Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Home , Anakim, Jeremiah 25, Jeremiah 51, Jeremiah 52

Mark A O’Brien OP

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 1 13-May-20 5:25:50 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 2 13-May-20 5:25:50 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Mark A O’Brien OP

THEOLOGY Adelaide 2020

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 3 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM Text copyright © 2020 remains withMark A O’Brien OP. All rights reserved. Except for any fair dealing permitted under the Copyright Act. No part of this book may be reproduced by any means without prior permission. Inquiries should be made in the first instance with the publisher.

Unless stated otherwise. The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of the Bible © 1989, and 1983 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the United States of America, and are used by permission. All rights reserved.

Cover art work Thinkstock Cover Design: MyfCadwallader Layout by Extel Solutions, India Text: Minion Pro size 10 &11

Published by:

THEOLOGY

An imprint of the ATF Press Publishing Group owned by ATF (Australia) Ltd. PO Box 504 Hindmarsh, SA 5007 ABN 90 116 359 963 www.atfpress.com Making a lasting impact

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 4 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM To the Memory of my Mother Cecilia May O’Brien (née Flanagan) 2017–2003

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 5 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 6 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations ix Foreword xi Introduction: An Outline of The Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xiii

Part 1 Jeremiah 25:1–36:32 1 Chapter 1 25:1–26:24 3 Chapter 2 27:1–29:32 21 Chapter 3 30:1–31:40 47 Chapter 4 32:1–33:26 75 Chapter 5 34:1–36:32 95

Part 2 Jeremiah 37:1–45:5 127 Chapter 6 37:1–39:18 129 Chapter 7 40:1–45:5 175

Part 3 Jeremiah 46:1–52:34 229 Chapter 8 46:1–49:39 231 Chapter 9 50:1–51:64 267 Chapter 10 52:1–34 297

vii

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 7 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM viii Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Concluding Remarks 305

Bibliography of Works Cited 315

Subjects Index 329

Author Index 341

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 8 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM List of Abbreviations

AB Anchor Bible ANE Ancient Near East AOTC Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries ATD Das Alte Testament Deutsch BCE Before the Common Era BETL Biblioteca ephemeridum theologicarum lovaniensium Bib Biblica BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin BZABR Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechsgeschichte BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissen- schaft CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly dtr deuteronomistic ESV English Standard Version ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovaniensises EvT Evangelische Theologie FAT Forschungen zum Alten Testament FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments HB/OT Hebrew Bible/Old Testament HB/OTS Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies HDR Higher Degree Research HThKAT Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Alten Testament JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JBQ Jewish Biblical Quarterly JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 9 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM x Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series LHBOTS Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies LXX Septuagint (Greek) MT Masoretic Text (Hebrew) MS Manuscript OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis OTE Old Testament Essays OTM Old Testament Message SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series SHBC Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Biblical Commentary WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monograhien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WTJ Westminster Theological Journal ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 10 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM Foreword

This is a follow-up volume to the one that I published with ATF Press in 2017 on Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 1–25 (MT), and its aim is to carry out the same kind of analysis on chapters 25–52 of the book of Jeremiah. The fact that chapter 25 appears in the title of both volumes is due to my perception that this chapter functions as a pivotal or hinge text in the book, drawing together what has been proclaimed in the preceding chapters and preparing the reader for what is to follow in the subsequent chapters. Once again I would like to thank my colleagues at Catholic Theo- logical College (CTC) and Yarra Theological Union (YTU) within the University of Divinity, Melbourne, for their support and wise advice that assisted me in bringing the project to completion. I would also like to thank my confreres in the Dominican Order in Australia for their support and encouragement. A recent semester’s sabbatical in Sydney enabled me to complete a draft of this volume, and the Don- ald Robinson Library at Moore College in the University of Sydney provided a very valuable bibliographical resource. My sincere thanks to the library staff for their assistance. It is an honour to have this volume accepted for publication in ATF Press, Adelaide. My sincere thanks to Hilary Regan, Patricia Cramp and the staff at ATF Press for their assistance and advice during the publication process. I hope the two volumes make a worthwhile contribution to ongoing research into this extraordinary book.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 11 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 12 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM Introduction An Outline of The Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Before outlining my understanding of the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52, it may be of use to readers to summarise the Dynamics of Jer- emiah 1–25 as presented in my preceding volume.1 The book begins with Jeremiah appointed by YHWH over Judah and the nations ‘to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant’ (cf 1:10). The accompanying announcement that YHWH is summoning invaders from the north against Judah and the nations implies that any planting and building will only occur after the existing (dis)order has been plucked up and pulled down, destroyed and overthrown. Jeremiah’s preaching commences in chapter 2 with a review that employs the metaphor of a perfect marriage that subsequently went awry due to the infidelity of wife Israel. Because the review has to cover the period of the divided kingdom, in 3:5–11 and following there is a discrete shift from the marriage metaphor to that

1. Cf Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 1–25 (MT) (Adelaide: ATF Press, 2017). As stated in the Introduction, I have adopted the term ‘Dynamics’ from Georg Fischer. In his commentary on Jeremiah he states that ‘Von Wort zu Wort und Vers zu Vers baut Jer seine Aussagen und seine Botschaft auf. So erhält das Buch eine Dynamik, und es ist aus diser seiner Abfolge heraus zu interpretieren’ (‘Jeremiah builds its assertions and its message from word to word and from verse to verse. In this way the book acquires a dynamic quality and it is to be interpreted on the basis of this sequence’—my translation) (Jeremia übersetzt and ausgelegt, 2 volumes HTKAT [Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005] 1, 87). Even though I accept the book was assembled over a period of time by various redactors/editors, the focus of my study is the way the MT version portrays the character Jeremiah and his words and actions, as well as other characters in the book and their words and actions, in order to present and promote its theology of prophecy. My reasons for including chapter 25 as an integral part of the two major sections of the book are provided below.

xiii

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 13 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM xiv Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

of the two sisters, Israel (northern kingdom) and Judah (southern kingdom), apparently in order to avoid portraying YHWH with two wives. These sisters are the rebellious children of parent YHWH, with ‘false Judah’ compared unfavourably with her sister ‘faithless Israel’. Given the setting of Jeremiah’s ministry in the final days of Judah and its capital Jerusalem, one is not surprised to find this nation and its capital city as the focus of a series of indictments in 4:3–6:20. The most sacred place in Judah and Jerusalem is the temple, and the series of indictments reaches a dramatic climax in a sermon that Jer- emiah delivers at the gate of the temple in 7:1–8:3. Here he declares on YHWH’s authority that the most sacred place in the land will be destroyed like the northern shrine of Shiloh, and the people will be cast out of YHWH’s presence. A number of passages in chapters 4–10 signals the stress this message causes the prophet, a stress that reaches crisis point in his first lament or complaint in 11:18–12:4. If a key issue in chapters 2–10 is whether a disobedient Judah can or should remain in the place (land and temple) that was gifted by YHWH, Jeremiah’s lament introduces a second major issue, namely time. Given that YHWH is Sovereign over place and time, the two realms in which human beings live out their relationship with God and one another, why—Jeremiah asks in 12:1-4—has YHWH not intervened earlier to stop the corruption in Judah from reaching such a crisis point?2 On my reading, YHWH responds to this by instructing Jeremiah via a series of three lessons that are presented in chapters 13–15; the first involves the sign of the ruined loin-cloth in chapter 13, the second that of drought in chapter 14, and the third that of war in chapter 15. The lessons conclude with YHWH’s challenge to Jeremiah that

2. David J. Reimer notes that while biblical studies have rightly emphasised the importance of YHWH as Lord of history/time (cf ‘Heilsgeschichte’ or ‘salvation history’), it has not paid the same attention to YHWH as Lord of place/space. His recent essay seeks to correct this (cf ‘God and Place in Jeremiah,’ in The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, Interpretation, edited by Jack R Lundbom, Craig A Evans, and Bradford A. Anderson. VTSup 178 [Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018], 476–97). He proposes that ‘Jeremiah—book and prophet—foregrounds ‘place’ as locus of encounter between God and people, and as the scene of living rightly with all that implies for the relationship of this people, this place, and this God’ (485). While Reimer is right to draw attention to the importance of place, I would judge that the book employs both place and time in order to advance its portrayal of YHWH.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 14 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xv

he can only continue as YHWH’s mouthpiece if ‘you utter what is precious and not what is worthless (15:19b). Jeremiah then receives further commissions in chapter 16 to which he responds by declaring that YHWH alone is ‘my strength and my stronghold, my refuge in the day of trouble’ (16:19). This is followed by a further lesson about YHWH’s just rule over all the nations, with Judah providing the paradigm example of the sinful nation (17:1–13). Jeremiah expresses his complete commitment to YHWH in 17:14–18, after which he is commissioned to stand in the gates of the city and warn the people about the need to honour YHWH as the Lord of time (17:19–27). Keeping the Sabbath is identified as the key sign of such loyalty because it marks their passage from slave time in Egypt (no distinction between work and rest) to life in the designated land/place, where they have time to work and time to rest, and to honour YHWH for this great gift. YHWH’s sovereignty over time is underscored by a series of signs and words in chapters 18–19, culminating in Jeremiah smashing a pottery jug before witnesses as the sign that Judah’s time in the land is at an end. For this he is imprisoned by the priest Pashhur at the gate of the temple, the sacred place, but, on being released he declares that Passhur and his kind are the real prisoners—of the king of Babylon, the first naming in the book of the foe from the north who is being summoned to punish Judah (20:1–6). The impending end of Judah triggers a final lament from Jeremiah in 20:7–20 but he now sees the truth of YHWH’s earlier promises (1:17–19; 15:20–21), namely that if he remains loyal YHWH will protect him from all enemies. In v 13 he praises YHWH because he realises that what he has received is in keeping with the way YHWH responds to all those in need of deliverance from evildoers (20:13). But this in turn triggers a painful final question that echoes the book of Job; what is the point of being born if it is only to ‘see toil and sorrow’? The imminent end of Judah’s time in the land and temple is signaled by the report in 21:1–2 of a delegation from king Zedekiah to Jeremiah to intercede with YHWH against the Babylonian siege that has begun. Despite the prospect of seeing more toil and sorrow, Jer- emiah reaffirms the conquest of the city and its inhabitants, in line with his preceding announcements. The only way out of this crisis is to obey YHWH’s word and surrender to the Babylonians (21:9). Jeremiah is then instructed, as with the sermon in the temple, to go to

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 15 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM xvi Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the gates of the royal palace and there proclaim what YHWH requires of the kings in order for them to continue on the throne of David. Except for loyal Josiah, all the subsequent kings are exposed as fail- ures and condemned in 22:10–30. But, as a sign that the plucking up and pulling down will be followed by building and planting, a woe against ‘the shepherds’ of YHWH’s flock in 23:1–2 is followed by a promise that YHWH will gather the scattered flock and install a successor to David who will ‘execute justice and righteousness’. This sequence of woe and promise, which recalls Jeremiah’s commission in 1:10, is followed by a series of passages against false prophecy. Within the context, the thrust of this is that there is no alternative prophecy about Judah and Jerusalem to the one that Jeremiah has consistently proclaimed in the preceding chapters. Chapter 24 confirms Jeremiah’s words via the sign of good and bad figs. The good figs are those who have presumably obeyed the injunction in 21:9 to surrender to Babylon and have been taken into exile. They will form the core of those whom YHWH will bring back to the land in order to build and plant. The sight of the good figs that YHWH provides for Jeremiah (and the reader) can also be read as a response to Jeremiah’s lament in 20:18—the loyal, suffering prophet is privileged by YHWH to ‘see’ beyond the toil and sorrow. The bad figs are king Zedekiah and those who did not obey the injunction. In line with YHWH’s decree, they will be ‘utterly destroyed from the land that I gave to them and their ancestors’ (24:10). I identify 25 (MT) as a pivotal chapter in the book.3 Verses 1–11a review in concise fashion the preceding condemnations of Judah for not heeding Jeremiah or any of the prophets that YHWH has ‘persistently sent’, and because of this YHWH is sending an invader from the north who will take over ‘this land’ and put an end to Judah’s time there. The festivities that mark their confidence in the future will

3. Martin Kessler describes chapter 25 as a ‘hinge chapter’ that looks backward and forward (cf 71 of ‘The Function of chapter 25 and 50–51 in the Book of Jeremiah’, in Troubling Jeremiah, edited by AR Pete Diamond, Kathleen M O’Connor, and Louis Stulman, JSOTSup 260 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], 64–72). See in the same volume Robert P Carroll’s essay ‘Halfway through a Dark Wood: Reflections on Jeremiah 25’, 73–86. On page 85 he describes chapter 25 as ‘the pivotal chapter in the unfolding book of Jeremiah’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 16 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xvii

be brought to an end (cf 25:10).4 According to v. 9 the surrounding nations will suffer the same fate as Judah even though the text does not spell out the nature of their guilt. As pointed out in my preceding volume, I judge that v 11b introduces a new time factor into the book; namely that Judah and the surrounding nations are to serve the king of Babylon for a decreed period of seventy years, after which he and his nation will be punished ‘for their iniquity’ (v 12a).5 Even though the text does not say so explicitly, the punishment of Babylon will mark the end of Judah and the surrounding nations’ period of imprisonment under Babylon (often referred to as ‘the Babylonian captivity’). YHWH, the Sovereign of all time and place, presumably has a plan or purpose for Judah and the nations after their imprisonment.6 Within the context, one may relate this to the promise of building and planting that will follow deliverance from the Babylonian captivity. In 25:15–29 of the MT Jeremiah is instructed to make Judah and the surrounding nations drink from the cup of YHWH’s wrath. Even though the text portrays Jeremiah carrying out the instruction it is difficult to imagine how it could be done, except in some symbolic or ritualised sense. It would seem best to read the text as creating a

4. Carroll judges that the accusation against the people in 25:3–7 for not heeding the prophets is in conflict with 23:9-40, which instructs them not to heed prophets (cf ‘Halfway through a Dark Wood’, 76-78). This overlooks a clear distinction between 23:21 and 25:4. The people should not heed the prophets referred to in 23:9–40 because ‘I did not send them’ whereas, according to 25:4, the people refused to heed the prophets that ‘YHWH persistently sent you’. 5. After discussing various commentators, Carroll concludes that one cannot rule out a literal, metaphorical or conventional meaning for the number seventy. However, within its present context, he judges it best to take 70 as indicating that ‘a long history of rebellion merits a long period of punishment’ (Jeremiah, OTL [London: SCM, 1986], 495). 6. For John Hill 25:3–14 ‘contains no suggestion that Babylon’s demise will foreshadow Judah’s restoration’ (155 of ‘The Construction of Time in Jeremiah 25 MT’, in Troubling Jeremiah, edited by AR Pete Diamond, Kathleen M O’Connor, and Louis Stulman; JSOTSup 260 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], 146–60). In my view this does not take account of v. 11b in which YHWH sentences Judah and ‘all these nations’ to seventy years of Babylonian servitude, after which Babylon will be punished. Babylon’s punishment surely means the end of their sentence, with the former prisoners released and sent home—hence the promises of restoration in chapters 30–33. Hill mistakenly includes the indefinite time word ‘olam in v 11, which creates tension with the more definite term ‘seventy years’ (cf 153–54).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 17 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM xviii Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

highly rhetorical picture of Judah and the nations as guests at their universal Sovereign’s or Host’s table, and those who break the Host’s ‘code of conduct’ are exposed and disgraced before one another and all creation. Jeremiah is pictured as his Host’s loyal ‘waiter’, serving the guests welfare or bad fare, as instructed. In line with vv 12–14, Babylon, who had been entrusted with a special task by YHWH, will also be punished for its disobedience and obliged to drink from the cup. The statement in v 26b that ‘after them the king of Sheshach shall drink’ shows that Babylon’s own punishment is as integral a part of YHWH’s sovereign plan for the nations as is its conquest of Judah and the surrounding nations, and the decreed seventy years of its dominance. Thus the end of the kingdom of Judah and the surrounding nations, the seventy years of subjugation to Babylon, and Baby- lon’s own demise are three stages in the one divine plan to remove the existing evil disorder and pave the way for the building and planting of a new order. The nature of this new order is presented in chapters 30–33. Even though 25:1–11a reviews Jeremiah’s preaching in the preceding chapters, and v 11b and following preview what will be proclaimed in subsequent chapters, they are to be read as the unfolding of the one divine plan. Chapter 25 is therefore an integral part of the first major section of the book as well as an integral part of the second major section. While 25:1–29 is initially about the fate of Judah, the surrounding nations and Babylon, as the reader comes to the end of the passage on the cup of wrath, ‘all the kingdoms of the world that are on the face of the earth’ are included (v 26a). Even though this may be a later addition, it fits well in the context. The universal Sovereign who is resolved to bring punishment on wicked Judah, the surrounding nations, and in due course Babylon, must also have a similar plan for all the nations. The final vv 30–38, which may also be an addition, outline how this will take place. The arrangement of the passage is somewhat similar to vv 15-29. There is the initial announcement about YHWH’s ‘indictment against the nations’ in vv 30–33, which parallels Jeremiah’s report in vv 17–26 about how he administered the cup of the wine of wrath to the assembled nations and their leaders. This is followed by a second person address to the leaders of the nations in vv 34–38—the ‘shepherds’ and ‘lords of the flock’—to wail because of the impact that YHWH’s intervention will have on them and their lands. This parallels the second person address to the

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 18 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xix

nations and their kings in vv 27–29 about the terrifying reality of which the cup of wrath is a symbolic harbinger—namely the sword of destruction. The following chapter 26 is set at the beginning of the reign of king Jehoiakim, rather than in his fourth year as in 25:1. This is another example of a feature of the book that I term ‘chronological reversal’, and tells of a hostile reaction to Jeremiah’s preaching in the temple. As commentators have noted, the setting of a temple sermon evokes the earlier one in chapter 7 in which YHWH declares through Jer- emiah that this holy place will become a ruin like Shiloh. Chapter 26 thereby claims further justification for YHWH’s decree of Judah and the surrounding nations’ punishment at the hands of Babylon (25:8–11a), and in doing so also enhances the authority of the following texts about the seventy years of servitude to Babylon (v. 11b). It is also further evidence of the close integration of the two main parts of the book; chapters 1–25 and 25/26–52. Two features in particular of chapter 26 reinforce the judgement against Judah. One is the way Jeremiah is portrayed willing to give his life as testimony that what he has prophesied about Judah and Jerusalem is the word of YHWH (cf vv 14–15). The other is the recall in vv 16–19 by the officials and people of how king Hezekiah and the people of his day responded to the prophecies of Micah. They repented and were able to successfully entreat YHWH’s favour. As the officials and the people admit, by not following the example of their forebears they are bringing disaster on themselves. The sense of impending disaster for Judah is heightened by the setting of chapter 27 in the reign of king Zedekiah. The first reference to him in the book, in 21:1–2, is of a king under siege by the Babylo- nians. Even though chapter 27 is set at the beginning of his reign, the clear implication is that the end of Judah’s time in the land has arrived. As well as heightening the sense of impending disaster for the kingdom of Judah, this and the following two chapters (28 and 29) take up and develop YHWH’s decree in 25:11b about the fate of Judah and the nations; that is, seventy years of servitude to Babylon. Jeremiah is commanded by YHWH to instruct the surrounding nations, king Zedekiah, the priests and all the people that if they accept this decree they will live; if they do not they will perish. As an urge to accept, 27:7 reasserts the decree of 25:12–14 that Babylon’s dominance will last only a certain time, after which its king will himself become the

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 19 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM xx Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

slave of others.7 The necessity of accepting this time of servitude is underscored by Jeremiah’s symbolic action of wearing a yoke of straps and bars. However, his warnings about false prophets who declare a speedy return of the status quo indicate that neither king nor people will heed the instructions and obey them (cf 27:14–15, 17–18). This is exemplified in the subsequent conflict with a rival prophet Hananiah in chapter 28. Hananiah prophesies the exile will last only two years and backs it up with a sign—breaking Jeremiah’s yoke. But his untimely death exposes him as one of the false prophets and confirms the words of Jeremiah. In chapter 29 Jeremiah writes a letter to those taken to exile in Babylon in the time of Jehoiachin (cf chapter 24), in which he urges them to make their home in Babylon until the seventy years are complete. Only then will YHWH bring them back and implement ‘the plans that I have for you . . . plans for your welfare and not for harm’ (29:11). At this point one may also note that the distinct but related topics of devastation of the land and seventy years of servitude to Babylon recall the sermon in chapter 7 on place (land and temple) and the sermon in 17:19–27 on time (Sabbath), as well as their combination in 22:1–5. One may also note how chapters 28 and 29 portray the loyalty of Jeremiah to his commission despite hostility and rejection. This enhances the portrayal of the loyal prophet in chapter 26; the implication being that the one who is so committed to the word he proclaims must sincerely believe the truth of that word. Hence, his hearers (and readers) should do the same. As already noted, 25:12 declares that once the seventy years of Babylon’s rule are completed, its king and nation will be punished for their iniquity. This implies release for Judah and the nations but the text does not state what kind of life they will have beyond their period of imprisonment. However, within the larger context one may reasonably conclude that what is implied becomes explicit in chapters 30–33 which set out YHWH’s restoration plans for Judah. This is a complex text that will be examined in more detail in the analysis to follow. As part of this Outline however, I draw attention to the following. In 30:2 Jeremiah is instructed by YHWH to write in

7. Verse 7 identifies the period of servitude with three generations of Babylonian kings rather than seventy years, as in 25:11b and 29:10. This difference will be commented on in a subsequent chapter. For a discussion of the literature on the meaning of this expression, see Peter R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought in the Sixth Century B. C.(London: SCM Press, 1961), 240.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 20 13-May-20 5:25:51 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xxi

a scroll ‘all the words that I have spoken to you’. It is generally agreed that the words written in the scroll are contained in 30–31, often referred to as the ‘book of consolation’. These present in dramatic poetic form the plans that YHWH has for the return and restoration of the people after the decreed period of Babylonian domination. The book of Jeremiah reports the production of two further scrolls, one in chapter 36 and another containing the oracles on Babylon in 51:59–64. Each scroll plays an important role in the way the book unfolds its theology of prophecy, and this will be examined in detail in the following chapters. However, as part of this Outline of Jer- emiah 25–52, we may note that the so-called ‘book of consolation’ is linked to the preceding chapter in that it presents the plans for the people’s future that YHWH promises to implement in 29:11.8 Via these plans YHWH will, according to v 14, ‘restore the fortunes of my people’.9 The ‘book of consolation’ is followed by two passages in which what happens to Jeremiah serve as signs that confirm the two main claims of chapters 27–29 and 30–31. These are the Babylonian conquest of Judah and seventy years of servitude or imprisonment to Babylon (in 32:1-5), followed by return and restoration after this period (in 32:6– 15). In 32:1–5, Jeremiah is a prisoner of king Zedekiah who asks why he prophesies that the city will be conquered by the Babylonians and himself taken as prisoner to Babylon. Zedekiah’s question is about a prophecy Jeremiah has already proclaimed and which the reader encounters in the chronologically earlier passage, 34:1–5. As will be pointed out, comparison of the two passages enhances one’s overall understanding of chapters 25–36. But even without this comparison, the surrounding context enables a reader to see two key aspects of Zedekiah’s words in 32:1–5 that confirm Jeremiah as a loyal prophet who proclaims what YHWH commands him to proclaim, namely the handing over of Jerusalem and its inhabitants to the king of Babylon,

8. Chapters 30–31 may also be read as spelling out the nature of the promises that YHWH proclaims for the good figs in 24:4–7. The initial ‘basket’ of good figs was taken into exile in the time of Jehoiachin, but the passage, particularly when read in conjunction with chapter 29, embraces a wider group of Babylonian exiles. 9. The same Hebrew combination of verbshub and noun shubah is used in 29:14 and 30:3.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 21 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM xxii Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

and an ensuing period of imprisonment/exile. Zedekiah’s fate is that he will remain in Babylon ‘until I attend to him’ (v 5).10 A notable point in relation to 32:1–5 is that Jeremiah does not answer the king’s question directly, although the subsequent account of Jeremiah’s purchase of a field may be taken as an indirect answer. However, the reason why Jeremiah does not answer the king’s question directly is that his answer has already been given in preceding prophecies. The end of the existing disorder—the conquest of Judah—has been decreed and there is no escape from it or the period of Babylonian ‘imprisonment’ that will commence with it. The king’s question is an indication that, even at this most threatening moment for his kingship and that of the kingdom of Judah, he is unwilling to heed Jeremiah’s warning in 27:12–15, and is banking on a speedy resolution of the crisis and return of the status quo. As the book presents him, Zedekiah is a classic case of the distorted perception of reality, seeing evil where there is good and good where there is evil. His imprisonment and interrogation of Jeremiah may well be aimed at extracting a word that is more in accord with his distorted hopes, but at this point it is difficult to be certain. One of course learns more about Jeremiah’s imprisonment and his exchanges with Zedekiah in chapters 37–39. Nevertheless, at this point one may say, again drawing on the context, that Jeremiah’s imprisonment is a sign that the one who is really already in prison is Zedekiah, besieged all around by the invader Babylon. YHWH assured Jeremiah in 1:19 and again in 15:20 that, as long as he stayed loyal to his calling, those who fight against him would not prevail because YHWH would deliver him. This motif of ‘reversal’ has been graphically illustrated in Jeremiah’s dispute with the priest Pashhur in 20:1–6 and will be illustrated further in the account of the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem in chapters 37–39 and its aftermath in 40–44. In the second text in 32:6–15 Jeremiah reports how YHWH forewarned him of a visit from a relative Hanamel, urging him to

10. The differences between 32:1–5 and 34:1–5 will be commented on in the more detailed analysis to follow this Outline. At this point one may note that whereas in 34:5 Jeremiah states that Zedekiah will die ‘in peace’ as a prisoner of Nebuchadrezzar in Babylon, Zedekiah claims in 32:5 that Jeremiah prophesied his imprisonment will last until YHWH attends to him (the Hebrew verb rendered ‘attend’ in the NSRV is phaqad which can also mean ‘visit’, ‘punish’).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 22 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xxiii

buy his field at Anathoth, and how he bought the field, drew up the accompanying deeds before witnesses as a record of the purchase, and instructed Baruch to put them in an earthenware jar so that they would last a long time (32:14). According to v 15 YHWH decrees that this whole process is a sign that ‘houses and fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this land’. The report is followed by a prayer from Jeremiah which ends with an implied question in v 25 about the reason behind YHWH’s instruction, given the inevitable defeat of Judah by the Chaldeans. Unlike Zedekiah’s question to Jeremiah in 32:5, this one is answered directly by YHWH in an extended discourse in 32:26–33:26 that explains the meaning of the sign. Even though this text is in prose most scholars would agree that it echoes key themes in the poetic ‘book of consolation’ in chapters 30–31. On this understanding, the ‘book of consolation’ and 32:26–33:26 form a frame around the report in 32:6–25 of Jeremiah being instructed by YHWH to purchase a field and his prayer that follows. In my view chapters 34 and 27–29 form a similar frame, but in this case it is around 32:1–5, the sign of Jeremiah as a prisoner under interrogation by the king. The connection between this text and 34:1–5 is quite clear, even though there are a number of differences and other features to be explored, one of them being a chronological ‘reversal’. That is, 34:1–5 is set earlier in time than 32:1–5 even though it appears later in the textual sequence. However, what most studies do not comment on is the connection between Jeremiah wearing the yoke of straps and bars in chapters 27–28 as a sign of Judah and the king’s imprisonment, and Jeremiah’s imprisonment in 32:1–5. As pointed out above, the latter is effectively a sign that Zedekiah himself is the real prisoner—trapped in a distorted perception of reality that will inevitably lead to his capture and imprisonment by the besieging Babylonians. Another element that links chapters 27–29 and 34 is the reliance by king and people on a word (in 27–29) or a sign (in 34:6–22) that in their judgement promises a quick resolution of the crisis and a return to the good old days. With 27–29 the word is the prophecies of a short exile, with 34:6–22 the sign is the Babylonian withdrawal in 34:21. This prompted king and people to reverse the release of their Hebrew slaves which, in itself, Jeremiah is presented identifying as a good thing because it is in accord with a requirement of the covenant made with the ancestors (34:13–15). To reverse such a release is therefore

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 23 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM xxiv Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

not only a repudiation of YHWH’s commands but also a clear sign of king and people’s inherent deceitfulness. What drives such deceit and the rejection of the prophetic call to change and repent is clearly self-interest. In sum, I would propose that the text has been arranged so that chapters 27–29 and 34 frame or relate to the first of the texts which portrays Jeremiah as a sign, namely 32:1–5, while 30–31 and 32:26–33:26 do the same for the second of such texts, namely 32:6– 25. The former relates to the Babylonian conquest and long exile/time of servitude decreed in 25:11b, while the latter takes up and makes explicit what is only implied in 25:12–14, namely life after the demise of Babylon which will signal the end of the time of servitude. The realisation of the former is of course a perquisite for the latter. The existing disorder must be plucked up and pulled down before a new order can be built and planted. For its part, chapter 35 forms a parallel to 26 and its prophecy of Judah’s demise. Both episodes are set in the reign of king Jehoia- kim, with 26 before and 35 after the pivotal fourth year of this king’s reign (cf 25:1–2). The latter date for 35 is indicated by the way the Rechabites refer to the invasion of Nebuchadrezzar as the factor that prompted them to take refuge in Jerusalem. No such threat is mentioned in 26. In my judgement a key factor linking these two chapters is that each provides a model of fidelity for the people. Jeremiah is of course himself a model of fidelity to YHWH in both chapters but it is significant that the portrayal of a people as models of fidelity occur only in these chapters. As one might expect, given the run of the book, neither model is followed. The model of a faithful people in 26 is king Hezekiah and ‘all Judah’ in the days of the prophet Micah (vv 17–19). When Micah warned of disaster for Judah, the king and people did not kill him, as Jeremiah’s contemporaries initially want to do to him because of his preaching in the temple in vv 1–6. Instead, this previous generation repented and the king entreated YHWH who revoked the threat. But there is no corresponding repentance by the people in vv 16–19 who draw this comparison. The parallel in 35 is provided by the Rechabites, a people who refuse to compromise their loyalty to tradition by drinking wine provided for them as refugees who have fled to the city. Jeremiah presents them as a model for the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem who stand condemned for their failure to heed YHWH’s word and turn from their evil ways.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 24 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xxv

The telling contrast between faithful Rechabites and unfaithful people also shows why this chapter is located after chapter 34 in which the disloyalty and deceit of the people is exposed. The textual location of the chronologically later chapter 34 before chapter 35 serves, as in other instances of chronological reversal, to confirm the word pronounced ‘earlier’ in 35, namely that the people of Judah and Jerusalem refuse to heed the prophetic word to remain loyal to the covenant made with their ancestors (34:13–14), unlike the Rechabites who stay loyal to their ancestor’s commands (35:6–7). Hence Judah will be expelled from YHWH’s presence but ‘Jonadab son of Rechab shall not lack a descendant to stand before me for all time’ (v 19). Two further features may be noted about chapter 35. One is that the reference to the Babylonian invasion in v 11 indicates it is chronologically later than the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the year in which YHWH instructed Jeremiah in 36:2 to write on a scroll ‘all the words that I have spoken to you against Israel and Judah and all the nations, from the day I spoke to you, from the days of Josiah until today’. This is another example of ‘chronological reversal’. Two reasons may be offered for the location of 35. One is that it alerts the reader that the oral proclamation of the prophetic word does not cease when it takes written form, a factor that applies to all Jeremiah’s subsequent preaching up to and beyond the Babylonian conquest. Chapter 35 could of course have been located after chapter 36 to make the same point. However this would have robbed the book of the dramatic shift from the scroll of the written prophetic word in 36 to the realisation or fulfillment of this prophetic word in chapters 37–39. A second reason is the one already noted, that the location of 35 before 36 provides a telling contrast between two peoples; namely the faithful Rechabites in 35 and the unfaithful and deceitful people of Jerusalem in 34:8–22. Israel and Judah were chosen by YHWH, delivered from slavery in Egypt, and brought to the land to live in obedience to YHWH’s word. By doing so they would proclaim their faith that YHWH is the universal Sovereign who rules the world in righteousness. According to the preaching of Jeremiah, they have betrayed their God and failed in their vocation. One gains the impression from 35:18–19 that the loyal Rechabites have been chosen to replace Judah in the land as a sign that YHWH rewards those who are loyal and punishes those who are disloyal, in accord with the prophetic word. Within the context of the decrees in chapters 25 and 27–29, this will presumably be

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 25 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM xxvi Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the situation for the period of Judah’s Babylonian captivity. To ensure that the decree of Judah’s judgement and punishment is made known to all involved and that it will endure as a sign of YHWH’s righteousness for future generations, 36:2 reports how Jeremiah is instructed to write on a scroll all the words YHWH has spoken ‘from the days of Josiah until today’ and have it read to the ‘house of Judah’. This time span is the same as in 25:3 and, when linked with 1:2, embraces all Jeremiah’s preaching from his initial call to the fourth year of Jehoia- kim, the date on which, according to 36:1, he was commanded to write the scroll. These connections indicate that this scroll, like the ‘book of consolation’ plays an important role in how the book of Jer- emiah unfolds its theology of prophecy. According to 36:9 the public reading of the scroll took place in the following fifth year of Jehoiakim. It was read initially to all the people (vv 9–10), then to a group of officials in the king’s house (vv 11–19), and finally to Jehoiakim himself, who burnt the scroll (vv 20–27). YHWH’s immediate response is not to punish Jehoiakim but to commission another scroll that contains ‘all the words of the scroll’ that the king burnt (vv 27–28). Only then is Jehoiakim’s punishment declared (vv 30–31). The focus is clearly on the words of the scroll, and by commissioning another scroll YHWH ensures they will endure. An ironic feature of the chapter is that the burning of the scroll enhances the truth of its words; namely the judgement that king and people have refused to listen/hearken to/obey the words of YHWH proclaimed by Jeremiah.11 Hence their decreed punishment is completely justified. As well as these connections between chapters 36, 25 and Jeremi- ah’s call, one may also note a connection between 36 and 26 in the way Jeremiah is portrayed. Both chapters tell of him being threatened with death as a result of his preaching; in 26:10–11 the priests and prophets demand his execution because of his sermon in the temple, in 36:26 Jehoiakim seeks to arrest both him and his scribe Baruch after hearing the scroll read. The clear implication from Jehoiakim’s earlier execution of the prophet Uriah in 26:20–23 is that he will do the same to Jeremiah and Baruch. In both instances, Jeremiah

11. Here it may be worthwhile to note that a recognised feature of the book is its creative use of the Hebrew verb shama‘ which, depending on context, can mean ‘hear’, ‘listen’, ‘hearken to’, ‘obey’

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 26 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xxvii

remains faithful to his mission; in 26:12–15 refusing to resile from what he has preached despite the threat, and in 36:32 immediately obeying YHWH’s instructions for another scroll to replace the one burnt by the king who seeks his arrest. Linked with this portrayal of the prophet is the portrayal of his loyal scribe Baruch. Even though the reader has already encountered him in the episode of the purchase of land (32:6–15), it is set in the reign of the last king Zedekiah. Hence we have another instance of the chronological reversal that is a feature of the book. According to chapter 36, Baruch faithfully carries out what Jeremiah commissions him to do and, as a result, becomes a target of Jehoiakim’s murderous intent along with Jeremiah (36:26). But as 32:6–15 testifies, he remains loyal to the imprisoned Jeremiah as the true prophet. Another chronological reversal involving Baruch occurs in chapter 45. Even though it is located after the account of him and Jeremiah being taken forcibly to Egypt in the wake of the Babylonian conquest of Judah, it is set at the same time as the writing and reading of the scroll, namely the fourth year of Jehoiakim. It portrays a scribe distressed by the events of chapter 36 but assured that as long as he seeks to do YHWH’s will and not his own, he will be kept safe. There is a clear parallel here to the assurance YHWH gives Jer- emiah at the time of his own crisis over his commission (cf 15:20–21, also 1:18–19). Reading 45 in light of the accounts of Baruch’s enduring loyalty to YHWH and Jeremiah in 32:6–15 and 43:1–7 provides further confirmation of YHWH’s promise to Jeremiah that ‘I am with you to deliver you’ (1:19; 15:20b). A final point to note about chapter 36 in this Outline is the remark in v 22b that ‘many similar words’ were added to the second scroll that were not in the first. This remark is quite general and is best taken as an editorial addition that aims to expand the content of the scroll beyond Jeremiah’s preaching up to the fourth year of Jehoia- kim. One may assume the first scroll contained the oracles on the nations, because 25:13 asserts that they are part of Jeremiah’s proclamation made in the fourth year of king Jehoiakim. Hence the phrase ‘everything written in this book’ in v 13b can include these oracles even though they are located in the MT in chapters 46–51.12 However, the expanded second scroll allows for the inclusion of Jeremiah’s sub-

12. The word translated as ‘book’ in 25:13b is the same word for scroll in chapter 36 (sepher).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 27 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM xxviii Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

sequent preaching; one thinks in particular of his words to Zedekiah and the people in the lead up to the fall of Judah and Jerusalem, and his subsequent words to those left in Judah after the fall, as well as to the exiles in Egypt (cf chapter 44). The ‘many similar words’ may also be meant to include narrative report as well as spoken words and that both narrative and words were added over a period of time.13 It may be pushing things too far however to equate the full version of the second scroll with the book itself, whether one prefers the view that the earliest Hebrew version of the book was a shorter form of the MT that served as a Vorlage for the (shorter) Greek translation, or the theory that the Masoretic Text is an expanded version of a different Hebrew original to the Vorlage. The Outline presented thus far indicates that Jeremiah 25–36 forms a distinct section of the book and that it has been arranged as a concentric structure. That is, chapters 25 and 36 form the outer or A–A’ frame that prophesies in spoken and written forms the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem, as well as the surrounding nations, by Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon. Both chapters state that the spoken and written words record Jeremiah’s preaching to the fourth year of Jehoiakim, the same year in which Nebuchadrezzar defeated Pharaoh Neco and established Babylon as the dominant power of the ANE (cf 46:2). Chapters 26 (B) and 35 (B’) match each other in that both present a model group that forms a telling contrast the rebellious, hostile Judeans and their rejection of Jeremiah’s preaching. In 26 the model is king Hezekiah and the people of Micah’s day who heeded his preaching and repented. YHWH spared them the threatened disaster. In 35 it is the Rechabites who prove faithful to their tradition despite the disruption caused by the Babylonian invasion, obliging them to flee to Jerusalem. Chapters 27–29 and 34 form the next frame (C and C’) or matching pair in that both deal with the decreed period of Babylonian captivity. They portray the people pinning their hopes on false prophecies of a short period of Babylonian subjugation in chapters 27–29, and the false dawn of a temporary withdrawal of Babylon in 34:21–22. These responses expose them as refusing to heed/obey the word of YHWH as proclaimed by Jeremiah. Both arms of this C–C’ frame are situated in the reign of the last king Zedekiah. The refusal to heed/obey the

13. Cf Carroll, Jeremiah, 661.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 28 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xxix

true prophet’s word reaches its nadir in Zedekiah’s imprisonment and interrogation of Jeremiah in 32:1–5. As noted, this is ironically a sign of what will happen to Zedekiah and the people rather than what will happen to Jeremiah. For their part, chapters 30–31 (D) and 32:26– 33:26 (D’) are clearly linked by their focus on the restoration of Judah and the key features of this restoration. They in turn frame signs that confirm the two main thrusts of the surrounding or framing texts. The first is Zedekiah’s imprisonment of Jeremiah in 32:1–5 (E) which, on my interpretation, serves as a counter sign that the real prisoner is Zedekiah himself, trapped by the besieging Babylonians. There can be no escape from the conquest of Judah and the decreed seventy years of servitude. This relates to the prophecies in B, C and C’, B’. The second sign is the account of Jeremiah’s purchase of a field in 32:6–15 (E’). It is followed by a prayer from Jeremiah in vv 16–25 that ends with an implied question that YHHW answers in 32:26–33:26. The prayer and YHWH’ response provides added assurance that the purchase of the field and the careful preservation of documents associated with it is a sure sign that the prophecies of return and restoration will be fulfilled. The book does not report the realisation of these prophecies although the clear implication from the context is that it will take place after the demise of Babylon. A reader in the post-exilic period was of course able to verify the truth of such prophecies.

