Table of Contents
Comments
Commenters2
The most common biblical word for a woman’s womb is raḥam. The word for God’s love or compassion is raḥamim. This looks like the plural of raḥam. James Barr’s powerful warning against the “etymological fallacy”, assuming that the origin of words tells us their meaning, is still valid,22 so we must not exaggerate the connection between these words. However, Phyllis Trible notices two stories suggesting deeper than etymological connections between raḥam and raḥamim.23
The most common biblical word for a woman’s womb is raḥam. The word for God’s love or compassion is raḥamim. This looks like the plural of raḥam. James Barr’s powerful warning against the “etymological fallacy”, assuming that the origin of words tells us their meaning, is still valid,22 so we must not exaggerate the connection between these words. However, Phyllis Trible notices two stories suggesting deeper than etymological connections between raḥam and raḥamim.233
When Joseph’s brothers appear a second time in Egypt, Benjamin’s presence is important. He is Rachel’s other son. In Genesis 43:29-30 Joseph looks up and sees “his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son”. Only then do we read of “his heart yearning” (raḥamim) for his brother. The text associates raḥamim and “mother”.
When Joseph’s brothers appear a second time in Egypt, Benjamin’s presence is important. He is Rachel’s other son. In Genesis 43:29-30 Joseph looks up and sees “his brother Benjamin, his mother’s son”. Only then do we read of “his heart yearning” (raḥamim) for his brother. The text associates raḥamim and “mother”.4
This is even clearer in the story of Solomon and the two women, who each claim the living child. The story concerns motherhood and babies, yet the text does not call either woman “mother” until, after Solomon suggests dividing the child “fairly”, one is moved by loving compassion, raḥamim (1 Kings 3:26). Solomon then tells us, “She is his mother”. The story tells us that compassion demonstrates motherhood. The mother’s raḥamim demonstrates that the child is fruit of her raḥam. raḥamim is used, of course, more often of God than of mortals. This motherly compassion is a divine quality.
This is even clearer in the story of Solomon and the two women, who each claim the living child. The story concerns motherhood and babies, yet the text does not call either woman “mother” until, after Solomon suggests dividing the child “fairly”, one is moved by loving compassion, raḥamim (1 Kings 3:26). Solomon then tells us, “She is his mother”. The story tells us that compassion demonstrates motherhood. The mother’s raḥamim demonstrates that the child is fruit of her raḥam. raḥamim is used, of course, more often of God than of mortals. This motherly compassion is a divine quality.5
Yahweh, unlike fathers and other men in the Ancient Near East, is not sent away during the birth. Bearing and caring for babies is “his” business. In processes of birth, from conception to the care after the trauma of birth, Yahweh wants people to see a picture of God and a process in which God takes part.
Yahweh, unlike fathers and other men in the Ancient Near East, is not sent away during the birth. Bearing and caring for babies is “his” business. In processes of birth, from conception to the care after the trauma of birth, Yahweh wants people to see a picture of God and a process in which God takes part.7
Western notions of family and the importance of money and of paid employment, make us think providing is fatherly. Other societies have different values, and make different assumptions. A society valuing food over capital, sees providing as women’s work. This is the case in most traditional human societies. For example, in most Congo cultures where women cultivate the gardens and prepare the food, men contribute only hunting or fishing for special feasts. Everyday provision is women’s work. Only with the rise of a monetary economy do people see fathers as providers as well as protectors (since in capitalist economies men are disproportionately much higher in numbers in the paid workforce, and more highly paid, than women).
Western notions of family and the importance of money and of paid employment, make us think providing is fatherly. Other societies have different values, and make different assumptions. A society valuing food over capital, sees providing as women’s work. This is the case in most traditional human societies. For example, in most Congo cultures where women cultivate the gardens and prepare the food, men contribute only hunting or fishing for special feasts. Everyday provision is women’s work. Only with the rise of a monetary economy do people see fathers as providers as well as protectors (since in capitalist economies men are disproportionately much higher in numbers in the paid workforce, and more highly paid, than women).9
Moses’ speech, in this chapter reflects such a society. His argument is striking. Never satisfied, the Israelites even moan about manna. The mouth-watering memories of Egyptian cuisine seem attractive when faced with the daily monotony of manna. (“Not honey cakes again” they seem to say.) Moses is caught between the people and God. In verse 10 he argues bitterly with Yahweh (Numbers 11:11-15).
