. In an effort to redeem the prophetic text, Moughtin-Mumby states that “we could argue that it is Israel who has taken the initiative to break the relationship with YHWH, leaving him to plead for her return, rather than YHWH who is banishing his passive wife. On this reading, the relationship between YHWH and Israel remains a deeply unhealthy and damaging one, and Israel is left playing the far from ideal role of ‘prostitute’, underscoring just how problematic is this troubling text even for resistant readers” (Sexual and Marital Metaphors, 266). Sadly, the practice of physical abuse of wives by husbands is explicitly permitted (though also limited) by the Qur’ān: see al-Kawthari, Al-Arba‘īn, 97–98.

      98. White, The Light of Christ, 273. See also Kerr, Immortal Longings, although White and Kerr differ regarding Henri de Lubac’s particular understanding of the natural desire.

      99. Mark J. Boda remarks that the entirety of the Old Testament (joined by the New) reveals “God’s plan to form a redemptive community” and “God’s plan to transform all creation” (Boda, The Heartbeat of Old Testament Theology, 8).

      100. Augustine, Confessions, trans. Chadwick, I.i.1, p. 3. See also Keating, Deification and Grace; Hofer, ed., Divinization.

      101. Levenson, The Love of God, 113.

      102. Levenson, The Love of God, 114.

      103. Thomas Aquinas describes marriage as the greatest friendship: see Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, Book Three: Providence, trans. Bourke, ch. 123, p. 148.

      104. Pitre, Jesus the Bridegroom, 8.

      105. Sarna, Exploring Exodus, 134.

      106. Pitre, Jesus the Bridegroom, 10. See Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 337.

      107. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 338.

      108. See Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 139–41.

      109. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 172.

      110. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 41. See Cross, “Kinship and Covenant in Ancient Israel”; McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant; McCarthy, “Notes on the Love of God in Deuteronomy.”

      111. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 37.

      112. Hahn, Kinship by Covenant, 31. Hahn’s proposal is quite complex, and all its elements need not be correct to ground the basic validity of his insight. In terms of the complex details of his proposal, a significant element is his sharp distinction between a “Sinai” covenant (broken by the Golden Calf incident) and a “Deuteronomic” covenant. He argues that “God’s initial relationship with Israel at Sinai was a kinship-type covenant, with an emphasis on mutuality and familial relationship,” whereas in the post-Golden Calf Deuteronomic covenant “Israel’s father-son relationship with God remains intact, but it takes on the character of a master-servant relationship, like that between a suzerain and rebellious vassal” (Kinship by Covenant, 32). I see much less disjunction, but I can understand why he arrives at this view.

      113. Pitre, Jesus the Bridegroom, 11.

      114. Pitre, Jesus the Bridegroom, 11.

      115. Dozeman, Exodus, 704.

      116. Dozeman, Exodus, 705.

      117. Pitre, Jesus the Bridegroom, 17.

      118. СКАЧАТЬ