This arrangement may be illustrated in more schematic form as follows:14 A 25 Review of Judah’s rejection of Jeremiah’s prophecies from days of Josiah to fourth year of Jehoiakim, and the decreed retribution to come B 26 Contrast between hostile audience of Jeremiah’s day and repentant audience of Micah’s day C 27–29 Jeremiah’s instructions on how to live decreed period of Babylonian captivity and conflict with false prophets proclaiming a short captivity. D 30–31 Jeremiah instructed to write in a book YHWH’s plans for return/restoration

14. A number of proposals have been made about the arrangement of Jeremiah 25/26–36 and these are discussed in the analysis that follows this Outline.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 29 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM xxx Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

E 32:1–5 Prisoner Jeremiah as sign of king Zedekiah’s impending imprisonment by Babylon E’ 32:6-25 Prisoner Jeremiah’s purchase of field as sign of return to land after period of Babylonian captivity, and his prayer to YHWH D’ 32:26–33:26 YHWH answers Jeremiah’s prayer with further rev- elations about the return/restoration C’ 34:1–22 Jeremiah counters false hopes of short captivity fueled by temporary lifting of the siege of Jerusalem by Babylon B’ 35:1–19 Rechabites as a model of fidelity in contrast to unfaithful, rebellious Judah A’ 36 Jeremiah instructed to write on a scroll all that YHWH has spoken to him from days of Josiah to fourth year of Jehoiakim.

The text has been arranged to enhance the interrelatedness of its parts, the various prophecies are integral parts of one overall universal plan or purpose by YHWH, the universal Sovereign of time and place. The scroll of chapter 36 contains the same words as those referred to in 25, namely all that Jeremiah has been commanded to declare concerning Judah and Jerusalem from the days of Josiah to the fourth year of Jehoiakim. The two chapters that form the next part of the structure, 26 (B) and 35 (B’), provide models of the kind of conduct that would have ensured a future (time) for Judah in the land (place) instead of its end at the hands of Babylon. In 26 the model is the generation of Hezekiah and Micah’s day, in 35 it is the Rechabites. Chapters 27–29 (C), which contain YHWH’s instructions about how the people are to live under Babylonian hegemony for the decreed period of seventy years, are countered by false prophecies of a short-exile followed by return. The same hope of a quick resumption of the status quo lies behind the deceit perpetrated by king and people in the release of indentured labourers in chapter 34 (C’). These texts confirm there is no alternative to what YHWH has decreed. As 32:1–5 intimates, it is Zedekiah and his people, not Jeremiah, who will become prisoners of the Babylonians. In accord with 1:10, the existing disorder must be plucked up and pulled down. But this is the necessary prelude to the final stage or climax of the divine plan, which is to build and plant a new order, and this is proclaimed in the scroll of chapters 30–31 and

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 30 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xxxi

YHWH’s response to Jeremiah’s prayer in 32:26–33:26. A sign that this will surely take place is the report of the purchase of a field by the ‘prisoner’ Jeremiah in 32:6–15, following instructions from YHWH. While life beyond the seventy years of exile is hinted at in 25:12–14 with its prophecy of the punishment of Babylon, it is appropriate that it is only made explicit at this central point of the structure via the purchase of a field, because it is only when the prophesied plucking up and pulling down, the destruction and overthrow of the existing disorder has been realised that building and planting of a new order can take place. As well as the prophecy of Judah’s punishment for its sins, Jer- emiah 25 also proclaims punishment for the surrounding nations. However, apart from the assurance in 27:1–11 that the surrounding nations cannot escape subjugation at the hands of Babylon, one does not find any other passages in chapters 25–36 that deal with this topic, nor does one find any prophecy of what form Babylon’s own punishment will take. There is of course the symbolic action in 25:15–29 of Jeremiah distributing the cup of YHWH’s wrath to Judah and the nations, but one has to wait until chapters 46–49 to read the oracles on the nations, and until 50–51 for the oracles on Babylon. In my judgement the reason for the location of chapters 46–49 is indicated by the superscriptions in 46:2 and 49:28a. These serves as a framing device that presents the oracles on the nations named in 46:3–49:33 as realised or fulfilled. Their location in the book is therefore appropriate; after the accounts of the realisation of the prophecies on Judah’s conquest by Babylon in chapters 37–39, and after 40–44. The latter recount key episodes in post-conquest Judah that confirm the decreed period of servitude to Babylon from which there can be no escape, not even by fleeing to Egypt. The promise to Baruch in chapter 45 provides a telling contrast that confirms the fate of the disobedient Judeans in 40–44; the one who stays loyal to YHWH and YHWH’s word will be saved, the ones who reject and disobey it will perish. In contrast, the superscription to the oracles on Babylon in 50–51 presents them as yet to be fulfilled but, as already noted, a reader in the post-exilic period would have been able to confirm that this had indeed taken place, like the oracles on Judah and the nations in the preceding chapters. What is striking about chapters 37–39 is that, whereas one would expect an account of the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem to be the

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 31 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM xxxii Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

dominant feature after chapter 36, this only becomes the case in 39:1– 10. The main focus of chapters 37–38 is Jeremiah, who goes from being initially a free man in the besieged city to being accused and incarcerated, to being cast into a muddy pit/cistern to die, to being rescued from there but still remaining a prisoner. He is finally freed from the (false) imprisonment inflicted on him by his countrymen cf( 39:11–14) on the orders of Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, the ‘servant’ of YHWH (cf 25:9; 27:6). Chapters 37–38 unfold what one might call ‘the passion of Jeremiah’ via a series of dramatic scenes, in only one of which—38:1-6—is he portrayed taking the initiative in proclaiming YHWH’s message to the people. The one person who gives him the title ‘the prophet’ is the foreigner Ebed-melech (38:9). In all the other scenes Jeremiah responds to requests or questions, and in the final scene with Zedekiah (38:14–28) he conceals the prophetic words he has spoken from the interrogating officials for the sake of Zedekiah’s safety.15 One could say that the prophet reduces himself to silence. While Jeremiah becomes silent for the sake of the king, another and perhaps more important reason for his silence is that YHWH’s message has been made clear. There is nothing more to say, and the account of the conquest in 39:1–10 confirms this.16 This also explains the absence of the prophetic word in the account of the initial period of Babylonian servitude in 40:7–41:18. In my view, the freeing of Jer- emiah from the court of the guard by the Babylonians in 39:11–14 reveals that the real prisoners in chapters 37–38 are the king and people, and this is because they refuse to ‘listen to/heed’ the word of YHWH (cf 37:2) and instead imprison YHWH’s messenger.17 It is only by obeying this word and accepting the hegemony of the Babylonians that one is assured of life (cf 21:9; 38:2, 17, 20). In conclusion one can say there is a telling irony in chapters 37–39. The narrative ostensibly

15. As I will argue in the detailed analysis of chapters 37–38 below, although Zedekiah instructs Jeremiah to lie to the officials ‘and you will not die’ (NSRV has ‘or you will die’), the real reason why Jeremiah lies is to protect Zedekiah, who is in fear of his life from these officials who have shown their readiness to kill in the case of Jeremiah (38:4–6). 16. The promise to the people in 38:2, and to Zedekiah in 38:17 and 20, that if they surrender to the king of Babylon they will save their lives, is also made in 21:9, when Nebuchadrezzar began the final siege of Jerusalem. 17. As already noted in this Outline, the freeing of Jeremiah from his enemies by the Babylonians is in accord with the promises of 1:18–19 and 15:20–21.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 32 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xxxiii

recounts the initial imprisonment and final release of Jeremiah by the all-conquering Babylonians. However, the real or underlying narrative is about the descent of king Zedekiah and his people into the pit of imprisonment by the Babylonians, exemplified in the account of Zedekiah’s capture, and his witnessing the death of his sons before being blinded and taken in fetters to Babylon (39:4–7). The fate of king and people is in accord with the prophetic word, thereby confirming it and enhancing the authority of prophecies about what is to come. My understanding of the dynamics of chapters 37–39 is summarised in the following schematic arrangement. A more detailed discussion and justification of this arrangement will be provided in the subsequent analysis. 37:1–2 Introduction A 37:3–4 Zedekiah’s delegation to request prayers from Jer- emiah who is still free: first exchange B 37:5–10 Jeremiah warns that Babylonian withdrawal to confront Egypt is only temporary C 37:11–16 Jeremiah arrested and imprisoned by hostile officials in ‘cistern house’ D 37:17–21 Zedekiah sends for Jeremiah: second exchange. On request Jeremiah transferred to the court of the guard E 38:1–6 Officials plot to kill Jeremiah because of his preaching; Zedekiah capitulates E’ 38:7–13 Plot foiled by loyal Ebed-melech; confronts Zedekiah who authorises him to remove Jeremiah from cistern prison D’ 38:14–23 Zedekiah sends for Jeremiah: third exchange. Zedekiah will save his life by obeying the prophetic word C’ 38:24–28 Zedekiah instructs Jeremiah how to avoid death at hands of hostile officials B’ 39:1–10 Babylonians launch final assault; capture and imprisonment of Zedekiah A’ 39:11–14 Nebuchadrezzar orders release of Jeremiah from prison

Chapter 39 concludes with a report of the prophecy of salvation that Jeremiah delivers to Ebed-melech ‘while he was confined in the court

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 33 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM xxxiv Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

of the guard’ (39:15–18). This is presumably after Ebed-melech’s successful intervention in which, true to his name, he acts as a ‘servant’ (Ebed) of the universal King (melech) YHWH to deliver Jeremiah from death. In doing so he is like that other foreigner, Nebuchadrez- zar, who acts as YHWH’s servant to bring Judah and Jerusalem into subjugation and to free Jeremiah from prison. The location of this prophecy is another example of chronological reversal, as it takes the reader back before the sack of Jerusalem to the centre of the narrative, namely 38:1–13 (E and E’). The purpose of this arrangement is therefore not just to record the prophecy but to indicate that, as YHWH was true to the promise of deliverance for a loyal Jeremiah, so YHWH was true to the promise of deliverance for the loyal foreigner. There is no report in 39:1-14 of Ebed-melech being among those killed or imprisoned by the Babylonians. Chapters 40–44 are a narrative sequence that serves to confirm Jeremiah’s prophecy of the divinely decree period of subjugation to Babylon that would follow the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem (seventy years according to 25:11b; 29:10). One may also discern in chapters 37–39 and 40–44 confirmation of YHWH’s claim of sovereignty over all place and time. If 37–39 confirm the preceding decrees that YHWH is the one who decides who will and who will not occupy this or that place (for example, city, temple, land), 40–44 in their turn provide an account that confirms declarations such as the one in 18:5–10 that YHWH determines when a nation is to be plucked up and pulled down, or built and planted. The narrative unfolds in three main sections. The first runs from 40:1 to 41:15; the second from 41:16 to 43:13; and the third is 44:1–30.18 Jeremiah 40:7–12 recounts the initial good fortune those left in the land experienced by following the instruction of the Babylonian appointed governor Gedaliah. If they serve the Chaldeans and remain in the land ‘it shall go well with you’ (40:11). Gedaliah’s assurance is in accord with what Jeremiah promised while he was Zedekiah’s prisoner in the court of the guard, ‘those who go out to the Chaldeans shall live; they shall have their lives as a prize of war, and live’ (38:2b). Jeremiah does not appear in this section of the narrative because, given the preceding context, there is no need. Gedaliah is like a faithful servant of the prophet—like Baruch—

18. Jeremiah 40:1–6 looks to be a doublet of 39:11–14, and their relationship will be discussed in the more detailed analysis to follow.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 34 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xxxv

proclaiming Jeremiah’s word which is YHWH’s word. As long as the people heed it they will live well under the rule of Babylon, and a sign of this is the bounty the people enjoy in 40:12. But the situation changes with the assassination of Gedaliah by a member of the royal family, Ishmael. This raises the likely prospect of Babylonian retaliation, prompting the leaders and people to try and escape the Baby- lonians by fleeing to Egypt. But YHWH has warned the people and its leaders through Jeremiah’s preaching in chapters 27–29 that there can be no escape from the decreed period of subjugation to Babylon. Jeremiah is brought into the unfolding drama when the leaders and all the people ask him to consult YHWH on their behalf. This development commences the second part of the narrative that runs from 41:16 to 43:13. In 42:5–6 the people promise they will do whatever YHWH instructs them to do via Jeremiah, but the reader suspects that, given their rejection of the prophetic word thus far in the book, they will continue in the same vein in this case. As well as this there are the lessons YHWH gave to Jeremiah in chapters 14–15 about people who ‘go through the motions’ with the expectation that YHWH will then do their bidding. YHWH answers Jeremiah’s prayer on their behalf, reiterating the promise of life for those who submit to Babylonian servitude, and pronouncing doom for those who seek to avoid it by fleeing to Egypt (42:7–22). True to expectations the people reject YHWH’s word, claiming that Jeremiah has concocted a lie under pressure from his scribe Baruch. Both are then taken along with those attempting to flee to Egypt (43:1–7). There is no report of Jeremiah or Baruch resisting this journey to Egypt, an indication that, as earlier in his ministry, the prophet remains loyal to his vocation and to YHWH’s people through thick and thin. This reading is supported by the way Jeremiah is instructed to perform a symbolic action with accompanying words in 43:8–13. These assert there will be no escape from Babylonian domination even in Egypt, Babylon’s chief rival. As the officials of the king of Babylon came and sat in the middle gate of Jerusalem when they conquered it (39:3), so Jeremiah prophesies that Nebuchadrezzar will set up his throne on the foundation stones that he buries at the entrance to Pharaoh’s palace in Tahpanhes. Given that the encounter between Jeremiah and people in chapters 41–42 follows the same pattern as preceding ones; namely proclamation of the prophetic word by Jeremiah followed by rejection of

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 35 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM xxxvi Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the prophetic word by the audience, the reader may wonder why Jer- emiah reappears at this stage of the book. Given that his absence from the account of the conquest of Jerusalem (39:1–10) and from the early stages of this narrative (40:1–41:18) is because these texts narrate the realisation of the divine word already proclaimed, and so no new word is needed, shouldn’t the same criterion operate here? Nev- ertheless, one may argue that the book claims it was part of YHWH’s sovereign plan to have a prophetic word proclaimed at this juncture by Jeremiah because of two important and related reasons, the second of which is one that has not appeared in this form in the book so far. The first reason for the speech that YHWH instructs Jeremiah to deliver in Egypt is that by fleeing there the people have effectively reversed the exodus and thereby denied that YHWH liberated them from Pharaoh’s slave time. A key mark of freedom is being able to divide one’s time into periods of work and rest, whereas for a slave there is no rest. The Sabbath rest was the primary sign of YHWH’s deliverance of Israel from slave time in Egypt. Jeremiah’s sermon at the city gates in 17:19–27 warned the people that breaking the Sab- bath would lead to YHWH cancelling the promise that ‘this city shall be inhabited forever’ (v 25b). The second reason is related to this; the sermon in chapter 44 portrays the Judeans in Egypt as having become followers of another deity in the belief that it would ensure their freedom from captivity and retaliation by Babylon. The deity in question in this case is the queen of heaven. A striking feature of chapter 44 is that, even though the devotees of the queen of heaven are portrayed rejecting the words of Jeremiah (v 16b ‘we are not going to listen to you’), for a reader of the book, their report in v 18 of having experienced sword and famine ironically confirms his words. They of course believe this is just retribution for their neglect of the queen of heaven and not YHWH’s doing. According to their faith stance, she is the one sovereign of time/history. A related feature of 44 is its apparent acceptance that rival faith stances cannot prove their interpretation of the course of events that give rise to dispute. The chapter presents Jeremiah and the devotees of the queen of heaven presenting rival claims without resolution. One way to resolve such an impasse is to turn to the future, to claim or prophesy that what is to come will validate one’s position over against its rival. Hence, in vv 29–30 Jeremiah prophesies that YHWH will deliver Pharaoh Hophra into the hands of his enemies

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 36 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xxxvii

in the same way that YHWH delivered Zedekiah into the hands of his enemy Nebuchadrezzar. This will confirm YHWH is the one in charge of time/history. The fulfillment of this sign is not reported in the book but Hophra was apparently dethroned and captured in a battle around 570 BCE.19 In terms of the larger context, the claim that YHWH is Sovereign over what happens in Egypt as in Judah prepares for the oracles on the nations that follow in chapters 46–51 and which commence with the one on Egypt. A pervasive feature of these oracles is the claim of YHWH’s sovereignty over the nations. Like the earlier prophecy of salvation to Ebed-melech in 39:15– 18, the prophecy to Jeremiah’s scribe Baruch in chapter 45 comes at the end of a section of narrative and also reverses the chronological sequence. As noted earlier, the text in this case takes the reader back to the setting of chapter 36, when Baruch wrote the scroll in the nodal fourth year of Jehoiakim. The words of YHWH to Baruch echo those to Jeremiah earlier. Like his master, this disciple laments that his calling has brought him sorrow and groaning (cf 20:18). YHWH warns him, as YHWH warned Jeremiah, that he must not seek great things for himself because there is more to come, namely YHWH’s judgement on all flesh (cf 25:31). As long as he remains loyal he will, as Jeremiah promised the people in 38:2b, save his life as a prize of war. The same promise is given to Ebed-melech in 39:18. But whereas in the case of Ebed-melech the promise refers to Babylon’s conquest of Jerusalem, in Baruch’s case it includes both the sack of the city and the onset of the decreed time of subjugation to Babylon. This is indicated by the way the reader learns in 43:1–7 that Baruch must have fulfilled the conditions of the promise because he appears alongside Jeremiah in the aftermath of the Gedaliah assassination and accompanies him on the forced march to Egypt. The prophecy that YHWH would give him his life as a prize of war has come true both in relation to the war and also to its aftermath, and this is a sign that the same will be the case ‘in every place to which you may go’. Baruch will survive in Egypt as a loyal disciple of Jeremiah and, although they are not specifically mentioned, one may presume that he has safe in his keeping the scroll he wrote

19. Cf the information provided by William A. McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah. Volume 2. Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI–XX. ICC (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), 1082.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 37 13-May-20 5:25:52 PM xxxviii Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

and rewrote, as well as the earthenware jar containing the deeds of the field that Jeremiah is recorded purchasing in 32:6–15. In 45:5 Baruch is advised that, in accord with what Jeremiah proclaims in 25:30-38, YHWH’s purpose is to ‘bring disaster on all flesh’. Like the prophecy on the fate of Egypt in 44, this one provides a lead in to the oracles on the nations that follow but expands it to include all flesh, a clear echo of 25:30–38. Also, like the assurance given to Baruch, the oracles on the nations commence with reference to that same pivotal fourth year of Jehoiakim, the year of Nebuchadrezzar’s victory over Pharaoh Neco of Egypt. One’s understanding of the ‘oracles against/on the nations’ (OAN) and their function in the MT of Jeremiah becomes clearer when one compares them with the LXX version. As is well known, the so-called ‘oracles on the nations’ follow immediately after 25:13 in the LXX sequence. They expand on the initial decree against ‘all these nations around’ Judah by singling out the following nations and the oracles concerning them—Elam, Egypt, Babylon, Philistia (along with Tyre and Sidon), Edom, Ammon, Kedar, Damascus, Moab (cf LXX 26:1–31:44). The LXX sequence of oracles is followed by the account of Jeremiah being instructed by YHWH to make ‘all the nations’ to which he is sent drink from the cup of the ‘wine of wrath’. Except for Babylon, all the nations in the preceding prophecies, as well as some others, are named in LXX 32:1–15, although in somewhat different order. As with many prophecies, the symbolic action with the cup functions as a sign that is designed to underscore the claim of the spoken word. What is decreed will surely take place. Within the MT this sequence is effectively reversed, the symbolic action occurring first in 25:15–29 and the oracles later in chapters 46–51. In my judgement, this arrangement was made with two key aims in view. The first was, as with the LXX sequence, to confirm the truth of each oracle. However, it does this in a different way to the LXX, by employing two key superscriptions that frame the oracles on the nations in 46:2–49:33.20 The two superscriptions are 46:2 (after the general superscription in 46:1 that applies to all the nations), and 49:28a. Each superscription records the defeat of the

20. The superscription in 46:1 is a general one that includes Babylon (chapters 50–51) as well as the nations named in chapters 46–49.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 38 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xxxix

nation or nations named. In the case of Egypt, the superscription in 46:2 reports its defeat by Nebuchadrezzar at Carchemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim; in the case of Kedar and Hazor the superscription in 49:28a simply reports their defeat by Nebuchadrezzar. These superscriptions thus confirm the fulfillment of each oracle that follows, and it is reasonable to assume that the oracles on the nations named between the superscriptions are to be read in the same way. The nations are Philistia (with Tyre and Sidon), Moab, Ammon, Edom, Damascus.21 Like Judah, they were all conquered by Baby- lon and under its hegemony for seventy years, as decreed in 25:9–11. Within the larger context, the oracles in 46:1–49:33 have a similar function to chapters 37–39 and 40–44, which claim that the preceding prophecies on Judah of its conquest by Babylon and seventy years of servitude were fulfilled.22 However, whereas 37–39 and 40–44 do so via the narrative form, in 46:1–49:33 this is done via the framing superscriptions. The second aim of the MT arrangement is indicated by the prominence given to Babylon.23 Whereas the LXX lists Babylon third among the oracles on the nations, the MT locates the oracles on Babylon after the others and with a new superscription in 50:1.24 Unlike 46:2 and 49:28a, which present the oracles that follow as already realised, the superscription in 50:1 does not do so for the oracles on Baby- lon. Within the context of the book these oracles parallel the ones on the nations in 46–49 by spelling out the content and meaning of the initial decree on Babylon’s demise in 25:12–14. Even though they are presented in the book as prophecies of Babylon’s future demise, readers in the post-exilic period would have been able to confirm

21. Except for the one on the Philistines, all the oracles on the other nations listed are introduced by the simple preposition le (to/concerning). The one for the Philistines will be commented on in the analysis that follows. 22. The oracle on Elam in 49:34–39 does not fall within the framework formed by the two superscriptions. As with the superscription on the Philistines, the likely reasons for this will be considered in the analysis that follows this Outline. 23. On the prominence and function of Babylon in the book of Jeremiah, see Rannfrid M. Thelle, ‘Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah (MT): Negotiating a Power Shift’, inProphecy in the Book of Jeremiah, edited by Hans M Barstad and Reinhard G Kratz, BZAW 388 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2009), 187–232. 24. In line with this the MT sequence of nations named in the symbolic action of 25:15–29 lists Babylon last (as Sheshach; cf v 26). As noted, Babylon is not named in the corresponding LXX version.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 39 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM xl Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

that they had indeed been fulfilled and thereby validated in the Per- sian conquest.25 In terms of the overall thrust of the book of Jeremiah this would leave one major prophecy yet to be fulfilled, namely the return and restoration proclaimed in chapters 30–33. The book does not spell out just when this will take place after the end of the seventy years of subjugation to Babylon; presumably this is up to YHWH the universal Sovereign of time and place. But the realisation that the preceding prophecies in the book have all come to pass would encourage one to believe that what 30–33 proclaim will also come to pass. Two additional features of the OAN in chapters 46–49 may be noted. One is that the sequence of superscription followed by oracle is another instance of chronological reversal. That is, one reads of the defeat of Pharaoh Neco by Nebuchadrezzar in the superscription before one reads the oracle that prophesies it will happen. The oracle that follows on Philistia in 47:1–7 would seem to have been pronounced even earlier, before Pharaoh and Egypt suffered defeat at the hands of Nebuchadrezzar, as reported in 46:2. The oracles on Kedar and the kingdom of Hazor report their defeat by Nebuchadrezzar but with no date.26 This may be because the terms Kedar and Hazor refer to semi-nomadic migratory peoples who lived in the Arabian desert and were presumably conquered by a different campaign of Nebuchadrezzar’s to the one referred to in 46:2 (the fourth year of Jehoiakim). Nevertheless, the textual arrangement also reflects the chronological reversal technique with announcement of the defeat of Kedar and Hazor before the actual oracle. As with examples of the technique in the preceding chapters, the ones in this section of the oracles on the nations are designed to enhance the authority of the book as the prophetic word of YHWH.

25. Steven M. Bryan examines the reception of the book’s prophesied seventy-year exile in post-exilic texts such as 2 Chr 36:20–23; Zech 1:12; Dan 9:1–2; the LXX, as well as Qumran, Deuterocanonical and Pseudepigraphical works such as 1 Esdras, the Letter of Jeremiah, Sibylline Oracle 3, Testament of Moses, 4 Baruch, and Josephus. He concludes that overall ‘the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy is placed firmly in the past, reflecting the belief that the exile had ended’ (page 126 of ‘The End of Exile: The Reception of Jeremiah’s Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile’, JBL, 137 [2018]: 107–126). 26. MT corrects Hazor to Tyre (tsor) but this seems odd given that Tyre was on the Mediterranean coast. Lawrence Boadt proposes reading ‘Hazer’ (Jeremiah 26–52, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Nahum, OTM 10 (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc, 1982), 136.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 40 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xli

The oracle on Elam in 49:34–39 is the last before the climactic proclamation against Babylon in chapters 50–51. In contrast to the bulk of the preceding oracles on the nations, it is in prose and does not have a sequence of superscription followed by oracle that constitutes a chronological reversal. Rather, the superscription informs the reader only when the oracle was delivered. The inclusion of Elam in the oracles against the nations and its location just before the oracle on Babylon, may well have been to enhance the claim that YHWH’s sovereignty embraces the whole (known) earth, from the farthest reaches of the west/southwest (Egypt, Philistia) to the farthest reaches of the east (Elam/Babylon). A second feature is that there is no account of events among the surrounding nations during their decreed period of Babylonian domination that would confirm 25:11b and correspond to what is recounted in chapters 40–44. This may well be due to the limited information available to those who assembled the book of Jeremiah, or that the prophecies of their restoration in due course (cf 46:26b; 48:47; 49:6, 39; perhaps also 49:11) presume a period of subjugation in accordance with the decree. The superscription to the oracles on Babylon in chapters 50–51 provides no date and simply introduces them as YHWH’s word spoken by Jeremiah. But if the superscription is brief it is more than made up for by the narrative that follows the oracles in 51:59–64. This recounts Jeremiah’s instructions to Baruch’s brother Seraiah to write the oracles on a scroll, to take the scroll to Babylon and there read it before tying a stone to it and sinking it in the Euphrates river. He is to accompany this symbolic gesture with a proclamation that as the stone-weighted scroll sinks in the river, so Babylon will sink because of what YHWH will do to her, never to rise again. The realisation of the oracles on Babylon is therefore a key stage in the unfolding of YHWH’s universal plan and one can discern this by comparing the function of the three scrolls that Jeremiah is commissioned to write in the book. The first is the one in chapter 36 which deals with the prophecies of the Babylonian conquest of Judah and its seventy years of ‘captivity’. As already noted, the realisation of these prophecies is recounted in chapters 37–39 and 40–44 respectively. The second is the scroll of the oracles on Babylon. Within the context of the book, these are yet to be realised and the scroll serves as an enduring sign— like the sign of the scroll in chapter 36—that they will indeed be realised in YHWH’s good time. A reader living in the aftermath of the

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 41 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM xlii Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Persian conquest of Babylon would be able to confirm that the conquest of Babylon did indeed take place. Even though the city was not destroyed, the Persians brought to a definitive end the seventy years of Babylonian captivity of Judah and the nations. And even though Babylon endured as a major metropolis until the rise of Islam, it never regained its former power and status. Its fate could therefore be interpreted as the prelude to the third and final stage of the unfolding of YHWH’s plan; namely the building and planting of a new order. According to the book, this has yet to take place but, as an enduring sign that it will, there is the scroll or the ‘book of consolation’ that contains the prophecies of return and restoration in chapters 30–31. An additional proposal that I would make about these three scrolls is that each takes up and develops an aspect of Jeremiah’s commission in 1:10; ‘to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant’. The contents of the scroll of chapter 36 relate to the first part of Jeremiah’s commission ‘to pluck up and to pull down’— the prophecies about Babylon’s conquest and seventy-year subjugation of Judah and the surrounding nations. The scroll of the oracles on Babylon relates to the second part of the commission, namely ‘to destroy and to overthrow’. This connection is suggested by the way the oracles on Babylon are effectively framed by the occurrence of the verb ‘overthrow’ (haras) in 50:15 (NRSV ‘thrown down’) and the verb ‘destroy’ (’abad) in 51:55 (NRSV ‘stilling’). These verbs are not employed in reference to Judah or any of the surrounding nations in chapters 46–49. The verb’abad does occur in the oracle on Elam in 49:38 but to refer to its king and officials, not the nation as such. In relation to this, unlike Israel and Judah and a number of the nations in 46–49, there is no promise of restoration for Babylon. Furthermore, Seraiah is instructed to say, as he hurls the scroll of oracles on Babylon into the river, ‘Thus shall Babylon sink, to rise no more’. This leaves the third or last scroll of the so-called ‘book of consolation’ in chapters 30–31 and it clearly relates to and spells out the third part of Jeremi- ah’s commission ‘to build and to plant’. The three scrolls are therefore an integral part of the dynamics of the book (scroll) of Jeremiah. One may note an additional feature about the oracles on Babylon, namely the way they parallel the ones on Egypt by including prophecies of salvation for Jacob/Israel (cf 46:27–28; 50:4–7, 17–20, 28, 33-34; 51:5, 10, 19, 34–37, 45–46, 50). The presence of such oracles at the beginning and end of the collection enhances the claim that the fate

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 42 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xliii

of the nations listed in chapters 46–51 is an integral part of YHWH’s saving purpose for Israel and Judah, and that this in turn is an integral part of YHWH’s universal purpose to pluck up and pull down the existing disorder and to plant and build a new order. A number of the oracles on the nations contain or conclude with a promise of restoration for a particular nation after its time of punishment cf( 46:26b [Egypt]; 48:47b [Moab]; 49:6 [Ammonites]; 49:39 [Elam]). As already noted, there is no corresponding promise of restoration for Babylon. Jeremiah 51:64b advises the reader/listener that ‘Thus far are the words of Jeremiah’. What follows therefore in chapter 52 is presumably from another source and the obvious one is the quite similar text of 2 Kings 25. This in turn supports the hypothesis that dtr editors were key figures in the shaping of the book of Jeremiah. Within the context of the book, each distinctive section of 52 can be read as taking up a particular prophecy in the preceding chapters. What is presented here as an independent source confirms the realisation of key prophecies in the book and thereby enhances its claim that the words of Jeremiah are the prophetic Word of God. The relationship between 52 and preceding material in the book of Jeremiah will be spelt out in more detail in Part 3, chapter 10. The schematic presentation that follows aims to make this Outline of the Dynamics of book of Jeremiah more easily accessible to readers. It incorporates the schematic presentation of chapters 1–25 from Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 1–25 (MT).

Schematic Outline of the Dynamics of the Book of Jeremiah 1:1–19 Jeremiah appointed by YHWH over Nations to ‘pluck up and pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant’ (1:10). Promise of protection in return for loyalty 2:1–3:5 Indictment of Israel, the once faithful bride of YHWH. Can or should ‘husband’ YHWH take back ‘faithless’ wife Israel? 3:6–10:25 Unfavourable comparison between ‘sisters’—‘faithless Israel/north’ and ‘false Judah/south’ (change of metaphor to avoid YHWH having two ‘wives’)

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 43 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM xliv Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

3:6–4:4 Contrast: A repentant Israel invited to return, Judah challenged to change or suffer YHWH’s wrath—new life envisaged in 3:15–18 (cf 1:10) 4:5–9:26 Series of sermons to/on rebellious Judah27 4:3–6:30 Corruption of Judah and Jerusalem must be purged (Jeremiah reminded of his commission in 6:27–30) 7:1–8:3 Sermon in gate of Jerusalem temple: abuse of sacred place will reap similar fate as other sacred place Shiloh (north) 8:4–9:26 (8:4–9:25) False Judah exposed as rejecting need for repentance (return) (Jeremiah’s distress over ‘my people’; 9:1 [8:23]) 10:1–25 Contrast between Israel professing true faith in YHWH and Judah destined for purge of exile (Jeremiah’s prayer for people 10:23–25).

11:1–20:18 Troubled Prophet receives Instruction from Merciful God; successful outcome 11:1–5 Prologue: dialogue between YHWH and Jeremiah on covenant 11:6–12:17 YHWH’s discourse on breach of the covenant and first confession/lament of Jeremiah 11:6–17 Declaration on breach of covenant 11:18–12:4/5-17 Dialogue between Jeremiah and YHWH (first confession/lament) 13:1–17:18 YHWH’s counseling/instruction for troubled prophet 13:1–15:21 YHWH conducts three lessons/ instructions for pupil Jeremiah (& reader)

27. Note different textual division here to that inDiscerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 1–5 (MT), xxxi.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 44 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xlv

13:1–27 First lesson: sign of ruined loincloth; Jeremiah’s exhortation, YHWH’s correction 14:1–16 Second lesson: YHWH’s teaching and subsequent dialogue (14:13–16) 14:17–15:21 Third lesson: YHWH’s teaching and subsequent dialogue (15:10–21) 16:1–17:13 Resumption of Jeremiah’s commission; lesson for all the nations 16:1–20 Jeremiah instructed to do three things (signs), and his positive response (16:19-20) 16:21–17:13 Lesson for the nations: What Jeremiah affirms is taught to all 17:14–18 Jeremiah’s third confession/lament 17:19–20:6 Proclamation by ‘healed’ prophet of YHWH’s decree that wicked Judah’s time is up, with symbolic actions that confirm it 17:19–27 Sermon at the People’s Gate about abuse of Sabbath (time) 18:1–17 Sign of the potter and people’s rejection of YHWH’s decree as Sovereign of history/time 18:18–23 Jeremiah’s fourth confession/lament 19:1–15 Sermon at the Potsherd Gate with symbolic action of smashing jug (end of Judah/Jerusalem’s time) 20:1–6 Jeremiah imprisoned at Gate of temple (as sign of Judah’s coming imprisonment by Babylon [named for first time in book]) 20:7–13/14–18 Jeremiah’s final confession/lament (Is life worthwhile if one sees only toil and sorrow?)

21:1–24:10 Inevitable End of Existing Evil ‘Disorder’; Promise of New Order 21:1–10 Prologue: only way to save one’s life is surrender to Babylon (besieging Jerusalem) as commanded by YHWH

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 45 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM xlvi Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

21:11–23:8 YHWH’s words to, and on, the House of David and Jerusalem 21:11–22:9 Address to house of David and those who enter royal ‘gates’ 22:10–30 YHWH’s condemnation of Davidic kings and city (22:20–23) 23:1–8 Prophecy of return of ‘my people’ and a righteous Branch of David—new order to come after end of disorder 23:9–40 There is no alternative word: condemnation of false prophets 24:1–10 Sign of baskets of figs confirms prophecies; Jeremiah ‘sees’ life beyond toil and sorrow (cf 20:18).

25:1–36:32 How Jeremiah’s commission to ‘pluck up and pull down, destroy and overthrow, build and plant’ is to unfold 25:1–38 Conquest of Judah and nations to be followed by seven years of subjugation, then Babylon’s own punishment 26 Contrast between hostile audience of Jeremiah’s day and repentant audience of Micah’s day confirms decree of Judah’s demise 27–29 Conflict between Jeremiah and rival Prophets over decreed period of Subjugation 30–31 Instruction to Jeremiah to write in a scroll/book YHWH’s plans for return/ restoration after period of Babylonian captivity 32–33 Signs and Words that Confirm Preceding Prophecies 32:1–5 Jeremiah’s imprisonment serves as sign of king Zedekiah’s impending imprisonment by Babylon 32:6–15 Prisoner Jeremiah’s purchase of field a sign of restoration after period of Babylonian captivity

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 46 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xlvii

32:15–33:26 Jeremiah’s Prayer and YHWH’s Reply Confirms prophesied return/restoration 34:1–22 Jeremiah counters false hopes of short captivity fueled by temporary lifting of siege of Jerusalem by Babylon 35:1–19 Rechabites as model of fidelity in contrast to unfaithful, rebellious Judah that adds justification to judgement against Judah 36:1–32 Instruction to Jeremiah to write on a scroll all that YHWH has spoken to him from days of Josiah to fourth year of Jehoiakim. Scroll burnt and rewritten with additions

37:1–39:18 Realisation of prophecies of conquest of Judah and Jerusalem 37:1–21 Jeremiah Imprisoned as Sign that confirms Judah’s inevitable Imprisonment by Babylon 37:1–3 First Exchange between Zedekiah and Jeremiah 7:5–10 Jeremiah warns that Babylonian withdrawal to confront Egypt is a temporary reprieve; they will return 37:11–16 Jeremiah arrested and imprisoned by hostile officials in ‘cistern house’ 37:17–21 Second Exchange: King Zedekiah questions Jeremiah and transfers him to the court of the guard 38:1–28 Plot to kill Jeremiah foiled by loyal foreigner Ebed-melech 38:1–6 Officials plot to kill Jeremiah because of his preaching; Zedekiah capitulates (no authority) 38:7–13 Plot foiled by loyal Ebed-melech; Zedekiah exercises authority and Ebed- melech removes Jeremiah from deadly cistern/pit

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 47 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM xlviii Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

38:14–23 Third Exchange: Zedekiah sends for Jeremiah who promises that obeying prophetic word will ensure his life is spared 38:24–28 Jeremiah lies to protect life of king from hostile officials (king is given every chance/opportunity by YHWH) 39:1–18 Account of Conquest of Jerusalem and Aftermath 39:1–10 Zedekiah captured and taken as prisoner to Babylon (cf 32:1–5) 39:11–14 Prisoner Jeremiah freed by Babylonians (cf 1:18–19; 15:20–21) 39:15–18 Prophecy of Salvation for loyal foreigner Ebed-melech (chronological reversal)

40:1–44:30 Confirmation of Decreed Period of Judah’s subjugation to Babylon 40:1–41:15 Initial obedience and good fortune reversed by murder of governor Gedaliah by Ishmael, member of royal family 40:16–42:22 Plan to flee to Egypt and consultation of Jeremiah: prophecy of doom for those who seek new life (time) in Egypt (new place) 43:1–13 Rejection of Jeremiah’s word and flight to Egypt. Jeremiah’s symbolic action at Taphanhes (no alternative place and no time outside decreed period of subjugation) 44:1–30 Jeremiah’s final Sermon: Dispute with devotees of the queen of heaven as to which deity is sovereign over place and time 45:1–5 Loyal Baruch as Contrast to Disloyal Judeans (chronological reversal).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 48 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM An Outline ofThe Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT) xlix

46:1–51:64 Oracles on the Nations 46:1–49:39 Oracles on the Nations Surrounding Judah 46:1–49:33 Oracles on the Nations (realisation confirmed by superscriptions in 46:2 and 49:28a) 49:35–33 Oracle on Elam 50:1–51:64a Oracles on Babylon 50:1–51:58 Oracles on Babylon (yet to be realised) 51:59–64a. Sign of scroll and symbolic action that confirms oracles on coming demise of Babylon 51:64b ‘Thus far are the words of Jeremiah’ (cf 1:1).