Moses’ speech, in this chapter reflects such a society. His argument is striking. Never satisfied, the Israelites even moan about manna. The mouth-watering memories of Egyptian cuisine seem attractive when faced with the daily monotony of manna. (“Not honey cakes again” they seem to say.) Moses is caught between the people and God. In verse 10 he argues bitterly with Yahweh (Numbers 11:11-15).10
11 So Moses said to the Lord,
“Why have you treated your servant so badly?
How have I deserved this?
You lay the weight of this whole nation on me.
11 So Moses said to the Lord,“Why have you treated your servant so badly?
How have I deserved this?
You lay the weight of this whole nation on me.
11
12Did I conceive this whole nation?
Did I give birth to them, that you say to me,
‘Carry them in your arms, as a nurse carries a baby she feeds,’
to the land you promised on oath to their ancestors.
12Did I conceive this whole nation?Did I give birth to them, that you say to me,
‘Carry them in your arms, as a nurse carries a baby she feeds,’
to the land you promised on oath to their ancestors.
12
13 Where am I to get meat to give to this whole nation?
For they come whining to me and say, ‘Give us meat to eat!’
13 Where am I to get meat to give to this whole nation?For they come whining to me and say, ‘Give us meat to eat!’
14
15 If this is how you are going to treat me, kill me at once
(if I have found favour in your sight)
and do not let me see my misery.”
15 If this is how you are going to treat me, kill me at once(if I have found favour in your sight)
and do not let me see my misery.”
15
Moses’ argument, though startling to some, is quite clear:24 “I did not conceive this nation. I did not give birth to them. Why do you expect me to feed them? You feed them yourself!” Evidently Moses, like ancient Near-Eastern society, sees feeding as mothers’ work. The mother, who conceived and gave birth should now carry and nurse Israel. Moses says in effect “You are their mother. Do your duty!” Verse 12 talks of “becoming pregnant” (harah) and “giving birth” (yalad). It also pictures suckling, so in every way this verse is explicitly motherly.25 Moses pictures God, who may not be sculpted or painted, as mother.
Moses’ argument, though startling to some, is quite clear:24 “I did not conceive this nation. I did not give birth to them. Why do you expect me to feed them? You feed them yourself!” Evidently Moses, like ancient Near-Eastern society, sees feeding as mothers’ work. The mother, who conceived and gave birth should now carry and nurse Israel. Moses says in effect “You are their mother. Do your duty!” Verse 12 talks of “becoming pregnant” (harah) and “giving birth” (yalad). It also pictures suckling, so in every way this verse is explicitly motherly.25 Moses pictures God, who may not be sculpted or painted, as mother.17
Isaiah chapters 40-55, speaking to exiles in Babylon, and chapters 56-66 to those re-establishing national life in the Persian period, use maternal pictures of God. Exiles at the heart of empire saw the majesty and might of the imperial city and its gods. They risked losing faith in Yahweh, who might seem a conquered people’s petty god. The “return” too was difficult, struggling at the empire’s fringe. The despondency of both these groups meant they needed to understand God in a way that encouraged new hope. Pictures of God as mother are frequent in these chapters.26
Isaiah chapters 40-55, speaking to exiles in Babylon, and chapters 56-66 to those re-establishing national life in the Persian period, use maternal pictures of God. Exiles at the heart of empire saw the majesty and might of the imperial city and its gods. They risked losing faith in Yahweh, who might seem a conquered people’s petty god. The “return” too was difficult, struggling at the empire’s fringe. The despondency of both these groups meant they needed to understand God in a way that encouraged new hope. Pictures of God as mother are frequent in these chapters.2619
This passage is particularly clear.27 Verse 14 gives concise expression to the exiles’ despair. “But Zion said, ‘The Lord has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me.’”
