Reviewed by: Hosea by Bo H. Lim And Daniel Castelo David Penchansky bo h. lim and daniel castelo, Hosea (Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2015). Pp. xii + 260. Paper $25. This book is a hybrid, eleven chapters of commentary by a biblical scholar (Lim), with four lengthy theological reflections on Hosea interspersed (Castelo). The collaboration works because these two authors, who both teach at Seattle Pacific University, see eye to eye regarding Hosea. They have together provided a fairly comprehensive overview of Hosea scholarship in the twenty-first century. Although allowing some later editing, they claim that the Book of Hosea came substantially from a single hand and from one person's design, the eighth-century prophet Hosea. This is a contested position in biblical scholarship, where many see Hosea as loosely related fragments and alternative versions, having a diversity of centers and conflicting themes. The authors stake out the more conservative position, claiming that Hosea functions as a single harmonious work. The authors see covenant as the idea that unifies the Book of Hosea. The marriage and sexual references (thought by others to dominate) serve, they say, only to give content to Israel's covenant obligations and their violation. Hosea's God creates problems for the authors. God commands the prophet to marry a promiscuous woman. In subsequent passages, God abrogates the eternal covenant made with Israel. God compares Godself to violent and repellant things—a lion rending its victim, rot, and pestilence. The authors explain and justify this divine behavior by drawing a distinction. On one side, God's inner self, God's true being, never changes, needs nothing, and is benevolent, constant. On the other side is God's reactive self. When Hosea depicts God as vindictive, violent, or conflicted, he is not describing God's inner core. Another problem L. and C. address is the glaring misogyny in Hosea. For example, in Hosea 2 the woman is punished by stripping her naked in front of her former lovers: "Now I will uncover her shame in the sight of her lovers" (2:10). In chap. 3 she is imprisoned for a season and not allowed to see anybody but her husband, who denies sexual intimacy to her (3:3). Finally, "their little ones shall be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open" (13:16). Castelo describes the pattern: [S]ince women are exclusively depicted as the offending sex … [t]he text [of Hosea] gives a preference for and an affirmation of the male gender while offering a negative image of the female gender. … [Such a text] could legitimate and support misogyny, both ancient and modern. …[W]omanhood is continually depicted as the image of choice for infidelity, impurity, and sexual lasciviousness; manhood simply is not. (p. 233) [End Page 510] The authors minimize the impact of Hosea's misogyny because the words come as metaphors that refer to Israel. A metaphor has two parts—in this case, Israel and the promiscuous woman. The authors claim that Hosea is concerned about Israel and not about the condition of women. Therefore, the misogyny in the metaphor is irrelevant to the meaning of the passage. The nature of metaphor, however, is such that each side in the metaphor participates in the other, and so when the author uses misogynistic language to make a point, the misogyny spills over into all aspects of the text. No contextualization can normalize it. Surprisingly, L.'s and C.'s writing takes a postmodern turn. They recognize their own approach as "heuristic," that is, a means by which to investigate Hosea and not the only truth. Meaning is fluid, they say, largely determined by the reading audience. A text has multiple meanings that depend on the questions addressed and who has interest in the answers. They therefore acknowledge that statements about God (both Hosea's and theirs) are provisional and metaphorical. Their own evangelical community desires a unified and coherent text. Yet the authors recognize that this remains one interpretation out of many possibilities. They therefore manage to remain objective about their own subjectivity, recognizing their bias and the filter that shapes their reading. This recognition opens up their text...