52:1–34 Concluding Postscript on Conquest of Judah and Jerusalem, and fate of earlier exiled king Jehoiachin (adapted from 2 Kings 25)

This Outline will now be followed by an analysis of the constitutive parts of Jeremiah 25–52 and the interrelationships between its various parts. The focus of Part 1 is the first major section identified, namely Jeremiah 25/26–36 and separate chapters will be devoted to the analysis of chapters 26; 27–29; 30–31; 32–33; and 34–36. The focus of part 2 will be chapters 37–45. Separate chapters of the study will analyse chapters 37–39. which recounts the realisation of the prophecies of Judah and Jerusalem’s conquest by Babylon, chapters 40–44 which tells of events that validate the decreed period of servitude to Baby- lon, and the prophecy that Jeremiah conveys to Baruch in chapter 45. Part 3 will examine the oracles on the nations in chapters 46–51 and the postscript in chapter 52.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 49 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 50 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM Part One: Jeremiah 25:1–36:32

Decree of YHWH’s Plans to Purge Judah and Surrounding Nations of Evil via Babylonian Conquest and Seventy-Year Servitude

Chapter 1: Jeremiah 25:1–26:24: Jeremiah Proclaims YHWH’s Decree. Hostile Response Contrasted with Right Response to earlier Prophet Micah (26)

Chapter 2: Jeremiah 27:1–29:32: Jeremiah’s Urges Acceptance of Decree of Seventy-Year Servitude to Babylon. Alternatives Exposed as False

Chapter 3: Jeremiah 30:1–31:40: Prophecy of Restoration in the ‘Book of Consolation’

Chapter 4: Jeremiah 32:1–33:26: Encounters Between Jeremiah and Zedekiah Confirm no Restoration Before Purge

Chapter 5: Jeremiah 34:1–36:32: Reversal of Sabbath Release Exposes Falsehood (34), in Contrast to Loyalty of Rechabites (35). Decree Confirmed by being Inscribed on Scroll and read by loyal Baruch (36)

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 1 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 2 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM Chapter One Jeremiah 25:1–26:24

The preceding Outline identified chapter 25 as a pivotal text. In vv 1–11a Jeremiah recalls how the people of Judah have refused to heed the words YHWH commissioned him to proclaim from the thirteenth year of Josiah, just as they had refused to heed the words of ‘all his servants the prophets’. Because of this YHWH has summoned another ‘servant’, Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, to bring to an end the time of Judah and the surrounding nations in their lands. The following vv 11b–14 proclaim that this will be followed by a seventy-year period of subjugation to Babylon, after which Babylon and its king will in turn be punished for their deeds. As pointed out in the Out- line, the conquest of Judah and surrounding nations, their seventy years of subjugation to Babylon, and the punishment of Babylon after this period, are stages in the unfolding of the one divine plan to pluck and pull down, to destroy and overthrow the existing disorder (1:10). Their integral relationship is emphasised by the accompanying sign of the cup of the wine of wrath that Jeremiah is instructed in 25:15–29 to make Judah, the surrounding nations, and finally the king of Baby- lon himself, drink.1 Chapters 26–29 take up these stages of the unfolding of YHWH’s plan in the following ways. Chapter 26 provides confirmation of the announcement of the end of Judah in 25:1–11a via the ploy of chronological reversal. It reports a sermon by Jeremiah in the temple that took place before his review in 25:1–11a, namely ‘At the beginning of

1. For a detailed analysis of the role of Babylon in the book of Jeremiah see Rannfrid I Thelle, ‘Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah (MT): Negotiating a Power Shift’, in Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah, edited by Hans M Barstad and Reinhard G Kratz, BZAW 388 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2009), 187–232.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 3 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM 4 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the reign of King Jehoiakim’. The sermon and its aftermath confirms Jeremiah’s claim in v 3b that he has spoken the same message ‘persistently’ to the people but they have not heeded it or repented. The decreed end of Judah is therefore completely justified. This also provides an appropriate prelude to chapters 27–29 that follow and that deal with the new element of a seventy-year period of subjugation to Babylon, after which Babylon itself will be subjugated. Although YHWH provides instruction for Judah and the surrounding nations via Jeremiah as to how they can live and even thrive during this seventy-year period, their response is depressingly similar to their earlier refusal to heed YHWH’s warnings about the end of Judah’s time in the land. Two recent studies disagree with the view that chapter 25 is a pivotal or hinge text in the book, one by AJO van der Wal, and the other by Daniel Epp-Tiessen.2 For van der Wal, the book falls into two major sections, chapter 1–23 and 24–51, with 52 as an appendix. He notes how 1:1–12, 13–14 and chapter 24 are both about things YHWH shows Jeremiah and their significance; namely the almond tree and boiling pot in the former passages, and the baskets of figs in the latter. He also notes how chapter 23 and 51 share the terminology of ‘plucking up’ and ‘throwing down’ in relation to Judah and Jerusa- lem (23:39) and Babylon (51:64), and how chapters 25 and 50–51 deal respectively with the rise and demise of Babylon, a theme introduced in 25:12–14.3 While I would agree that there are thematic and lin- guistic links between chapters 25:12–14 and other verses in the chapter, Wal does not pay sufficient attention to 25:1–11a which review the preceding chapters of Jeremiah’s preaching about the conquest of wicked Judah and the surrounding nations at the hands of Baby- lon. As well as this, the setting of chapter 25 in the thirteenth year of Josiah is a clear reference to the beginning of the book (1:2). One may also note that the connections he rightly draws between 1:11–14 and chapter 24 could just as well point to the latter as the conclusion of a section (chapters 1–24) rather than the commencement of a new one.

2. AJO van der Wal ‘Toward a Synchronic Analysis of the Masoretic Text of the Book of Jeremiah’, in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence, edited by Martin Kessler (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 13–23; Daniel Epp-Tiessen, Concerning the Prophets: True and False Prophecy in Jeremiah 23:9– 29:32 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2012). 3. Cf van der Wal ‘Toward a Synchronic Analysis’, 17–19.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 4 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM Jeremiah 25:1–26:24 5

According to Epp-Thiessen, chapter 25 forms part of a section that runs from 23:9 to 29:32 that is principally about true and false prophecy. The section has a 7-part concentric structure with chapter 26 forming the centrepiece. The outer frames of this structure (A and A’) are 23:9-40 and 29:20–32. The section thus begins with condemnation of false prophets in general and concludes with condemnation of specific false prophets (those named in this section of Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles in chapter 29). The B and B’ sections of the structure are 24:1–10 and 29:1–19. These portray Jeremiah as the true prophet, via the vision of the figs and accompanying words in 24:1–10, and via his letter and accompanying words in 29:1–19. The C and C’ sections are two further presentations of Jeremiah as the true prophet, namely 25:1–38 and 27:1–28:17. According to Epp-Tiessen these two passages are related by symbolic actions; the cup in 25:15–29 and the yoke in 27:1–28:17. The focus of both is the work of YHWH’s servant Nebuchadrezzar. The central chapter 26 (D) is made up of three parts. The initial account of Jeremiah being threatened with death in vv 1–16 is matched by the account of king Jehoiakim’s execution of Uriah the prophet in vv 20–24. These frame vv 17–19; the account of Micah inspiring repentance in the time of Hezekiah, the centrepiece of both chapter 26 and the whole section.4 While there is much that is insightful in this study, I do not think Epp-Tiessen’s arguments are sufficient to displace the consensus that the book falls into two main parts with chapter 25 as a pivotal or hinge text. It seems odd that a major section of the book would commence, as he claims, with the introduction to 23:9, which has the Hebrew preposition ‘to’ prefixing the word ‘the prophets’; hence ‘to/ concerning the prophets’. He would also seem to weaken this claim by linking 23:9 to 21:11, which begins with the same preposition (‘to/ concerning the house of the king of Judah’). The inclusion of chapter 25 as part of a larger structure that commences with 23:9 also looks odd, for two reasons. One is that the chronological setting in the fourth year of Jehoiakim occurs also in 36:1; 45:1 and 46:2, and all

4. This structural outline is arranged diagrammatically on page 44. An important part of Epp-Tiessen’s analysis is comparison of the MT and LXX. He concludes that the concentric arrangement was already present in the common Vorlage of the LXX and MT. However, the LXX tradition disrupted the structure to a degree by inserting the oracles on the nations in chapter 25 whereas the MT tradition enhanced it (cf 61–66).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 5 13-May-20 5:25:53 PM 6 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

of these are regarded as marking or introducing important sections of the book. The second is that Jeremiah commences his sermon in 25:3 by announcing that he has been preaching since the thirteenth year of Josiah, the same year named for the commencement of his preaching in 1:2. While I would agree there is a connection between chapter 25 and chapter 27–28, this is due more to the way the latter chapters portray Jeremiah proclaiming and defending the seventy-years of exile decreed in 25:11b than to parallel symbolic actions. Moreover, the order of symbolic action and accompanying words in chapters 27–28 is the reverse of chapter 25. In the latter the words come first and are backed up by the symbolic action, whereas in the former the symbolic action is followed by words that explain its significance. Hence, while I do not find persuasive Epp-Tiessen’s thesis that 23:9–29:32 comprise a carefully structured section of the book with chapter 26 as its centre, his analysis of chapter 26 is insightful and helps the reader to discern its functions within the book. As noted in the initial Outline of this study, a key function is the parallel it forms with chapter 35. Both provide a model of a people who heed a word and obey. In chapter 26 it is king Hezekiah and the people of his day who heed the preaching of Micah and repent; in chapter 35 it is the Rechabites who heed the command of their founder Jonadab and obey it. Both models provide a powerful contrast to those condemned in the preaching of Jeremiah. Whereas for Epp-Tiessen chapter 26 is the centre of a section that commences in 23:9, for Louis Stulman, Joelle Ferry and Gary E Yates, it commences a section of the book. Stulman and Ferry identify the section as chapters 26–36 but according to Yates it embraces chapters 26–45 and is in two sub-sections, namely chapters 26–36 and 37–45.5 Stulman and Ferry propose somewhat differing chiastic structures

5. Cf Louis Stulman, Order Amid Chaos. Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry (Sheffield: Academic Press, 1998), 86; Joelle Ferry, Illusions et salut dans la predication prophetique de Jérémie, BZAW 269 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1999), 289; also page 288 of his ‘“Le livre dans le livre.” Lecture de Jérémie 36’, in Le recuèils prophétiques de la Bible. Origenes, milieu, et context proche-oriental, edited by Jean-Daniel Macchi, Christophe Nihan, Thomas Römer et Jan Rückl; Le Monde de la Bible, 64 (Paris: Labor et Fides, 2012), 283–306; Gary E Yates, ‘Narrative Parallelism and the “Jehoiakim Frame”: A Reading Strategy for Jeremiah 26–45’, in JETS, 48/2 [June 2005]: 263–81). See also his ‘New Exodus and no Exodus in Jeremiah 26–45. Promise and Warning to the Exiles in Babylon’, Tyndale Bulletin, 51 (2006): 1–22.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 6 13-May-20 5:25:54 PM Jeremiah 25:1–26:24 7

for the section but agree that a prophecy of restoration forms the centerpiece—chapter 31 (Stulman) and chapters 30–31 (Ferry). Accord- ing to Yates, the beginning and end of each sub-section (26–36 and 37–45) is demarcated by chronological information about the reign of Jehoiakim.6 He identifies parallels within these two sub-sections that effectively form an overall concentric structure. Thus chapter 36 parallels 26 as ‘Jehoiakim’s response of hostile unbelief to the prophetic word’ (so A and A’); 37–39 parallels 27–29 as ‘the issue of submission to Babylon during the reign of Zedekiah’ (B and B’); 40–43 (‘The aftermath of exile: a word of judgement for the Judean survivors of exile who go down to Egypt’) parallels 30–33 (‘The aftermath of exile: the promise of Israel’s glorious future restoration’) (C and C’); and 44–45 parallels 34–35 as ‘The issue of covenant unfaithfulness: national judgement and a word of hope for Baruch/Rechabites’ (D and D’).7 While each of these studies provides valuable comments on chapter 26–36 and 37–45, I do not think the proposed structures pay sufficient attention to chapter 25 and how subsequent sections of the book follow the arrangement of vv 11–14. Nor do I think that Stulman and Ferry pay sufficient attention to Zedekiah’s interrogation of prisoner Jeremiah in 32:1–5 or Jeremiah’s purchase of a field in 32:6–15. My analysis will seek to discern how these passages relate to the surrounding context. What these various hypotheses demonstrate is that no interpretation of a complex book such as Jeremiah can claim to have taken all the evidence into account and therefore be definitive. Our perceptions, from whatever angle, are limited. Readers will make their own judgement as to which interpretation, or interpretations, is the more acceptable. Jeremiah 26 is linked to the preceding chapter 25 both chronologically and thematically. As noted in the Outline, chapter 25–26 are

6. Thus 26:1 has ‘At the beginning of the reign of King Jehoiakim’; 35:1 has ‘in the days of King Jehoiakim’; 36:1 has ‘In the fourth year of King Jehoiakim’; and 45:1 has ‘in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim’, (cf Yates, ‘Narrative Parallelism and the “Jehoiakim Frame”’, 266). 7. Cf Yates, ‘Narrative Parallelism and the “Jehoiakim Frame”’, 267. As well as structural unity, Yates argues that other factors binding the chapters together are the recurring accusation that Israel has ‘not listened’, as well as the decree of Judah’s temporary subjugation to Babylon as punishment for its infidelity (what he calls a ‘theopolitical perspective’, 264).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 7 13-May-20 5:25:54 PM 8 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

an example of chronological reversal in the book, whereby those who assembled the book enhance the authority of its prophetic message— in this case 25:1–11a with its announcement of doom for Judah and the surrounding nations—by claiming it is in continuity and agreement with Jeremiah’s earlier preaching. Evidence for this is provided by chapter 26 which is set at the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign and so earlier than chapter 25. It also provides confirmation of Jeremi- ah’s assertion in 25:3b that ‘I have spoken persistently to you but you have not listened’. If the focus of chapter 26 is the impending doom of Judah and Jerusalem, the focus of chapter 27–29 is the decreed seventy years of subjugation for Judah and the surrounding nations that will follow their conquest by Babylon, along with the condemnation of false prophets who challenge this. But equally certain as the seventy years of subjugation to Babylon is the subsequent subjugation of Babylon itself and the liberation of Judah. This is affirmed three times in chapters 27–29; namely 27:7, 22 and 29:10. These aspects of chapters 27–29 relate to and develop the thrust of 25:11b–14. As noted in the earlier Outline, the prophecies of the conquest of Judah and the surrounding nations by Babylon, their seventy years of subjugation to Babylon, followed by Babylon’s own demise, are backed up by the symbolic action of the cup of the wine of YHWH’s wrath in 25:15–29. After the end of Babylon and in YHWH’s good time, Judah will again be built and planted as is proclaimed in chapters 30–33. As will be pointed out below, chapters 34 and 35 serve to confirm the thrust of chapters 27–29 and 26 respectively, as Stulman and Ferry noted in their proposed structures commented on above. Chapter 36 brings this sequence of prophecies to a conclusion with its dramatic account of the writing of Jeremiah’s prophecies on a scroll and its reception. King Jehoiakim burns the scroll but YHWH immediately authorises a replacement. Human beings may disobey or reject YHWH’s word but no human being can erase it. On my reading, the subsequent chapters 37–44 narrate the realisation of the words on the scroll and, rather like the technique of the chronological reversal, do so without explicitly making the claim. Chapters 37–39 unfold the realisation of the prophecy of Judah’s demise, while 40–44 recount the fortunes of those in the Babylonian province of Judah after the conquest to show there can be no alternative to, nor escape from, the decreed

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 8 13-May-20 5:25:54 PM Jeremiah 25:1–26:24 9

period of servitude to Babylon.8 Chapters 46–49 reveal that the fate of the ‘surrounding nations’ was in accord with the oracle pronounced on each one in these chapters, as well as the prophecies concerning them in chapter 25. The words of Jeremiah, as recorded, conclude in 50:1–51:64a with a series of oracles on the fate of Babylon that will be in accord with 25:12–14, 26b. The remainder of this chapter will be devoted to the analysis of chapters 26–29. As already noted, an initial indication of chapter 26’s function within the book is its chronological setting before chapter 25, a chronological reversal that confirms what one has read in 25:3b and following, as well as in a number of preceding texts, namely that Jeremiah has spoken ‘persistently’ to an unheeding people.9 He has remained a faithful prophet despite rejection and hostility, and despite his own struggles with his vocation. A second and related function of the chapter emerges from its textual setting after 25. As an affirmation of Jeremiah’s loyalty to his vocation in any circumstance, it provides an appropriate lead in to chapters 27–29 where he is in dispute with rival prophets over the length of the coming period of subjugation. Hostility to the loyal prophet is also reported in chapters 37–38 and 43–44; in both sections Jeremiah became a prisoner because of what he proclaimed. But chapter 26 also prepares for another theme that is developed in subsequent chapters, namely support for Jeremiah and the acceptance of him as a true prophet that this implies. A key figure in chapter 26 is Ahikam, son of Shaphan (cf v 24). Another member of the Shaphan family, Gemariah, is presented in company with others in 36:25 urging king Jehoiakim not to burn Jeremiah’s scroll. These, along with the foreigner Ebed-melech in 38:7–13 and 39:15–18, and Jeremiah’s loyal disciple and scribe Baruch, signal that an integral part of YHWH’s purpose is to ensure the preservation and proclamation of the prophetic word beyond the actual time of Jeremiah. A considerable amount of scholarly analysis of Jeremiah 26 has tended to focus on two issues. One is whether it is the report of an actual historical event, or is more likely the creation of those involved

8. This is quite different to Yates’ proposal that chapters 37–39 parallel 27–29, and that 40–45 parallels 34–35. In my judgement, Yates’ linking of chapter 45 (Baruch) with 35 (Rechabites) overlooks the link between chapters 45 and 36 in the figure of Baruch. 9. This chronological reversal is not commented on by Epp-Tiessen.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 9 13-May-20 5:25:54 PM 10 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

in the production of the book. Resolution of this question involves its relationship to the temple sermon in chapter 7.10 The other is the meaning and function of chapter 26 within the book. One answer that aims to address both issues is that there is most likely some historical background but the text we have has been shaped to promote the rhetorical and theological agenda of the book.11 In terms of the relationship between chapters 7 and 26, this answer would or could argue that the first sermon focuses more on the content of Jeremiah’s sermon and its implications for the people. The second focuses more on the reaction of the people to the sermon, whether preached at the same or on another occasion, and Jeremiah’s response to this.12 Hence there is a rhetorical and theological development between the two texts that is designed to unfold the impact of the prophetic word both on Jeremiah and his audience. My own understanding of the chapter is more in line with this approach and will focus on the meaning of the MT text and its function within the book. This is in keeping with the approach followed in my earlier study of Jeremiah 1–25. There are three main parts to chapter 26; the account of his sermon in vv 1–16 and the responses to it; the report about Micah and the response of king Hezekiah and the people in vv 17–19, and the account of the execution of Uriah the prophet by Jehoiakim in vv 20–23. The chapter concludes in v 24 by telling how a certain Ahikam protected Jeremiah from a similar fate to that of Uriah at the hands

10. Raymond Westbrook (‘The Trial of Jeremiah’, inReading the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham, edited by JG McConville and Karl Möller, LHBOTS 461 [Bloomsbury Academic, 2007], 95–107), argues that a number of historical reconstructions by scholars make the mistake of relying on models from their own culture, or construct hypothetical ones that allegedly correspond to the text. Instead, one should check for ANE parallels, and he finds good evidence of a ‘mixed tribunal’ of officials and citizens that corresponds to what is portrayed in chapter 26. 11. In relation to this it is worth noting the remark of Anthony Chinedu Osuji that ‘the narrators of biblical episodes were not scientific historians even when they trace the historical developments of events. The theological interest of the narrative dominates.’ (cf Where is the Truth? Narrative Exegesis and the Question of True and False Prophecy in Jer 26–29 (MT), BETL cciv [Leuven: Peeters, 2010], 132, fn 42). 12. As noted by Epp-Tiessen, Concerning the Prophets, 155–56.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 10 13-May-20 5:25:54 PM Jeremiah 25:1–26:24 11

of the people.13 Verses 1–16 can be further divided as follows. Verses 1–6 report YHWH’s command to Jeremiah to preach in the temple and what he is to say, vv 7–9 describe the initial hostile reaction to the sermon and this leads to what looks to be a formal court procedure or trial that is initiated by ‘officials’ in vv 10–11, before whom the priests and prophets present their case against Jeremiah. The location of this trial in the entry to the New Gate of the temple clearly implies that it is being conducted before YHWH, who is the ultimate judge of all things. Verses 12–15 report Jeremiah’s defense followed by the verdict of the officials and people in v 16. Verses 17–19 introduce another group, comprised of ‘some of the elders of the land’ who remind all those involved of what took place in the time of the former prophet, Micah. Verses 20–23 tell of how another prophet, named Uriah, who preached a sermon ‘in words exactly like those of Jeremiah’, was executed by King Jehoiakim. Verses 1–6 are made up of the introduction in v 1, YHWH’s command to Jeremiah in v 2 to stand in the court of the temple and prophesy to ‘all the cities of Judah’, the reason in v 3 as to why the proclamation is to be made, and its content in vv 4–6. In contrast to 7:2, Jeremiah is here instructed to stand in the ‘court of the house of the Lord’ rather than in its ‘gate’; the shift to what is effectively the centre of the public arena of the temple adds a sense of importance and urgency. In concert with this, YHWH instructs Jeremiah ‘do not hold back a word’; nothing must be concealed from the people so that they know the truth about themselves and will presumably make the right decision.14 As the chapter unfolds, one discovers that those who conceal and distort the truth are the ones involved in the trial of

13. Osuji (Where is the Truth? 121) includes 27:1a in the story, rejecting the emendation of Jehoiakim in place of Zedekiah as made in the Syriac and Arabic MS, and widely accepted in modern translations. The verse does not occur in the LXX. However, given that one includes it as part of the MT then the context of 27:3 and 28:1 would seem to support the emendation. 14. Kathleen M O’Connor makes the intriguing but rather speculative proposal that the verb translated in the NRSV as ‘hold back’ was employed in Hebrew to refer to trimming a beard. In her judgement the command “not to trim a word” is to be taken as symbolising hope, just as a beard allowed to grow symbolises hope whereas one that is trimmed symbolises death and mourning. Hence chapter 26 introduces the second half of the book, which offers hope for an exiled community (cf pages 627–28 of “‘Do Not Trim a Word”: The Contributions of Jeremiah 26 to the Book of Jeremiah’, in CBQ, 51 [1989]: 617–30).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 11 13-May-20 5:25:54 PM 12 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Jeremiah—priests, prophets, officials, people. The only ones who do not seem to do so are the elders of the land. A verb that is difficult to translate accurately is nakham in v 3 (also vv 13, 19) and dictionar- ies provide a range of meanings depending on context (for example, ‘repent’, ‘have compassion’ ‘to pity’, ‘to comfort’, ‘take revenge’). Is the NRSV translation ‘change my mind’ the most satisfactory one within the context of chapter 26? According to the book of Jeremiah and indeed the larger HB/OT, YHWH is portrayed confronting human evil and threatening punishment for a good purpose; namely, that the accused will acknowledge their sin and beg forgiveness. Once the human being does so the right relationship with YHWH and with others is reestablished and the threatened punishment is cancelled. If there is no repentance then the decreed punishment is executed. If YHWH is not portrayed in the text announcing this, or not reported executing it, then the sin is trivialised and the notion of a good and righteous God is compromised. But cancelling the threatened punishment does not involve a change of the divine mind. It is an integral part of YHWH’s steadfast love (khesed) or commitment to the people in terms of the covenant. Hence, a more suitable translation than the NRSV in this case may be ‘retract the evil’ as proposed by William L Holladay.15 It should be noted that this understanding of the verb nakham in vv 3, 13, 19 is not at odds with the theology of YHWH as the all-seeing God who knows what human beings will decide to do even before they do it. The actual sermon that Jeremiah is instructed to deliver in vv 4–6 is constructed via an initial protasis (‘if’) that states the conditions and a concluding apodosis (‘then’) that outlines the consequences. That is, the future of the temple (the consequence or outcome) is conditional or dependent on the people’s obedience to the law, and the way for them to demonstrate obedience to the law is to ‘heed the words of my servants the prophets’.16 The structure of this sermon

15. William L Holladay, Jeremiah 2. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52, Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989), 104 (as in his translation of 18:8). 16. There is no initial ‘and’ before the verb ‘to heed’ in the MT. Hence I would agree with Osuji that the clause in v 5 is dependent on and modifies the one in v 4. Walking according to the law means listening to the prophets, among whom of course is Jeremiah (Where is the Truth?, 130).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 12 13-May-20 5:25:54 PM Jeremiah 25:1–26:24 13

and the comparison with Shiloh suggests it may be an abbreviation of the longer version in 7:5–15. The following section, vv 7–9, unfolds in three stages.17 There is the initial report of the priests, the prophets and all the people hearing the sermon (v 7). But according to vv 8–9a, after Jeremiah finished the priests and prophets laid hold of him and declared he was liable for the death penalty because he had prophesied the doom of temple and city. On hearing the verdict of the priests and prophets, all the people gathered around Jeremiah in the temple (v 9b).18 What is particularly noteworthy at this point is that the priests and prophets ask Jeremiah ‘Why have you prophesied’ the doom of temple and city when he has made the reason for it abundantly clear. Have they not heard it because they are overwhelmed by the prospect of the doom of temple and city, or do they not want to hear it? As the chapter unfolds the second becomes the more likely reason and this points to a connection with 18:18 where Jeremiah’s enemies think the best way to reject a message hostile to that of the priest, the wise, and the prophet, is to condemn the messenger. The trial scene that I judge to be initiated by the report about the officials in v 10 can be taken to continue through to v 19. Some regard vv 17–19 as a later addition because it introduces a new group to the text, namely the ‘elders of the land’, as well as a new topic, the example

17. O’Connor (‘Do Not Trim a Word’, 621) takes vv 9–16 as a section, partly on the thesis that the verb qahal (‘to assemble’) can have a legal as well as a liturgical or military sense. However, the verb may be used here to portray all the people together so that they can be addressed as a body by Jeremiah and others in the drama. Also, O’Connor’s division results in an unfortunate separation between the decree of death in v 8a and the reason for it in v 9. Osuji makes a division between vv 9a and 9b, assigning the latter as part of a formal trial procedure in the wake of the accusation (Where is the Truth?, 137–8). However, in my judgement, it is the arrival of the officials in the entry of the New Gate in v 10 that commences the trial procedure. 18. I would accept the BHS proposal that the phrase ‘all the people’ in v 8b was likely added from v 7, where it is required as part of the introduction to what follows. Hence, it is only the priests and prophets who declare that Jeremiah should die, and this is supported by the way v 11 reports the priests and prophets speaking to the officials and all the people (who in v 9b have gathered around Jeremiah), and by the way v 16 reports the officials and all the people speaking to the priests and prophets. Others who make the division at v 10 are Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 100 and Alex Varughese and Mitchel Modine, Jeremiah 26–52. A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition. Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press, 2010.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 13 13-May-20 5:25:54 PM 14 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

of king Hezekiah’s response to the preaching of the prophet Micah.19 However, a new group, the officials, was also introduced in v 10, yet no studies consulted regarded this as a sign of a later addition from a different hand.20 Granted vv 17–19 are meant to be read as part of the trial scene, then one would expect new speakers to provide further evidence that pertains to the trial. There are therefore four stages in the trial scene; the case against Jeremiah from the priests and prophets in vv 10–11, Jeremiah’s defense in vv 12–15, the verdict by the officials and all the people delivered to the accusers in v 16, and the intervention of the group of elders in vv 17–19. The words of the priests and prophets in v 11 both add to and leave out parts of what they initially say to Jeremiah in vv 8b–9a. The addition is their assertion that he deserves the death sentence because he has prophesied against the city.21 They presume the officials know the content of the prophecy, namely the doom of the city. This connection is not explicit in vv 8b–9a. As well as this, they refer to Jeremiah simply as ‘this man’ rather than ‘this prophet’. Along with these added elements they make no reference to the temple or Shiloh. In sum, their version of Jeremiah’s sermon is that it is about the future of the national capital Jerusalem, and this is presumably designed to influ- ence the verdict of the officials, whose employment and status was dependent on its security. Jeremiah’s reply and defense in vv 12–15 is arranged as a chiasm.22 It begins and ends (A and A’) with the admission, or perhaps better assertion, that he has indeed preached against ‘this city’ but there are two important additions that his accusers omitted. One is that he was sent by YHWH, the other is that he preached not only against the city but also ‘this house’ (temple). Between these two assertions Jeremiah assures them in v 13 that if they amend their ways YHWH will ‘retract’ the evil pronounced against them, but if,

19. Cf for example, O’Connor, ‘Do Not Trim a Word’, 623; Walter Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah. Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 238; Gerald L Keown, Pamela J Scalise and Thomas G Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, WBC 27 (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1995), 29. 20. Studies that see vv 17–19 as a continuation of the trial scene are Osuji, Where is the Truth?, 146; Wilhelm Rudolph, Jeremia (Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1968), 154–57; Artur Weiser, Das Buch des Propheten Jeremia, ATD 20–21 (Göttingen, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969), 23–34. 21. The Hebrew preposition’el can mean ‘to’, ‘about’, ‘against’. The context supports the NRSV translation ‘against’. 22. In agreement with Osuji, Where is the Truth?, 140–42.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 14 13-May-20 5:25:54 PM Jeremiah 25:1–26:24 15

as he warns in v 15, they execute him they will be guilty of shedding innocent blood (B and B’). This will be an additional evil to the ones for which YHWH has indicted them. With these comments Jeremiah also restores the issue of repentance as an integral part of his sermon, in contrast to the priests and prophets who effectively removed it in v 11. The central feature of this arrangement is Jeremiah’s recognition of the authority of the tribunal in v 14 and that it must give its verdict (C). Within the context however, the implication of this is that those who are really on trial before YHWH are Jeremiah’s accusers and judges. The verdict given by the officials and all the people in v 16 spares ‘this man’ the sentence of death, the reason given being that ‘he has spoken to us in the name of the Lord our God’. But there is no mention of the need for repentance or the threat to temple and city. In agreement with the priests and prophets in v 11, Jeremiah is not given the status of a prophet, and as well as this his sermon is not described as a prophecy but simply as words ‘spoken’. The officials and all the people do not explicitly acknowledge Jeremiah is inspired by YHWH; all they say is that he has spoken ‘in the name of the Lord’.23 This is the kind of thing any believing Israelite would do. It is hard to escape the impression that the overall thrust of the verdict is to deny any divine origin or status to Jeremiah’s words.24 The judgement that Jer- emiah’s prophecy is merely a word spoken in YHWH’s name, as all those assembled would invoke YHWH’s name in the temple liturgy, as well as the omission of his call to repentance and threat of punishment, has echoes of the lessons that YHWH conducts for Jeremiah in chapter 14 and 15. There YHWH provides Jeremiah with examples of how the people will respond to crises of drought and war. They will profess their faith in YHWH with apparent sincerity, they will pray for relief, even acknowledge sin but all with the expectation that after ticking what they think are the right boxes, things should return to normal.25 As such chapter 26 adds confirmation to the pronounce-

23. Cf Epp-Tiessen, Concerning the Prophets, 151. 24. In disagreement with Osuji (Where is the Truth?, 142–43) and O’Connor (‘Do not Trim a Word’, 622), both of whom claim the verdict declares Jeremiah to be an authentic prophet. I would also disagree with Stulman (Order Amid Chaos, 65) who includes the officials among the ‘faithful few’ who are attentive to Jeremiah’s words. 25. Cf My Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 1–25 (MT), 108–15.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 15 13-May-20 5:25:54 PM 16 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

ment of the end of such evil disorder in chapter 25, which is set at a later date to this trial of Jeremiah. Given this interpretation of v 16, the intervention by a group of elders of the land in vv 17–19 can be read as part of the proceedings. They are a group among ‘all the people’ at the trial and they arise and speak to them. The thrust of their address is to correct the falsehood of the verdict in v 16 and to reinstate the truth of Jeremiah’s prophecy. Perhaps out of respect for the tribunal of officials and the people, or perhaps to avoid the impression of direct confrontation, they appeal to the case of the earlier prophet Micah to make two key corrections to what the priests and prophets, as well as the officials and all the people claim Jeremiah said. The first is in v 18 and it is that Micah proclaimed the doom of the city and temple; the clear implication being that this is what Jeremiah has also done, despite the distorted version of his sermon given at the trial in v 11. They also describe Micah’s words as prophecy, an indirect correction of the verdict on Jeremiah which judged that he did not prophesy but spoke only in the name of YHWH.26 The second point is in v 19a and it is made via two questions to which the answers are not given because they are obvious. The first concerns Hezekiah’s response to Micah’s prophecy; the second YHWH’s response to Hezekiah’s entreaty. It is evident that YHWH listened to what was a genuine plea from Hezekiah who was presumably interceding on behalf of all Judah; if not then neither he nor Judah would have escaped disaster. The clear implication for the listeners is to do as Hezekiah and Judah of his day did, that is, heed the word of the prophet and live.27 King Hezekiah and the people of Micah’s day become a model for those portrayed in the chapter, as well as a model for all readers/listeners.

26. The corresponding text in the book of Micah is 3:12. 27. Cf Georg Fischer, Jeremia übersetzt und ausgelegt, volume 2; 26–52, HTKAT (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005), 37–38. Ronald E Clements sees the two examples in chapter 26 of the importance of heeding/listening to and obeying the word of YHWH uttered by the prophet—namely by Micah and Jeremiah—as pointing within the larger biblical context to the importance of obedience to the Mosaic Torah (cf ‘Prophecy Interpreted: Intertextuality and Theodicy—A Case Study of Jeremiah 26:16-24’, in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen, ed. John Goldingay; Library of Biblical Studies, 459 [New York: T&T Clark, 2007], 32–44, especially 41–42).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 16 13-May-20 5:25:54 PM Jeremiah 25:1–26:24 17

Their final remark in v 19b is also an indirect correction of the preceding, but this time it is in relation to a lack of any acknowledgement of the need to repent in the preceding speeches. By not responding to Jeremiah’s prophecy as Hezekiah and the people of his day did to Micah’s prophecy, the group of elders effectively prophesy or predict that the priests and prophets, the officials and all the people are sentencing themselves to the punishment decreed, and the temple and city to destruction. The reader has already of course had further confirmation of this and how it will take place—via the Babylonian conquest—in the preceding chapter 25 that is set in the later fourth year of Jehoiakim. One may not be able to decisively establish that the elders’ intervention took place at an actual trial of Jeremiah but as a text within the chapter it serves a key function. By holding up the king and people of Micah’s day as a model, it exposes those who claim to be true judges of what is right and wrong to be the ones who are doing the wrong. As well as this, the clever exposure of their falsehood confirms the truth of what Jeremiah proclaimed. It is generally accepted that vv 20–23 are the narrator’s report and not a continuation of the elders’ speech or the speech of someone else.28 It draws a sharp contrast between the repentant Hezekiah and Jehoiakim by recounting how the latter went to great lengths to pur- sue and extradite from Egypt and then execute the prophet Uriah for speaking ‘against this city and against the land in words exactly like those of Jeremiah’ (v 20b). The episode contributes to the meaning and function of chapter 26 and the book of Jeremiah in two ways. One is that because Uriah proclaimed the same message as Jeremiah he was a true prophet like Jeremiah. Hence, the report about him combines with the report of Jeremiah’s sermon in vv 1–16 to form a frame around vv 17–19. This effectively makes vv 17–19 the centre of the chapter.29 One may well ask why Uriah was not protected from kings and other enemies as YHWH assured Jeremiah in 1:18–19. The text does not say but a possible answer is that, unlike Jeremiah he did not trust completely in the protection of YHWH but took the initiative by seeking refuge in Egypt. As the reader learns in chapter 43–44, there

28. Cf for example Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 108; Keown-Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 29. One who thinks otherwise is MH Levine. According to him the text records words spoken ‘by some of Jeremiah’s opponents’ (‘The Trial of Jeremiah’, in Dor le Dor, 12 (1983): 36–38; cited from Osuji, Where is the Truth?, 148). 29. In agreement with Epp-Tiessen, Concerning the Prophets, 58.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 17 13-May-20 5:25:54 PM 18 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

can be no refuge and no peace for those who flee to Egypt against YHWH’s command. The second contribution of the episode is that in killing a true prophet, Jehoiakim is guilty of shedding innocent blood and therefore falls under YHWH’s sentence of punishment for such perpetrators (cf 26:15). In relation to this the report of Jehoiakim’s abuse of the corpse of Uriah in v 23 is preceded in 22:19 and followed in 36:30 by prophecies of a similar fate for Jehoiakim’s corpse. Within this context the treatment of the corpse of Uriah serves as a sign of what will happen to Jehoiakim himself.30 The final verse of the chapter reports that a certain Ahikam, son of Shaphan, ensured protection for Jeremiah so that he was not handed over to the people to be put to death. In light of the preceding report about Uriah one would have expected protection from Jehoiakim rather than the people. However, one needs to take into account that the verdict given by the officials and all the people in v 16 gave no indication that they admitted their ways were evil and that they needed to repent. Also, the way they shift in the story from an initial hostile reaction to Jeremiah’s words, a sign of their powerful impact, to tolerance and virtual dismissal of the sermon as having little or no importance, suggests the situation could change again.31 The people could become like Jehoiakim. Verse 24 can therefore be read as a deft way of linking vv 20–23 with vv 1–16 and so heightening the central role in the chapter of vv 17–19.32 As a further comment on the verse, one may note that Ahikam’s brother Gemariah will do much the same to protect the prophet from a hostile Jehoiakim in the crisis triggered by the scroll in chapter 36. In light of passages such as 1:18–19 and 15:20–21 one could say that Ahikam, Gemariah and others provide

30. The connection between 26:23 and 36:30 is noted by O’Connor, ‘Do Not Trim a Word’, 626. 31. Both Holladay (Jeremiah 2, 105) and Jack R Lundbom (Jeremiah 21–36, AB 21B [New York: Doubleday, 2004], 289–90) propose that the fickleness of crowds, particularly when dealing with a conflictual issue, may be the motivation for Ahikam’s intervention to protect Jeremiah. 32. For an analysis that explores the varied and changing reactions of the characters in the chapter—officials, priests, elders, prophets, people—see Angel Hayyim, ‘Jeremiah’s Trial as a False Prophet (Chapter 26): A Window into the Complex Religious State of the People’, in JBQ, 45 (2017): 13–20.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 18 13-May-20 5:25:54 PM Jeremiah 25:1–26:24 19

confirmation of YHWH’s promise of protection for Jeremiah.33 Like Nebuchadrezzar in 25:11, they are YHWH’s servants, contributing to the realisation of the divine purpose. In sum chapter 26 can be seen to have four main functions within the book. The first is that the centrepiece of the chapter holds up the generation of Micah’s day as a model of how to respond to the prophetic word. It stands over against those addressed in the preceding chapters of the book as well as those in subsequent chapters, in particular 27–29. As the section comprised by chapters 25/26–35/36 draws to a close another group or people is held up as a model of obedience and loyalty—the Rechabites in chapter 35. A second function is that it portrays Jeremiah as the faithful prophet even when threatened with death. His loyalty to YHWH exposes those who reject him and try to silence and even eliminate him as standing under the sentence of punishment that YHWH has proclaimed through him. This lends weight and authority to the more general review and assessment of the situation that is proclaimed in the chronologically later chapter 25. A third function is that the chapter singles out some—the elders of the land, Ahikam—who accept the divine authority of Jeremiah’s words and seek to protect him. As the book unfolds the reader will encounter other supporters of Jeremiah, in particular the loyal disciple and scribe Baruch in chapters 32; 36; 43; 45; the foreigner Ebed- melech in 38 and 39:15–18, but also those who support Jeremiah in the crisis over the scroll. Baruch and Ebed-melech receive personal oracles of deliverance from death because of their loyalty to Jeremiah and his mission. But one may also propose that all who express their loyalty by supporting Jeremiah are covered by assurances of deliverance from death. Three kinds of assurance occur in the book. One is in chapter 24 that assures those who surrendered to the Babylonians in the time of Jehoiachin and were taken into exile are like good figs that the divine gardener will take care of and in due course replant in the land. A second is a promise made to all those who, during the final siege and conquest of Jerusalem, also obey the prophetic word and surrender to the Babylonians. They will save their lives as a prize

33. In relation to this O’Connor (‘Do Not Trim a Word’, 624) notes that v 24 does not refer to ‘all the people’, as in vv 7, 8, 11, 12, 16, but simply to ‘the people’. The change may be designed to indicate there were some among the people who did not or would not seek to put Jeremiah to death.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 19 13-May-20 5:25:54 PM 20 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

of war (cf 21:9b; 38:2b). The third is not strictly a prophecy but an assurance given by the Babylonian appointed governor Gedaliah, that is effectively a restatement of Jeremiah’s prophecy of deliverance for those who surrender to, or serve, the Babylonians (40:9). All these function within YHWH’s purpose to build and plant a new order beyond the plucking up and pulling down of the old. The scroll of Jeremiah is in the safe keeping of Baruch and all those who place themselves under YHWH’s care in the wake of the conquest and subsequent seventy years of Babylonian ‘captivity’ and who become the basis for the new order that YHWH will build and plant. The fourth function of chapter 26 is that Jeremiah’s conflict with the priests and prophets in the reign of Jehoiakim prepares the reader for further conflict with them in the reign of the later King Zedekiah, a conflict that is recounted in chapters 27–29. Hence the textual location of chapter 26. As already noted however, the dominant theme in chapters 27–29 is not the same as chapter 26, namely the impending doom of Judah and Jerusalem that is in line with what Jeremiah proclaims in 25:8–11a. Rather, chapters 27–29 take up and confirm what is proclaimed in 25:11b–14, namely the period of dominance by Bab- ylon that will inevitably follow the conquest. They provide YHWH’s instructions as to how Judah and the surrounding nations can live through this until the time of Babylon’s own punishment comes.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 20 13-May-20 5:25:55 PM Chapter Two Analysis of Jeremiah 27:1–29:32