This passage is particularly clear.27 Verse 14 gives concise expression to the exiles’ despair. “But Zion said, ‘The Lord has forsaken me, my Lord has forgotten me.’”20
Verse 15 responds forcefully. “Can a woman forget the infant at her breast, or a loving mother the child of her womb? Though these can forget, I will not forget you!”
Verse 15 responds forcefully. “Can a woman forget the infant at her breast, or a loving mother the child of her womb? Though these can forget, I will not forget you!”22
In these chapters two other pictures speak of Yahweh’s love as both strong and faithful. God “formed” Israel, and is her “redeemer”. “Redeemer” (go)el), is a family term, implying responsibility for the young, unprotected and weak. Yahweh as the maker, is not an impersonal potter. Those “he” forms are “sons” and “daughters” (Isaiah 43:6‑7).
In these chapters two other pictures speak of Yahweh’s love as both strong and faithful. God “formed” Israel, and is her “redeemer”. “Redeemer” (go)el), is a family term, implying responsibility for the young, unprotected and weak. Yahweh as the maker, is not an impersonal potter. Those “he” forms are “sons” and “daughters” (Isaiah 43:6‑7).24
Yahweh’s creation, redemption, and the womb are all linked in Isaiah 44. At the start God informs the chosen servant people, “Thus says the Lord your maker, your shaper in the womb who helps you. Do not fear, Jacob my servant. Jeshurun28 I have chosen you” (Isaiah 44:2). God addresses them again in verse 21 and the following verses, especially verse24. “Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, your shaper in the womb. I am the Lord, maker of all, alone stretching out the heavens, by myself spreading the earth.”
Yahweh’s creation, redemption, and the womb are all linked in Isaiah 44. At the start God informs the chosen servant people, “Thus says the Lord your maker, your shaper in the womb who helps you. Do not fear, Jacob my servant. Jeshurun28 I have chosen you” (Isaiah 44:2). God addresses them again in verse 21 and the following verses, especially verse24. “Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, your shaper in the womb. I am the Lord, maker of all, alone stretching out the heavens, by myself spreading the earth.”25
Isaiah 46:3-4 makes a similar connection. “Listen to me, house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, borne by me from your birth, (literally “from the belly”) carried from the womb. Even to your old age I am he. Even when you turn grey, I will carry you. I have made, and will bear, I will carry, and will save.” Unlike a human mother, who herself ages, God will still carry his children even when they are old.
Isaiah 46:3-4 makes a similar connection. “Listen to me, house of Jacob, all the remnant of the house of Israel, borne by me from your birth, (literally “from the belly”) carried from the womb. Even to your old age I am he. Even when you turn grey, I will carry you. I have made, and will bear, I will carry, and will save.” Unlike a human mother, who herself ages, God will still carry his children even when they are old.26
In Isaiah 49, where Yahweh’s love was stronger than a mother’s (verse15), Zion’s own motherhood demonstrates God’s enduring love. Verse 20 refers to the returning exiles as “children born during your bereavement”. They are Zion’s children, though she did not give birth to them. So she asks, “Who has borne me these… who has reared them?” (Isaiah 49:21) How do you answer these rhetorical questions, for the text fails to answer overtly!
