Parental love as metaphor for divine-human love

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Jun 2003 by Patterson, Richard D

Aristotle once remarked, "Everything said metaphorically is obscure."1 By this the great Greek philosopher indicated that figures of speech lack a certain degree of the clarity of a direct statement.2 Nevertheless, the use of metaphorical language forms a basic means of human communication.3 Indeed, one might say that A. T. Robertson's remark that in one sense "words are metaphors, sometimes with the pictured flower still blooming, sometimes with the blossom blurred" has distinct validity.4 Moreover, as L. Ryken demonstrates, a high degree of richness exists in metaphorical language that brings not only freshness and vividness to an expression but tends to make a statement more memorable. By their very nature metaphors "force a reader to ponder or meditate on a statement."5

Metaphorical language abounds in poetry.6 Here the need for vividness and memorable statements make metaphor a suitable vehicle for the poet's goal of creating emotional, as well as intellectual and volitional, appeal.7 The prevalence of metaphors in poetry, however, places a constraint on the interpreter if he is to avoid "interpreting statements in a 'woodenly literal' fashion."8

G. B. Caird's observation that unlike simile, where the two things to be compared are juxtaposed, in metaphor "the name of the one is substituted for the other," is certainly correct.9 Nevertheless, in this study metaphor is not used technically but as an overarching term for both figures involving comparison (as well as hypocatastasis and metaphorical expressions). Indeed, there is good rationale for such an approach. For as H. W. Fowler points out, metaphor and simile "differ only in form."10 The inquiry undertaken here as to the use of metaphorical language will concentrate on one of the more prominent scriptural metaphors associated with familial love, the parent and the child. This image provides not only literary richness but has theological and practical ramifications. After a preliminary survey of Near Eastern literature, this study will emphasize poetry, where the effect of this metaphor can have its greatest impact. For as W. Watson observes, "Metaphor belongs to the stuff of poetry, so that to understand poetry involves coming to grips with metaphor and metaphorical expressions."11

I. THE PARENT-CHILD METAPHOR IN THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST

Although an extensive examination of the parent-child metaphor in the extra-biblical literature of the ancient Near East is not the focus of this study, the fact of Israel's interplay with the surrounding nations necessitates some remarks as to the use of this metaphor among those peoples. Indeed, the metaphor can be demonstrated to have occurred with some frequency among the surrounding cultures, especially in texts of a propagandist nature. These herald the king's authority and accomplishments as derived from his god who (in a sense) looks after him as a parent would a child.

Thus the eighteenth dynasty Egyptian queen Hatchepsut (1504-1483 BC) followed long-established tradition in affirming her legitimacy to the crown by demonstrating that she was the daughter of Amon-Re. In graphic detail her inscription at Deir-el-Bahri recounts the details of her conception. Here we learn that Amon-Re had a romantic encounter with Hatchepsut's sleeping mother.

She waked at the fragrance of the god, which she smelled in the presence of his majesty. He went to her immediately, coivit cum ea, he imposed his desire upon her. . . . "Khnemet-Amon-Hatshepsut shall be the name of this my daughter, whom I have placed in thy body."12

Subsequent texts furnish such details as her fashioning by Khnum, her birth and being nursed by Hathor, and her loving relationship with her divine father Amon-Re. As a little child she sits on his knees as he is enthroned in the presence of the lesser gods, and her father says, "Behold ye, my daughter [Hatshepsut] living; be ye loving toward her, and be ye satisfied with her."13 Still other texts report that her success was due to the favor of Amon-Re and the gods of Egypt. Unprecedentedly, she not only assumed the time-honored Pharaonic title "son of Re" but even donned masculine attire. Such texts as these therefore provided legitimization to her claim for the double crown of Egypt. The tradition of being recognized as the god's son, begun in the fourth dynasty, was perpetuated into the late period. Even Alexander the Great was given such a title after his well-known visit to the Oasis of Siwah.14

In ancient Mesopotamia it was common for the king to refer to himself as "the son of his god" or be named for a given deity (e.g. Marduk-Apal-Iddina = biblical Merodach Baladan). Interestingly, the same king would at times refer to himself as son of more than one male or female deity, so that suggestions that this practice was related to a kind of formal adoption are questionable at best.15 The concept of royal sonship to a deity indicated the king's special relationship to a particular deity, perhaps at times being cited as further proof of legitimization and/or divine favor. Examples of such a royal claim are numerous and attested in all periods of Mesopotamian history. Thus the third millennium BC Sumerian king Ishme Dagan claimed to be Dagan's son and the Akkadian king Shar Kalli Sharri proclaimed his sonship from the god Enlil. Likewise, the early second millennium BC Isin dynasty king Lipit Ishtar claimed to be the son of Enil, while first millennium BC Assyrian kings customarily proclaimed that they were the son of a god.16