These chapters may be considered together because of their shared focus on the fate of Judah and the surrounding nations after the impending conquest by Babylon.1 Chapter 27 urges king Zedekiah, the surrounding nations, as well all the priests and people of Judah to submit to the yoke of Babylon for the decreed period after the inevitable conquest and to reject any alternative claims. Chapter 28 recounts a dispute between Jeremiah and a rival prophet Hananiah about the decreed period of subjugation to Babylon. Jeremiah’s letter in chapter 29 instructs the people already in exile as to how they should conduct themselves in order to have ‘a future with hope’ (29:11b) once the period of subjugation ends with the conquest of Babylon. Another factor that links these three chapters together is that each confronts and rejects alternative prophecies. A sign that confirms all will take place according to the word proclaimed by Jeremiah and no other is his symbolic action in giving the cup of the wine of wrath to Judah and the nations to drink in 25:15–29. According to vv 28–38, this symbolic action is a sign of YHWH’s unswerving purpose to purge all nations, a purpose that is already under way. These words and sign are validated respectively in chapter 37–39 that recount the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem in the reign of Zedekiah, and in chapters 40–44 that tell the troubled tale of the inhabitants of Judah in

1. Lundbom sees the chapters as part of a ‘Zedekiah cluster’ that includes chapter 24 (Jeremiah 21–36, 27–29); Others who take the three chapters together are Fischer, Jeremia 2, 47–48; Keown-Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 35–36, Stulman, Jeremiah, 244. Mark Leuchter proposes they were once an independent collection that was later incorporated as part of a redactional process that produced chapters 26–45 (The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45[Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008], 40–49).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 21 13-May-20 5:25:55 PM 22 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the post-conquest period. For their part, chapters 46–49 confirm the realisation of the prophecies of Babylon’s conquest of the nations surrounding Judah, while chapters 50–51 prophesy the ultimate doom of Babylon itself.2 The opening verse of chapter 27 in the MT is problematic for a number of reasons. The chronological notice that what follows occurred at the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim clashes with the dating of what follows in the reign of Zedekiah (cf v 3b), as well as the report of Jeremiah’s words to Zedekiah in vv 12–15. It also dif- fers from the chronological introduction to chapter 28 where there are three expressions about the time when Jeremiah’s conflict with Hananiah occurred; ‘in that year’, ‘at the beginning of the reign of King Zedekiah’ and ‘in the fifth month of the fourth year’. The LXX has no introductory chronological notice in 27:1 (cf 34:1) and commences chapter 28 (cf 35) with ‘And it happened in the fourth year of King Zedekiah of Judah, in the fifth month’. One’s interpretation of these differences between the MT and LXX depends of course on whether one judges the LXX was based on an earlier Hebrew version or whether it reflects a later revision of the MT to clarify matters. With regard to Jehoiakim’s mention in 27:1, some propose that those who formulated the latter may have drawn on 26:1 and inadvertently included his name.3 As an explanation of the seeming clash between the ‘beginning of the reign of King Zedekiah’ and ‘in the fifth month of the fourth year’ J Hayes and P Hooker propose that the former reflects royal chronology whereas the latter sabbatical chronology.4 Hence 28:1 notes that the accession year of Zedekiah overlapped with the fourth year of the sabbatical cycle. On balance it would seem best to take both the chronological notice in 27:1 and the first two notices in 28:1 as referring to the accession or commencement year

2. It is worth noting that chapters 27–29 also share a different spelling of Jeremiah (shorter version) and Nebuchadrezzar (spelt in these chapters as Nebuchadnezzar) to the rest of the book. Cf Fischer, Jeremia 2, 47–48; Keown- Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 35–36, and Holladay, Jeremiah 112. This is seen by some as evidence that the chapters may have been an independent collection that was subsequently located at this strategic point in the book. 3. Cf Keown-Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 41; and McKane, Jeremiah 2, 685, Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 115. Osuji, Where is the Truth?, 121, and Fischer, Jeremia 2, 47, 49–50 retain Jehoiakim in the MT. 4. Cited in Keown-Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 43.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 22 13-May-20 5:25:55 PM Analysis of Jeremiah 27:1–29:32 23

of Zedekiah’s reign.5 The third chronological notice in 28:1 may have been added to link Hananiah’s prophecy with the theme of ‘release’ from servitude that was a feature of the sabbatical year. An alternative suggestion is that it prepares for the notice in 28:17 that Hananiah died in the seventh month of ‘that same year’, so two months after his dispute with Jeremiah.6 The chapter may be divided into the following constitutive parts. After the introduction in v 1 there is YHWH’s instructions to Jer- emiah in vv 2–3 about making visible signs of subjugation—bonds and collars—and sending them to the kings of the nations named via the hands of their envoys.7 According to v 3 these have come to King Zedekiah in Jerusalem.8 Verses 4–11 contain the words of ‘this charge’ that are to accompany the visible sign of the yoke with its straps and bars. Verse 4b claims that every word of what follows does not stem from Jeremiah but is what he has received from YHWH, confirmed by the subject of the following verbs (‘I’). This divine message commences with the (expected) assertion that YHWH alone is the creator and Sovereign over all place and time. Verses 6–7 then announce that

5. In agreement with Holladay, Jeremiah 2, McKane, Jeremiah 2, Keown-Scalise- Smother, Jeremiah 26–52, 41; Varughese-Modine, Jeremiah 26–52, 62; Patrick D Miller, ‘The Book of Jeremiah: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections’, in The New Interpreter’s Bible, edited by Leander E Keck (Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 6:782. 6. Observation made by Keown-Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 2–52, 53, 7. The nations named in v 3 are among those commanded to drink the cup of the wine of wrath in 25:21–22. One should also note here that the word ‘yoke’ (‘ol) does not occur in 27:2 but does occur in vv 8, 11, 12; 28:2, 4, 11, 12, 14. The word for bars (motot) in 27:2 also occurs in 28:12, 14 in association with yoke. Hence 27:2 may be taken to refer to the straps and bars by which a yoke linked two domestic animals together for ploughing or bearing loads. As well as this the NRSV proposes adding ‘them’ to the verb ‘send’ that commences v 3, because it has no object in the MT. This seems reasonable, given that the instructions imply something being borne ‘by the hand’ of the royal envoys. 8. Granted the chapter is based on a historical event there is debate over why and when the envoys came or were sent by the respective kings to Jerusalem. A reasonable explanation is that it was probably associated with the accession of a new Pharaoh (Psammetichus II) in Egypt and some instability in the neo- Babylonian empire, both events occurring around 594/593 BCE (cf Keown- Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 47–48, Terence E Fretheim, Jeremiah, SHBC 15 [Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002], 379).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 23 13-May-20 5:25:55 PM 24 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

YHWH has appointed ‘my servant’ Nebuchadnezzar as the earthly administrator of this divine sovereignty which embraces the ‘wild animals of the field’ as well as the nations.9 However, v 7 also asserts that Nebuchadnezzar’s appointment as earthly representative of YHWH’s sovereignty will only last ‘until the time of his own land comes’; he is as much under YHWH’s universal sovereignty as any other king. When his time is up, he will in his turn become the slave of nations. A feature of v 7 is that although the second part closely resembles 25:14, the first part refers to three generations of Babylonian kings— Nebuchadnezzar, his son and his grandson—rather than the seventy years of exile as in 25:11b–12a. This is not in the LXX and is not historically accurate because, while Nebuchadnezzar’s son Evil-Merodach (Awel-Markuk) did succeed him, he was murdered and succeeded not by a grandson but the Babylonian general Neriglissar. Neriglissar was in turn murdered and replaced by Nabonidus, the last king of the neo-Babylonian empire. The difference between 27:7 and 25:11 may be further evidence of the independent origin of chapters 27–29, although the seventy years of exile does occur in 29:10. Perhaps those responsible for the MT version of Jeremiah retained it because the number three conveyed a sense of completeness (YHWH’s sovereignty covered every member of the neo-Babylonian empire), or they took it to be more or less the equivalent of seventy years.10 Verses 8–11 follow logically on from vv 5–7. The God who asserts universal sovereignty is also the one who determines what will happen to a nation depending on its response to the assertion. Verse 8 prophesies doom for any nation that rejects it and refuses to submit to Baby- lon. The three ‘enforcers’ of doom, ‘sword’, ‘famine’, and ‘pestilence’ are a common occurrence in Jeremiah and in a number of other HB/ OT books. Their use here in relation to the nations, and in v 13 and in 29:17 in relation to Judah, can be linked to the claim of YHWH’s universal sovereignty. What applies to the chosen one Judah applies to all, but in a way that respects the different status and situation of

9. As John Hill points out, according to these verses, Nebuchadnezzar is like Adam in his rule over wild animals, like Joshua in his subjugation of nations, and like David the original royal ‘servant’ of YHWH (cf 33:21, 26; 2 Sam 3:18; 7:8, 20, 25–28; 24:10) (cf Friend or Foe? The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah MT, Biblical Interpretation Series 40 [Leiden: Brill, 1999], 129–44; see also the detailed study on Babylon by Thelle, ‘Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah [MT]’, 197–201). 10. So Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 315–16.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 24 13-May-20 5:25:55 PM Analysis of Jeremiah 27:1–29:32 25

the nations vis-à-vis Judah. A comparison between vv 8–11, which are addressed to the kings of the surrounding nations and vv 12–14, which are addressed to Zedekiah of Judah, reveals this. The instruction to the nations begins and ends with what are effectively two conditions with their respective consequences. Verse 8 declares that ‘if’ a nation does not acknowledge the divine authority of Jeremiah’s message and submit to Babylon it will as a consequence be destroyed. But v 11 declares that ‘if’ a nation does accept then, as a consequence, YHWH will allow it to live and work on its land.11 These two options frame vv 9–10 which warn those addressed not to listen because the prophecies from the nations’ intermediaries are lies.12 Given the preceding claim of YHWH’s universal sovereignty, this judgement must of course be true and once the nations have been informed of it, as is the case here, any that still believe in and act on such lies will ‘as a result’ (lema‘an in v 10b) suffer punishment and exile. On this reading vv 8–11 are clearly slanted towards deliverance for any king and nation that accepts the message that accompanies the sign of the yoke. There are no corresponding conditions in vv 12–15. Instead the passage commences with the command to Zedekiah of Judah to submit to the yoke of Babylon and as a consequence preserve life. This is followed by the question ‘why’ should Zedekiah and his people suffer the terrible consequences of disobeying YHWH’s word in not submitting to Babylon? The implication of this is that they have not accepted the word and the following verses reveal why. Both king and people

11. The difference between this promise of survival (cf also 21:9; 29:7; 38:2) and the prophecies that Judah and Jerusalem would be destroyed (cf 24:8–10; 34:2; 37:10) has led some scholars to assign them to different stages in the book’s composition. For example, Seitz attributes the former to a ‘Scribal Chronicle’ and the latter to a subsequent ‘Exilic redaction’ (cf Theology in Conflict,203–91). Matthijs J de Jong thinks this was most likely done by guardians of the ‘Jeremiah tradition’ who saw the fall of Judah and Jerusalem not as contradicting but vindicating YHWH’s promise. It called for an obedient response but the people proved disobedient. Hence they could incorporate the earlier prophecies into their later version (cf ‘Rewriting the Past in the Light of the Present: The Stories of the Prophet Jeremiah’, in Prophecy and Prophets in Stories: Papers Read at the Fifth Meeting of the Edinburgh Prophecy Network, edited by Bob Becking and Hans M Barstad, Oudestamentische Studiën, 65 [Utrecht, October 2013/Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2015], 124–40). 12. As Ojui (Where is the Truth?, 141) and Epp-Tiessen (Concerning the Prophets, 166) note, the switch to second person plural address in vv 9–10 adds intensity or urgency to the warning.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 25 13-May-20 5:25:55 PM 26 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

have hearkened to the voice of rival Judean prophets who are liars because YHWH has not sent them.13 Hence, instead of the promised deliverance for king and people ‘if’ they repent and accept subjugation to Babylon as in v 11, v 15b proclaims that ‘as a result’ (lema‘an) YHWH will ensure the decreed punishment takes place. Why is no alternative offered here as in v 11? In my judgement, the larger context of the book provides the answer, particularly the review in 25:3–7. It declares that YHWH has ‘persistently sent all his servants the prophets’ to challenge kings and people about their ‘wicked doings’, and Jeremiah himself has been part of this for twenty- three years. Yet, as v 7 states, the people have not listened or changed, thereby provoking YHWH’s anger. Hence the situation of king and people addressed in 27:12–15 is different to that of the nations in 27:8–11. Within the context of the book, chapter 27 portrays the latter being challenged for the first time although, as 25:8–10 prophesies, they will be as unbending as Judah and suffer the same punishment. One could say that Zedekiah and Judah prefigure this. The reader knows from chapter 24 that they experienced Babylon’s power in the earlier siege that involved the exile of Jehoiachin and members of his administration, while 29:2–3 clearly implies that Nebucadnezzar installed Zedekiah as a vassal king in place of Jehoiachin.14 Yet the setting and thrust of chapter 27 clearly implies he and the surrounding nations were plotting rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar, a blatant rejection of what YHWH decreed. In human terms a law court must confront and deal with rejection of its authority, otherwise the rebellion is trivialised and the court’s authority compromised. Hence the prophecy of doom and exile in 27:15 rather than the offer of an alternative as in v 11. As a reader arrives at this verse perhaps he or she is meant to imagine the figure of a yoked Jeremiah standing before the king as a sign that it will certainly come true (cf v 2). Whether this sign is intended or not in chapter 27 the subsequent chapters of the book confirm the justice of the divine decree. Zedekiah and his people are portrayed maintaining their resistance to, and rejection of, the word throughout the account of Judah’s demise.

13. The prophets in v 14 are Judean because, according to v 15, they will suffer punishment along with the king and people of Judah. This is not the case with the prophets and other intermediaries in v 9, who are foreigners and devotees of a foreign god or gods (cf Osuji, Where is the Truth?, 186). 14. Cf also 37:1 and 2 Kgs 24:17.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 26 13-May-20 5:25:55 PM Analysis of Jeremiah 27:1–29:32 27

The final section of the chapter, vv 16–22, shifts the focus of the prophetic dispute in chapter 27 from subjection to Babylon to the duration of this subjection. Verse 7 has already prophesied a three- generation period of exile which is generally taken to be another form of the decree of a seventy-year period of exile in 25:11b. In v 16 the priests and people are told not to heed the prophets who are proclaiming a short exile, and that the sign it was over would be the return of the sacred vessels of the temple.15 According to vv 19–20 this ransacking of the temple vessels took place during the first Bab- ylonian siege and exile of king Jehoiachin, an event recounted in chapter 24 and generally dated to 597 BCE. Like the preceding ones quoted in 27:9 and 14, the prophecy about the return of the sacred vessels is condemned as a lie. To accept it as true would be to reject YHWH’s sovereignty over the destiny of Judah and all the nations, and would bring the inevitable retribution. Instead, the priests and people are instructed to accept their decreed servitude and so survive (v 17). Thus, the answer to the question that follows, ‘Why should this city become a desolation’, is the same as for the question in v 13. YHWH always acts in accord with what one may call the ‘divine code of conduct’, formulated initially in the Decalogue (Exod 20:5b–6; Deut 5:9b–10) and applied in ways that the respective biblical texts claim are appropriate to each situation.16 That is, YHWH punishes the wicked for their iniquity to the third and fourth generation but shows steadfast love to those who love YHWH and keep the com- mandments. After instructing the priests and people as to what they should do, in v 18 Jeremiah turns his attention to the rival prophets. His response is that there is indeed a prophetic word from YHWH about the fate of the vessels but it is not about the return of the ones already taken to Babylon earlier but about the fate of the ones remaining in Jerusalem. They too will be taken to Babylon. If these rivals are true prophets they should admit their error by interceding with YHWH about the remaining vessels. But which prophet who claims to be genuine, as these do, is going to admit he or she is wrong? This suggests a mocking or sarcastic tone to Jeremiah’s riposte; what looks on the surface

15. This focus would explain the address to the priests as well as to ‘all this people’ in v 16. 16. Cf Exod 34:6–7; Num 14:18; Joel 2:13; Jonah 4:2; Nah 1:3; Pss 86:15; 103:8; 145:8; Neh 9:17; 2 Chr 30:9; less explicitly Pss 111:4; 112:4; 116:5; Neh 9:31.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 27 13-May-20 5:25:55 PM 28 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

to be an offer of conciliation is in reality a condemnation.17 The chapter concludes with the declaration that not only will the vessels left in Jerusalem also be taken to Babylon but they will remain there ‘until the day when I give attention to them’ (v 22b).18 Within the context it is clear that this day will be after the end of the seventy-year period of servitude and not ‘soon’ as the rival prophets predict. Jeremiah 28 is clearly linked to chapter 27, in particular the final section vv 16–22, both by the chronological introduction discussed earlier, by a dispute before priests and all the people (cf 27:16), by Hananiah’s prophecy of a short exile and the return of the sacred vessels, and by a number of occurrences of the term yoke, both in reference to Babylonian servitude and to the device that Jeremiah wears as a sign of it. However, it is nevertheless a story in its own right with a distinctive setting—in the temple—and with the elements that are judged to mark the story form.19 There is the initial setting of Hana- niah’s prophecy in vv 1–4, the conflict and sense of drama that arises with Jeremiah’s response in vv 5–9, the apparent crisis triggered by Hananiah breaking Jeremiah’s yoke and his departure from the scene in vv 10–11, and the final resolution with his return to the fray and condemnation of Hananiah as the evil figure in the drama—a liar—in vv 12–16. The chapter concludes in v 17 with a report of Hananiah’s death. As well as these structural features that are judged to be characteristic of the story form, chapter 28 also has three main characters; Jeremiah, Hananiah, and the priests and people assembled in the temple.20 The plot unfolds via the interaction of these characters, the key ones of course being Jeremiah and Hananiah, with the priests and people playing the role of witnesses who can testify to the truth of the drama and its outcome.

17. Lundbom (Jeremiah 21–36, 322) reads the text in a mocking sense; Brueggemann sees it as ‘playful invitation’ (Commentary on Jeremiah, 246). Against taking the text in a sarcastic sense are Keown-Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 53; Osuji, Where is the Truth? 189. 18. The MT of vv 19–22 is a considerably more extensive version than the LXX which, among other things, does not contain this time notice. 19. Cf Osuji, Where is the Truth?, 195. He notes that whereas chapter 27 is a three- part oracle of YHWH, chapter 28 is a story, a person-to-person dual between the two prophets. 20. Cf for example Yairah Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 28 13-May-20 5:25:55 PM Analysis of Jeremiah 27:1–29:32 29

Hananiah’s initial declaration in vv 1–4 not only sets the scene for the drama that follows but also creates continuity with what precedes, in particular the dispute in 27:16–22. Hananiah does not simply side with the prophets who predict the temple vessels taken to Judah in the initial siege of Jerusalem would ‘soon’ be returned (27:16). Rather, one could say that he ‘ups-the-ante’ by adding further prophetic claims. These are that YHWH will break the ‘yoke’ of the king of Babylon, that all the temple vessels will be returned within two years rather than the vague ‘soon’ of 27:16b, and that King Jeconiah (Jehoiachin) and all those taken into exile in the initial siege will also be brought back.21 In short, the whole crisis will end in two years and things will return to where they were. These additional assertions also play their role in the drama of the chapter because one expects a response to them from Jeremiah. However, expectation may be somewhat different for one hearing this as an independent story and one hearing or reading it as part of the book. For the former, expectations are likely to vary considerably depending on the listener’s situation. For the latter, the expectation may be of a rather testy if not angry response from Jeremiah to a prophet who has dared to contradict in even more pointed terms his own proclamation in 27:19–22.22 What is striking therefore is the mild and considered nature of Jeremiah’s response in vv 5–9.23 The introductory ‘Amen’ normally means that one accepts or endorses what has been said, as is the case with Jeremiah’s response to YHWH’s words 11:1–5, and the

21. There is also a clear implication in 28:3 that Hananiah is contradicting Jeremiah’s prophecy in 27:19–22. Whereas Jeremiah proclaims a further definitive removal of temple vessels, and that they will only be returned ‘to this place’ on ‘the day’ YHWH decides (v 22), Hananiah employs the same phrase ‘to this place’ to prophesy the return of temple vessels, but within two years. 22. A study that combines historical and literary approaches is that of Klaas AD Smelik, ‘A Prophet Contest: Jeremiah 28 Reconsidered’, in Open-Mindedness in the Bible and Beyond: A Volume of Studies in Honour of Bob Becking, edited by Marjo CA Korpel and Lester L Grabbe, LHB/OTS 616 (London/New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 247–259. The author of the chapter creates two perspectives. One is of an eyewitness before whom Jeremiah seems to be humiliated by Hananaiah; the other is of readers/listeners of the chapter, who learn ‘not to put their trust in a prophet who enjoys temporary success by prophesying what their audience wants to hear’ (247). 23. As Fischer (Jeremia 2, 73; 81) notes, vv 5–9 are presented as Jeremiah’s, not YHWH’s, words.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 29 13-May-20 5:25:55 PM 30 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

response to instructions or proclamations concerning the law in texts such as Numbers 5:22 and Deuteronomy 27:15–26 (the people’s responses to the curses). The rest of v 6 identifies the aspects of Hananiah’s prophecy to which he is prepared to subscribe. One is the conviction (prophecy does not trump the need for faith) that YHWH will bring back the vessels and all the exiles from Babylon. The second is his willingness to accept Hananiah’s apparent conviction that he is speaking the word of God. Within the context of chapter 27, Jeremiah must conclude that Hananiah is mistaken, otherwise his own condemnation of the false prophets in 27:16 is in question. He is prepared to believe that Hananiah, though mistaken and though he does not portray the exile as punishment for sin, is sincere, otherwise why would he make such specific claims on YHWH’s authority before the assembled clergy and people in the temple? This leads in turn to Jeremiah’s proposal in vv 7–9 about how their differences can be resolved, and it is to wait until the word of the prophet of peace ‘comes true’. That is, YHWH will reveal which of their prophecies about peace is true by the way events unfold. Both have prophesied the onset of an era of peace to be marked by the end of Judah’s servitude and a return of the temple vessels. The difference is that Jeremiah declares it will only take place after a further loot- ing of the temple treasures by the Babylonians and only ‘on the day’ YHWH decrees. This day is presumably after the decreed seventy years of servitude to Babylon. Hananiah on the other hand prophesies the return of the vessels taken in the first siege, along with Jehoi- achin and all the exiles, within two years. Hence it looks like Jeremiah is advocating a wait and see policy. However, I would argue that vv 8–9 indicate there is more to it than this. In these verses Jeremiah is in effect asserting that peace only or normally follows a period of war. Therefore, in order to be sure that a prophecy about a period of peace to come is true, the prophet must be able to link it to the preceding or current time of trouble, to state when it began, why YHWH has decreed it as punishment for sin, and how long it is to last. In relation to these criteria, Hananiah’s prophecy of peace in vv 2–4 provides no information about why Judah is under servitude to Babylon. Is Jere- miah discretely pointing out to Hananiah and those assembled in the temple this key omission in his prophecy? One may also be prompted

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 30 13-May-20 5:25:55 PM Analysis of Jeremiah 27:1–29:32 31

at this point to recall the condemnation of prophets in 6:14 who cry ‘“Peace, peace,” when there is no peace’.24 According to vv 10–11 Hananiah does not reply to Jeremiah’s words but instead takes dramatic action, removing Jeremiah’s yoke and breaking it. His accompanying words in v 11a claim this action is a dramatic sign of the veracity of his prophecy of the imminent end of Babylonian domination and exile. It forms a dramatic contrast to Jeremiah’s wearing the yoke as a sign of a lengthy exile. According to the text he has it on all the time—in speaking to the envoys of the nations, to King Zedekiah, to the priests and people in the temple, to Hananiah himself. One may be prompted to ask why Hananiah takes such a dramatic initiative if he is so convinced his prophecy is correct? Is it because he dismisses Jeremiah’s criterion of wait and see? Is it because he honestly believes that YHWH has instructed him to break the yoke in accord with the common sequence of a prophetic word that is confirmed by an accompanying sign? Or is it because he realises Jeremiah has found a gap in his prophecy that he cannot fill and so he performs this dramatic sign in order to prevent the witnesses becoming aware of it? They will welcome a sign that assures a quick end to the current troubles. One could answer that the final remark about Jeremiah’s departure from the scene implies that his strategy succeeds. Jeremiah may fear the hostility of the crowd and a repeat of what is recounted in chapter 26. However, within the context of the story the more likely answer is that Jeremiah’s silent withdrawal indicates that, unlike Hananiah, he will not try and seize the initiative on his terms but will wait for events to verify who has spoken true words. That is, he acts in accord with the criterion he sets down in v 9.25

24. Andrew G Shead provides some interesting reflections on this episode but does not make the connection I propose between a prophecy of peace and a prophecy of punishment, or that Jeremiah employs it as an indispensable criterion (A Mouth Full of Fire. The Word of God in the Words of Jeremiah, New Studies in Biblical Theology 29 (Downers Grove, Il: Intervarsity Press, 2012], 166–69). 25. Smelik (and others that he cites) find this explanation of Jeremiah’s departure in v 11b unconvincing because YHWH’s intentions are already clear from chapter 27 (‘A Prophet Contest’, 250). However, this overlooks the criterion that Jeremiah articulates in v 9 and which he follows, a criterion that allows, of course, for further instructions from YHWH.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 31 13-May-20 5:25:55 PM 32 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Verses 12–16 recount the final outcome of the conflict. In due course Jeremiah does receive a word from YHWH, the first time in the chapter that reports this happening (v 12b). He is instructed to confront Hananiah and declare that his breaking of the wooden yoke is not a sign that his prophecy is from YHWH and so true. Ironi- cally, the opposite is the case. As vv 15–16 declare, YHWH did not ‘send him’, but because he claimed to be so, YHWH will indeed ‘send him’—but from the face of the earth.26 YHWH’s sentence of death for Hananiah ‘within this year’ and the subsequent report of it is the sign that confirms for both the witnesses in the story and subsequent readers that he was the liar and Jeremiah the true prophet.27 The text underlines the contrast in dramatic fashion by exploiting the metaphor of the yoke. Hananiah’s removal of the visible sign—the wooden yoke—only serves to reveal the reality to which it points, namely the ‘iron yoke’ of a long period under Babylonian rule.28 As a final comment on the chapter, one may note that the brief report of Hananiah’s death in v 17 functions as a fulfillment of the preceding prophecy without explicitly claiming so. As such it is in line with the chronological reversals that I have identified at strategic points throughout the book and which also serve to confirm prophecies without explicitly saying so.

26. Cf Epp-Tiessen, Concerning the Prophets, 182. 27. As noted earlier the report in v 17 that Hananiah died in that same year ‘in the seventh month’ can be linked to the commencement of the conflict ‘in the fifth month of the fourth year’. His death so soon after his condemnation enhances the implied sequence of prophecy and fulfillment. While I would agree with Carroll’s overall assessment that ‘the redaction is committed to Jeremiah, therefore Hananiah is false’ (Jeremiah, 550) the way the story gradually reveals this is more subtle and challenging than he argues. I would also disagree with McKane who thinks that in vv 15–17 Jeremiah is portrayed acting contrary to the criteria he outlined in vv 8–9. However, this fails to take account of the connection between v 11b and vv 12–13 which shows that Jeremiah only acts when commanded by YHWH, and this is because it is Hananiah who tries to take charge of affairs and acts contrary to this criterion (Jeremiah 2, 719–20). 28. One may link this text to the rhetorical question in 15:12, ‘Can iron and bronze break iron from the north’; ‘the north’ in this verse refers to the invader that YHWH summons from the north, namely Babylon (cf Osuji, Where is the Truth?, 211; Keown-Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 57).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 32 13-May-20 5:25:55 PM Analysis of Jeremiah 27:1–29:32 33

Jeremiah 29 This chapter is clearly linked to the two preceding chapters by the shared theme of the length of the exile or period of servitude to Baby- lon. It is logical that after the book portrays YHWH’s endorsement of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy-years of servitude by eliminating his rival Hananiah and his claim of a short exile, it should deal with the same issue among those already in exile. Another connection is a chronological one. Chapter 29 is also set during the reign of the last King Zedekiah. The chronological notice in v 2 states that Jeremiah sent a letter after the initial exile of Jehoiachin, his mother and the royal administration in 597 BCE. It was sent with a delegation of officials from Zedekiah to Nebuchadnezzar. As a number of commentators have noted, it is reasonable to think the purpose of this delegation was to assure Nebuchadnezzar of Zedekiah’s loyalty as a vassal after Jeremiah’s rival prophets in chapter 27–28 stirred hopes of an early end of Babylonian domination.29 A somewhat different kind of connection, one not explicitly stated but clearly enough implied, involves the shift from the spoken words of the prophet in chapters 27–28 to his words written on a scroll in chapter 29.30 The repeated use of the prophetic messenger formula ‘Thus says the Lord/the Lord of hosts’ (29:4, 8, 10, 16, 17, 21, 25, 31) and its shorter form ‘says the Lord’ (29:9b, 11, 14a, 19, 23b, 32b) effectively claims that the written word has the same divine status as the spoken word. That such a claim is justified the reader will learn in chapter 36 in which YHWH is portrayed authorising Jeremiah to rewrite a scroll that King Jehoiakim burnt. YHWH stands by the written word as YHWH stands by the spoken word of a prophet. It is as much the word of YHWH as the spoken word. Despite these connections, to the modern reader the chapter appears somewhat disjointed. Two passages are particularly noteworthy. Verses 16–19, which are about the king and citizens of Jerusalem, seems to clash with verse 15 which is addressed to the exiles in Baby- lon. These verses are not in the LXX version. According to vv 24–28,

29. This is the view of Holladay,Jeremiah 2, 140. 30. The Hebrew word translated as ‘letter’ in 29:1, 3 and 29 is sepher, which is the same word translated in the NRSV as ‘book’ in 30:2 and ‘scroll’ in chapter 36. Despite the differing lengths of these three kinds ofsepher the common term indicates that each was written on a length of papyrus and rolled, tied and sealed for transportation (cf Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 348, and Keown-Scalise- Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 69).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 33 13-May-20 5:25:55 PM 34 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Jeremiah is instructed by YHWH to speak to a certain Shemaiah of Nehelam in Babylon about a letter he wrote against Jeremiah, but it is only in v 29 that ‘this letter’ is read to Jeremiah by one of its recipients, the priest Zephaniah. Granted that vv 25–28 show Jeremiah knows all about the letter, did Zephaniah’s reading of it take place before or after his words to Shemaiah? These and other perceived signs of disunity have led to the chapter being subjected to sustained historical critical analysis as to its composition, but with no general agreement being reached.31 In keeping with the purpose of this study, my comments will be on the present MT text of the chapter, seeking to discern, hopefully without distortion, how the parts of the chapter go together to make up a whole that is larger than the sum of these parts, and how the chapter itself relates to the surrounding as well as the larger context. In agreement with most commentators, two main sections can be identified in the chapter, vv 1–23 and 24–32.32 Within vv 1–23 there are the introductory vv 1–3 followed by three passages each introduced with the messenger formula ‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel’ (vv 4, 8) ‘thus says the Lord’ (v 10). Each has a distinctive theme; in the first it is instructions to the exiles about how they are to live in Babylon (vv 4–7), in the second it is a warning about false prophets and diviners (vv 8–9), while the third promises the exiles that they will return after seventy years ‘to the place from which I sent you into exile’ (vv 10–14). An indication that vv 15–20 may be taken as a section is that vv 15 and 20 form a frame or inclusio around the intervening verses. Each is addressed in the second person plural to the exiles in Babylon and each is about rival prophetic claims. Those addressed in v 15 claim that YHWH has raised up prophets for them in Babylon whereas v 20 instructs them to ‘hear the word of the Lord’. Within the context this is presumably not to listen to the prophets invoked in v 15 but to the contents of Jeremiah’s letter. Verses 21–23 name and condemn two prophets in Babylon, and

31. As expected, a thorough survey of the discussion is provided by McKane, Jeremiah 2, 735–48. See also Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 134–37; Carroll, Jeremiah, 555–68, and Keown-Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 64–65. 32. Fischer (Jeremia 26–52, 89) however divides the chapter into vv 1–20 and 21–32, taking v 20 as referring to what precedes with vv 21–23 and 24–32 being linked by the theme of false prophecy. Epp-Tiessen divides the chapter into vv 1–19 and 20–32 (Concerning the Prophets, 195). The focus of the former is how to live in exile, the focus of the latter is the condemnation of three false prophets, Ahab and Zedekiah in vv 20–23; Shemaiah in vv 24–32.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 34 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM Analysis of Jeremiah 27:1–29:32 35

within the context one may presume they are the ‘prophets’ referred to in v 15 or are among them.33 As already indicated, there are two main sections in vv 24–32. Verses 24–28 contain the words that Jer- emiah is instructed to convey to Shemaiah of Nehelam, and which are effectively the contents of the latter’s letter. Verse 28 shows that this communication took place after Jeremiah’s letter had been read to the exiles. Verses 29–32 report that Zephaniah read Shemaiah’s letter to Jeremiah who was then instructed by YHWH to send a reply to all the exiles, condemning Shemaiah as a lying prophet in line with the two lying prophets condemned in vv 21–23. The introductory vv 1–3 recall chapter 24 and in particular the prophecy in vv 4–7 about the ‘good figs’. As I argued in the first volume, the good figs are the ones who obeyed YHWH’s word and surrendered to the Babylonians. They were the first to go into exile to Babylon. Not all those named in 24:1 are good figs; the ones who acted on the right motive are known only to YHWH who will look on them for good and restore them to the land and build and plant them. In light of this the reader should not assume that all those referred to in 29:1 are the good figs. The phrase does not occur in the chapter. While v 4 states that the letter is addressed ‘to all the exiles’ in Babylon, only those who accept what it decrees will continue to be counted among the good figs. Although they obeyed the injunction to surrender, they remain vulnerable human beings and one may take the letter as a sign of YHWH’s promise in 24:5 to look on them ‘for good’. By obeying the instructions in it they will be able to remain faithful.34 By the same token, one may surmise that the letter also serves as YHWH’s call to disobedient exiles to repent, as the book claims YHWH has persistently done to all those who need to repent.

33. A division of vv 4–23 that emphasises the prophetic thrust of the text is that of Lundbom who identifies seven oracles in these verses; vv 5–7, 8–9, 10–13, 14a, 14b, 16–19, 21–23 (Jeremiah 21–36, 346). However, I would judge that passages with the shorter ‘says the Lord’ formula in vv 14a, 14b function to confirm the prophecies introduced by ‘Thus says the Lord/of hosts’, as is the case in vv 9b, 11a, 23b. 34. The names of the two couriers in v 3 may be historical; for a useful discussion see Keown-Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 70–71. However, within the book, Elasah son of Shaphan seems to be presented as a brother of the loyal Ahikam in 26:24, and Gemariah as Jeremiah’s own brother (both are described as sons of Hilkiah (cf 29:3 and 1:1). Do they function in the narrative as an assurance to the exiles (and reader) that they were faithful couriers for Jeremiah and that the contents of the letter were exactly what he wrote or dictated?