In Isaiah 49, where Yahweh’s love was stronger than a mother’s (verse15), Zion’s own motherhood demonstrates God’s enduring love. Verse 20 refers to the returning exiles as “children born during your bereavement”. They are Zion’s children, though she did not give birth to them. So she asks, “Who has borne me these… who has reared them?” (Isaiah 49:21) How do you answer these rhetorical questions, for the text fails to answer overtly!28
Isaiah 66:7-14 takes up Zion’s motherhood, and her God’s.29 The passage begins with an unanticipated, miraculous birth. Deserted Zion has sons, without normal expectancy or labour (Isaiah 66:7-8). This picture reworks promises from Isaiah 49. Barren, deserted Zion has children. The reworking lets new things appear. Verse 9 explains, “Shall I open the womb and not deliver? says the Lord. Shall I, who delivers, shut the womb? says your God.” Scant sign announces the birth, but the midwife is trustworthy, God will not break promises. The “story” continues in verse 11, picturing Zion as nursing mother. Verse 11 is based on 49:23 and verse 12 on 49:22. “For thus says the Lord. I will extend prosperity to her like a river, and the nations’ wealth like an overflowing stream. And you shall nurse and be carried on her arm, and cuddled on her knees.”
Isaiah 66:7-14 takes up Zion’s motherhood, and her God’s.29 The passage begins with an unanticipated, miraculous birth. Deserted Zion has sons, without normal expectancy or labour (Isaiah 66:7-8). This picture reworks promises from Isaiah 49. Barren, deserted Zion has children. The reworking lets new things appear. Verse 9 explains, “Shall I open the womb and not deliver? says the Lord. Shall I, who delivers, shut the womb? says your God.” Scant sign announces the birth, but the midwife is trustworthy, God will not break promises. The “story” continues in verse 11, picturing Zion as nursing mother. Verse 11 is based on 49:23 and verse 12 on 49:22. “For thus says the Lord. I will extend prosperity to her like a river, and the nations’ wealth like an overflowing stream. And you shall nurse and be carried on her arm, and cuddled on her knees.”29
This “storyline” is destroyed by verse 13 where the “mother” is no longer Zion, but God! “As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you. You shall be comforted in Jerusalem.” The idea of Yahweh’s motherly love probably comes from 49:15.30 The “son” here is of indeterminate age. The Hebrew reads “like a man”, so probably this is an adult son. Yahweh does not merely “bring his people to birth and deliver them” (v.9) but also like a mother comforts (v.13). This motherly comfort includes wrath against foes (v.14c).
This “storyline” is destroyed by verse 13 where the “mother” is no longer Zion, but God! “As a mother comforts her child, so I will comfort you. You shall be comforted in Jerusalem.” The idea of Yahweh’s motherly love probably comes from 49:15.30 The “son” here is of indeterminate age. The Hebrew reads “like a man”, so probably this is an adult son. Yahweh does not merely “bring his people to birth and deliver them” (v.9) but also like a mother comforts (v.13). This motherly comfort includes wrath against foes (v.14c).31
Isaiah 42:14 uses striking motherly imagery.31 “For ages, I’ve kept still, silent and restrained myself, like a woman in labour I’ll cry out, gasp and pant.” The Hebrew verbs here add a breathless (aural) effect to their (semantic) description of panting and gasping: )aḥarîsh )ttapaq kayyôledâ )ep(eh )eshshom ve)eshap yaḥad.32 The verse powerfully expresses the violent uncontrollable final stage of labour, and contrasts this with nine months of expectant waiting. Though realistic, this word picture does not fit with culturally sanctioned warm fuzzy notions of motherhood. (These can be seen, for Western society, in images of the Madonna with a chubby baby, or in a mother feeding her family as commonly seen in television advertisements).
Isaiah 42:14 uses striking motherly imagery.31 “For ages, I’ve kept still, silent and restrained myself, like a woman in labour I’ll cry out, gasp and pant.” The Hebrew verbs here add a breathless (aural) effect to their (semantic) description of panting and gasping: )aḥarîsh )ttapaq kayyôledâ )ep(eh )eshshom ve)eshap yaḥad.32 The verse powerfully expresses the violent uncontrollable final stage of labour, and contrasts this with nine months of expectant waiting. Though realistic, this word picture does not fit with culturally sanctioned warm fuzzy notions of motherhood. (These can be seen, for Western society, in images of the Madonna with a chubby baby, or in a mother feeding her family as commonly seen in television advertisements).32
Given these verbal effects, verse 15 becomes less surprising, capturing as it does the astonishing violence of giving birth. “I’ll waste mountains and hills, and all their greenery I’ll dry up. I’ll turn their streams to islands, and their pools I’ll dry out.” God causes devastating drought. Yet regular rain was a major part of Old Testament notions of God’s providence. This warlike violence is not softened, but given meaning, by what follows.