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 35 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM 36 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

The instructions or commands in vv 4–7 are addressed to ‘all the exiles’; no one is excluded and so all who accept them are assured in v 7 that ‘you will find your welfare’ shalom( ).35 As the chapter unfolds however, one learns that not all the exiles accept them. The commands are about seven distinct areas, a perfect number indicating they cover all aspects of life in which the people will enjoy shalom instead of war, life instead of death. The seven commands are; 1)- to build houses and live in them; 2)- to plant gardens and eat their produce; 3)- to take wives and have sons and daughters; 4)- to provide wives and husbands for these sons and daughters; 5)- to multiply and not decrease; 6)- to seek the shalom of the city of exile; 7)- to pray to YHWH on its behalf and the reason for this (‘in its shalom you will find yourshalom ’). One may note that the initial commands to build and plant recall YHWH’s appointment of Jeremiah over nations and kingdoms to build and plant once the existing disorder has been plucked up and pulled down (cf 1:10 and passim). Within this context the command to build houses and plant gardens in Babylon is the commencement of this new order. And just as Jeremiah is appointed or empowered by YHWH to build and plant, so those who obey his commands have YHWH’s authorisation and empowerment to build and plant. They must also pray for the shalom of Babylon because the city has a divinely decreed role to play in both Judah’s period of servitude and its eventual release and return. Hence to pray for Babylon is to pray that it fulfills its divinely decreed purpose. It is an integral part of the exiles’ shalom, their own building and planting, which in reality is their being rebuilt and planted by YHWH.36

35. The term ‘all the exiles’ (Hebrewkol-haggadol is singular, ‘all the exile’) occurs three times in this chapter (vv 4, 10, 31) and they are the only occurrences in the HB/OT. Their threefold use here may be meant to assert that YHWH’s word is addressed to, and reaches, all exiles in whatever land to which YHWH drove them (cf 29:14; also 16:15; 23:8). 36. Smelik (‘Letters to the Exiles: Jeremiah 29 in Context’, in SJOT, 10 [1996]: 282– 95, see 291) thinks the absence of Babylon in 29:7 in contrast to its occurrence in other parts of the chapter indicates that the exiles are not commanded to pray for its welfare, which would amount to praying for their oppressors. Against this is its occurrence in v 3b, the assertion in 25:9 and 27:6 that it is the capital and throne of YHWH’s servant, Nebuchadnezzar, as well as the prophecy that Babylon is to play its designated role in YHWH’s purpose for seventy-years, until its own time comes.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 36 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM Analysis of Jeremiah 27:1–29:32 37

Verses 8–9 are composed of two warnings in v 8 followed in v 9 by two reasons for the warnings.37 The first warning is clear; the exiles should not let themselves be deceived by prophets and diviners. Even though the content of their prophecies is not stated, those who assembled the book may well have thought there was no need. Within the context of exile, it is likely one would be sympathetic, and thereby open to deception, to prophecies that it would end soon (cf chapters 27–28). The thrust of the second warning is however somewhat ambiguous due to variant versions. The MT of BHS has ‘your dreams that you are dreaming’ which is presumably directed to all the exiles and constitutes a second warning distinct from the preceding one about prophets and dreamers. The NRSV follows some LXX manuscripts and has ‘the dreams that they are dreaming’, thus making it an extension of the preceding one about prophets and dreamers.38 Resolving this difference is difficult because either reading is plausible within the context. On the first reading, the exiles are being warned not only about false prophets but their own tendencies to dream similar thoughts, which makes them doubly vulnerable to such prophets. But the alternative reading is also plausible because the second warning is meant to underscore the importance of the first about false prophets. Perhaps this one is to be preferred because the two reasons given in v 9 clearly refer to the prophets and not to the exiles in general.39 Despite the problems raised by a number of commentators, vv 10–14 also fit well into the textual sequence and provide a fitting final member of the three sections introduced by the messenger formula ‘thus says the Lord/of hosts/God of Israel’.40 On my reading the verses are arranged as a chiasm with vv 10–11 and v 14aβb (after the first

37. Despite a proposal in the BHS critical apparatus to relocate these verses after v 15, they fit well into their context. The commands in vv 4–7 would presumably not be needed if everyone were in full agreement with what YHWH has decreed. Given what is presented in chapters 27–28 there is a real likelihood of hostility and rejection, and this must be warned against. 38. The NRSV does however provide the MT reading in a footnote. 39. The accusation that prophets of a quick end to exile are liars occurs in 27:9, 14b, 15b, and 28:15b (in relation to Hananiah). It is reasonable therefore to link 29:8–9 with the issue of true and false prophecy in chapters 27–29. 40. For a presentation of the views of these commentators see Osuji (Where is the Truth?, 243–45) who argues that vv. 10–14 respond to topics in both vv 5–7 and 8–9 and therefore forms a close connection with them.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 37 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM 38 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

‘says the Lord’ in v 14a) providing the outer frame (A and A’), while vv 12–14aα form the centre of the chiasm (B). The A and A’ sections provide a response or follow-up to vv 5–7 while B provides a response to vv 8–9. Thus, vv 10–11 and 14aβb counter a possible reading of vv 5–7 that life in exile under Babylon is to be permanent and that there is no alternative.41 Verse ten reasserts the prophecies of Jeremiah in 25:11b of a seventy-year period of exile, as well as the associated prophecy in 27:7 that it would last for three generations of Babylonian kings. One may note that the commands for marriage and family life in 29:6 also cover three generations. But beyond the question of the length of the period of exile, v 10 also asserts that the people’s return ‘to this place’ after seventy years is in fulfillment of YHWH’s promise. Hence, like the conquest and exile, it is an integral part of YHWH’s overall plan for the people.42 Verse 14aβb reaffirms the promise of return to the place and adds the assurance that it includes not only those in exile in Babylon but also those in ‘all the nations and all the places where I have driven you’.43 YHWH is Sovereign over all times and places and so is as present to people driven into exile as YHWH was present to them while they were living in the land and its cities. The reason why vv 12–14aα (B) are located at the centre of this chiasm is to emphasise that a necessary ingredient or even condition for the fulfillment of this divine plan involves the transformation of the people themselves. Theirshalom is ultimately not their return from exile but the establishment of a right relationship with YHWH. But this is something that, as with the return from exile, YHWH must bring about. Human beings of themselves cannot create a right relationship with YHWH. Hence vv 12–14aα provide the appropri-

41. In agreement with Osuji, Where is the Truth?, 244. I would disagree with Thelle’s assertion that in chapter 29 Babylon is portrayed as ‘the ideal city in terms similar to the ideal existence in the land’ (‘Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah [MT]’, 232). Rather, the thrust of Jeremiah’s letter in the chapter is that as long as the people accept their decreed period of exile by submitting to Babylon, YHWH will ensure they find shalom there. 42. Verse 11b clearly implies that both the ‘harm’ (ra‘ah) and the shalom promised are part of YHWH’s plan. The former refers to the destruction that YHWH repays the wicked because of their sins (also translated as ‘disaster’, ‘trouble’, ‘doom’ in such texts as 1:14; 2:3; 4:2, 18 and elsewhere, depending on context). 43. This verse is not in the LXX and it may well have been added to the MT version to create the chiasm. This may also explain the second occurrence of ‘says the Lord’ in the verse, after its occurrence in v 14aα.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 38 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM Analysis of Jeremiah 27:1–29:32 39

ate and necessary alternative to the seductive temptations to which exiles in particular would be vulnerable. Instead of being deceived by false prophets claiming to proclaim the divine word, they will call on YHWH and pray to YHWH. This, rather than the words of false prophets, will assure a divine response (‘I will hear you’). Instead of relying on the reception of dreams of others they will search for YHWH and are assured they will find YHWH when they seek ‘with all your heart’.44 This may be an anticipation of the new covenant text to come in 31:31–34.45 Whatever the case a reasonable conclusion on reading vv 10–14 is that they anticipate the fuller picture of the new order that is to come in chapters 30–33.46 The complexity and degree of disunity in the following section vv 15–20 is generally acknowledged, with vv 16–19, which deal with divine retribution for the king and citizens in Jerusalem, intruding between vv 15–20, which are addressed to the exiles. This is supported by the absence of vv 16–19 in the LXX, although the connection between vv 15 and 20 does not really require the phrase ‘and/but you’ (ve’attem) with which v 20 commences and may have been added along with the insertion of vv 16–19.47 If one takes the present text of

44. The NRSV of v 13b has ‘if you seek me’ but the Hebrew particle ki can mean ‘if’, ‘when’, ‘because’, depending on context. The context of vv 10–14, as well as the likely link with 31:31–34, would suggest ‘when’ or ‘because’. These translations presume divine initiative empowering the recipient. There is also Deut 30:6 in which YHWH promises the people and their descendants a circumcised heart so that ‘you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul’. 45. A more literal rendering of the NRSV translation of the phrase in v 14aα ‘I will let you find me’ is ‘I will be found by/to you’. BHS recommends reading the verb as ‘I shall be seen’, following the LXX. However the verb ‘to find’ occurs in the preceding v 13, and v 14aα would seem to follow on this. This still leaves the rather awkward phrase ‘to you’ (with the Hebrew preposition ‘l’) rather than ‘b’ (by) which would fit the context better. 46. Cf Fischer, Jeremia 2, 87; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 403. Keown-Scalise-Smothers sees a connection between 29:5–7, 10-14 and the comforting of Rachel in 31:16–17 (Jeremiah 26–52, 73). 47. According to Epp-Tiessen (Concerning the Prophets, 49, 190) YHWH’s resolve to make all who did not go into exile ‘like rotten figs’ creates an explicit connection with the vision of the basket of figs in 24:1–10, in particular with the section on the bad figs in vv 8–10. It is one of the pieces of evidence that leads him to assign 24:1–10 and 29:1–19 to B and B’ parts of his concentric structure. For Epp- Tiessen, 29:16–19, which is not in the LXX, was one of the redactional additions by the MT tradition to the Vorlage to enhance the structure.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 39 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM 40 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the MT as this study does, one needs to try and discern the function of vv 15–20 within the chapter and within the larger book. A connection with the preceding verses can be seen in the claim by ‘you’ in v 15 that YHWH has raised up prophets ‘for us’ in Babylon. This takes up the warning to ‘you’ in vv 8–9 not to be deceived by false prophets, and reveals that it has not been heeded. And this is despite the promise in vv 10–14 of a great return and restoration for those who accept the prophetic word of Jeremiah. However, the subsequent verses do not explicitly condemn those making the claim in v 15. Rather, v 20, that is presumably addressed to the same group, urges or commands them to ‘hear’ the true word of YHWH, which of course is very different to what the prophets, referred to in v 15, proclaim and which are likely the ones warned against in vv 8–9. In order to underline the serious nature of the danger facing those who heed the voice of false prophets rather than the word of YHWH, the text provides two examples, both of which serve as warnings to addressees/readers.48 The first concerns the king and citizens of Jerusalem who were not part of the first exile in the time of Jehoiachin.49 Despite this example of divine retribution they refused to heed the words of YHWH ‘when I persistently sent to you my servants the prophets’ (v 19).50 Hence they will suffer an even worse punishment as is described in v 18. They will be driven out among the nations where all the horrors described will strike them, the reason for this being that they refused to listen to the prophets whom YHWH persistently sent to them. The

48. Osuji claims that a connection between v 15 and both 16–19 and 20–23 can be argued ‘once it is admitted rightly that chapter 29 is the last in a series of chapters where the prophet combats false prophecy’ (Where is the Truth?, 251). 49. The reference to the unnamed king who sits (literally ‘the one sitting’) on the throne of David in v 16 may be because Zedekiah is the reigning king and so there is no need for the name, or it may be to avoid a hostile reaction to those entrusted with the letter and who presumably read it. 50. BHS notes that some MS have the second person plural pronoun suffix ‘to you’ rather than ‘to them’ and this is followed by NRSV. The Old Greek and Syriac also has third person plural in place of the second person plural pronoun suffix— ‘they would not listen’ (also followed by NRSV). There are a number of such variants among the MS and it is difficult at times to decide definitively one way or the other. Given that 29:16–19 is mainly about those in Jerusalem this would suggest the third person plural for both rather than the second person plural as for direct address (cf. the translations in Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 133–34; McKane, Jeremiah 2, 726; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 344).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 40 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM Analysis of Jeremiah 27:1–29:32 41

connection between these verses and 25:3–10 is clear and serves to confirm this proclamation that is located earlier both textually and chronologically. After declaring what is in store for the king and citizens of Jerusalem because they refused to heed the words of YHWH that were verified in the first exile, the following vv 21–23 focus on two examples in Babylon itself. They are introduced by the bridging v 20 that commands all ‘you exiles’ to hear the word of YHWH. The additional ‘whom I sent away from Jerusalem to Babylon’ assures the exiles that they are in YHWH’s hands, those who obey will enjoy shalom while those who disobey will experience ra‘ah (harm, disaster). Verses 21–23 prophesy such a terrible death by fire at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar that it will become embedded in the memory and language of the people in the form of a curse (v 22). In addition to the sin of prophesying falsehood in YHWH’s name, v 23 adds adultery. This may be to enhance the assertion in v 23b by YHWH that ‘I am the one who knows and bears witness’. YHWH knows all the sins that are committed; nothing escapes the divine scrutiny. It may also, within the context of the chapter, refer to the command to the exiles in v 6 to take wives and have sons and daughters. By committing adultery, these false prophets ‘undermined the foundation of exiled Judeans’ that YHWH provided.51 In terms of the surrounding context, one can also see that vv 16–19 (B’) and 20-23 (A’) combine with vv 5–7 (A) and 8–9 (B) respectively to form a frame around vv 10–14 (C) as the central section of vv 1–4/5–23.52 That is, vv 16–19 confirm the thrust of vv 5–7 that the exile will be long because the ones already in exile from the time of Jehoiachin are going to be joined by those from the second and final conquest of Jerusalem that is decreed. Along with those who are ‘like rotten figs’ (v 17) and who will be afflicted with all the -hor rors named, there will also presumably be others like the good figs who have been urged in vv 5–7 to accept the decreed length of exile

51. So Keown-Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 78; cf also Osuji, Where is the Truth?, 255. Carroll remarks that falsehood is the essence of adultery (Jeremiah, 561). 52. This proposed arrangement is somewhat different to Lundbom’s who identifies a chiastic structure in vv 4–23, with vv 4–9 (Welfare of Babylon—A), vv 10–14 (Welfare of Jerusalem—B; vv 15–19 (Judgement in Jerusalem–B’); vv 20–23 (Judgement in Babylon—A’) (cf Jeremiah 21–36, 347). In my judgement Lundbom’s interpretation does not pay sufficient attention to two distinct sections in vv 4–9.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 41 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM 42 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

and live it fully. Verses 20–23 confirm that those who do not heed the warning against false prophecy in vv 8–9 and instead believe liars like Ahab and Zedekiah (v 21) will suffer a similar fate. But vv 10–14 provide assurance that, despite what vv 16–23 have prophesied will take place those who obey the words of Jeremiah’s letter will have their fortunes restored. The second part of chapter 29 is comprised of two sections, with vv 24–28 being about the contents of a letter sent by a certain She- maiah of Nehelam in Babylon, and vv 29–32 about what one may presume is a reply that Jeremiah sends to the exiles after the priest Zephaniah reads him the letter of Shemaiah (‘this letter’). The nature and function of these verses in the context has generated much discussion, in particular over two points. One concerns the cohesion of vv 24–32; the main thrust of Jeremiah’s quotation of Shemaiah’s letter in vv 24–28 is that he should be imprisoned like any madman but this is not mentioned in the reply that Jeremiah sends in vv 29–32. The other concerns the connection between this section and what precedes. Shemaiah appears in the narrative without any introduction, and Jeremiah is told to speak to him even though, according to the text, Shemiah is in Babylon and Jeremiah in Jerusalem.53 However, it is clear from v 28 that Shemaiah’s words, as quoted by Jeremiah, are a response to the latter’s first letter. I would propose that a connection can be seen both between the two parts of vv 24–32, as well as between these verses and the rest of the chapter, if one sees Shemaiah as a sympathiser or supporter of the prophets Ahab and Kolaiah who are condemned in vv 21–23. As v 28 makes clear, Shemaiah does not accept Jeremiah’s prophecy of a long exile/period of servitude to Babylon. The connection gains support when one notes how Shemaiah’s letter that Jeremiah quotes recalls 20:1–6 where Jeremiah is imprisoned in the stocks by an earlier priest, Pashhur, for prophesying the end of Judah and for smashing

53. According to Lundbom, Jeremiah actually wrote three letters, and that vv 24–32 contain the contents or part thereof of a letter that Jeremiah sent to Shemaiah, as well as the first one mentioned in vv 1–3 and the third one in vv 30–31 (Jeremiah 21–36, 361–63). There is no explicit reference to asepher either in v 24 or vv 30–31 yet it is generally accepted that the latter verses refer to a word sent by letter. Hence, Lundbom argues, why not v 24 also. Letters in ancient times were generally read aloud.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 42 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM Analysis of Jeremiah 27:1–29:32 43

a jug as a sign that this will indeed happen. By enquiring of the current priest of Jerusalem, Zephaniah, as to why Jeremiah has not been imprisoned (again) Shemaiah wants to shut down or terminate his message by the time-honoured response of shutting down the messenger—in this case by imprisonment. In relation to this, one should note that although Jeremiah is instructed to speak to Shemaiah as in a private encounter, v 25 introduces Jeremiah’s words with the prophetic messenger formula. This means that what Jeremiah says to him is the word of YHWH. Given that Jeremiah conveys these words to Shemaiah after he has written his letter that a madman like Jere- miah should be imprisoned and silenced, the clear implication is that it has not happened. Jeremiah has not been imprisoned and thereby silenced and this is because YHWH is the one who not only speaks through a prophet but ensures that a prophet continues to speak for as long as YHWH, and not anyone like a Shemaiah, decrees.54 This explanation of vv 24–28 allows one in turn to see the meaning and function of vv 29–32. Instead of imprisoning Jeremiah as effectively demanded by Shemaiah in his letter, the reader finds the priest Zephaniah reading Shemaiah’s letter to him without any mention of or reference to imprisonment. This is a further sign that Zephaniah has not heeded Shemaiah’s demand that Jeremiah be imprisoned, and may imply that the priest is on Jeremiah’s side or at least that as a key priest in the temple hierarchy he is not going to be dictated to by an outsider. Whatever the case, in vv 30–32 Jeremiah is instructed by YHWH to send a letter to all the exiles that exposes the real reason behind Shemaiah’s demand for his imprisonment. Shemaiah is not just a sympathiser of Ahab and Kolaiah but a fellow propagator of lies. Hence, he too will be punished, and the form that his punishment will take relates to the content of Jeremiah’s prophetic letter to the exiles. Neither Shemaiah nor any of his family will live through the seventy-year period of exile (cf vv 4–7), and hence they will not see the good that YHWH is ‘going to do for my people’ (cf vv 10–14). This decree of punishment therefore provides a fitting conclusion to the chapter.

54. Within the context of the book one could say that this is another confirmation, along with chapter 26, of YHWH’s promise to Jeremiah in 1:18–19 and 15:20–21 of protection from his enemies.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 43 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM 44 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Reflection on chapter 29 within the context of the book prompts two further comments. One concerns Jeremiah’s conflicts in the book with rival prophets. In preceding chapters this conflict has been over whether the future would bring war or peace. Jeremiah is the prophet of war and destruction for an intransigent people and its city and temple, whereas his rivals reject this and declare to the people in words Jeremiah quotes in 14:13; ‘You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you true peace in this place’. However, in chapter 29 Jeremiah himself becomes a prophet of peace for the people and one might think that this would in turn include peace with his rival prophets. However, as chapter 27–29 reveal, Jer- emiah is still at odds with the prophets of peace and this is on two counts. One concerns the length of the period of exile, with Jeremiah declaring that it will be long (seventy years or three generations) and his rivals that it will be short (over within two years). The other and, one could say, more radical difference between them is the onset of peace after the decreed end of the existing disorder in Judah and Jerusalem. According to 29:7 YHWH decrees peace (shalom NRSV, ‘welfare’) for those who obey and live as instructed in exile in Babylon (‘for in its welfare you will find your welfare’). Although it is not stated, the clear impression the reader gains from Jeremiah’s disagreements with his rivals is that they envisage peace after the exiles return to Judah and Jerusalem ‘within two years’. If chapter 29 did not contain the subsequent promise in vv 10–14 about return from exile after seventy years, the reader could conclude that YHWH’s promise in the earlier vv 4–7 implies a life in Babylon as full as life in Judah and Jerusalem before the siege and conquest. Indeed, when one reads the promise in vv 10–14 of what will take place after the end of the seventy years of exile and return to ‘this place’, there is a strong element of continuity with vv 4–7. What vv 10–14 add however is that the return from exile is the next stage in the plan that YHWH has for the people, ‘to give you a future with hope’ (v 11b). The combination of the terms ‘future’ and ‘hope’ clearly signals there is more to come and what it is will both fulfill hopes and fuel further hope. This stage-by-stage fulfillment of hope involves of course the corresponding stage-by-stage realisation of YHWH’s plan for the people. Hill explains the continuity and change between vv 4–7 and 10–14 via the notion of an ‘unended exile’. That is, chapter 29 ‘provides a way for the community to interpret its existence back

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 44 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM Analysis of Jeremiah 27:1–29:32 45

in Judah as still a form of exile’.55 As the people lived in Babylon and waited in hope for YHWH’s promise of return to be realised, so they live in Judah after their return, waiting in hope for the full realisation of YHWH’s plan for their welfare. The book does not contain a report of the return from Babylonian exile, although post-exilic editors and readers of the book no doubt knew of it and may have experienced it. This in turn would have enhanced the authority of Jeremiah’s prophecies of further stages to come in the realisation of YHWH’s plan for the people, and may well have been a factor in the location of the immediately following chapters; 30–31 (the so-called ‘book of consolation’) and 32–33.56 To these chapters we now turn.

55. Hill, ‘“Your Exile Will be Long.” The Book of Jeremiah and the Unended Exile’, in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence, edited by Martin Kessler (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 149–61, especially151–52. 56. One may note that the ‘book of consolation’ does not provide any dates/time lines for the restoration of Judah.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 45 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 46 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM Chapter Three Jeremiah 30:1–31:40

While some studies refer to chapters 30–33 as ‘the book of consolation’, the preferred view is to restrict this description to chapters 30–31, or to recognise the common focus on building and planting in the four chapters by referring to 30–31 as ‘the little book of consolation’.1 This implies chapters 30–31 are part of a larger piece on the future of Israel and Judah beyond the seventy years of servitude to Babylon and Babylon’s own demise, the focus of the preceding chapters 27–29. Despite their shared thematic focus the two blocks of text differ in that chapters 30–31 are mainly in poetry and have no chronological introduction, while chapters 32–33 are mainly in prose and commence with a chronological introduction in the tenth year of Zedekiah, when Jerusalem was in the final stages of its siege by Baby- lon. As well as this, chapters 30–31 are all speech by YHWH except for one narrative verse (31:26), whereas chapters 32–33 are a combination of narrative and speech. My analysis will therefore treat chapters 30–31 and 32–33 as distinct blocks but with an eye to thematic and other connections between them, as well as their function within the larger MT of Jeremiah. As might be expected, the two blocks of material have generated much analysis and debate about their origin and redaction, and good reviews of these are provided in some recent

1. Among those who describe chapter 30–33 as the ‘Book of Consolation’ are Boadt, Jeremiah 26–52, 34, and Brueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 264. The scriptor ‘Little Book of Consolation’ (German ‘Trostbüchlein’) was first coined by P Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia (Tübingen: JCB Mohr, 1930), 247–50 and is the term employed by Fischer in his recent discussion of chapters 30–31 in Der Prophet wie Mose: Studien zum Jeremiabuch, BZABR 15 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011), 276–79. Lundbom describes chapters 30–33 as ‘The Book of Restoration’, and 30–31 as the ‘Book of Covenant’ (Jeremiah 21–36, 369).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 47 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM 48 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

commentaries and articles.2 Focusing on the present text does not, of course, eliminate disagreement and debate. This is particularly so with Hebrew poetry as the following analysis will show.3 Chapter 30 commences with a narrative introduction to YHWH’s words to Jeremiah in vv 2–3. There is no chronological notice in this introduction but, within the context of the book, one may take it as occurring sometime between the preceding chronological notice in 29:1 about when Jeremiah wrote his letter to the exiles, and the following one in 32:1 about the encounter between Jeremiah and king Zedekiah just before the conquest of Jerusalem. Hence, sometime between 594 and 587. According to v 2 Jeremiah is instructed to write in a sepher (book, scroll) ‘all the words’ that YHWH has spoken to him.4 Once again, context suggests these words are not, as in the case of chapter 36, what the book/scroll records in preceding chapters, because chapter 29 is about another sepher (letter) and its particular contents. In the case of 30:2 therefore, ‘all the words’ refer to the prophecies of restoration that follow. This is supported by the way the second narrative introduction in v 4 refers to the words that YHWH spoke and that, in line with v 3a, they are about Israel and Judah.5 The speech of YHWH in 30:3 looks back and forward. The declaration ‘the days are surely coming’ signals the forward view while the following statement ‘I will restore the fortunes of my people’ clearly recalls the very similar phrase in Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles (cf 29:14). The two texts also share the link between restoring for-

2. For commentaries, see in particular Keown-Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 83–87. For a recent article see Ferry, “‘Yhwh Cree du nouveau’: Restauration et Nouveaute dans le livre de Jeremie (lecture de Jr 30-31)’, in Estudios Biblicos, 60 (2002): 381–404, in particular 382–88. 3. Various proposals have been made about the number of distinct units in 30–31 and the main ones are outlined and discussed in the 2004 study by Bob Becking, Between Fear and Freedom. Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30–31, Oudtestamentische Studiën/Old Testament Studies (Brill: Leiden/Boston, 2004), 52–60. 4. Fischer sees 30:1–2 implying that Jeremiah is a second Moses, writing in a sepher as Moses is commanded to do in Exod 34:27 (Jeremia 2, 123). 5. This is the case even if one accepts that the references to Judah in both v 3a and v 4 are additions, as indicated in the BHS critical apparatus. They are retained by Becking (Between Fear and Freedom, 107–8), and Barbara Bozak (Life ‘Anew’. A Literary-Theological Study of Jer. 30–31,Analecta Biblica 122 [Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991], 26).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 48 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM Jeremiah 30:1–31:40 49

tunes and return from exile.6 The promise in 30:3b that YHWH will bring Israel and Judah back to the land given to their ancestors, and that they shall possess it recalls the promises to the ancestors in such texts as Genesis 15:7; 22:17; 28:4, and the same promises to the nation Israel in such texts as Leviticus 20:24; Numbers 13:30; 14:24; Deuter- onomy 1:21, 39. By the same token, this promise goes well beyond the horizon of return from exile in chapter 29. In terms of the larger context of the book, v 3 promises a restoration of two central components of Israel’s life under YHWH’s sovereignty that would be removed as punishment for sin; namely its God-given place (land) and time (secure life in the land like that of their ancestors). The second narrative report in v 4 introduces YHWH speech that continues until another narrative report in the first person, presumably by Jeremiah, in 31:26. YHWH speech then resumes until the end of chapter 31. A helpful division of 30:4–31:40 is provided by Bozak who, in terms of form, works on the distinction between poetry and prose, and in terms of content, works on the distinction between passages addressed to a male audience and passages addressed to a female audience. Her division is as follows: 30:1–4 (Prose Introduction); 30:5–11 (Poem I to a male audience); 30:12–17 (Poem II to a female audience); 30:18–31:1 (Poem III to a male audience); 31:2–6 (Poem IV to a female audience); 31:7–14 (Poem V to a male audience); 31:15–22 (Poem VI to a female-male audience); 31:23–34 (Prose Conclusion I); 31:35–40 (Prose Conclusion II).7 A problem with this division however is that it assigns v 4 to the prose introduction rather than to the prophecy that it clearly introduces; it also overlooks the first person narrative report in 31:26 (presumably by Jeremiah), the only narrative report after 30:4. Becking takes these factors into account, along with others such as prophetic formulas,

6. The phrase ‘restore fortunes’ involves a play on the verbshub (to return/repent) and literally means ‘to return a return’. Bozak, after reviewing studies of the phrase, concludes that its content is best judged from its context (Life ‘Ane w’ , 30-31). The subsequent analysis will endeavour to take this into account wherever the phrase occurs, as well as occurrences of the verb shub on its own. 7. Cf Bozak, Life ‘Ane w’, 20. Her division is followed by Fischer, Jeremia 2, 121.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 49 13-May-20 5:25:56 PM 50 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

and identifies what he calls 10 subcantos. His division agrees with Bozak except for the initial and concluding sections.8 Thus he has: 30:1-3 (Introduction), followed by subcantos in 30:4–11; 30:12–17; 30:18–31:1; 31:2–6; 31:7–14; 31:15–22; 31:23–26; 31:27–30; 31:31– 37; 31:38–40. Despite these differences there is enough agreement between them as far as 31:22 to assist one in identifying the constitutive parts of the text. While there are a number of differences between 30:5–7, 8-9 and 10–11 that may be signs of independent origin, there are also sufficient similarities and thematic links between them to justify treating 30:5–11 as a section within 30–31.9 One can also discern a development across these verses. Verses 5–7 create a dramatic comparison between a whole army of soldiers (kol-geber or ‘every strong one’) overcome by terror before an enemy, and a woman in labour pains.10 At first glance there is similarity between the two situations. A person ‘seeing’ a man/soldier threatened by overwhelming enemy force would think he is doomed to die, just as one ‘seeing’ a woman overcome by the pains of childbirth would think she is doomed to die. But, the question ‘can a man bear a child’ signals a difference. A woman in labour pains may die or may create new life. Her labour pains can be death dealing or powerful forces that bring forth new life.11 This of course cannot be the case for a soldier surrounded by overwhelming force. The only way he can escape death is for another power, stronger than that of any enemy, to intervene. And this is what the last line of v 7 signals will surely happen. Although Jacob cannot deliver himself

8. Becking, Between Fear and Freedom, 70. Drawing on his analysis of five of the ten subcantos, Becking discerns a movement or transformation in each from ‘fear’ to ‘freedom’. 9. Becking refers to the three sections as three form critically distinct ‘canticles’ within the ‘sub-canto’ of 30:5–11 (Between Fear and Freedom, 135). Verses 8–9 are in prose (although NIV has them as poetry), while vv 10–11 are very similar to the so-called ‘oracles of salvation’ in Second-Isaiah, and which are generally treated as distinct units (cf Isa 41:8–13, 14–16; 43:1–7; 44:1–5. 10. Ferry notes that the same term geber occurs in 31:22 and suggests an inclusio between the two verses, marking out 30:5–31:22 as a section (Illusions et salut, 291 and ‘Yhwh Crée du nouveau’, 392). This will be commented on below. 11. Jer 4:31 employs the negative, death dealing side of the pains of childbirth in relation to the impending doom of Zion, whereas Isa 42:14–17 employs the positive, life giving side in relation to YHWH’s creation of a way home for the exiles.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 50 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM Jeremiah 30:1–31:40 51

from the terror of ‘that day’, nevertheless ‘he shall be rescued from it’ by YHWH.12 Verses 8–9 develop vv 5–7 by describing how YHWH will give life ‘on that day’ the day that, according to v 7a, is so great ‘there is none like it’.13 In a clear echo of chapters 27–29, YHWH will break the yoke of the enemy and free the helpless one from servitude to the enemy. But in keeping with the thrust of 30:5–7, this is not just freedom from an oppressive foreign power but freedom for life-giving service of YHWH and the Davidic king.14 The final vv 10–11 of this ‘subcanto’, are as noted, very similar to the oracles of salvation in Second-Isaiah.15 A characteristic feature is the combined address to Israel and Jacob. It emphasises the unity of the people of God and their ancestral heritage. The verses are arranged in chiastic form, with addresses by YHWH to Jacob/Israel in the second person in vv 10a and 11, framing a central prophecy about Jacob’s future in v 10b in the third person. The framing verses assure a fearful, dismayed Jacob/Israel (cf v 6) that YHWH’s deliverance from bondage will reach to every corner of the diaspora—‘from far away’ and ‘from the land of their captivity’ (v 10a) and from ‘all the nations among which I scattered you’ (v 11). Moreover, this deliverance will not only reach all those living in places of exile but also all those whose life (their time) has been one of exile. This is captured by the inclusion of ‘your offspring’ (Hebrew ‘your seed’). This term may also be a way of including the children of those who went into exile to the third generation, in line with 29:6. For its part, the central v 10b assures the addressees that when the exiles return they will find rest

12. In agreement with Ferry, the end of v 7 is a promise rather than a question or an ironic, even mocking, comment (Illusions et salut, 298–99). 13. A somewhat disconcerting feature of vv 8–9 is that the MT has second person masculine singular pronouns in v 8 whereas the LXX has third person masculine plural pronouns. Both have third person masculine plural pronouns in v 9. According to Bozak, such a shift ‘is not unusual, but a fairly common phenomenon in the Hebrew scriptures’ (Life ‘Ane w’ , 40–41), and cites a study by G Ramsey, ‘Speech-Forms in Hebrew Law and Prophetic Oracles’, in JBL, 96 (1977): 43–85. One may note that the same shift occurs again in v 10. Despite these shifts I not think there is anything to be gained by assigning the respective texts to different hands. 14. The positive view of the Davidic monarchy here implies a complete renewal that will match the renewal of the people. A similar text is 23:1–6 (cf Fischer, Jeremia 2, 127). 15. This oracle recurs in 46:27–28.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 51 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM 52 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

and freedom from any fear. In this way the initial urge to Jacob/Israel in v 10 not to fear or be dismayed will be confirmed. The final part of v 11 introduces a theme that does not occur in the preceding verses of chapter 30 but is of key importance within the larger context of the preceding chapters of the book, as well as what follows in vv 12–17 and in subsequent chapters of the book. On the one hand YHWH’s statement that Jacob/Israel will be chastised and punished explains why the nation is in the terrible situation described in vv 4–7, 10–11a. On the other hand, it asserts that YHWH will continue to confront and punish sinfulness. Thus a reader of this text who has escaped exile in a foreign land, or is living after the return from exile should not therefore think that what has happened is all past tense. This is the kind of assumption, and even arrogance, that is condemned in the sermon in the gates of the temple (chapter 7) and the city (17:19–27). The next section in the ‘little book of consolation’ is 30:12–17, clearly delineated by the respective messenger formulas in vv 12 and 18, and by the address to a feminine subject throughout, who is revealed as Zion in v 17. The address to Zion unfolds in two sections; vv 12–15 and 16–17.16 The first is about the present situation of the addressee, the second about her future. In contrast to the image of soldiers facing impending destruction in vv 5–7, here we have the image of a woman with a wound that is incurable without application of the appropriate medicine. But those one would expect to come to her aid with the required medicine, namely her lovers, have forgotten her. Verses 12–14a create a strong initial impression of an abandoned female victim of violence. The statement in v 13a that there is no one to ‘uphold your cause’ provides a clue that the surrounding imagery of woundedness is meant to be read figuratively, referring to unjust treatment in a law case. However, Holladay thinks that a better translation for the Hebrew here is ‘softener’ rather than ‘cause’.17 If so, it fits the surrounding imagery well. Whatever the case, in vv 14b–15 the woman is abruptly—one may even say rudely—informed that YHWH is the one responsible for the violence done to her and which has resulted in her devastated situation. The verses have been arranged as a chiasm, with declarations by YHWH in vv 14b and 15b

16. Cf Bozak, Life ‘Ane w’ , 47–57; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 393–4, 399. Becking however identifies three canticles in this sub-canto; vv 12–14, 15 and 16–17 (Between Fear and Freedom, 186). 17. Cf Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 174.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 52 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM Jeremiah 30:1–31:40 53

(so A and A’) as the one responsible, framing repeated statements that YHWH has ‘dealt you the blow of an enemy/I have done these things to you’ because ‘your guilt is great’ (B and B’).18 At the centre of this chiasm (C) a question for the woman to answer ‘Why do you cry out over your hurt?’19 Within the context of vv 12–15, this question would seem to indicate that the woman still thinks her lovers will answer her cry and come to her rescue. But the accompanying statement ‘Your pain is incurable’ and the surrounding members of the chiasm explain why it is incurable and why there is therefore no point crying out—to her lovers.20 She is in dire straits because she is being punished by YHWH for her numerous sins. At this point a reader can get some grasp of the function of this image of a wayward, wounded woman. She represents the one or ones YHWH loves and YHWH is a jealous lover who could not tolerate the beloved distributing favours among rival lovers, and intervened decisively to stop it. The description of this intervention as the ‘blow of an enemy/of a merciless foe’ is a clear allusion to the Bab- ylonian invasion of Judah and Jerusalem. Once the rival lovers, who are presumably the nations with whom the beloved made alliances, saw the severe impact of YHWH’s intervention they realised it was a power they could not match and so abandoned the ‘woman’.21 Her return to health or her death now depends completely on YHWH. The reference to ‘your lovers’ in 30:14 recalls chapters 2–3 in which Israel is accused of being unfaithful to her husband YHWH by pursuing foreign lovers. Two significant differences however need to be noted. One is that, although 30:14 clearly implies that YHWH and the woman’s lovers are rivals, there is no reference to YHWH as husband or the woman as wife. Also, as v. 17 makes clear, the ‘woman’ in

18. Lundbom is against deleting one of the two ‘because’ clauses as an unintended repetition, as some suggest (Jeremiah 21–36, 38–99). 19. Becking translates ‘Your pain is incurable’ as a question, also governed by the introductory ‘Why’ (Between Fear and Freedom, 165, 169). However, this would seem to go against v 12a. 20. Bozak (Life ‘Anew’, 54) reads v 15a as indicating that the people are praying to YHWH. However, I think this clashes with v 17b in which YHWH saves Zion and people, not because of their prayers but because YHWH is the one whose commitment even to an outcast is steadfast. 21. JA Thompson identifies ‘your lovers’ as the surrounding nations with whom Israel and Judah made alliances against the superpowers of the day (‘Israel’s Lovers’, in VT, 27 [1977]: 475–81).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 53 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM 54 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

30:12–17 is Zion whereas in chapters 2–3 it is Israel. The absence of a reference to Zion as YHWH’s bride, as is the case in Isaiah 54, may be because of the earlier employment of this metaphor in Jeremiah 2–3. As I noted in my discussion of these chapters in volume 1, there is a potential problem in maintaining the metaphor of a marriage once the text moves to address the rival kingdoms of Israel and Judah.22 In order to avoid the impression that YHWH has two brides, the text unobtrusively shifts to the image of YHWH’s children in 3:12–14, 19–25. It is reasonable to suggest therefore that the same reasoning may be behind the absence of bridal or marriage imagery in 30:12–17 to describe the relationship between YHWH and Zion. Given the situation of the woman as described in vv 12–15, what is her future? Verses 16–17 provide the answer and, as with vv 5–9, it involves a dramatic contrast between what human beings do and what YHWH does. YHWH knows that a woman in such a situation will become prey. Any who regarded her as a rival or enemy will try to plunder her. Therefore YHWH declares that any who attempt this will themselves be devoured and plundered.23 Not just this, but v 17a asserts that YHWH will restore the woman to health and heal her of the terrible wounds referred to in vv 12–13. But why would YHWH be so concerned to take care of someone whom YHWH has also punished as one would an enemy/a merciless foe? Verse 17b provides the answer and it reflects two important claims about YHWH. The first is that YHWH’s healing of Zion will confirm that only YHWH has the power to cure what is incurable in human terms, to restore to life what is dead or dying. The second is that only YHWH cares for those for whom nobody else cares. YHWH’s divine care thus embraces everyone, from the greatest to the least. When one reads vv 12–17 in sequence after vv 5–11, the clear implication is that Zion does not refer simply to the geographical locus of the capital city but includes its inhabitants—the Jacob/Israel of vv 10–11 who will return from exile.24

22. O’Brien, Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 1–25, 28–31. 23. This is how I read the ‘Therefore’ that commences v 16, in basic agreement with Keown-Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 6–52, 97. That is, ‘Therefore’ commences a prophecy of salvation which is also effectively a judgement on enemies. For an outline of different understandings of the particle here, see Becking,Between Fear and Freedom, 182–83. 24. In agreement with Bozak, Life ‘Anew’, 57, Becking, Between Fear and Freedom, 185, McKane, Jeremiah 2, 770.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 54 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM Jeremiah 30:1–31:40 55

That the deliverance of Zion includes the people is clear from what follows in 30:18–31:1. This passage commences with a prophetic announcement formula, and another announcement formula occurs in 31:2. There are two sections in the passage, 30:18–22 and 30:23–31:1.25 The first describes a series of good things that YHWH plans to do for people and city and what these will mean for both. The section concludes in v 22 by switching to the second person plural form of address to declare what all this will mean for ‘you’. The second section describes the judgement that YHWH has unleashed on the wicked (30:23–24) and what this will mean for ‘all the families of Israel’ (31:1).26 This will happen ‘at that time’. Although the recipients of YHWH’s action are referred to in the third person in 31:1, whereas it is in the second person plural in 30:22, the two statements parallel each other and signal the respective conclusions of the two sections in 30:18–31:1. The first section unfolds as follows. There is the initial declaration as to what YHWH (‘I’) intends to do (v 18a) and the outcome of this (v 18b). Whereas the phrase ‘restored the fortunes’ in 29:14 refers to return from exile, in v 18a it refers to the rebuilding of tents, dwellings, city and citadel in the land. People and city, each of which is the particular focus of 30:10–11 and 12–17 respectively, are here brought together, a further indication that these particular poems have been arranged in a sequence that, over the course of the two chapters, gradually builds a picture of the full restoration of Israel in the land. Once this rebuilding has taken place, vv 19–21 name three kinds of Israelite that will emerge from them. Each is followed by a first person statement from YHWH that this is all part of the divine purpose or plan for the restored people and that YHWH will ensure the well-being of each kind. Thus, v 19a asserts that a distinguishing feature of those who live in the restored dwellings and emerge from them will be joy—expressed in thanksgiving to YHWH and celebration. YHWH will ensure that such ones multiply and are honoured by

25. Cf Bozak, Life ‘Ane w’ , 59; Becking, Between Fear and Freedom, 124 (two canticles within the subcanto); Fischer, Jeremia 2, 136. Lundbom (Jeremiah 21–36, 403) takes 30:18–21 as a unit with v 22 appended by a compiler. If this was the case it was presumably meant to enhance the connection between vv 18–21 and 31:1–2. 26. 30:23–24 has a close parallel in 23:19–20.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 55 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM 56 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the society. The second in v 20 is children.27 As in the early days the presence of children will be a sign of divine blessing, fertility and lon- gevity in the land. In due course a whole assembly will be established before YHWH and they will enjoy YHWH’s protection.28 Thirdly and perhaps most significantly, a prince/ruler will emerge from the midst of this restored assembly. His identity will be revealed by YHWH, who will take the initiative in bringing him ‘near’. In this restored society that is completely loyal to YHWH, no one will dare to approach the divine of his own accord. A notable feature of v 21 is that the prince or ruler is not described as a king. This raises questions about its relationship to the promise of a Davidic king in v 9 whom YHWH will raise up. Bozak observes that the majority of commentators understand the term ‘to refer to the leader or king in a priestly r o l e’. 29 Verse 22, which is not in the LXX, declares to ‘you’ what the outcome of all this will be. The shift to a second person masculine plural form of address is similar to what occurs in the singular form in v 8; as noted above this is not unusual and is appropriate here in a verse which declares what the outcome will be of all that YHWH has in store according to vv 18–21; namely the restoration of the covenant relationship.30 As noted above, 30:23–24 is similar to 23:19–20. There it is in relation to YHWH’s judgement against the false prophets, whereas the context of the preceding and following texts here indicates that it is integrally related to the restoration of Israel’s fortunes. The reader has been informed that an integral part of, or stage in, the restora-

27. The shift in the MT from ‘them’ in v 19 to ‘his/him’ in vv 20 and 21 may be designed to signal that all these Israelites who will enjoy the restoration of their fortunes (them) are all children of the one ancestor Jacob (him) and will be represented by one descendant of this ancestor, ‘his prince/his ruler’. Note that the NRSV has ‘their/them’ in vv 20–21. 28. The term‘edah may mean an assembly, a meeting, a group, a cultic congregation, depending on context. Carroll (Jeremiah, 583) takes it in a cultic sense, while Bozak (Life ‘Ane w’, 62) thinks the term refers to the people’s unity rather than their multiplicity. 29. Bozak (Life ‘Ane w’, 64). More recent commentators since the publication of her study in 1991 do not seem to have changed this in any decisive way. 30. Fischer notes how this verse evokes the similar expression in 11:4 (Jeremia 2, 138). Other occurrences in the book of Jeremiah are 7:23; 24:7; 31:1, 34; 32:38. The fuller expression of the covenant relationship occurs in Deut 26:16–19 cf( Bozak, Life ‘Ane w’, 65–66). See also Becking, Between Fear and Freedom, 281–82.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 56 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM Jeremiah 30:1–31:40 57

tion of Jacob/Israel is punishment for its great guilt and numerous sins. Because of these, YHWH has dealt the city and inhabitants ‘the blow of an enemy’ and the ‘punishment of a merciless foe’. In the picture the text creates, this punishment has been implemented and the result is that ‘she’ is reduced to the helpless state of a fatally wounded woman. But 30:23–24 now declares that the wrath and fierce anger of YHWH has gone forth against ‘the wicked’. Within the context these are most likely the ones who are devouring Zion and its inhabitants as one devours helpless prey (v 16). Hence, as part of YHWH’s purge of evil that includes Israel and the nations, these must also be punished.31 As v 24 states, the fierce anger of YHWH will not turn back ‘until he has executed and accomplished the intents of his mind’. This reading of vv 23–24 sees a relationship with chapter 25, in particular the decree in vv 28–29 that YHWH’s purge of Zion is part of a purge ‘of all the inhabitants of the earth’. Jeremiah 31:1 reaffirms the covenant relationship between YHWH and Israel in 30:22, and also reinforces the link between punishment and restoration. This link is in reference to both Israel and the nations and confirms that restoration will follow punishment in God’s good time.32 The verse has YHWH speak about ‘my people’ rather than to ‘my people’ as in 30:22; this suggests it is for a wider audience than Israel itself, namely the nations. If this is the case then the ‘little book’ may here be alluding to 1:10 in which YHWH appoints Jeremiah over nations and kingdoms, to pluck up and pull down, to build and plant. That is, once the nations are purged of their wickedness (so 30:23) they can become messengers of the good news about Israel’s restoration (31:10). Jeremiah 31:2–14 forms the next section within the ‘little book’ in that, in contrast to 30:1–31:1, its overriding theme is return and restoration, in particular how it will unfold. While it is clear the section develops aspects of the restoration proclaimed in 30:1–31:1, except

31. In disagreement with Bozak (Life ‘Ane w’ , 68) for whom it refers to Israel; in agreement with Carroll, Jeremiah, 585; and Ferry, Illusions et salut, 315–16. 32. Some commentators see 31:1 as an introduction to what follows (Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 281; Carroll, Jeremiah, 587; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 411). However, this overlooks the introductory messenger formula in 31:2, and a likely link between the time phrases ‘At that time’ in 31:1 and ‘In the latter days’ in 30:24b. However, what readers judge to be division points may be meant to function more as transition points within an overall sequence.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 57 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM 58 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

for v 3b it contains no allusion to the punishment that must precede Israel’s return and restoration. This changes quite markedly in 31:15 with the voice of Rachel’s lamentation and bitter weeping. Within vv 2–14 one can identify the following constitutive parts; vv 2–6, 7–9, 10–14. Each is introduced by the prophetic messenger formula; ‘Thus says the Lord’ in vv 2a and 7a, and ‘Hear the word of the Lord’ in v 10a. Within 31:2–6, the YHWH speech that follows the messenger formula is initially about the people (vv 2b–3a), before changing to a personal address to the people in vv 3b-6. As noted by Bozak, the statement that ‘Israel found grace in the wilderness’ is best taken as a reference to the exodus, since the combination of the verb ‘find’ with ‘grace/favour’ occurs five times in Exodus 33:12, 16 and again in 34:9.33 However it is difficult to be clear as to the sense of vv 2b–3a. The hiphil form of the verb ‘to rest’ in v 2a can be translated as in the NRSV or as ‘He (YHWH) gave rest to Israel’. With v 3a the LXX has ‘to him’ rather than ‘to me’ as in the MT. As well as this, another reading of ‘from afar’ is ‘a long time ago’. If one takes the LXX reading, the third person pronoun in v 2a as well as the alternative phrase ‘a long time ago’, then one can read vv 2a–3a as making three statements about what YHWH did for Israel in the exodus-wilderness period: showed it ‘grace/favour’ (by delivering it from death/sword), gave it ‘rest’, and ‘appeared’ to him/it a long time ago.34 If one adopts the first person singular pronoun ‘me’ instead of ‘him/it’, then v 3a is Israel’s response or acknowledgement of what YHWH did in the exodus period.

33. Bozak, Life ‘Ane w’, 72. Cf also Fischer, Jeremia 2, 145–46; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 428; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 414. It should be noted that in the MT the statement ‘The people who survived the sword’ comes after ‘found grace in the wilderness’. Keown-Scalise-Smothers accepts that the addressees in 31:2–6 may originally have been northern Israel, as a number of studies have proposed. However, within the context of the book and the larger HB/OT, it is meant for all Israelites (Jeremiah 26–52, 107). Cf also McKane, Jeremiah 2, 786, Ferry, Illusions et salut, 319. 34. The masculine pronoun attached to the verb ‘appeared’ refers to ‘am (people), a word that can be masculine or feminine depending on context. In this context, I read it as masculine. Nevertheless, the fluidity of Hebrew poetry in its use of gender needs to be kept in mind, because in v 4 the ‘virgin Israel’ addressed is of course feminine. The phrase ‘a long time ago’ refers to YHWH’s appearance at Sinai and fits into the reference to the past in vv 2a–3a.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 58 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM Jeremiah 30:1–31:40 59

This proposed reading also leads well into v 3b, which provides a link between the past, what YHWH did for Israel in the foundational exodus-wilderness period, the period in between to the present, and the future (vv 4–6). YHWH’s love is ‘olam (everlasting), as is YHWH’s khesed (faithfulness/steadfast love/commitment). What is striking about v 3b is that it claims all that has happened to Israel between the exodus and its present situation, namely conquest and settlement of the land, establishment of the monarchy, division of the kingdom, the troubled story of the two kingdoms, and the descent into exile, are all manifestations of YHWH’s unswerving commitment. This unswerving commitment to Israel will now be applied to its return and resto- ration35 If YHWH is not portrayed punishing this people when it is wicked, as well as blessing it when it is loyal, how can one have faith that YHWH will be able to deliver it from its present terrible situation or indeed any future situation? It is on the basis of this steadfast commitment to Israel that vv 4b–6 can confidently declare what will happen once the decreed period of punishment and exile has ended (seventy years or three generations according to the preceding chapters). The threefold occurrence of ‘again’ in these verses places emphasis on continuity with the blessings Israel enjoyed in the past. They begin by appropriately attrib- uting all that will take place to YHWH’s initiative (‘I’). As well as alluding to YHWH’s initial establishment of Israel in the land, v 4b includes 1:10 and thereby reminds the reader that this being ‘built’ will only take place after the plucking up and tearing down of the existing disorder. The address in the second person feminine singular to ‘virgin Israel’ in v 4b recalls 2:2 and how ‘bride’ Israel followed husband YHWH faithfully in the wilderness. The implication is that this perfect marriage relationship will be restored. On the strength of this divine initiative, a rebuilt Israel will herself be able to initi- ate activities, in particular the celebration of its restoration in song and dance. Within the context this will presumably include songs of thanksgiving to YHWH.36 YHWH’s initiative will enable Israel not just to celebrate but also to work creatively by planting vineyards (cf 1:10). This reference to planting combines with building in v 4 to pro-

35. As Brueggemann expresses it ‘The God who willed exile now wills homecoming’ (Commentary on Jeremiah, 270). 36. Lundbom thinks this promise is referring to the Festival of Booths (Jeremiah 21–36, 417).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 59 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM 60 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

vide a fitting third and final member of the trio of promises introduced by ‘Again’.37 Verse 6 affirms that the outcome of all this will be the call by ‘sentinels’ to go up to Zion in order to worship the God who rebuilds and plants. This is an appropriate response by a people whose fortunes YHWH has fully restored. The grand restoration envisaged in 31:4–6 must of course involve the return of those in exile to the land and this is the thrust of 31:7–9. But the reader has already been informed in 30:10–11 that YHWH is going to bring Jacob back from ‘the land of your captivity’. However, whereas 30:10–11 declares personally to Jacob that his return is imminent, here an unspecified general audience is called to proclaim this good news to all and sundry. This audience is then given details of how the return will take place; these are not in 30:10–11. Five commands are given to this audience to carry out. By implementing the first two, in the parallel lines of v 7a, the audience will accept that the welfare of Jacob, the ‘chief’ or ‘first’ of the nations is vital for their own well-being.38 This is followed by a second set of three commands; to ‘proclaim’ or ‘make yourself heard’ (so public confession), to ‘praise’ (so acknowledge that YHWH alone is God and worthy of praise), and lastly to ‘say’ (to speak the words that follow). There is debate over whether what the addressees are to say in v 7b is a declaration or a petition. A declaration, in which those addressed acknowledge that Israel is YHWH’s chosen people, would seem to fit better after the preceding commands, in particular the one to ‘praise’. However, a petition would seem to correspond better to YHWH’s reply in vv 8–9.39 What declaration and petition share is that each involves a profession of faith and, whether made as declaration or as petition, clearly

37. For a reflection on the trio of promises that is somewhat different to that given here, see Bozak, Life ‘Ane w’, 77–79. 38. The Hebrew termr’osh can mean ‘head’, ‘chief’, ‘first’ depending on context. Given that Ephraim is called ‘my firstborn’ at the end of v 9, the term ‘first’ may be the more suitable translation (cf Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 422), although Fischer prefers ‘chief’ and sees an allusion to 2 Sam 22:44, Ps 18:44 (Eng 18:43) and David/king (Jeremia 2, 150). 39. Brueggemann does not think one can decide firmly (Commentary on Jeremiah, 284); Carroll (Jeremiah, 590) opts for petition/plea, as does Fischer (Jeremia 2, 150) and Keown-Scalise-Smothers (Jeremiah 26–52, 110–11). Lundbom (Jeremiah 21–36, 423); McKane (Jeremiah 2, 787) and Fretheim (Jeremiah, 430) read it as a statement.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 60 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM Jeremiah 30:1–31:40 61

implies the speakers recognise that their own welfare depends in a fundamental way on the welfare of the ‘chief’ or ‘first of the nations’. YHHW’s reply in vv 8–9 describes how Jacob/Israel/Ephraim is to be brought home. As noted by most commentators, these verses share imagery and motifs with other passages both in Jeremiah and other prophetic books. The ‘land of the north’ is a common description in the HB/OT for Assyria and Babylon because of their location north/north east of Israel and because they exiled people of Palestine to their lands in the north (cf 1:13–15; 3:18; 6:22; 23:8). Return of exiles from the ‘farthest parts’ of the earth relates to preceding passages such as 29:14 and 30:10–11. YHWH’s salvation can reach each and every exile no matter where he or she is, because YHWH’s sovereignty reaches every corner of the earth, and the nations where Israel is exiled are as much in YHWH’s service as Israel. The inclusion among the returnees of blind, lame and pregnant women evokes passages in Isaiah such as chapter 35 and 40:10–11. Verses 8–9 are a distinct piece within vv 7–14 because they are arranged as a chiasm, with first person statements about what YHWH will do for the exiles in vv.8a and 9aβ (A and A’) framing a central section (B) that describes the transformation this divine care and guidance will have on them (vv 8b–9aα). YHWH’s saving hand not only reaches every exile in whatever place and in whatever situation they are in—blind, lame, pregnant women—but also guides them at every step on the way—by brooks of water and in a straight path. Verses 8b–9aα describe the transformation that this divine care will bring about with three terms. The exiles will return a ‘great company’ (qahal gadol), they will come ‘with weeping’, and ‘with consolations’. The first marks a dramatic transformation for a mix of blind, lame and pregnant women. Those dispersed and normally regarded as weak and helpless become united and active in a great assembly.40 But there is also a personal transformation in that they come ‘weeping’; within the context this would seem to indicate repentance and complete dependence on YHWH. There is some debate as to whether the third term should be read as ‘supplications’ as in the MT or emended

40. The term may also allude to the reestablishment of the temple liturgy (cf v 12), although this is not specific in the other occurrences in the book of Jeremiah (26:17; 44:15; 50:9). Similarities to texts such as Isa 35 and 40:10–11 have long been noted.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 61 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM 62 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

to read ‘consolations’, which would seem to fit the context better.41 The former lays more emphasis on the outcome of divine transformation and follows well after ‘weeping’, the latter on the process of transformation. However one reads it, the three terms convey an overall impression of a people not just returned but redeemed (cf v 11). The final part of v 9 asserts that return and redemption are the outcome of the unique and enduring relationship between YHWH and Israel/ Ephraim, that of a father to a son.42 In the first passage of this section of the ‘little book’, 31:2–6, YHWH speaks personally to ‘virgin Israel’ to inform her of what is in store for her. In the second passage, vv 7–9, an unnamed group is called to publicly confess their acceptance that the welfare of Israel as YHWH’s chosen people is vital for their own welfare. The third passage, vv 10–14, now summons the nations to hear YHWH’s word and to declare it in the far away coastlands.43 This word is clearly linked to what the unnamed addressees in v 7a are instructed to say or pray in v 7b. What this second declaration does is identify three key components of YHWH’s activity on behalf of Israel that all the nations near and far need to know. The first is that YHWH is the one who scattered Israel, the second that YHWH is the one who will gather scattered Israel, and the third that YHWH is the one who will ‘guard’ (NRSV ‘keep’) Israel as a shepherd guards a flock. The meaning of these three components is spelt out in the following verses. In relation to the first, v 10 reminds the nations that YHWH is in charge of all that has happened and will happen to Israel. The nations were YHWH’s servants in carrying out the decreed punishment of Israel. Furthermore, even though Israel is in exile among the nations, YHWH is overseeing every minute of their decreed period of punishment, including the date and terms of release. That is, YHWH has already ‘ransomed’ Jacob and ‘redeemed’ him by not allowing him

41. For a discussion see Bozak, Life ‘Ane w’, 85–86. 42. In agreement with Becking (Between Fear and Freedom, 81) I translate the Hebrew of v 9b as ‘For I am a father to Israel’ rather than ‘I will be a father to Israel’ as in the NRSV. It is an established relationship that endures rather than one to be established in the future. 43. The term ‘far away’ recalls YHWH’s promise to Jacob in 30:10b. The coastlands were the Greek islands and Phoenician colonies of the Western Mediterranean, as far as Spain (so Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 428).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 62 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM Jeremiah 30:1–31:40 63

to fall into ‘hands too strong for him’.44 In other words, as YHWH sent Israel into exile, so YHWH preserves Israel in exile, as the letter in chapter 29 assures its readers. One can see that this first element creates links with a number of preceding passages in the book about the people’s punishment, such as Jeremiah’s commission in 1:10; also 4:10–17; 5:14–17; 6:22–26; 16:13; 19:3–9; 20:4–6; 21:3–7; 24:8–10; 25:8–11; 26:4–6; 27:4–7; 28:14. In relation to the second component, YHWH will ‘gather’ the exiles from wherever they have been scattered, a gathering with a definite goal in mind. As v 12 states, they will journey back to Zion and join with all the people in praise of YHWH. The third component asserts that this commitment of YHWH to the people, both in exiling them and in bringing them back from exile, does not cease upon their return to the land and city. As a shepherd continually ‘guards’ a flock, so YHWH will continually see to the welfare of the people who will be ‘radiant’ over all that YHWH does for them— over abundant crops, flocks and herds, life like a well-watered gar- den, and freedom from any fear. Hence, as v 13a states, dancing by the young women and merriment among the young and old men will be the order of the day. The section concludes by resuming the first person form of address as in the preceding passages, 31:2–6 and 7–9. YHWH alone is the one who can transform mourning into joy, sorrow into gladness. And just as YHWH alone is able to rescue those who are completely separated in places far away from one another and gather them together, so YHWH alone is able to provide appropriate bounty for two groups who are most distinct from one another and bring them together, namely clergy and laity (‘my people’).45 The three poems in chapter 31 considered thus far are personal addresses by YHWH to those exiled in foreign lands, or declarations about what YHWH will do for them. But so far the text has not pro-

44. Bozak comments that padah (ransom) refers to rescue from slavery or destruction, while ga’al (redeem) focuses more on relationship (usually familial), which is a key motivation for such rescue (Life ‘Ane w’, 88). 45. The worddashan (fatness) generally refers to that part of the sacrificial animal that is offered to YHWH, but within the context it is part of the overall ‘bounty’ that will be provided (cf Bozak, Life ‘Ane w’ , 90–91; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 155). Carroll (Jeremiah, 283) links v 14b to v 6b, noting that cultic life and general prosperity belong together.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 63 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM 64 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

vided any response or reaction from those affected by the exile. Two poems can be identified in 31:15–22 that do so; namely vv 15–17 (the lamentation of Rachel) and vv 18–20 (the plea of Ephraim). YHWH replies in each case and, on the basis of these replies that also relate to the larger context of chapter 30–31, the exiles are exhorted in vv 21–22 to prepare for their journey back and not to waver. There is general agreement that, although it is difficult to grasp the meaning of the last line in v 22 accurately, it forms an inclusio with 30:5–7 and so marks the conclusion of a major section of the ‘little book of consolation’.46 In my judgement, vv 15–17 belong with a number of HB/ OT texts that share the notion of an empty land during the exile. According to historical-critical analysis this was quite unlikely. Not only has archaeological evidence of occupation been found during the exilic period but it was unlikely a superpower such as Assyria or Babylon would completely depopulate a conquered country. From both an economical and political point of view this would not be wise policy. Much better to leave enough inhabitants—or bring in migrants—to keep the economy going and provide tribute for the superpower. There is considerable debate among commentators about the likely factors that prompted the empty land ideology or theology. Was it due to conflict between exiles (the golah) and those who were left behind as to who was responsible for what happened; was it to make a complete break between what once was but is now gone, and what will rise in its place?47 Whatever the case, within the context of the ‘little book of consolation’ I take vv 15–17 as portraying the motherland in the figure of Rachel, grieving inconsolably

46. Ferry proposes a chiastic structure for 31:15-22 as follows: v 15 (Rachel cries—A); vv 16–17 (YHWH consoles—B); vv 18–19 (Ephraim confesses—C); v 20 (YHWH reflects—B’); vv 21–22 (Jeremiah commands—A’) Illusions( et salut, 324). I do not think this does justice to the distinct nature of each passage and, as Ferry recognises, the attribution of vv 21–22 to Jeremiah is somewhat speculative (cf fn 173). 47. Cf for example, Lev 18:24–28; Deut 4:24–28; 29:28; Jer 6:8; 7:1; 16:13; 24:10. For a discussion of likely factors see the 2010 publication edited by E Ben Zvi and C Levin, The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical ContextsBZAW 404 (Berlin: de Gruyter).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 64 13-May-20 5:25:57 PM Jeremiah 30:1–31:40 65

over her children because she believes ‘they are no more’.48 From her perspective as the grieving mother, all her children have either been killed or exiled. Rachel is the ancestral matriarch chosen by the author(s) of the passage to represent this motherland view for several reasons. One is that, as a mother gives birth to and nourishes her children, so the land can be said to give birth to and provide nourishment for its citizens. Another is that Rachel was the favoured wife of Jacob, ancestor of the twelve tribes of Israel. A third is that she was the mother of Joseph who in turn was the father of Ephraim and Manasseh. As noted in preceding texts, Ephraim can, like Jacob, represent or stand for Israel. A fourth reason is that Rachel is the mother who died giving birth to Benjamin (Gen 35:16–20), the ‘other son’ for whom she prayed after giving birth to Joseph (30:22–24). She gave her life for Benjamin and in doing so did not live to see him or Joseph grow and produce their own offspring. She is thus a paradigm mother figure who gives her life for her children.49 Whether or not the land was emptied of all inhabitants in the northern and southern exiles, Rachel’s grief means that there can be no real life in the land without her children—the people of Israel50 There is no cancelling of the relationship between land and people, no apportioning of blame, no turning to another provider. The introductory messenger formula in v 15a signals that YHWH is fully aware of the voice of lamentation from the motherland and makes this known to an unspecified audience, as in 31:2, 7. Hence it is fitting that YHWH’s reply in vv 16–17 is introduced by another messenger formula, a reply that is directed personally to Rachel. Two

48. The MT of v 15b has the singular ‘there is no one left’ rather than the plural ‘they are no more’, as some propose, following the plural ‘sons/children’ in the preceding lines. The singular catches better the sense of a completely empty land. Phyllis Trible reads it as direct speech by Rachel (God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978], 40) and is followed by Becking (Between Fear and Freedom, 196). 49. Fretheim (Jeremiah, 434) thinks that, in the text, she is meant to personify all mothers. 50. Some commentators think v 15 refers to the northern exile (so Ferry Illusions et salut, 324), others to the Judean exile (so Becking, Between Fear and Freedom, 201–2). Lundbom brings the two together by proposing that it originally referred to northern exiles but was later applied to Judeans going into exile in 597 and 586 BCE (Jeremiah 21–36, 440); similarly McKane, Jeremiah, 799.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 65 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM 66 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

sets of parallelisms follow. In the first she is urged to cease her weeping because there is a reward for her work, namely that the exiles will return from the land of the enemy. The second specifies that those returning from the land of the enemy will be ‘your children’ and they will return to their own country.51 The return to the land signals a secure future. A striking feature of YHWH’s reply to Rachel is the message or teaching it conveys about power. What looks to be an expression of sheer helplessness in the face of overwhelming power is in reality a powerful ‘work’, because YHWH hears the cry of the poor and transforms their situation. ‘There is (always) a reward’ for this kind of work. Verses 18–20 shift the textual focus back to those in exile, in the figure of Ephraim. The passage is about his plea to YHWH for forgiveness for sin and YHWH’s response. What is noteworthy is that the plea comes after Ephraim acknowledges that YHWH has ‘chastised’ him as YHWH declared would be done to Jacob in 30:11.52 Thus his plea is a response to YHWH’s initiative and in v 19 Ephraim describes the stages that led up to the plea ‘bring me back’.53 First there was the repentance that came upon him in the wake of his sin. But repentance for sin cannot be an isolated occurrence but should provide insight into one’s life as such. The insight that Ephraim gained from ‘being instructed’ (v 19a) caused him to strike his thigh, such was his shame

51. The same verb shub (return) occurs in both parallel statements and conveys the impression that departure from the land of exile and return to the homeland means that the latter is the necessary completion of the former. 52. 30:11 and 31:18 have the same verb yasar (‘disciplined’ in NRSV). Bozak (Life ‘Ane w’, 96-97) does not make this connection and reads 31:18 as referring to a former time when Ephraim was naïve, like an untrained calf. But the following verses indicate that the purpose of YHWH’s chastisement was to change Ephraim, as a farmer trains a calf. 53. As commented on by Ferry (Illusions et salut, 328–29) and others there is a well- recognised play on the verb shub in these verses and within 30–31 overall. It can mean ‘turn/return’ to sin (31:19a); to ‘return’ to a right relationship with YHWH (31:18b); to ‘return’ or ‘bring back’ from exile (cf 31:8b); and to ‘return/reverse captivity’ (combination of verb and noun shubuth) and translated as ‘restore the fortunes’ (cf 30:3, 18; 31:23).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 66 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM Jeremiah 30:1–31:40 67

and dismay.54 He had been led by YHWH to accept he had been like this from his youth. His only hope of change was for YHWH to ‘bring me back’. This confession of complete dependence on YHWH brings the expected favourable response in v 20. The two rhetorical questions with which it commences need no answers. Despite Ephraim’s disgrace since his youth, YHWH remains completely committed to him as a parent to a child, and nothing can break this bond. Hence, even when YHWH speaks ‘against him’, it is as devoted parent to child (‘I still remember him’). Such ‘chastisement’ (30:11; 31:18) always has the welfare of son Ephraim in mind and is therefore a prelude to— and an integral part of—YHWH’s compassion or mercy.55 Verses 21–22 are made up of five commands in v 21, followed by a question that effectively chastises virgin Israel for wavering and not immediately obeying the commands. Within the context it is best to take the speaker as YHWH. Whereas the preceding texts promise that the exile will end and that the exiles will be brought back to the land, the commands in v 21 presume that the exile has in fact ended and they must now come home.56 That such a series of commands

54. ESV translates the verb yada‘ in the niphal infinitive construct as ‘I was instructed’ (literally ‘me to be brought to know’), whereas the NRSV has ‘I discovered’. Becking (Between Fear and Freedom, 207) translates ‘after I came to knowledge’. ESV in particular captures the sense of the divine initiative with which the passage commences (v 18a). Striking the thigh was apparently part of a mourning rite (so Becking, Between Fear and Freedom, 210, following XHT Pham, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible, JSOTSup 302 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], 27). Ekraterina E Kozlova argues that the whole of 31:15–22 contains mourning rituals, both in relation to Judah’s demise (v 15) as well as its return (v 21). She holds that such rituals were prescribed in the ANE for the restoration of societies that had been decimated (‘Grave Marking and Wailing: Ritual Responses to the Babylonian Crisis in Jeremiah’s Poetry’, in SJOT, 31 [2017]: 92–117). 55. The imagery used in v 20 to describe YHWH’s response, in particular the term rakham (mercy, compassion) which derives from the Hebrew word for ‘womb’, has prompted Trible and others to see YHWH being portrayed here in feminine/ maternal terms (cf Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, 45–46). In basic agreement are Keown-Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 120–21; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 192; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 162. Against is McKane (Jeremiah, 801–2), while Becking is cautious (Between Fear and Freedom, 213-14). 56. The commands to set up road markers and guideposts, and to take account of the route ‘by which you went’ emphasise that the return is an exact reversal of the earlier journey into exile, and that it is a journey back to their homes (‘your cities’).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 67 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM 68 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

was retained in a book that most scholars accept was completed well after the end of the Babylonian exile suggests there is more to this text than historical report.57 As components in a book of prophecy their meaning and function is likely to be both prophetic and instructive. On the prophetic side, vv 21–22 serve to confirm the preceding declarations that the decreed period of exile will come to an end and YHWH will bring the people back to the land.58 But one could also say that these verses are able to be applied to the post-exilic situation because Israel did not regain full control of the land and there was the ongoing diaspora. Within such a context the question about wavering could function as a censure of those in the diaspora or as an encouragement to return. On the instructive side, there may be a play on the twofold occurrence of the verb shub (turn/return) in v 21b similar to the play observed in vv 18–19 and preceding passages. That is, those who waver in obeying the command to ‘return’ have not yet returned fully to YHWH. In this more symbolic sense, the question can remain in a text like this as an ongoing challenge to any reader. Who could claim to have a fully restored and perfect relationship with YHWH? As noted above, the end of v 22 combines with 30:5–6 to form a frame around the intervening material. Commentators have long wrestled with the likely meaning of what looks to be a proverbial like saying, but without reaching any consensus. One possible way of reading 31:22 is to see it as a reversal of what its framing verse 30:6 presents, namely the picture of a warrior (geber) surrounded by the enemy and reduced to helplessness, like a woman in labour. According to 31:22 YHWH will bring about or ‘create’ a complete reversal of this situation. The warrior is now surrounded or encircled by the female (neqebar), a sure sign of a peace that instils life in place of an enemy that spells death. Within this context the man truly becomes a geber (strong one). A text that may relate to this is 31:13 which may envisage young women

57. For a fuller discussion of the levels of meaning in vv 21–22 see Bozak, Life ‘Ane w’, 100–5. 58. A similar comment could be made about the seventy-year or three-generations period of exile in 25:11b–12 and 29:10.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 68 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM Jeremiah 30:1–31:40 69

dancing around their menfolk, young and old, because there is no longer any war.59 As the prophecies of return and restoration in 30:5–31:20 are followed by the rhetorical command to virgin Israel to ‘return’ to the land in 31:21–22, the remainder of chapter 31 follows this with prophecies about the kind of life that YHWH will establish for Israel upon its return. The text is comprised of two main sections, in vv 23–26 and 27–40.60 Each of these unfolds in three stages. The three stages in vv 23–26 are vv 23, 24 and 25–26. According to v 23, the first ingredient in YHWH’s restoration of the fortunes of the returnees is that, once they again occupy the land of Judah and its towns, their primary focus of prayer and hope will be YHWH’s ‘abode of righteousness’ and the ‘holy hill’.61 According to vv 38–40 YHWH will respond to this devotion by ensuring that the city will ‘be rebuilt for the Lord’ and that it shall ‘never again be uprooted or overthrown’. In short, v 23 and vv 38–40 form a frame around the intervening material. Verse 24 follows logically from v 23 because a people that is completely devoted to YHWH will of course be a united people living together on the land. A sign of this will be that even those who do not have a permanent dwelling in the land but ‘wander with their flocks’ will live in harmony with their brothers and sisters in Judah and its towns. In line with the promise in 31:12 they shall join all in giving thanks to YHWH in Zion for their bounty. The third component of vv 23–26

59. A recent study that compares 31:22b with other biblical texts that proclaim something new and unexpected, as well as likely ANE parallels, is that of Paul A Kruger. He concludes that, although the precise meaning of the verb sabab (‘to surround’, ‘encompass’, ‘protect’) is difficult to determine, the verse proclaims that ‘the woman will adopt a role designation unheard of before, namely that she “plays his—a man’s–part’” (387 in ‘A Woman will “Encompass” a Man: On Gender Reversal in Jer 31,22b’, in Bib, 89 [2008]: 380–88). See also Alice Ogden Bellis, ‘Jeremiah 31:22b: An Intentionally Ambiguous Multivalent Riddle-Text’, in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen, edited by John Goldingay; Library of Biblical Studies, 459 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 5–13. 60. It is quite likely that 31:23–40 was compiled from originally independent pieces. Nevertheless, as I hope my comments show, they have been assembled to form an integral part of the overall restoration. 61. Verse 23 contains the third occurrence of the phrase ‘restore the fortunes’ in chapters 30–31. The first in 30:3 is associated with return to the landcf ( 29:14) and the second in 30:18 with restoring the dwellings of Jacob and the city. The third occurrence would seem to be associated with worship in the temple but also, given the link between vv 23 and 40, with all that follows in vv 24–40.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 69 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM 70 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

promises that YHWH’s care will reach all sectors of the society, even the weary and faint. This is a continuation of the care YHWH promises in 31:8–9 for all those making the journey home from exile. The final v 26 is a response by an unidentified speaker. Within the context I would judge that it is best linked with v 25; the speaker identifies himself/herself as one of the weary and faint who awakes completely refreshed, as promised.62 This confirmation of v 25 in turn confirms the preceding promises in vv 23–24, and assures the reader that the following ones will also be fulfilled. The three stages of vv 27–40 are identifiable by the same introduction in vv 27, 31 and 38; ‘The days are surely coming, says the Lord’. This introduction signals three successive stages in the restoration and that they will follow on what is to take place according to vv 23–26. According to vv 27–30 YHWH will sow a new Israel and Judah that will be markedly different from the one plucked up, broken down and destroyed in the exile. A characteristic feature of the old ‘crop’ was its refusal to accept responsibility for sin and to play the blame game, captured in the famous proverb of v 29. In order to avoid a repeat of this, YHWH will ensure that ‘all shall die for their owns sins’.63 YHWH will continue, as YHWH must, to root out evil whenever and wherever it occurs. Verses 29–30 clearly imply that sin will not only be a possibility but a reality in the restored community. This raises the question whether it can ever be free from sin and if so,

62. For a survey of proposals about the identity of the speaker see Bozak, Life ‘Ane w’, 113–14. Bozak herself thinks the speaker could be YHWH and is an expression of ‘his sorrow and regret at past inaction (expressed by the metaphor of sleep), an inaction which he remedies by his care for his people (expressed in the metaphor to awaken)’. 63. This jibe is the subject of a dispute in Ezek 18. It may also be linked with what I would term the ‘code of divine conduct’ expressed in the Decalogue (Exod 20:5–6; Deut 5:9–10). The Decalogue decrees that punishment for the iniquity of the fathers will be visited on those who hate/reject YHWH to the third and fourth generation, and this could lead to the complaint expressed in the jibe. But within the context of the Decalogue, the rider ‘of those who reject/hate me’ would seem to apply to each generation, and this is in effect what Jer 31:30 states. For a discussion of these Decalogue and other relevant texts see my Restoring the Right Relationship. The Bible on Divine Righteousness (Adelaide: ATF Press, 2014) 68–87.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 70 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM Jeremiah 30:1–31:40 71

how. The following text on the new covenant provides an answer (vv 31–34).64 Analysis of vv 31–34 reveals similarities as well as contrasts between it and the Sinai covenant, continuity as well as discontinuity.65 Apropos continuity, each comes after YHWH delivers the people from affliction in a foreign land, from slavery in Egypt and from exile in Babylon. The parallels between these two acts of divine deliverance occur in earlier texts on return and restoration such as 16:14–15 and its virtual repetition in 23:7–8. Each covenant involves what is presumably the same law/torah; at Sinai this was written on tablets of stone but in the new covenant it will be written on the people’s hearts by YHWH. This is because, according to 17:1-4, the sin of Judah is so engraved on the tablet of their hearts that YHWH is the only one who can erase it. Furthermore, according to 7:23 the relationship between YHWH and the people in the new covenant, as described in the statement ‘I will be their God and they shall be my people’, applied also in the Sinai covenant.66 One might also note that the Hebrew of 31:32b, translated in the NRSV as ‘and I was their husband’ is the qal perfect of the verb ‘to marry’ and can be translated literally ‘and I married (with) them’. Unlike the NRSV, the more literal rendering does not imply that YHWH was once Israel’s husband/lord but is no more.67 The key area of discontinuity or contrast between the two covenants is that whereas the people broke the first, YHWH will take several measures to ensure that this does not happen with the new one. The measures are presented in vv 33 and 34bβ, and they frame

64. As Magnar Kartveit points out in a recent study, a factor that can considerably affect our understanding of 31:31–34 is the term ‘covenant’ itself (Hebrew berit). His analysis of occurrences of the term and their contexts leads him to judge traditional readings such as ‘treaty’, ‘agreement’, ‘obligation’ are overloaded and to prefer translations such as ‘decision’ or ‘declaration’. In 31:31–34 YHWH makes a new ‘declaration’ that the Sinai law will be written on the people’s hearts (‘Reconsidering the “New Covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31–34’, in The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, Interpretation, edited Jack R Lundbom, Craig A Evans, and Bradford A Anderson, VTSup 178 [Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018], 149–69. 65. As noted by Bozak for both vv 27–30 and 31–34 (Life ‘Ane w’, 117–18). 66. Bozak sums up the continuity as ‘same Torah, same partners’ (Life ‘Ane w’, 121). 67. In agreement with Adrian Schenker, Das Neue am neuen Bund und das Alt am alten. Jer 31 in der hebräischen und griechischen Bibel, von der Textgeschichte zur Theologie, Synagoge und Kirche(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 35.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 71 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM 72 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the assured outcome in v. 34abα. Hence, a chiastic or A-B-A’ arrangement. Verse 33 is composed of what are effectively two sets of parallel statements. The first declares what YHWH will do (put my law within them) and how this will be done (by writing it on their hearts).68 In the second YHWH will reestablish a unique relationship between God and people, a relationship that, as noted, is in continuity with the earlier covenant relationship. The second measure in v 34bβ also involves two parallel statements; namely that YHWH will forgive the people’s iniquity and no longer remember their sin. The outcome of these measures in v 34abα is that the people will all know YHWH so perfectly that no one will need to teach another. Hence there will no longer be need for instruction on the law as legislated for in texts on the earlier covenant such as Deuteronomy 11:19.69 Although not stated explicitly, a clear implication of this outcome is that the covenant people will no longer sin, because one who knows YHWH as fully as a human being can, will not go against the Torah.70 This in turn implies that forgiveness of sin in v 34bβ is not about what the people are likely to do after the establishment of the new covenant, but is one of the initiatives that brings about the kind of knowledge of YHWH and the law that preserves them from further sin. The following vv 35–36 and 37 provide two guarantees of YHWH’s loyalty to the people of Israel and Judah as expressed in the terms of the new covenant. Both guarantees are based on YHWH’s power and reliability as creator God. These guarantees could only be doubted if two impossible scenarios about YHWH as creator were to occur. For the first to arise the fixed order of creation as outlined in v 35 would have to ‘cease from my presence’ (v 36). Granted that YHWH is everlasting and ever present, this is an impossible scenario. The second would require a being with more insight and knowledge of heaven and earth than YHWH and therefore be able to overrule YHWH’s judgement of mercy on Israel. But given the conviction in the book that YHWH is the one universal, all-knowing and just judge, then YHWH’s judgements alone are always right and just.

68. Tiberius Rata notes that a key discontinuity between the two covenants is the internalisation of the law in the new (The Covenant Motif in Jeremiah’s Book of Comfort. Textual and intertextual Studies of Jeremiah 30–33, Studies in Biblical Literature, 105 [New York: Peter Lang, 2007], 53). 69. As pointed out by Rata, The Covenant Motif in Jeremiah’s Book of Comfort, 43–44. 70. Cf Bozak (Life ‘Ane w’, 122) and the literature cited there.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 72 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM Jeremiah 30:1–31:40 73

As noted above, the third and final stage in the days that are surely coming, namely vv 38–40, is YHWH’s answer to the prayer of 31:23. This connection indicates that a, or the, key feature of the restoration of the fortunes of the people will be the rebuilding of the holy city ‘for the Lord’ (31:38).71 According to vv 39–40a the ‘whole valley of dead bodies’ will be incorporated into the city and made holy to the Lord. This implies a reversal of earlier texts such as 8:1–3; 9:21 (NRSV 9:22); 14:16; 19:7–8; 22:19 which declare that the bones of the wicked will remain unburied in places such as the valley of Hinnom or Topheth.72 In line with the thrust of the preceding passages about ‘the days’, that in the days that are surely coming there will be perma- nency and security, the final line of v 40 promises that the rebuilt city ‘will never again be uprooted or overthrown’. One may summarise the main features of ‘the little book of consolation’ as follows. The main one is the shift from the dominant theme of sin and punishment in the preceding chapters to forgiveness and restoration. Across the two chapters themselves however, this shift or transition is done gradually rather than abruptly. Another way of expressing this is that the chapters combine continuity and discontinuity. The text never lets the reader forget that the restored and healed people are the rebellious people whom YHWH punished with exile. An integral part of their restoration is of course the healing of relationships damaged or broken by their sin and exile. Chief among these is the relationship between YHWH and the people, but also important are the relationships between Israel and Judah, between male and female, between young and old, as well as between YHWH’s people and the nations. In terms of context, these chapters spell out in a series of prophecies the nature of Israel and Judah’s restoration that will take place once the seventy years of servitude to Babylon have been completed, and Babylon itself has been punished (cf chapters 27–29). There are also other connections with earlier parts of the book; a number of which were identified in the course of the analysis.