Given these verbal effects, verse 15 becomes less surprising, capturing as it does the astonishing violence of giving birth. “I’ll waste mountains and hills, and all their greenery I’ll dry up. I’ll turn their streams to islands, and their pools I’ll dry out.” God causes devastating drought. Yet regular rain was a major part of Old Testament notions of God’s providence. This warlike violence is not softened, but given meaning, by what follows.33
Again with striking poetic force, aspects of motherly experience express a message. Despite apparent silence and inactivity, God will initiate forceful action, which will produce something new (notice v.16). This too implies the image of God “giving birth to a new age.”
Again with striking poetic force, aspects of motherly experience express a message. Despite apparent silence and inactivity, God will initiate forceful action, which will produce something new (notice v.16). This too implies the image of God “giving birth to a new age.”35
Father language prevails in the New Testament (and almost no mother language about God), a fact we shall return to in the next chapter. For now, notice how the Old Testament either balances both parent images, or talks in non-specific parental ways, avoiding explicitly motherly and fatherly language.
Father language prevails in the New Testament (and almost no mother language about God), a fact we shall return to in the next chapter. For now, notice how the Old Testament either balances both parent images, or talks in non-specific parental ways, avoiding explicitly motherly and fatherly language.37
Pagan religion included fatherly and motherly deities. If, as some scholars have suggested, the Bible’s God was thought of as male, or even as especially fatherly, then psychologically, devotion to “him” would be less complete and fulfilling than pagan religion!33 But the Bible’s aniconic God is not limited to either female or to male human images alone. Here are passages that illustrate this balance.
Pagan religion included fatherly and motherly deities. If, as some scholars have suggested, the Bible’s God was thought of as male, or even as especially fatherly, then psychologically, devotion to “him” would be less complete and fulfilling than pagan religion!33 But the Bible’s aniconic God is not limited to either female or to male human images alone. Here are passages that illustrate this balance.41
“I lift up my eyes to you, enthroned in the heavens!
See, as the menservants’ eyes are on their lord’s hand,
as maid’s eyes on her lady’s hand,
so our eyes are on the Lord our God, awaiting his favour.”
“I lift up my eyes to you, enthroned in the heavens!See, as the menservants’ eyes are on their lord’s hand,
as maid’s eyes on her lady’s hand,
so our eyes are on the Lord our God, awaiting his favour.”
43
“Has the rain a father, or who begot the dewdrops?
From whose womb did the ice come forth,
and who gave birth to heaven’s hoarfrost?”
“Has the rain a father, or who begot the dewdrops?From whose womb did the ice come forth,
and who gave birth to heaven’s hoarfrost?”
44
Here the balance is highlighted by use of one verb (yalad) in different forms for the fatherly “beget” v.28 (hiphil) and motherly “give birth” v.29 (qal).34
Here the balance is highlighted by use of one verb (yalad) in different forms for the fatherly “beget” v.28 (hiphil) and motherly “give birth” v.29 (qal).3447
“The Lord’s gracious deeds, I will remember – the Lord’s glories!
For all that the Lord has done for us, great good to the house of Israel
that he has acted towards them according to his love (raḥamim),according to his great faithfulness” (ḥesed)35.
“The Lord’s gracious deeds, I will remember – the Lord’s glories!For all that the Lord has done for us, great good to the house of Israel
that he has acted towards them according to his love (raḥamim),according to his great faithfulness” (ḥesed)35.
48
The people to whom God shows this tender love are, of course, “his” children. “For he said, “Surely they are my people, sons36 who will not deal falsely, so, he became their saviour.” God does not delegate responsibility to redeem or to carry “his” children. “In all their distress, it was no messenger or angel,37 but his presence that saved them. In his love and compassion he redeemed them, lifted them up and carried them, all the days of old.” (Isaiah 63:9)
The people to whom God shows this tender love are, of course, “his” children. “For he said, “Surely they are my people, sons36 who will not deal falsely, so, he became their saviour.” God does not delegate responsibility to redeem or to carry “his” children. “In all their distress, it was no messenger or angel,37 but his presence that saved them. In his love and compassion he redeemed them, lifted them up and carried them, all the days of old.” (Isaiah 63:9)49
The psalm then admits Israel’s “rebellion” and recounts the foundational story of Moses, exodus and gift of land, before reaching appealling. “Look down from heaven and see, from your holy and glorious residence. Where are your zeal and your might? Your heart yearning and your love? They are withheld from me.” (Isaiah 63:15)
The psalm then admits Israel’s “rebellion” and recounts the foundational story of Moses, exodus and gift of land, before reaching appealling. “Look down from heaven and see, from your holy and glorious residence. Where are your zeal and your might? Your heart yearning and your love? They are withheld from me.” (Isaiah 63:15)50
The words translated “zeal and might” contain thoroughly masculine language with echoes of warrior conduct. By contrast (or as complement), the next line is more feminine and motherly. The expression “your heart yearning” for hamon me(eka disguises the more literal “stirring of your insides” (me(ah can mean “womb” but also more generally “insides”). “Love” here is raḥamim.
The words translated “zeal and might” contain thoroughly masculine language with echoes of warrior conduct. By contrast (or as complement), the next line is more feminine and motherly. The expression “your heart yearning” for hamon me(eka disguises the more literal “stirring of your insides” (me(ah can mean “womb” but also more generally “insides”). “Love” here is raḥamim.51
The next verse clearly claims God as parent. “You are our father, for Abraham doesn’t know us and Israel doesn’t recognise us. You, Lord, are our father, ‘our redeemer from of old’ is your name…” (Isaiah 63:16).
The next verse clearly claims God as parent. “You are our father, for Abraham doesn’t know us and Israel doesn’t recognise us. You, Lord, are our father, ‘our redeemer from of old’ is your name…” (Isaiah 63:16).52
This fatherhood of God is both warrior proud and motherly tender, as verse 15 showed. Neither mother nor father alone describes the true God. God is personal, but beyond human personality.
This fatherhood of God is both warrior proud and motherly tender, as verse 15 showed. Neither mother nor father alone describes the true God. God is personal, but beyond human personality.54
Humans need to worship a God who fulfills both fatherly and motherly roles. Jeremiah 2 and 3 tackle a problem frequently faced by prophets in the eighth to sixth centuries before Christ, when God’s people kept turning to idols. “For numerous as your towns are your gods, Judah” (Jeremiah 2:28c).
Humans need to worship a God who fulfills both fatherly and motherly roles. Jeremiah 2 and 3 tackle a problem frequently faced by prophets in the eighth to sixth centuries before Christ, when God’s people kept turning to idols. “For numerous as your towns are your gods, Judah” (Jeremiah 2:28c).55
Serving graven “foreign” idols is not merely a weakness of the common folk, the leaders do it too. “Like the thief’s shame when found out, so the house of Israel shall be shamed, they, their kings, their rulers, their priests, and their prophets” (Jeremiah 2:26).
Serving graven “foreign” idols is not merely a weakness of the common folk, the leaders do it too. “Like the thief’s shame when found out, so the house of Israel shall be shamed, they, their kings, their rulers, their priests, and their prophets” (Jeremiah 2:26).56
Jeremiah’s accusation (v.27), like his later critique of worship of the “Queen of Heaven” (7:18; 44:17-25), suggests the psychology of the Hebrew leaders and people. He accuses them of, “Saying to a tree, ‘You are my father,’ and to a stone, ‘You gave me birth.’