71. Bozak suggests that, within the context, the term ‘city for the Lord’ could be a case of polysemy, referring to both place/city and people (Life ‘Ane w’, 127). 72. Cf Ferry (Illusions et salut, 345-46).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 73 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 74 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM Chapter Four Jeremiah 32:1–33:26

As noted in the preceding chapter, Jeremiah 32–33 has long been regarded as related to 30–31, either as part of a ‘book of consolation’ or as a later extension to an original such book comprising 30–31. How- ever, in a 2005 monograph, Elena di Pede argued that chapter 32 is actually the beginning of a story in the MT that reaches to chapter 45 and which tells how YHWH shapes a future with hope for Israel out of the darkness of its punishment and exile.1 The main evidence that she assembles in favour of this hypothesis is as follows. In her judgement, the narrative introduction to chapter 32, in comparison to the formal conclusion to chapter 31, signals a section of the book.2 More- over, in contrast to preceding texts, chapters 32–45 are mainly narrative. She draws attention to the way Jeremiah’s loyal scribe Baruch features prominently at the beginning and end of chapters 32–45. He is entrusted with the deed of Jeremiah’s purchase of land in 32:6–15, as the Babylonian conquest looms, and he is promised divine protection in chapter 45 as a reward for remaining faithful during this critical time. He is the scribe who writes Jeremiah’s words on a scroll and reads them to the people and king Jehoiakim in chapter 36. Di Pede also proposes that Jeremiah 32–45 has the characteristic features of a story; with the initial exposition in 32–33, the complication in 34–43* which unfolds in three stages—34–36 (rebellious king and people); 37–39

1. Cf Au–delà du refus: l’espoir. Recherches sur la coherence narrative de Jr 32–45 (TM), BZAW 357 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2005); also ‘Le refus et l’espoir: L’intrigue de Jr 32–45’, in ETL, 80/4 (2004): 373–401. 2. One could argue that 33:23–26 forms as formal a conclusion to the preceding speeches as is the case with 31:38–40. Both declare something that will be everlasting. In this sense, the introduction to chapter 34 is as definite a break with the preceding as the introduction to chapter 32.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 75 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM 76 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

(conquest) and 40–42 (post–conquest rebellion)—and its outcome in 43:1–7 (rejection of Jeremiah’s counsel). Jeremiah 43:8–45:5 forms the epilogue to the story. Another feature of the text that is characteristic of storytelling is the portrayal and interaction of key characters; the key one of course being Jeremiah and his relationship with YHWH, King Zedekiah, Baruch, the administrative officials, and the people. As well as this evidence, di Pede argues that the well–recognised chronological reversals, particularly in chapter 32–36 and which many commentators see as evidence against a coherent, sequential narrative, are in fact a deliberate ploy to heighten the drama of the story and to focus attention on key aspects of the unfolding of its plot. The location of chapter 35 after the chronologically later story of 34 is an example of analepsis or ‘flashback’ that takes the reader back in the narrative or story sequence in order to heighten the impact of the point being made, namely the hardness and intractability of the people when confronted with the prophetic word.3 The use of analepsis, as well as prolepsis, is part of a ‘contract’ that the author seeks to establish with the reader, one that is designed to enable the reader to pause at various points in the story and make assessments, and thereby come to a deeper appreciation of its meaning. This is a stimulating study and one that challenges a number of accepted understandings of chapters 32–45. Because it is an analysis of the present MT text it does raise the question of how such a coherent and dramatic story fits into the overall book. She notes that chapters 30–31 and 46–51 form a frame around the story and prophesy salvation for Israel in different ways; one as a return to the land and restoration of a blessed life there, the other as the end of Israel’s domination by foreign nations, in particular Babylon. However, this would seem to suggest that 30–31 are a later addition to enhance the thrust of the prophecies of restoration in 32–33, a view that reverses the more common one; namely, that the later chapters take up and expand in prose form on the mainly poetic material in the preceding ones.4 Another query that arises is, given chapter 36 is an integral part

3. Cf Au–delà du refus, 161–62; 178–80; and ‘Le refus et l’espoir’, 379. 4. One should note however that a number of recent studies has challenged the perceived differences between Hebrew poetry and prose. In the words of Kessler, ‘the boundary between prose and poetry is nowhere near as simple as often perceived’ (cf page 58 of his ‘The Scaffolding of the Book of Jeremiah’, in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence, 57–66).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 76 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM Jeremiah 32:1–33:26 77

of the proposed story, what is its relationship to chapter 25, which is also set in the fourth year of Jehoiakim? Di Pede does not see a strong link between the two, noting that in 25 Jeremiah speaks personally whereas in 36 he commissions Baruch to read from the scroll because he is forbidden entry to the temple.5 This overlooks the clear link between them in that both are about the words that Jeremiah has been instructed to proclaim since the days of Josiah. In chapter 25 Jeremiah personally reminds the people of this while in chapter 36 he is instructed to write his words on a scroll. Further comment will be made on di Pede’s study in the course of the analysis of chapters 32–33 that follow. Chapter 32 can be divided into the following constitutive components; there is the initial encounter between Jeremiah and king Zedekiah in vv 1–5, followed by the account of Jeremiah’s purchase of a field in vv 6–15, with his accompanying prayer in vv 16–25 and YHWH’s reply in vv 26–44. Chapter 33 reports a ‘second’ reply of YHWH to Jeremiah that develops the thrust of 32:26–44. Chapter 32 is the fourth text in the book in which Jeremiah speaks to or about king Zedekiah. The first is in 21:1–7 where the king, under siege by Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, sends a delegation to the prophet requesting that he intercede with YHWH on their behalf. The narrative introduction gives no precise date but indicates the incident took place at the onset of the siege. The second is the incident involving the basket of figs in chapter 24 and Jeremiah’s prophecy of the fate of Zedekiah, numbered among the rotten figs. The incident is set after Jeconiah/Jehoiachin and the first group of exiles had been taken to Babylon; hence early in the reign of Zedekiah who was installed by Nebuchadrezzar as a puppet king in place of Jeconiah/Jehoiachin. The third is in 27:12–15 where Jeremiah exhorts Zedekiah to submit to the yoke of Babylon and live, rather than resist it and perish. Accord- ing to 27:1 this encounter took place in the beginning of Zedekiah’s reign and so may be read as somewhat earlier than 24:8–10. There are two texts after 32:1–5 that also deal with their relationship. The first is in chapter 34 which, rather like chapter 21, takes place during the siege of Jerusalem but without precise dating as in 32:1–5; the second is in chapters 37–38 which recount the final stages of the siege of Jerusalem. Chapter 39 reports the fall of Jerusalem and the capture

5. Cf Au–delà du refus, 293, fn 5.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 77 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM 78 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

and exile of Zedekiah. There seems little doubt that the relationship between Zedekiah and Jeremiah is an important feature of the book, in particular for the way it portrays the king’s reaction to the prophetic word. In order to gain as accurate an understanding as possible of the portrait of king Zedekiah, one needs to take all these texts into account. However, given my view that the book has been assembled in order to convey a coherent understanding of the preaching of Jer- emiah and its dynamic impact, then an overall assessment of the portrayal of Zedekiah can only be formulated when one has read the relevant texts in sequence and within their respective contexts. Nev- ertheless, it is worth reflecting on how he is portrayed at what is a crucial point in his kingship. The Babylonians have surrounded Jeru- salem, he has imprisoned Jeremiah and is interrogating him about a prophecy that he has made on the king’s fate.6 Jeremiah 24:8–10 and 21:1–7 are examples of chronological reversal which I see as a technique employed by those who assembled the book to claim fulfillment of prophecy without explicitly saying so, as is the case in the books of Kings. To claim that such–and–such an event occurred in accord with the word of YHWH proclaimed by his servant X the prophet can lead a reader to regard a matter as past tense. Avoiding such a ‘concluding’ statement enables the word to maintain its prophetic thrust and challenge. By reading 24:8–10 after 21:1–7 a reader is prompted to see the latter as confirmation of the word that was proclaimed earlier. Zedekiah acts as YHWH prophesies he will. But as well as providing information about Zedekiah these texts also raise questions. Why is he condemned in 21:1–7 for seeking YHWH’s help against the enemy? Also, 24:8–10 is presented as a private communication of YHWH to Jeremiah. If Zedekiah is to be condemned for breaching YHWH’s command, shouldn’t he have been informed about it before the situation of 21:1–7? The exchange between king and prophet in 27:12–15 claims that this was indeed the case. As long as Zedekiah submits to the Babylonian yoke, as decreed by YHWH and symbolised by Jeremiah wearing a wooden yoke, he will live. Verse 12 presumably refers to continued life in the land because v 15 warns that those who disobey will be driven out

6. This reading takes chapter 32 as an integral part of the book and not as the introduction to di Pede’s proposal of a story from chapters 32 to 45.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 78 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM Jeremiah 32:1–33:26 79

of the land and perish. The report in 29:3 that Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles was in the hand of a certain Elasah whom Zedekiah sent to king Nebuchadrezzar would seem to indicate that he had obeyed the command and submitted to Babylon. But, if this was the case why does he appeal to Jeremiah to intercede in 21:2? As Zedekiah’s accompanying reason clearly indicates, it is made in the hope that YHWH will answer Jeremiah’s intercession and repulse Nebuchadrezzar. Zedeki- ah’s initiative is an act of resistance, not of submission. One can now see the relationship between 32:1–5 and these preceding texts. As a result of his refusal to submit to Babylon YHWH has decreed that Zedekiah will be taken as a prisoner of Nebuchadrezzar to Babylon. This is in accord with the warning that Zedekiah is personally given in 27:12–15 and the decrees in 21:1–7 and 24:8–10. As noted, the setting of 32:1–5 is the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem, with Jeremiah a prisoner of Zedekiah who asks him why he has delivered the prophecy that Zedekiah quotes.7 Jeremiah does not answer the question but instead reports the word he has received from YHWH about a purchase of land from his cousin Hanamel (vv 6–15). The reason why he does not answer is evident; the prophecy to which Zedekiah refers is simply a more detailed version of the warning given in 27:12–15, and YHWH’s reply that Jeremiah instructs the delegation to convey to Zedekiah in 21:4–7. He knows or should know the word that he has disobeyed and the consequences of this. Zedekiah’s incarceration of Jeremiah is no doubt associated with his prophecy but 32:1–5 does not tell the reader just why he did it. Is it a response for what Zedekiah and others perceive as treason? Is it designed to pressure Jeremiah into reversing or revising his prophecy? Is it a gesture of defiance in relation to 27:12–15? There Jeremiah dons a yoke as a sign that king and people will effectively become prisoners of Babylon. Here Zedekiah enacts a counter sign by turning Jeremiah into his prisoner. The imprisonment of Jeremiah reminds the reader of his earlier imprisonment by Pashhur the priest in 20:1–6. In response to this YHWH decrees through Jeremiah that Pashhur is in reality the real prisoner—of the Babylonians. Although there is no matching decree against Zedekiah, the narrative context of 32:1–2 signals clearly enough that he is the real prisoner, again of the

7. The reader encounters this prophecy in chapter 34 and I will comment on the differences between the two versions in the analysis of the chapter.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 79 13-May-20 5:25:58 PM 80 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Babylonians. Yet, there is also a significant difference between the two episodes. In 32:1–5 Zedekiah seeks out Jeremiah to interrogate him about why he prophesied as the king claims he did. There is no report of Pashhur doing the same. Rather, like the speakers in 18:18 and those about whom Jeremiah himself speaks in 20:10, Pashhur aims to counter the message by silencing the messenger. This difference points to another dimension in the relationship between Zedekiah and Jeremiah, and fuels interest in how it will unfold in the remainder of the book. Forming an overall assessment of it will of course require the reader to relate what unfolds in subsequent chapters to the preceding ones, as well as to the initial warnings and assurances that YHWH gives Jeremiah about his enemies in 1:19–21 (cf also 15:20–21). As the MT of 32:6 indicates, instead of answering Zedekiah’s question directly Jeremiah informs him of the ‘word of the Lord that came t o m e’. 8 The point of this is to indicate to Zedekiah and the reader that whereas the king thinks he has the initiative it is in fact YHWH who does, because Jeremiah reports to Zedekiah a word that he received from YHWH and which he acted on before Zedekiah interrogated him. It also implies that Zedekiah’s imprisonment and interrogation of Jeremiah is not really his initiative but YHWH’s, and its purpose is to reveal that Zedekiah and Judah are the real prisoners. It recalls Jeremiah’s final complaint or lament in 20:7–13; he comes to realise that although he has been, and will be, put in prison by enemies like Pashhur, in reality it is they who are the real prisoners of YHWH the ‘dread warrior’ who is on his side and who will ensure that ‘my persecutors will stumble and they will not prevail’.9 This is in keeping with YHWH’s promises of protection and deliverance for the loyal prophet in 1:19 and 15:20–21. The account of the purchase of the field in vv 6–15 is in three stages. The first in vv 6–8 is arranged to emphasise that it is YHWH’s initiative. YHWH alerts Jeremiah beforehand that a cousin Hanamel

8. The LXX of 32:6 has a different introduction to the MT, ‘And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah’. On this reading, Zedekiah is not privy to what follows. What is intriguing is that the MT and LXX have the reverse in v 26. 9. Carroll (Jeremiah, 621) thinks it is historically implausible that an imprisoned Jeremiah could carry out the purchase as described. However, this overlooks the theological thrust of the text, which is that no human power can impede the working out of the divine purpose, a claim that is reiterated in chapters 37–38.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 80 13-May-20 5:25:59 PM Jeremiah 32:1–33:26 81

will request that he purchase his field; Hanamel duly arrives on the scene and makes the request, thereby confirming that it is YHWH’s doing, as Jeremiah states at the end of v 8.10 This is for Zedekiah’s benefit rather than a sign of any doubt in Jeremiah’s mind. A number of commentators see in this request and Jeremiah’s purchase of the field a reversal of the hostility of his family at Anathoth, about which YHWH informs him in 11:18–12:6. If this is the case it adds another dimension to the theme of rebuilding and planting in chapters 32–33 and one that shows how YHWH’s universal purpose fully embraces each person and situation, in this case reconciliation between Jere- miah and his family.11 The second stage in vv 9–15 recounts how the purchase of the field was made. It involved the following steps: payment of an agreed amount of money, weighed on scales for accuracy, the signing and sealing of a deed which recorded the terms and conditions of the purchase; the provision of another unsealed or ‘open copy’; counter signing of the deed by witnesses; entrusting both deeds to the care of Baruch with instructions to put them in an earthenware jar so that they would last a long time. A comparison with other accounts of fields being purchased in Genesis 23; 2 Samuel 24:18–24 and Ruth 4 indicates that a particular emphasis of the account in Jeremiah is the validity of the transaction.12 The account of the purchase concludes in v 15 with a prophecy that ‘houses and fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this land’. This encapsulates the whole point of the exercise. Because it comes immediately after Jeremiah’s instructions to Baruch

10. The legislation concerning the right of redemption occurs in Lev 25:23–31; it gave a relative the right to purchase property in order to keep it in the family/kin. But it was also effectively an obligation on a relative who had the means to do so. The property was also to be returned in the jubilee year (cf di Pede, Au delà du refus, 50–51; Boadt, Jeremiah 26–52, 61–62; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeramiah 26–52, 152–53). Lundbom notes that a time of siege would have been particularly risky for such a transaction, and its execution by Jeremiah is further testimony to his trust in YHWH and the realisation of the prophetic word (Jeremiah 21–36, 505). 11. Cf Fischer, Jeremia 2, 190; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 457; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 152. 12. Evidence of this is in the weighing of the money, provision of sealed and unsealed deeds of purchase, witnesses who sign the deed, and entrusting of deeds to a notary such as Baruch. The closest parallel is the account in Ruth 4 (for a comparison of the 4 texts see the chart in di Pede, Au delà du refus, 54).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 81 13-May-20 5:25:59 PM 82 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

for the safe keeping of the deeds of purchase, there would seem to be a definite connection between the two. Jeremiah’s deed of ownership is meant to be kept safe ‘for a long time’, that is, until the time when fields and their produce will again be bought by YHWH’s people after the end of their time of exile and return to the promised land. The presence of Jeremiah’s deeds will signal that their purchase of fields and crops is to be in line with the way he purchased his field and so in obedience to YHWH’s instructions or law. It will also confirm that resumption of life in the land is in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophetic word. In short, this text provides another example of the relationship between present and future, between discontinuity and continuity. In the initial Outline for chapters 25/26–52, I stated that Jeremi- ah’s prayer in 32:16–25 ends with an implied question to YHWH as to why he has been instructed to buy a property when the land is being given into the hands of the Chaldeans. Verse 25 can however be read in two ways; one in which YHWH’s quoted instruction is in v 25a only; namely ‘Buy the field for money and get witnesses’ cf( NRSV); the other in which v 25b is included in the quotation.13 The NRSV punctuation will be followed here for three reasons. It presents v 25 as an implied question and this provides a better link to YHWH’s reply or answer that follows. The reference to the city in v 25b would also seem to continue Jeremiah’s concern about the city in v 24. Finally, this reading is more in line with YHWH’s words to Jeremiah in v 7. Some commentators are surprised by a prayer that ends by asking why YHWH orders the purchase of a field when the whole country is being given into the hands of the Babylonians. It seems to indicate some doubt or confusion in Jeremiah, which would be the first time this has occurred since his crisis in chapters 13–15.14 Others see v 25 as an expression of astonishment.15 In my judgement such interpretations do not take into account sufficiently the two contexts of the prayer. One is the purchase of the field which, according to the text,

13. Cf di Pede (Au delà du refus, 60–61) who notes that either reading is syntactically acceptable. 14. Keown–Scalise–Smothers (Jeremiah 26–52, 147) suggests the prayer and YHWH’s answer would be better located immediately after 32:8. ‘Having asked for and heard the explanation, Jeremiah would acknowledge that the Lord was behind it (v 8b) and would carry out the command’. 15. Di Pede (Au delà du refus, 57, 61) sees the verse as an expression of astonishment at the paradoxical way YHWH acts in history; similarly Fischer, Jeremia, 206.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 82 13-May-20 5:25:59 PM Jeremiah 32:1–33:26 83

is done publicly in the presence of witnesses and Judeans in the court of the guard (32:12). There is no narrative change of location and so one may presume that Jeremiah prayed in their presence. The second context is Jeremiah’s report of the purchase to king Zedekiah. He too hears the prayer. While vv 16–25 are formulated as a prayer, within these contexts it also functions as an instruction about the ways of YHWH and, rather like v 8, is for the benefit of a listener (initially those involved in the purchase, subsequently Zedekiah).16 The prayer form allows for a response from YHWH, the one whose word has ultimate authority in the book and confirms or condemns the words of human beings. The key to understanding the thrust of the prayer is the statement in v 17b that ‘Nothing is too hard for you’, a statement that is taken up as a rhetorical question in YHWH’s reply (v 27b).17 Indeed nothing can be too hard for the creator of heaven and earth and the primary arena that testifies YHWH can do anything and everything is the governance of humanity (cf vv 18–19). In what is virtually a quotation from Exodus 34:6–7, which in turn draws on the Decalogue texts 20:5b–6 and Deuteronomy 5:9b–10, YHWH shows unswerving commitment (NRSV ‘steadfast love’) to humanity by repaying all mor- tals ‘according to the fruit of their doings’. Verses 20–24 claim that the primary and lasting example that nothing is too hard for YHWH involves Israel. YHWH showed almighty power in bringing Israel out of Egypt to occupy the land, and YHWH has shown the same power in bringing disaster upon Israel for their disobedience. Although the prayer does not state so explicitly, the clear implication is that YHWH’s judgements and actions are always right and just. Hence, what may look contradictory to human beings, namely to command the purchase of a field that, even as it is bought, is being handed to the Babylonians, is in no way a weakening of YHWH’s power or the just and right exercise of that power.

16. A somewhat similar view is that of Winfried Thiel who sees 32:16–44 as the work of a dtr redactor or redactors for the edification of the exilic community Die( deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 mit einer Gesamtbeurteilung der deuteronomistischen Redation des Buches Jeremia, WMANT 52 [Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1981], 32). 17. Interestingly, LXX translates the Hebrew verb pala’ (‘to be astonishing/wonderful/ difficult’) in vv 17b and 27b with the verb transliteration is kruptō (‘to hide’), and the Syriac and Targums have corresponding verbs.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 83 13-May-20 5:25:59 PM 84 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

YHWH’s reply to Jeremiah’s prayer is in three sections, each prefaced by the messenger formula ‘thus says the Lord’; vv 26–35 (messenger formula in v 28), 36–41, and 42–44. The first section deals with the punishment of city and people, while the second and third deal with their restoration. The third person narrative introduction in v 26 (MT)—‘to Jeremiah’ rather than ‘to me’ as in the LXX or MT of v 6— may be to draw attention to the importance of what follows, as well as the role of Jeremiah as YHWH’s faithful messenger. There are two significant features of v 27. One is the title YHWH uses, namely ‘God of all flesh’. This is appropriate given that what follows embraces not only YHWH’s sovereignty over all human beings, here represented by Israel and Judah, but also over all animals (cf v 43). The second is that YHWH takes up Jeremiah’s declaration in v 17b that nothing is too difficult (or hidden) for YHWH, but does so in the form of a rhetorical question. This indicates the speech that follows is as much an instruction or torah as a prophecy, and that the audience—witnesses to the purchase, Zedekiah, readers/listeners—will provide the expected answer at the end of it. As such, vv 26–44 are an extension or continuation of the instruction in vv 17–25. If v 27 takes up Jeremiah’s statement about YHWH’s power in v 17b, vv 28–35 take up a second aspect of his prayer, namely the Chal- dean siege that the audience in the text is experiencing and which it is challenged to acknowledge is a manifestation of YHWH’s power.18 Verses 28–35 fall into two sections, each containing a declaration about the fate of the city, vv 28–30 and 31–35.19 The challenge to the audience is heightened by YHWH’s claim in each section that ‘I’ am the one giving it into the hands of the Chaldeans (v 28b) and removing it from ‘my sight’ (v 31b).20 This can be read as a correction or clarification of v 25b, which states that ‘the city has been given into the hands of the Chaldeans’. Each declaration about what YHWH

18. On these connections between Jeremiah’s prayer and YHWH’s response see Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 209. 19. Di Pede sees a somewhat different arrangement, with the text targeting three main sins of the people; worship of other gods (vv 29b–30), refusal to hear YHWH’s word (v 33) and setting up of the abomination (vv 34–35) (Au delà du refus, 70). 20. The giving of the city into the hands of the Chaldeans and its removal from ‘my sight’ are presumably references to the conquest and exile from the land.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 84 13-May-20 5:25:59 PM Jeremiah 32:1–33:26 85

is to do to the city is a just response to the evils that ‘the people of Israel and the people of Judah’ have done (vv 30, 32), and which have provoked YHWH to anger (vv 30b, 32). The second section draws attention to YHWH’s full knowledge of this evil by listing the offenders in v 32b and their offences in vv 33, 34 and 35. There are three of these and they are presumably arranged in increasing order of severity. According to v 33, the offenders listed have rejected YHWH their teacher by turning ‘their backs to me’, no doubt in preference for another teacher with a more appealing curriculum. According to v 34 they have defiled the house that bears the divine name, and is therefore reserved exclusively for YHWH, by turning it into a multi–purpose residence. According to v 35 their complete rejection of YHWH is exposed by their construction of high places for Baal at which they perform child sacrifices, a form of cultic worship that never entered the divine heart/mind.21 The promise of restoration in vv 36–42 (and 43–44) is prefaced by YHWH recalling what the audience (‘you’ plural) had earlier said about the fate of the city; that ‘it is being given into the hand of the king of Babylon’.22 In light of the emphasis on ‘I’ in vv 28b and 31b they should now concur that YHWH is the one initiating all that is taking place. If they confess this, then when they hear what this same ‘I’ has in store (vv 37–44) they will grasp the full impact of the claim that ‘nothing is too difficult for you’. The picture of restoration that follows commences with the reversal of what ‘I’ has resolved to do in vv 28–35. Whereas YHWH earlier drove Israel and Judah into exile in ‘my anger and my wrath’, this same YHWH will ‘gather’ them from the lands of exile, will ‘return’ them to ‘this place’ and enable them not

21. These lists of Israel and Judah’s evils correspond to earlier texts in the book, such as the rejection of YHWH as teacher in 6:19, the condemnation in the temple sermon in chapter 7 of the worship of Baal, the construction of high places in the valley of Hinnom and the sacrificing there of children. Cf also 9:14 (MT 9:13); 11:9–13; 16:10–13; 17:1–4; 19:3–5, 13; 23:13–14; 25:3–7. Commentators also note connections with texts in Deuteronomy, 2 Kgs 21; 23 and Ezek 8 (cf Fischer, Jeremia, 210; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 157–58). 22. LXX has the singular ‘you’ pronoun, indicating that only Jeremiah is the addressee.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 85 13-May-20 5:25:59 PM 86 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

just to return but to ‘dwell’ in safety.23 YHWH’s action on behalf of the people does not cease with their return. As the following v 38 clearly states, a key purpose of the return from exile is the re–establishment of the relationship between the people and their God. The nature of this relationship is expressed in the following v 38, which recalls 30:22 (a direct quotation) and 31:1. Verses 39–40 employ three verbs in vv 39, 40a and 40b to describe how the relationship will be restored, each with YHWH as subject in order to ensure the intended outcome is realised. According to v 39 YHWH will give the people one heart and one way; the result of this will be their unswerving reverence for YHWH.24 It will be so enduring that it will be followed, almost instinctively, by their children. According to v 40a the appropriate formal expression of this enduring loyalty to YHWH will be the establishment of an everlasting covenant, everlasting because YHWH will never draw back from doing good to them. The establishment of a covenant recalls the new covenant proclaimed in 31:31–34. The difference in terminology—‘everlasting’ here rather than ‘new’ as in 31:31–34—may be explained by comparing 32:39 and 40a. Given that in v 39 YHWH will give the people one heart and one way so that they may fear YHWH ‘all the days’ (NRSV ‘for all time’), it is fitting that the covenant in v 40a be described as ‘everlasting’.25 The third verb in v 40b alludes to the first divine initiative in v 39 by stating that YHWH will personally ‘put the fear of me in their hearts’ and in this way ensure enduring loyalty (reverence). The difference between vv 39 and 40b is that in the former the singular ‘heart’ is used whereas the latter has the plural. The implication is that in order to create an utterly united and loyal people—of one heart and one way—YHWH will touch each individual’s heart. This combination

23. The hiphil perfect of the verb ‘to drive/banish’ is required because return and restoration can only occur after the people have been exiled/driven out of the land. As was noted in the analysis of chapter 30–31, the text plays on the various meanings of the Hebrew verb for ‘return’ shub. The verb is used here in its standard sense whereas v 40a asserts that YHWH will never ‘turn’ from loving the people. 24. As Exod 20:20 indicates, there are two senses to the verb ‘fear’ (yare’), ‘to be afraid’ and ‘to revere’. According to Moses, YHWH’s purpose in proclaiming the Decalogue to the people is to instill the latter attitude. 25. Even though the adjective is not used, the same sense of an everlasting covenant is present in 31:31–34 in the final assurance by YHWH to ‘remember their sin no m o r e’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 86 13-May-20 5:25:59 PM Jeremiah 32:1–33:26 87

of the one and the many, of the particular and the universal, forms a fitting frame around the establishment of an everlasting covenant. The final v 41 forms a kind of inclusio with v 37. Whereas YHWH drove the people into exile ‘in my anger and my wrath’, according to v 41 YHWH will rejoice in doing good to the people ‘with my whole heart and all my soul’, by planting them again in the land, and this time permanently (‘in faithfulness’). The conclusion of this first response to Jeremiah’s prayer commences in v 42 with what may be taken as another form of the statement that nothing is impossible for YHWH. That is, only the God who is able to bring ‘all this great disaster upon this people’ is also able to bring upon them ‘all the good fortune that I now promise them’. What looks from a human perspective to be quite contradictory reali- ties and impossible to unite as manifestations of the one unswerving commitment of YHWH to the good of Israel is, according to the text’s claim, not the case. Verse 43 shows that the all–knowing God is of course fully aware of this limited human perspective. As in v 36, YHWH reminds the audience that ‘you’ (plural) are saying the land is given into the hands of the Chaldeans and cannot support human or animal. To counter this the prayer concludes by restating what Jere- miah’s redemption of the field points to, namely the redemption of all the people and their lands.26 Fields shall be bought again, and deeds signed and sealed and witnessed in all their lands, just as happened with Jeremiah’s redemption of land in vv 9–15.

Jeremiah 33 The introduction to chapter 33 clearly links it to chapter 32. It is a ‘second’ speech by YHWH to Jeremiah and delivered while he was still confined in the court of the guard. As well as this structural link there are a number of thematic links between the chapter and YHWH’s preceding speech in 32:26–44. Chapter 33 falls into two main sections, with vv 1–13 being about the restoration of Jerusa- lem and the surrounding towns and their inhabitants, and vv 14–26 being about the restoration of Davidic rule and the ministry of the

26. Following Di Pede (Au delà du refus, 75–77) who proposes that in acting on YHWH’s initiative as redeemer (go’el) for his family in purchasing the field, Jeremiah participates in the redemption of his people.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 87 13-May-20 5:25:59 PM 88 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Levitical priests. A notable feature is that vv 14–26 are not in the LXX, and for many commentators this is an indication that these verses are a late addition to the MT. This may explain why most of the thematic connections between the two speeches occur in vv 1–13.27 The chapter may be divided into 8 distinctive speeches, each with an introductory messenger formula except for v 23, which has the same narrative introduction as v 1. The eight sections are vv 2–3 (after the narrative introduction in v 1), 4–9, 10–11, 12–13, 14–16, 17–18, 19–22, 23–26. Thus there are four sections each in vv 1–13 and 14–26.28 A difficulty with the first speech in vv 2–3 is identifying the object or subject to which the third person feminine pronouns attached to the three verbs in v 2 refers. The context would suggest the Hebrew term ‘city’ which is feminine, and so the reference is to Jerusalem. However, the Hebrew verbs ‘make’ (‘asah) and ‘form’ (yatsar), when attributed to YHWH, usually refer to creation. Hence the NRSV’s reading ‘the earth’. Given the areas covered in the subsequent text, the verse may have been deliberately made ambiguous or open– ended.29 Whatever the case, the combination of three verbs, two in participial form and the third as a hiphil infinitive, along with the expression ‘YHWH is his name’, gives an almost hymnic quality to the verse. The addressee ‘you’ in v 3 is in the masculine singular and this would indicate the speech is addressed privately to Jeremiah. However, vv 10 and 19 have the plural form of address, as in the preceding speech (32:36, 43), while v 24 is addressed (again) only to Jeremiah. Given the fact that biblical texts can at times switch dis- concertingly between singular and plural, and given the context of chapter 33, it may be best to read it as an address to the same audience as Jeremiah’s prayer and YHWH’s reply in chapter 32. YHWH’s invitation in v 3 to learn about ‘great and hidden/inaccessible things’ that Jeremiah and his audience do not know, can be read as another

27. A dissenting commentator is Fischer (Jeremia, 233) who holds that 33:14–26 belonged to the original version of the book. 28. Following Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 525–27. Fischer identifies nine sections (Jeremia, 224), and Keown–Scalise–Smothers 6 (Jeremiah 26–52, 168–69). 29. As suggested by Fischer, Jeremia, 225. Keown–Scalise–Smothers offers the interesting proposal that the object is the ‘great and hidden things’ in v 3 (Jeremiah 26–52, 170). BHS proposes an emendation of the second phrase to read ‘YHWH, who forms a thing to come, to establish it’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 88 13-May-20 5:25:59 PM Jeremiah 32:1–33:26 89

form of the expression in 32:17b that ‘nothing is too hard for you’, a statement that YHWH affirms in the form of a rhetorical question in v 27. The speech that follows in chapter 33 can be read as providing further evidence there is no end to what YHWH knows and is able to bring into effect. Within the larger context, 33:3 may also signal a change in the relationship between YHWH and Jeremiah that is part of the restoration. Whereas in 11:14 YHWH forbids Jeremiah to intercede for his wicked people, this prohibition would now appear to be rescinded.30 The following verses of the first section, namely vv 4–13, follow the same overall sequence as in YHWH’s preceding speech. Thus vv 4–5 and 6–9 parallel respectively 32:26–35 and 36–41, namely punishment and retribution for Jerusalem and its people, followed by their restoration. For their part, vv 10–13 parallel 32:42–44, both of which are about YHWH’s response to the lament by ‘you’ (plural) that the land/place is desolate and without humans and animals.31 Each section of 33:4–13 provides significant additions to the prophecies in 32:26–35, 36–41 and 42–44. There are a number of textual problems in 33:4–5 that are difficult to resolve. Despite this, what these verses add to 32:26–35 is that there will be a terrible death toll in the futile attempt to defend the city. Moreover, v 5 declares that YHWH will be the one who strikes them down, presumably through the agency of the invading Chaldeans, and this is because ‘I have hidden my face’ from the city due to its wickedness. This metaphor symbolises divine rejection and punishment, as its opposite, the ‘turning’ of the divine face towards people and city, symbolises welcome and blessing. This death toll is not mentioned in 32:26–35 and it will presumably be devastating because YHWH is the one who strikes them down. How- ever, when this section of the speech shifts to return and restoration in vv 6–8 it speaks of cleansing and forgiveness for all those who sinned and rebelled against YHWH. The speech may here be employing high rhetoric to emphasise that just as YHWH can destroy and rebuild a city, so YHWH can destroy and restore a sinner, even a whole society of sinners.32 Verse 9 adds to the corresponding promise of the restoration of the city in 32:36–41 the wonderful reputation

30. Cf Fischer, Jeremia, 225. 31. On this parallel arrangement cf di Pede (Au delà du refus, 208). 32. As Carroll notes rather drily, chapters 32 and 33 should not be read as realistic descriptions of social history but as theological reflections Jeremiah( , 635).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 89 13-May-20 5:25:59 PM 90 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

that it will enjoy among the nations. The news of all that YHWH will do for Jerusalem will cause them to fear and tremble. The context would suggest that this is not fear of conquest by Jerusalem but astonishment at the complete reversal in its fortunes that YHWH brings about. Verses 10–13 respond to the assessment or complaint by the audience (‘you’ plural) that the devastated land is ‘a waste without human beings or animals’.33 Verses 10–11 promise that the towns of Judah and the streets of Jerusalem will resonate once more with the ‘voice of gladness’, while the focus of vv 12–13 is on flocks of domestic animals that will once again be traded in places around Jerusalem and in the towns of Judah. Both of these promises add to 32:42–44 by declaring that not only will the empty land be bought and sold again but will teem with human and animal life. In this way ‘the fortunes’ of the land will be fully restored (cf 32:44 and 33:11b). Within the context, the implication of 33:11 is that all will see this bounty as a manifestation of YHWH’s steadfast love that Jeremiah proclaims in 32:18, and will give thanks for it by invoking Pss 107:1 and 136. The picture of full restoration of life in a Palestine devastated by invasion and exile needs to be marked not only by vigorous and joyful life in the cities, exemplified in weddings, but also by a thriving agricultural economy.34 Hence vv 12–13 provide a fitting finale to what YHWH has in store and will bring about. Verses 14–26 comprise the longest single passage in the MT that is not in the LXX.35 As already noted, one can distinguish four sections in the passage; namely vv 14–16, 17–18, 19–22, and 23–26. These take up and develop earlier passages in the book of Jeremiah as well

33. Although 32:43 has ‘land’ and 33:10, 12 has ‘place’, the term ‘land’ also occurs in 33:11 and 13 ‘land of Benjamin’. However, the strongest link between 32:42–44 and 33:10–13 is their references to the absence of human and animal life (cf 32:43; 33:10, 12). 34. A parallel text in the ‘little book of consolation’ is 31:12, which envisages the redeemed giving thanks on Zion for YHWH’s bounty, which includes flocks and herds. However, for Keown–Scalise–Smothers (Jeremiah 26–52, 172) the picture of flocks grazing in cities is somewhat unrealistic and proposes that the phrase ‘shepherds and flocks’ refers to leaders and people. Fischer thinks the text allows for both meanings (Jeremia 2, 231). 35. So Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 228.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 90 13-May-20 5:25:59 PM Jeremiah 32:1–33:26 91

as other biblical books.36 Verse 14 presents what follows as an assurance that a promise already made, and which occurs earlier in the book in 23:5–6 and 30:9, will indeed be realised, namely the raising of a ‘branch/shoot of righteousness’ who will re–establish the Davidic dynasty. Verse 15 underscores the reassertion of this promise by declaring that it will take place at a definite time—‘In those days and at that time’—and that YHWH will personally plant and nurture this branch of righteousness.37 Within the context of the book, this scion of David will rule in justice and righteousness as Josiah did (22:15– 16), a rule that none of his successors emulated. Verse 16 also changes the earlier passage by having the name ‘YHWH is our righteousness’ refer to Jerusalem rather than to the king. This new name for the city emphasises that all that the righteous branch of David will do will be a working out and manifestation of the righteousness of YHWH.38 The prophecy about the Davidic dynasty in vv 14–16 adds a further dimension to the picture of restoration that 32:26–33:24 paints. According to what follows in 33:17–18 the restored dynasty will enjoy the same unending rule that was originally promised to David in texts

36. These connections are examined by Matthew Sjöberg in his essay ‘Inner– Biblical Interpretation in the Redaction of Jeremiah 33:14–26’, in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard J Bautch and Gary N Knoppers (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2015), 175–93. The relevant connections are 23:5–6 for 33:14–17, 1 Kgs 2:4; 8:25; 9:5 for Jer 33:18– 19; and Jer 31:35–37 for 33:19–26. One should note that in his introduction Sjöberg gives vv 14–17, 18–19, 20–22 and 23–26 as the division of the passage, but in the body of the essay the division given is vv 14–17, 17–18, and 19–26. Marvin A Sweeney presents a somewhat different angle on 33:14–26, seeing it as an addition to the MT in order to clarify some aspects of the earlier Hebrew Vorlage behind the LXX. It envisages a process ‘in which the city of Jerusalem, the Levitical priesthood, and the people themselves will serve as the heirs of the Davidic promise until such time as the monarchy can be restored’ (page 181 of ‘The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Covenant in the Books of Jeremiah’, in Reading Prophetic Books, FAT 89 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014], 167–181). 37. Whereas 23:5 uses the verb qum in the hiphil (‘to establish/raise up’), 33:15 employs the hiphil of the verb tsamakh (‘to cause to spring up/grow’), the same consonants as for the noun tsemakh ‘branch/shoot’. 38. Keown–Scalise–Smothers (Jeremiah 26–52, 174) points out that another significant feature of 33:14–16 is that, unlike 23:5–6, it does not refer to this righteous branch as a king. The term king is used in 30:9 but 30:21 has prince and ruler. Sjöberg suggests the absence of the term may indicate 33:14–26 was composed in the post–exilic period when Judah was still under either Persian or Hellenistic rule (‘Inner–Biblical Interpretation’, 188).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 91 13-May-20 5:25:59 PM 92 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

such as 2 Samuel 7:13, 16; 1 Kings 2:4; 8:25; 9:5.39 But in keeping with the thrust of chapter 33, vv 17–18 add a further factor by extending the same promise to the levitical priests of the house of Levi.40 This can be related to an earlier promise in 31:14 that YHWH will extend to the priests ‘their fill of fatness’, the phrase being read as more than ample provision for their liturgical needs. If the Davidic dynasty is to be reestablished to ensure that justice and righteousness prevail in the land, then the priestly line is also needed to ensure that the restoration of the temple liturgy, as envisaged in 31:14 and 33:11, is carried out properly. The people will bring their thank offerings to ‘the house of the Lord’ but it is the levitical priests who are ordained to perform the regular burnt offerings, grain offerings and sacrifices ‘all the days’ that are surely coming (cf vv 14, 18).41 For their part, vv 19–22 and 23–26 underscore the promises of an enduring Davidic dynasty and levitical priesthood in vv 17–18 by presenting a line of argument that occurs in somewhat different form in 31:35–36.42 In 33:19–22 the impossibility of YHWH breaking the covenant with ‘my servant David’ and with ‘my ministers the Levites’ is likened to YHWH breaking the covenant with day and night, established forever according to Genesis 8:22; 9:16.43 The affirmation of these two covenants may, within the larger context, be read as completing the prophecy of a new covenant in 31:31–34. The house of David and the house of Levi are integral components of the one house of Israel and house of Judah. The description of David

39. Cf Sjöberg, ‘Inner–Biblical Interpretation’, 180. 40. The reference to the Levites occurs only here and in vv 19–21 in the book of Jeremiah. The term ‘levitical priests’ occurs in Deut 17:9; 18; 18:1. According to Rata (The Covenant Motif in Jeremiah’s Book of Comfort, 81) the inclusion of the levitical priests here indicates a linking of the Davidic and Mosaic covenants. This seems rather speculative. 41. Fischer (Jeremia 2, 234) notes that the participles in v 18 to describe the levitical priests’ liturgical duties enhance the sense of something ongoing and enduring. 42. Cf SJöberg, ‘Inner–Biblical Interpretation’, 183. Di Pede describes the argument as follows: ‘Dieu affirme le caractère “inébranable” de l’Alliance (voir déjà 32,38.40) par deux raisonnements par l’absurde (33,19–22 et 33,23–26)’, (Au delà du refus, 211). 43. The royal covenant with David is called ‘eternal’ ‘olam( ) in 1 Sam 23:3, as is the covenant of priesthood with the house of Levi in Num 25:12–13 (established with Levi’s loyal scion Phinehas). See also Deut 33:9; Neh 13:29 and Mal 2:4–9 (cf Sjöberg, ‘Inner–Biblical Interpretation’, 183).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 92 13-May-20 5:25:59 PM Jeremiah 32:1–33:26 93

as ‘my servant’ in v 21 is significant within the context of Jeremiah. This title is applied to Nebuchadrezzar in 25:9 and 27:6 to carry out YHWH’s ordained punishment and imprisonment of Judah and all the nations round about. The application of this title to David is a promise that this period of servitude will definitely come to an end and be replaced by the rule of the ‘branch of righteousness’ whom YHWH will raise up. Verses 23–26 apply the same impossible condition of YHWH breaking the covenant with creation, but here it is in relation to a judgement by ‘this people’ (v 24, Hebrew is singular; NRSV has ‘these people’). In their view YHWH has rejected the chosen ‘two families’ and they no longer regard them as a nation. Verse 26 identifies these ‘two families’ as the offspring of Jacob and David; together they constitute one nation and, in a concluding promise that gathers together much of the thrust of 32:26–33:26 as well as chapters 30–31, YHWH promises to restore the fortunes of both the descendants of David and the offspring of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and to have mercy on them.44 Verse 24b clearly echoes 30:18 where the phrase ‘restore the fortunes’ and the verb ‘to have mercy/compassion’ are combined. The latter also occurs in 31:20 as a response to Ephraim’s expression of remorse. What is not clear in the passage is the identity of ‘this people’ in v 24. Possibilities are that it is the audience portrayed in chapter 32. However, there is no report of them saying what YHWH quotes. Another possibility is that it is the Israelites in general who feel themselves rejected by YHWH and despair of any future as a nation with their own land and ruler.45 This could be invoking an earlier text such as 14:19 but, on my reading of this text in the preceding volume, it is part of a YHWH speech about the duplicity of the people and the second of three lessons that YHWH conducts for the troubled prophet. A third possibility is that it is the kind of foreign nation portrayed in 29:18 before whom exiled Israel will become ‘an object of cursing’ and derision, and perhaps also the kind of nation with whom Israel once formed alliances but which now cares nothing for its former

44. As Ferry points out, a feature connecting chapters 30–31 and 32:26–33:24 is the way the verb–noun combination shub–shebut (‘restore the fortunes’) occurs in 30:3, 18 and 33:7, 11, 26 (cf ‘Je restaurerai Juda et Israël [Jr 33, 7.9.26]: L’écriture de Jérémie 33’, in Transeuphratène 15 [1998]: 69–82). 45. This is the view of Keown–Scalise–Smothers Jeremiah( 26–52, 174–75). Fischer (Jeremia 2, 237) identifies ‘this people’ as Judah.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 93 13-May-20 5:25:59 PM 94 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

lover (30:14). On balance this would seem to be the most satisfactory option.46 As part of the prophesied restoration, and evidence that nothing is too difficult for YHWH, this people who dismiss the two families will tremble in astonishment at all the prosperity and power YHWH will bestow on them as a nation (33:9). In light of this analysis of the constitutive parts of chapters 32–33, one can see the reason for YHWH’s speech in 32:26–33:26, and how it relates to the ‘little book of consolation’ in 30–31. A key to understanding this relationship is Zedekiah’s interrogation of the imprisoned Jeremiah in 32:1–5 as well as Jeremiah’s purchase of a field in 32:6–15. The first of these passages confirms that the restoration prophesied in chapters 30–31 will only take place after the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem, and the decreed period of subjugation to Babylon. Jeremiah does not respond to Zedekiah’s question because the answer has already been given in preceding prophecies. More- over, what looks to be an attempt to silence or reverse the message about Judah’s end by imprisoning the messenger Jeremiah will not succeed. There can be no escape from what YHWH decrees and reaffirms in 32:26–35. Moreover, Zedekiah’s action and words in 32:1–5 show that he is the real prisoner, not Jeremiah, trapped in a distorted and self–serving perception of reality that is leading inevitably to his imprisonment by Nebucadrezzar of Babylon. But as 32:1–15 effectively confirms that there can be no restoration until YHWH’s decreed period of punishment for Judah and its king is completed, so 32:6–15 provides a sure sign that there will be a full restoration after this period. Despite being a prisoner of Zedekiah, Jeremiah is instructed by YHWH to purchase a field and have it witnessed and recorded for posterity. Within the context, this serves as a gilt–edged guarantee that YHWH plans a full restoration of life for the chosen people in the chosen land. The speech of YHWH in 32:36–33:26 expatiates on the nature and extent of this restoration, and in doing so resumes key aspects of the ‘little book of consolation’. The speech of YHWH in 32:26–33:26 may well be a later addition to the book but it has been strategically located and formulated in order to confirm as well as enhance the prophecies in chapters 30–31.