Jeremiah’s accusation (v.27), like his later critique of worship of the “Queen of Heaven” (7:18; 44:17-25), suggests the psychology of the Hebrew leaders and people. He accuses them of, “Saying to a tree, ‘You are my father,’ and to a stone, ‘You gave me birth.’57
For towards my face, [they turn] their necks not their faces! But in the time of their trouble they say, ‘Arise and save us!’” Yet such, homemade “gods”, whether fatherly nor motherly are no use. Verse 28a,b reads, “And where are your gods that you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you, in your time of trouble!”
For towards my face, [they turn] their necks not their faces! But in the time of their trouble they say, ‘Arise and save us!’” Yet such, homemade “gods”, whether fatherly nor motherly are no use. Verse 28a,b reads, “And where are your gods that you made for yourself? Let them arise, if they can save you, in your time of trouble!”58
Physical human images cannot represent the true God, the true saviour. This God is, completely, a better “father” and “mother” than log or stone idols!
Physical human images cannot represent the true God, the true saviour. This God is, completely, a better “father” and “mother” than log or stone idols!60
Hosea 11 describes God’s love for Israel, “his” child. Many commentators, until recently most, have remarked on the lovely picture of God’s fatherly affection. Read the passage. Consider the actions performed. Were they more often performed by mothers or fathers in ancient Israel? Note whether the choice of words in a fairly literal translation like NIV or NRSV suggests one parent or the other.
Hosea 11 describes God’s love for Israel, “his” child. Many commentators, until recently most, have remarked on the lovely picture of God’s fatherly affection. Read the passage. Consider the actions performed. Were they more often performed by mothers or fathers in ancient Israel? Note whether the choice of words in a fairly literal translation like NIV or NRSV suggests one parent or the other.61
One key is verse 4. Lifting a child is true of either parent, but I suspect, teaching to walk with toddler reins, and feeding, were more often done by mothers than fathers. They still are today in the West, even after a century or more of women’s suffrage! Notice too the language at the close of verse 8, the verb describing God’s “compassion” is the same root as the word raḥamim used of love in the stories of Joseph (recognizing Benjamin as his mother’s son) and of Solomon with the two women each claiming to be “mother”.
One key is verse 4. Lifting a child is true of either parent, but I suspect, teaching to walk with toddler reins, and feeding, were more often done by mothers than fathers. They still are today in the West, even after a century or more of women’s suffrage! Notice too the language at the close of verse 8, the verb describing God’s “compassion” is the same root as the word raḥamim used of love in the stories of Joseph (recognizing Benjamin as his mother’s son) and of Solomon with the two women each claiming to be “mother”.63
In this song too, motherly and fatherly pictures are interwoven. Mother language is explicit in verse 18, “The rock who bore you, you forgot, and you cared nothing for the God who gave birth to you.”
In this song too, motherly and fatherly pictures are interwoven. Mother language is explicit in verse 18, “The rock who bore you, you forgot, and you cared nothing for the God who gave birth to you.”64
The verb in the second line (ḥil) is beyond question maternal. It means “to be in labour,” and can contrastthe mother’s and father’s roles in parenting (Isaiah 45:10; 51:2).38 It never means fathering. The verb in the first line (yalad) can speak either of father or mother begetting children. However the only other occurrence of this verb with God as subject is at Numbers 11:12,39 where it is clearly motherly. So, verse18 pictures God as Israel’s mother, unnaturally deserted and ignored by her child.
The verb in the second line (ḥil) is beyond question maternal. It means “to be in labour,” and can contrastthe mother’s and father’s roles in parenting (Isaiah 45:10; 51:2).38 It never means fathering. The verb in the first line (yalad) can speak either of father or mother begetting children. However the only other occurrence of this verb with God as subject is at Numbers 11:12,39 where it is clearly motherly. So, verse18 pictures God as Israel’s mother, unnaturally deserted and ignored by her child.65
The song, however, also pictures God as father. “Is this how you repay the Lord, foolish people, without wisdom? Isn’t he your father, who got you, who made you and established you” (Deuteronomy 32:6)? In this song of God, the faithful “Rock”, and “his” faithless people, both parental images, drive home Israel’s unnatural desertion. Some commentators find this mixture of motherly and fatherly imagery bold or confused. Yet the association of two parents is basic biology! Perhaps such commentators are prompted in this more by feelings that motherly imagery is not proper for God, than by the biblical text!
The song, however, also pictures God as father. “Is this how you repay the Lord, foolish people, without wisdom? Isn’t he your father, who got you, who made you and established you” (Deuteronomy 32:6)? In this song of God, the faithful “Rock”, and “his” faithless people, both parental images, drive home Israel’s unnatural desertion. Some commentators find this mixture of motherly and fatherly imagery bold or confused. Yet the association of two parents is basic biology! Perhaps such commentators are prompted in this more by feelings that motherly imagery is not proper for God, than by the biblical text!67
The Bible authors use motherly language of God, and use mothers (including mother birds) to picture God, and this use is more frequent than previously recognised. Although motherly language and imagery is less frequent than fatherly, it is a significant biblical image of God. The Bible was reticent concerning both images, and both are surprisingly rare before Jesus. The New Testament focus on Christ almost precludes mother language.
The Bible authors use motherly language of God, and use mothers (including mother birds) to picture God, and this use is more frequent than previously recognised. Although motherly language and imagery is less frequent than fatherly, it is a significant biblical image of God. The Bible was reticent concerning both images, and both are surprisingly rare before Jesus. The New Testament focus on Christ almost precludes mother language.68
Motherly and fatherly language and pictures tend to occur together. In addition non-specific parental language occurs, which Western tradition usually reads as paternal. However, motherly language and pictures of God are particularly common in later Isaiah.
Motherly and fatherly language and pictures tend to occur together. In addition non-specific parental language occurs, which Western tradition usually reads as paternal. However, motherly language and pictures of God are particularly common in later Isaiah.72
25 Implying that God is the mother of “his” people, is startling. The Bible usually scrupulously avoids any impression that God begets “his” people, either as mother or father.
25 Implying that God is the mother of “his” people, is startling. The Bible usually scrupulously avoids any impression that God begets “his” people, either as mother or father.75
28 The rare name “Jeshurun” is just one link between this passage and Deut 32, cf. v.8 “I am the rock”.
28 The rare name “Jeshurun” is just one link between this passage and Deut 32, cf. v.8 “I am the rock”.78
31 On this passage see Darr (1987) 560-571; or her longer treatment Darr (1994) in Hopfe (1994), 17-30; and van Wijk-Bos (1995), 51-55.
31 On this passage see Darr (1987) 560-571; or her longer treatment Darr (1994) in Hopfe (1994), 17-30; and van Wijk-Bos (1995), 51-55.82
35 Another “family” word, meaning the loving faithfulness expected between covenant partners and family members.
35 Another “family” word, meaning the loving faithfulness expected between covenant partners and family members.83
36 My topic concerns questions of gender, so I have sometimes chosen in this book not to translate in ways that hide or smooth over the sexist assumptions of the text. Here for example NRSV (I think quite correctly) assumes that banim “sons” is not intended to be gender specific and translates “children”. We sometimes need, however, to be reminded that these texts, which describe God as motherly, are deeply rooted in the sexist assumptions of the culture from which they came.
36 My topic concerns questions of gender, so I have sometimes chosen in this book not to translate in ways that hide or smooth over the sexist assumptions of the text. Here for example NRSV (I think quite correctly) assumes that banim “sons” is not intended to be gender specific and translates “children”. We sometimes need, however, to be reminded that these texts, which describe God as motherly, are deeply rooted in the sexist assumptions of the culture from which they came.84
37 These two lines are difficult and probably textually corrupt. I have stuck very closely to NRSV to avoid presenting my own “correction” here.
37 These two lines are difficult and probably textually corrupt. I have stuck very closely to NRSV to avoid presenting my own “correction” here.
J. K. Gayle has a fascinating discussion of Greek literature as a background to the LXX translation of this passage.