46. Cf also Rata, The Covenant Motif in Jeremiah’s Book of Comfort, 82.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 94 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM Chapter Five Jeremiah 34:1–36:32

Chapter 34 is made up of two main parts, an initial encounter between Jeremiah and king Zedekiah in vv 1–7, followed by an account in vv 8–22 of how king and people reneged on a covenant to free Hebrew slaves. Each part has the same introduction, which also occurs in slightly different form in v 12. The encounter between king and prophet in vv 1–7 would seem to be set earlier in the siege of Jerusalem than the one in 32:2–5. Two factors point to this; one is that in 32:2–5 Jeremiah is a prisoner of the king who interrogates him, whereas in 34:1–7 Jeremiah is apparently still able to go about freely. This is the only text in the book where Jeremiah is portrayed taking the initiative in an encounter with Zedekiah. A second one is that, according to 34:1 Nebuchadrezzar was besieging Jerusalem and all its cities whereas in 32:2 only Jerusalem is left. This suggests the final stage of the siege. This textual sequence provides another example of chronological reversal that serves to confirm a prophecy. In this case one’s reading of chapter 34 and the words that Jeremiah prophesies is confirmed by what one has already encountered in 32:1–5. As chapter 34 unfolds it is clear that neither king nor people have accepted the prophet’s command to surrender to and serve Babylon as YHWH decrees. Rather than become prisoners of Nebuchadrez- zar, YHWH’s appointed agent to rule the world for seventy years, in 32:2–5 Zedekiah attempts to reverse things by imprisoning Jeremiah, the one who announces YHWH’s terms of imprisonment for king and people. But, as was noted when the passage is read in context, this only shows that the real prisoner is Zedekiah and his people. A further contribution of chapter 34 to the theological claims of the book is the scene created by v 1. It conveys the impression that despite the attempts by king and people to have things on their terms, they are an

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 95 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM 96 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

integral part of YHWH’s universal purpose, in which are engaged all the kingdoms of the earth and all the dominions under Nebuchadn- rezzar. All the earth is engaged in plucking up and tearing down the existing disorder so that the new one, as presented in chapters 30–33, can be built and planted.1 There are two debated matters in 34:1–7; one is the difference between the narrative information about the circumstances of Jer- emiah’s encounter with Zedekiah in v 1 and vv 6–7, the other is a perceived clash between the prophetic word in vv 2b–3 and vv 4–5. According to v 1, not only Nebuchadrezzar but all the kingdoms of the earth and all the people under his dominions were besieging Jerusalem and all its cities. According to v 7 only the army of the Babylonian king is involved and the only cities left at the time of the encounter were Jerusalem, Lachish and Azekah. Various theories have been proposed as to which piece of information may be earlier or more original, and it is possible that v 1 is a later more expanded version of v 7.2 Whatever the case, within the present text it would seem that vv 6–7 function as a resumption of the introduction after Jeremiah’s words to Zedekiah in vv 2–5. The present location of v 7 may be to signal further deterioration in the unstoppable demise of Judah and its cities. As for Jeremiah’s words to Zedekiah in vv 2–5, some think the declaration in v 3 that he will be captured and taken as a prisoner to Babylon clashes with the assurance in v 5 that he will die in peace and be mourned like earlier Judean kings. In their view Jerusalem was the only place where such funeral rites for a Judean king would be feasible.3 Given the prophecy in 22:18–19 about the fate of king Jehoiakim, 34:4–5 would seem to envisage Zedekiah endings his days in good standing with YHWH. A proposed way of resolving the apparent clash has been to read vv 4–5 as a protasis–apodosis arrangement, with the protasis or condition in v 4a and the apodosis in vv 4b–5. That is, ‘if’ Zedekiah hears (accepts) the word of YHWH

1. Fischer (Jeremia, 2, 248) sees an allusion in 34:1 to the decree in 15:4 that YHWH will make Judah a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth. At the historical level, he also notes, along with other commentators, that vassal states were expected to support their sovereign in military campaigns. 2. For a review of the discussion, see Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 178–79. 3. Cf Carroll, Jeremiah, 642.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 96 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 97

as proclaimed in vv 2–3 ‘then’ he will die in peace and be mourned like earlier Judean kings.4 If he doesn’t then presumably he will die a violent death in the coming battle. The alternative is to read vv 2–5 as decreeing two things that will happen to Zedekiah. The first is that he will be captured when the city falls and be taken to Babylon (vv 2–3), the second is that his life will be preserved in Babylon (‘You shall not die by the sword’) and that he will eventually die there in peace and be mourned—presumably by other exiles in Babylon. There is no conditional element but the command to ‘hear’ does expect acceptance of what Jeremiah has said.5 Even if he does not accept this word it is nevertheless what will happen to him. The word of YHWH cannot be thwarted. There is no reply from Zedekiah to the divine decree. Hence, in order to discern whether the book presents his reaction to it, and if so in what way, one must read the following vv 8–22 and compare it with other texts in the book in which he appears. These verses are introduced in v 8a as YHWH’s word to Jeremiah after Zedekiah initiated a covenant of release for all Hebrew slaves. The account of all those who entered into the covenant but subsequently reneged on it is then given in vv 8b–11. In line with the introduction in v 8a, YHWH’s response to this follows in vv 12–22. There is considerable debate about what kind of covenant the text has in mind.6 As is well known, the same Hebrew term ‘ebed was used for a servant as for a slave. Also, Hebrew slaves were different to other kinds of slaves. According to legislation in Exodus 21:2–11 and Deuteronomy 15:1– 18, Hebrew slaves were what might be called ‘indentured labourers’, those who had sold themselves to the service of another to pay a debt, or been sold by members of their family for the same or similar purpose. There would presumably have been an agreement or covenant

4. This reading is preferred by Boadt,Jeremiah 26–52, 74; Brueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 324; Carroll, Jeremiah, 643 (who sees an implicit conditional); Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 233–34; Miller, ‘The Book of Jeremiah’, 830. 5. This reading is preferred by Fischer,Jeremia , 249–50; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 485– 86; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 180–81. Lundbom (Jeremiah 21–36, 548, 554) sees two distinct oracles in vv 2b–3 and 4–5 that nevertheless complement one another. 6. For a detailed discussion of the various covenant forms that follow, see Fischer, Jeremia 2, 252–59; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 184–88, Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 556–62.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 97 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM 98 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

about the terms of the person’s service. According to the legislation, such indentured labourers were to be released in the seventh or Sab- bath year even if the debt had not all been paid in the preceding six years of labour. This was not the case with foreign slaves. Breach of this law or requirement would seem to be the one to which YHWH’s speech in vv 13–14 refers. A related yet distinct legislation is the law on the Jubilee year in Leviticus 25. Whereas the Sabbath year legislation dealt with those who had become indentured labourers over each six–year period, the Jubilee legislation was designed to cover everyone, no matter what situation of debt they happened to be in at the time. It was a way of ensuring everyone was free of debt and slavery, as Israel believed was the case when YHWH initially led them into the promised land. The term used in 25:10 to describe what was to take place is ‘release’ (deror). It does not occur in the Exodus or Deuteronomic legislation but is used in Jeremiah 34:8 in association with the covenant initiated by Zedekiah, and recurs in the YHWH speech of vv 15 and 17. As well as this, another kind of covenant seems to be referred to in vv 18–19, one that was established by the participants cutting an animal in two and passing between its parts as a self–curse or sign of what should happen to them if they breached its terms. The closest parallel to this in the HB/OT is Genesis 15:7–21, YHWH’s covenant with the ancestor Abraham, although parallel texts from the ANE have also been discovered.7 The point of vv 18–19 is to assert that YHWH will do to the transgressors of the covenant as the participants in the ceremony do to the sacrificial animal.8

7. For example, an eighth century BCE Aramaic treaty states that ‘(Just as) this calf is cut up, thus Matti’el and his nobles shall be cut up’, (cited by Rolf A Jacobson, 400 in ‘A Freedom that is no Freedom: Jeremiah 34 and the Sabbatical Principle’, in Word and World, 22/4 [2002]: 396–405). For reflections on the relationship between crime/offence and punishment operative in vv 17–19, see Miller, ‘Sin and Judgment in Jeremiah 34:17–19’, in JBL, 103 (1984): 611–15; also Boadt, Jeremiah 26–52, 76–77. 8. BHS proposes adding the preposition ‘like’ to the word ‘calf’ in a complex verse that reads literally ‘I will make (there follows a list of the guilty and their guilt to “before me”) the calf which they cut in two, etc’. (cf NRSV). Fischer, following Luther and others, prefers the double accusative (Jeremia 2, 257). Keown– Scalise–Smothers agrees that the BHS emendation reads more smoothly but does not think it necessary (Jeremiah 26–52, 184).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 98 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 99

Given the general agreement in Pentateuchal scholarship that the Covenant Code in Exodus 21–23 and the Deuteronomic Code in 12–26 preceded the Holiness Code in Leviticus 17–26, it follows that the sabbatical release preceded the Jubilee release in the development of this aspect of Israel’s legislation. It would seem therefore that Jer- emiah 34 presupposes these pieces of legislation, although in a 2008 study Mark Leuchter argued that the author of the Holiness Code drew on Deuteronomy as well as the Covenant Code, earlier P tradi- tions, and Jeremiah 34:8, 22.9 Whatever the case, the various elements in 34:8–22 combine to form a powerful rhetorical and theological piece.10 Verses 8–9 do not explicitly situate the covenant initiated by Zedekiah in the Jubilee year. It is possible but the absence of any such reference and scholarly disagreements over the date of the siege, as well as of the Jubilee, suggest a general release like that of the Jubilee. Commentators have proposed a number of motivations for such an initiative that would fit well into a siege situation. One is economic and social; it would reduce the risk of conflict between landlords and labourers as provisions and food became scarce. What was left could be more widely shared. Another is military in that indentured labourers would be free to assist in various defensive measures. A third is religious in that it is a gesture to win divine favour.11 If a siege such as described in Jeremiah 34 is the kind of situation that would trigger such a covenant, then its reversal would seem to require something equally, or more, important. Within the context, the one piece of information that fits is YHWH’s report in v 21 that the Babylonians have raised the siege and withdrawn. Historians judge that this refers to Babylon’s response to an Egyptian incursion into Palestine, presumably on behalf of its vassal/ally Judah. It would seem to be the same incident referred to in 37:5. The Egyptians appar-

9. See page 640 of Leuchter, ‘The Manumission Laws in Leviticus and Deuteronomy: The Jeremiah Connection’, inJBL, 127/4 (2008): 635–53. 10. For a defense of the coherence of 34:8–22 against the view that it is a compilation from different authors, see Smelik, ‘The Inner Cohesion of Jeremiah 34:8–22, on the Liberation of Slaves during the Siege of Jerusalem and its Relation to Deuteronomy 15’, in Torah and Tradition: Papers Read at the Sixteenth Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap, Edinburgh, 2015 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017), 239–250. 11. Cf Fischer, Jeremia 2, 253; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 489; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 187.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 99 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM 100 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

ently withdrew at the approach of the Babylonians who then resumed the siege of Jerusalem. The sudden withdrawal of a besieging army could well be seen as YHWH’s response to Zedekiah’s covenant initiative and the people’s obedience. If this were the case however, the reversal of their behavior, as reported in v 11, is difficult to explain. This and the subsequent speech by YHWH indicates pretty clearly that the motivation for their reversal was the temporary withdrawal of the Babylonians; from their perspective it indicated the siege was over and things could therefore return to where they were. The preceding reflections offer some likely historical and political contexts for Zedekiah’s initiative. But, as part of the book of Jeremiah, one may reasonably presume that the principal context in which a text like this is meant to function is a prophetic and theological one. It is also reasonable to presume that the principle source for discerning this is the YHWH speech in vv 12–22. It commences in vv 12–14 by stating, as it must, that YHWH is the one who established the law that all indentured labourers or slaves have their debts cancelled after six years. The Sabbath ‘release’ must have been established before the Jubilee one because the latter is only celebrated after seven consecutive sabbaticals. From a theological and symbolic point of view, the Sabbath release served as a reminder that Israel’s deliverance from slavery in Egypt was YHWH’s initiative, and not to enact the Sab- bath release was to fail to ‘hear’, to ignore or even to repudiate what YHWH had done and continued to do for them. Verse 14b asserts that this is exactly what their ancestors did. After this review of the past, vv 15–22 address the situation narrated in vv 8–11. There is a change in v 18 to speech about those who have transgressed the covenant and this continues through v 22, except for a reference to ‘you’ (masculine plural) at the end of v 21. The switch to the third person plural in vv 18–22 may be a sign of a later addition but, whatever the case, the verses have an important function in relation to vv 15–17. As a second person masculine plural form of address, vv 15–17 are addressed to the audience in the book as well as its readers. The audience in the book is comprised of both landlords and indentured labourers—who were released but have once again been subjected to servitude. The landlords who take advantage of this reversal therefore face the same kind of punishment as announced in v 17. But it is important that the indentured labourers in the book not be included among those censured and sentenced

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 100 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 101

for the transgression. They are not the guilty party in this episode. Verses 18–22 identify two guilty parties, one is the ‘officials of Judah, the officials of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land’ in v 19, and the other ‘King Zedekiah and his officials’ in v 21.12 The first group will suffer the fate of the calf severed in two, a bitter comment on the seriousness of their offence, and they will end up as food for birds and animals. This is in accord with prophecies such as 7:33; 15:4; 19:7. The particular punishment in store for the second group, Zedekiah and his officials, is however in accord with Jeremiah’s prophecy in 34:3 that Zedekiah will be given into the hand of the Babylonians.13 The forms of punishment decreed for those listed in vv 19 and 21 may be related to the trio of ‘sword, pestilence (or plague) and famine’ (v 17b), ‘a phrase that is common throughout Jeremiah (21:9; 24:10; 27:13; 29:17; 32:24; 38:2) to describe the disaster of war’.14 Within the more immediate context of chapter 34 the trio is linked to a play on the word ‘release’ (deor) that occurs in vv 8b and 15a (translated in NRSV as ‘liberty’), and twice in 17 which, as noted above, is the term used in Leviticus 25:10 to describe the cancellation of the debts of all indentured labourers that occurred as part of the Jubilee year. Zedekiah’s declaration (qara’) of a release brought about its opposite in two ways. On the one-hand, he reinstated debt slavery on the news of the Babylonian withdrawal. On the other hand, his about face pro- faned the divine name which he had no doubt invoked in the house of YHWH’s name as part of the declaration. In response to this affront, YHWH declared, according to v 17, ‘I am going to grant (qara’) a release to you’, that is, a corresponding reversal of what YHWH would do had the king and those involved in the affair remained loyal.

12. Jacobson (‘A Freedom that is no Freedom’, 399–400) also identifies three pronouncements of judgement in vv 17, 18–20 and 21–22 but I disagree with his proposal of three successive stages in each accompanying punishment; namely initial action (cf vv 13, 15, 15), intermediate action (cf vv 16, 17, 16) and final action (cf 18, 17, 22). This does not take into account the shift in addressee from second to third person. 13. The term ‘his officials’ in v 21 presumably refers to members of the royal court who would have had the responsibility of implementing the king’s decree—both the initial release and its subsequent reversal which, vv 21–22 clearly imply, was initiated by the king and his court when the Babylonians temporarily raised the siege. 14. So, Boadt, Jeremiah 26–52, 76.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 101 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM 102 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Chapter 34 does not state what YHWH would have done had the king and those involved in the release remained faithful. However, I would suggest that an answer can be offered by turning to another key word in the chapter and the links it provides with the larger context, in particular chapter 27. The word in question is ‘slave/servant’; as with many Hebrew words the same consonants (‘bd) are employed for both the noun and verb. The noun form occurs in both singular (34:10) and plural forms (vv 9, 11, 13, 16), with the verb form in vv 9 and 14. In chapter 27 Jeremiah is portrayed donning a yoke and appealing to the nations, to Zedekiah, and to the priests and the people to become servants/slaves of the king of Babylon (cf 27:8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17).15 By doing so YHWH will ensure that they save their lives. As 25:11 asserts, servitude to Babylon is YHWH’s decree and so there is no escape from it. As YHWH declares in 34:15, the general release proclaimed by Zedekiah and enacted was ‘right in my sight’. In another play on the verb turn/return (shub), the release was a reversal (a turning) of a form of enslavement, one that would render all free, as was the case when they came out of the house of slavery in Egypt. And, as with that foundational reversal, this action would position king and people to undertake the next great stage in their journey with YHWH, to submit to becoming servants/slaves of Babylon as Jeremiah earlier urged them to do in chapter 27. Their obedience in doing so would ensure their lives in the crisis of the siege and exile. However, according to the theology of the book, YHWH knew that Zedekiah and his ilk would take the first opportunity to ‘turn’ and ‘return’ those released to debt status. Their reversal of the release was based on the hope that the Babylonian withdrawal signaled a return to the status quo, just as the priests and people in 27:16–20 hoped for an early end to the first exile and a return of the temple treasures. One may also say that the king and people’s release of their indentured labourers and its reversal in chapter 34 were effectively one action driven by one motive—to be in charge of events on their own terms and for their own gain. There is a grim irony in the latter; those involved sought to return their fellow men and women to the ‘prison’ of debt slavery for their own advantage, whereas the reader realises

15. According to 25:14 and 27:7, there will come a time in the unfolding of YHWH’s purpose when Babylon itself will become the slave of other nations.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 102 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 103

that they are the real prisoners—sentenced by the universal judge in 34:19–22. In contrast, the situation of those who were in debt to them would no doubt cease with the Babylonian conquest. The statement in 39:10 that the Babylonians left people from among the poor in the land and gave them vineyards and fields may have these in mind. If so, the book presents their fate as a dramatic contrast to that described for Zedekiah and his kind. In short, as the book unfolds one of its key theological claims is that nothing can thwart YHWH’s universal purpose. The fate of both the transgressors and the transgressed are integral components of it. The portrayal of each group reveals YHWH as the one just and merciful Sovereign over time and place. As well as this the presentation of each group in the book provides a torah or instruction for the reader. Further food for thought emerges when one returns to the encounter between Zedekiah and Jeremiah in 32:1–5, but now reads it in light of the chronologically earlier encounter in 34:1–7 and 8–22. The condemnation of Zedekiah in the latter passage for his re–imprisonment of the debtors in Judah and Jerusalem did not lead to any ‘turning’ on his part, any repentance. Instead, he imprisoned Jeremiah and sought to exercise control over the prisoner by interrogating him about his earlier prophecy in chapter 34. His imprisonment of Jeremiah may even have been a ploy designed to pressure Jeremiah into revoking or revising the prophecy that Zedekiah quotes him as having uttered (32:3b–5). While this is similar to the one in 34:2–5, there are some changes. There is close similarity between 32:3b–5a and 34:2–3, both of which proclaim the conquest of the city, Zedekiah’s imprisonment by the king of Babylon, his personal encounter with the Babylonian king, and his exile as prisoner to Babylon.16 Where the prophecies differ is as follows. In 34:4–5 Zedekiah is assured that he will die in peace, presumably in Babylon, and not by the sword, and that he will be mourned like earlier Judean kings. This promise is not in the quoted prophecy of 32:3b–5; instead v 5a states that Zedekiah will remain in Babylon until YHWH visits (phaqad, NRSV ‘attends to’) him, while v 5b states that ‘though you fight against the Chaldeans, you shall not succeed’.

16. One notable difference is that the burning of the city in 34:2b is not mentioned in 32:3b–5a.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 103 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM 104 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

One may explain the differences by proposing that they reflect a less than accurate royal memory or are a deliberate distortion. The former seems unlikely, given the portrayal of Zedekiah as a king who seeks to maintain control over events and exercise his authority. The second is also unlikely, given the term phaqad can mean ‘visit/attend’ or ‘punish’. This would seem to constitute something of a reversal of the promise in 34:5 that he would die in peace and be mourned with great respect. It seems reasonable to propose therefore that Zedekiah’s ‘quotation’ is to be read as a subsequent version of Jeremiah’s prophecy than the one in 34:2–5. As spoken by Jeremiah it would have been in the second person masculine singular like the earlier one, but it is appropriate for the report of it to be cast in the third person. Zedekiah does not proclaim a prophetic word. The revised version was presumably made in light of Zedekiah’s refusal to surrender to Babylon (hence with the addition of 32:5b) and it implies a much harsher imprisonment than in the earlier version. Granted this is the case it indicates that, as Zedekiah is presented in this subsequent encounter, he is already a prisoner of Nebuchadrez- zar who is YHWH’s servant/slave and acting on YHWH’s authority. As YHWH’s servant Nebuchadrezzar is a free agent in comparison to Zedekiah who, by rejecting YHWH’s word, becomes a slave/prisoner of his distorted perception of reality. This impression is heightened when one compares him with Jeremiah. Though ostensibly Zedeki- ah’s prisoner the prophet is protected by YHWH and empowered to proclaim YHWH’s word and do YHWH’s work, as the subsequent account of the purchase of the field in 32:6–15 amply testifies. As noted in earlier instances of hostility towards Jeremiah, this is in keeping with the assurances YHWH gives at the time of his commission (1:18–19; cf also 15:20–21). Two further comments may be added about the character Zedekiah as portrayed in the book. One is that despite his attempts to avoid imprisonment, even by imprisoning others, he ultimately gets to learn what it is like to be a prisoner/slave of another. It is the most brutal form of imprisonment recounted in the book, namely the report of his capture by the Babylonians in chapter 39. The other is that unlike Jehoiakim in chapters 26 and 36, there is no report in the book of Zedekiah seeking to kill Jeremiah. He imprisons Jeremiah but still seeks him out to request a hopefully positive prophetic word (as in 21:1–2 and 37:17–21; 38:14–26), or to interrogate him about a neg-

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 104 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 105

ative word that he has spoken (32:1–5). Both attitudes indicate that he did not, or felt he could not, dismiss Jeremiah as a genuine prophet. Despite this he could not, or refused, to accept Jeremiah’s word and change. This may reflect historical reality but, within the context of the book, Zedekiah may be presented as a representative or embodi- ment of the people. As noted in my preceding volume, a feature of the three lessons that YHWH conducts for the troubled prophet in chapters 13–15 is the duplicity of the people. When there is trouble, they will appeal to YHWH and tick what they think are the right boxes as part of their appeal. But they expect things to then return to the comfortable and self–indulgent situation they identify as ‘the normal’. The last thing they are capable of is genuine repentance and change.

Jeremiah 35 This intriguing tale about a group called the Rechabites takes the reader back to the reign of the earlier king Jehoiakim, as does the following chapter 36.17 We have here another example of chronological reversal. According to 36:1, 9 the account of the written, destroyed and rewritten scroll took place in the fourth and fifth years of Jehoia- kim who reigned for eleven years (cf 2 Kgs 23:36). The fourth year of Jehoiakim is also the setting for chapter 25. In neither chapter is there any reference to the Babylonian threat, whereas in 35:11 the Rech- abites give the Babylonian invasion as the reason why they have taken refuge in Jerusalem. This development presumably took place after the fifth year of Jehoiakim and may be associated with the events narrated in 2 Kings 24:1–2, namely Jehoiakim’s initial status as a Babylo- nian vassal, his subsequent rebellion and the troubles this triggered. The setting of chapter 35, with the Rechabites seeking safety from

17. The Rechabites in this chapter are generally identified as a group that sought to maintain a semi–nomadic lifestyle in keeping with Israel’s early days. Its founder, Jonadab son of Rechab, is the same J(eh)onadab who features in the story of Jehu’s revolt in 2 Kgs 10:15–24. A ‘house of Rechab’ is mentioned in the genealogy of 1 Chr 2:55 in association with the Kenites. For more information on the history of the Rechabites, their founder, their rule and lifestyle, see Herbert B Huffmon ‘The Rechabites in the Book of Jeremiah and Their Historical Roots in Israel’, in The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, Interpretation,edited by Jack R Lundbom, Craig A Evans, and Bradford A Anderson, VTSup 178 (Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2018), 191–210, especially 197–207.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 105 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM 106 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Babylon in Jerusalem, would seem to belong to this later period of Jehoiakim’s reign.18 I would agree with most commentators who judge that the portrayal of the loyal Rechabites in chapter 35 provides a powerful contrast to disloyal and duplicitous king Zedekiah and his ilk in chapter 34. However, the chronological reversal indicates another function of chapter 35 in the book, and it is to have the Rechabites stand, as it were, alongside the written scroll in chapter 36 as an enduring sign of YHWH’s unswerving loyalty to those who are loyal to YHWH and YHWH’s word. As YHWH shows loyalty to Jeremiah, Baruch and their supporters by arranging the rewriting of the burnt scroll as a sign that the word of YHWH cannot be destroyed, so the Rechabites are promised ‘a descendant to stand before me for all time’ (35:19) because of their loyalty to the word of their ancestor Jonadab. As noted earlier, this portrayal of the Rechabites as a model of loyalty in the face of challenge also forms a parallel with the report of king Hezekiah and his people in 26:17–29 as another, related model or example; that of a people who heed the word of YHWH and turn from their evil ways. But while there is the parallel there is also development, signaled in the way the respective chapters are structured. My analysis of chapter 26 argued, in agreement with Epp–Tiessen, that the report of the right response of Hezekiah and his people to Micah’s prophecy (vv 17–19) formed the centre of the chapter, framed by the account of the hostility against Jeremiah in vv 1–16 and the murder of Uriah in vv 20–24. A reverse arrangement occurs in chapter 35 with Jeremiah’s prophecy of imminent disaster for a disobedient people in vv 12–17 being framed by the account of the Rechabites’ loyalty in vv 1–11 and the reward YHWH decrees for such loyalty in vv 18–19. The prophet who condemns the people in vv 12–17 is the one who has had the scroll written and rewritten after Jehoiakim burnt it, as reported in the chronologically earlier chapter 36. Hence, on reading chapters 35 and 36, the reader may well be meant to see the Rechabites as the counter sign (of loyalty) that confirms the words on the scroll.

18. Dates for the episode are however disputed. Holladay proposes 599/8 BCE (Jeremiah 2, 246), whereas Lundbom thinks that it could have taken place before 605 or early in 597 BCE (Jeremiah 21–36, 572). Fischer prefers a date before 600 BCE because there is no reference in the chapter to Jehoiakim’s three–year vassalage to Nebuchadrezzar (Jeremia 2, 272).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 106 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 107

Chapter 35 may be divided into two main sections. The first is vv 1–11 and comprises the narrative introduction and YHWH’s initial instruction to Jeremiah (vv 1–2), his execution of the instruction (vv 3–5), and the Rechabites’ response (vv 6–11). The second is vv 12–19 which contain two messages from YHWH that come to Jeremiah and which he conveys to two audiences. The first is to ‘the people of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem’ and comprises vv 13–17. The second is to the house of the Rechabites and comprises vv 18–19. Verses 13–17 contain an indictment of the people of Judah and Jerusalem followed by an announcement of their punishment. Verses 18–19 state that, because of its obedience to the command of its ancestor Jonadab, the house of the Rechabites will never lack a descendant to stand before YHWH.19 In relation to the first section, one may reasonably include the response of the Rechabites in Jeremiah’s first–person report of his execution of YHWH’s instructions. There are two other passages in the book that have a first–person report by Jeremiah of the implementation of YHWH’s instructions; namely the episode of the ruined loincloth in 13:1–11, and his visit to the potter’s house in 18:1–11. Each has an instruction from YHWH, Jeremiah’s first–person report of its implementation, and a word from YHWH about the revelatory nature of the instruction and its implementation. The similarity between these passages and chapter 35 would suggest that what Jeremiah is instructed to do, and what the Rechabites do and say in response, all function as part of YHWH’s revelatory purpose. Even though the Rechabites are, and must of course be, free to respond to Jeremiah’s invitation to drink wine, YHWH knows they will be loyal to their tradition just as YHWH knows the people of Judah will not be loyal. This is how the reader is meant to understand vv 3–11, and it is confirmed by the way Rechabite loyalty is incorporated into Jer- emiah’s subsequent sermon to his audience in vv 12–17. Verses 18–19 imply that the Rechabites themselves are not aware of their role in the unfolding of YHWH’s initiative. Hence, as well as forming a contrast to the preceding condemnation of Judah and Jerusalem, these verses

19. Within the context of the chapter it is clear that the term ‘house of the Rechabites’ (35:2, 3b, 19) refers to the family/clan and not to a dwelling that they occupy in Jerusalem.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 107 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM 108 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

inform them of their contribution to YHWH’s purpose and what this means for them. This understanding of vv 3–11 suggests that, even though the text may be based on an historical incident in the life of Jeremiah, it has been carefully tailored to promote its theology of YHWH’s purpose for Israel and the nations. A number of features point to this. One is YHWH’s instruction to offer the Rechabites wine. Within the context this is entirely appropriate because, among the five commands of their code of behaviour listed by the Rechabites in vv 6–7, the prohibition against wine is the one that can be demonstrated in the temple precincts in a public way, and by all of them together (cf v 3b, ‘the whole house of the Rechabites’).20 A second is that Jeremiah does not take them into the temple proper but the chamber of ‘the sons of Hanan son of Igdaliah, the man of God’. This could be a historical detail and that Hanan was not hostile to Jeremiah. If this were the case then the location of his chamber near those of temple authori- ties would be appropriate for a public gesture. One should also take into account that, in the chronologically earlier chapter 36, Jeremiah instructs Baruch to read the words of the scroll because he is forbidden from entering the temple (vv 5–6). In relation to this one may also note that there is no indication that Jeremiah’s proclamation of YHWH’s words in 35:12–17 took place in the temple. A third is the prophetic role of Jeremiah. Di Pede proposes that what is unique about Jeremiah’s prophetic role in chapter 35 is that he is cast as a false prophet, inciting the Rechabites to do what is against their tradition.21 Whereas a true prophet of Israel would challenge his/her audience to remain loyal to the torah, as expressed in the Decalogue, Jeremiah here effectively invites the Rechabites to break their ‘Pentalogue’ or five commands, as listed in vv 6–7. But Jeremiah is commanded to play this role by YHWH in order to contrast the

20. As Brueggemann notes, the Rechabites name five commands from their ancestor in vv 6–7 to which they are loyal—no alcohol, no houses, no crops, no vineyards, living in tents. The text may be drawing a parallel between this ‘Pentalogue’ of five commands and the Decalogue Commentary( on Jeremiah, 331). 21. Cf di Pede, ‘Lorsque Jérémie joue les faux prophètes: la tentation des Récabites (Jr 35) comme réflexion sur la vraie et la fausse prophétie’, inETR, 92/3 (2017): 537– 55. An earlier Italian version is ‘Quando Geremia fa il falso profeta: la tentazione dei recabiti (Ger 35) come reflessione sulla vera e la falsa profezia’, in Rivista Biblica, 53 (2015): 307–26.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 108 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 109

loyalty of the Rechabites with the disloyalty of Judah and Jerusalem, as is pointed out in the speech that follows. Overall therefore, his actions and words in vv 3–11 are in accord with his role in the book as the true prophet of YHWH. As di Pede notes, it creates a link with the conflict over true and false prophecy in chapters 26–29. In these chapters Jeremiah is portrayed defending the truth of YHWH’s words against the words of lying prophets.22 This in turn reveals YHWH’s instructions in 35:2 as part of this purpose and not therefore as a test of the loyalty of dubious Rechabites. Di Pede’s thesis provides an intriguing interpretation of Jeremiah’s role in the narrative but one feature of the text that counsels some caution is that Jeremiah is not commanded by YHWH to say to the Rechabites ‘Thus says YHWH’ in relation to the drinking of wine. All that Jeremiah reports is that ‘I said to them, “Have some wine’”. A fourth feature of vv 3–11, and one that also relates to the larger context, is obedience to a command. The reason the Rechabites give for refusing to drink wine is that it is in accord with what their ancestor commanded them, and that to disobey this injunction would be to show disloyalty to ‘all that he commanded us’ (v 8).23 Accord- ing to many texts in the preceding chapters, the people’s refusal to obey (Hebrew ‘hear’) the word/command of YHWH is the key issue that reaps the punishment of Babylonian conquest and exile.24 The

22. Di Pede, ‘Lorsque Jérémie joue les faux prophètes’, 548, fn 32. 23. In relation to this one may note the ready admission by the Rechabites in v 11 about coming to Jerusalem and the reasons for this. It is an honest decision they made in the circumstances and so not seen as a breaking of their code. There is no reference to building houses in Jerusalem in breach of the injunction against building houses (cf vv 7, 9) and some commentators think they may have lived in tents inside or perhaps outside the city. Thus Lundbom (Jeremiah 21–36, 576) thinks v 11 refers to living in Jerusalem in tents and reads the verbs in v 10 in the present tense. The chapter contains no censure from YHWH in relation to this move to Jerusalem (cf di Pede, ‘Lorsque Jérémie joue les faux prophètes’, 549–50; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 196). 24. Within chapters 25–29 and 34 the passages condemning disobedience/refusal to hear/listen are 25:3, 7, 8; 26:3, 4, 5, 12, 13; 29:19; 34:14, 17. Passages exhorting people not to hear/listen to the words of false prophets are 27:9, 14, 16, 17; 29:8. Passages exhorting people to hear/listen to YHWH are 26:13; 28:7; 29:20; 34:4. There is only one passage that reports the people obeying/hearing the word of YHWH; namely 34:10 in reference to the initial freeing of Hebrew slaves, a gesture that was soon reversed. In contrast, Fretheim (Jeremiah, 497) identifies 7 statements about the unfailing obedience of the Rechabites (35:6, 8, 10, 14 x 2, 16, 18).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 109 13-May-20 5:26:00 PM 110 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Rechabites are a model or example of what the people should do in response to YHWH’s command. The speech in vv 13–19 commences with a rhetorical question about whether the people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem can learn a lesson. The lesson of course refers to the example of the Rech- abites as presented in vv 3–11. In light of what follows, the answer that the addressees (and readers) are meant to give would seem to be not that ‘we must reform and be loyal like the Rechabites in order to avoid punishment’ but ‘we deserve our sentence of punishment as the Rechabites deserve their promise of protection’. The speech is not so much a call to repentance as a declaration of what is in store for a disobedient people and what they will miss out on as a result.25 As v 19 declares, the Rechabites stand, and will continue to stand, before YHWH and the addressees (and readers) as a sign of what might have been. Given this chapter is set after chapter 36, one could say that YHWH provides the classic duo that is frequently employed in association with prophecy; namely the word (the scroll) and the accompanying sign (the Recabites). The indictment that follows the rhetorical question is arranged in an A–B–A’–B’ sequence, one that builds a sharp contrast between the obedience of the Rechabites (v 14a [A], v 16a [A’]) and the disobedience of the addressees (vv 14b–15 [B], v 16b [B’]). Verse 14a recalls the Rechabites’ obedience to their ancestor’s command against drinking wine, as reported in vv 3–11. Whereas Jonadab gave the command once and the Rechabites have always obeyed it, in v 14b YHWH complains that despite persistent calls to do so the addressees have not obeyed YHWH’s commands. Verse 15 then spells out how YHWH has been persistent—via ‘all my servants the prophets’—and quotes the content of YHWH’s message. It amounts to a succinct summary of much of Jeremiah’s preaching in preceding passages.26 Verse 16 concludes the indictment by restating the obedience of the Rechabites (v 16a) and the contrasting disobedience of ‘this people’ (v 16b). Verse 17 then announces YHWH’s judgement in a particularly formal manner. It is as if this pronouncement is a definitive or final one, and is for all listeners and not just those addressed in the

25. As noted by Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 248. 26. Fischer (Jeremia 2, 277–78) notes the close connection in particular between chapter 35 and 7:14, 17 and 25:4–7.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 110 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 111

indictment as ‘you’. Hence the latter are referred to in the third person rather than addressed directly (prepared for by the switch from ‘you’ to ‘this people’ in v 16b), and the sentence pronounced is described as ‘all the evil’; NRSV ‘every disaster’), an accumulation of all preceding particular disasters. Two parallel statements at the end of v 17 sum up the evidence against the accused and add further justification to the sentence pronounced. Two key pieces of evidence are given; one is disobedience (not listening/hearing), and the other is not answering. This second accusation may relate to the charge of following other gods (v 15a). It was these gods to whom the accused listened in complete devotion and to whom they answered. After this address to the people of Judah and inhabitants of Jeru- salem, vv 18–19 contain Jeremiah’s address to the house of the Rech- abites in the same personal and direct manner.27 The text has a similar structure to the preceding; a presentation of the evidence that leads to (therefore) and justifies the pronouncement. As Fischer points out, v 18 is the one text in the book that declares a group has complied fully with its commission as expressed in a series of commands.28 The life of the Rechabites has been exemplary and serves as a model for the audience and for readers/listeners. Verse 19 promises that, because of this loyalty, the ancestor Jonadab will never ‘lack a descendant to stand before me for all time’. A number of studies see a parallel promise here to the ones in 33:17–18, which assert that David will never lack a man to sit on the throne of Israel and the levitical priests will never lack a man in YHWH’s presence to perform the sacrificial offerings. This may well be the case but, in my judgement, the evidence points more to a connection with Jeremiah’s sermons in the temple in chapters 7 and 26. A pointer in this direction is that each commences (cf 7:2; 26:2) with YHWH’s command to Jeremiah to ‘stand’ in the temple, the sacred dwelling or place of YHWH on earth, and the place where the people are to gather for worship. A third text that uses this verb to introduce a sermon by Jeremiah in the temple

27. Di Pede (‘Lorsque Jérémie joue les faux prophètes’, 553, fn. 47) notes that the text does not record YHWH commissioning Jeremiah to speak these words. However, within the context one may take the introduction in v 12 as embracing both speeches. The LXX has a direct speech from YHWH. For a discussion of the MT and LXX see her study ‘Un oracle pour les Récabites (Jr 35,18–19 TM) ou à leur propos (42,18–19 LXX)?’, in SJOT, 20 (2006): 90–102. 28. Fischer, (Jeremia 2, 276).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 111 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM 112 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

is 19:14. The stubborn disobedience of the people will result in this place being destroyed as the northern shrine of Shiloh was destroyed (cf 7:14–15; 26:6, 9). The temple’s time will come to an end, as will the disobedient people’s time in the land and in Jerusalem. As was noted in my first volume, the two key sermons that Jer- emiah preaches at the gates of the temple (chapter 7) and the gates of the city (17:19–27) are about the two arenas in which we live our lives—place and time. According to the theology of the book of Jer- emiah, YHWH freed Israel from a place and period/time of slavery (Egypt) and established them in a chosen place (the promised land and its capital Jerusalem) where they lived a life free of slave–time. The key sign of this new time was the Sabbath rest. The one condition for enjoying this new life was obedience to YHWH’s commands. Jeremiah’s sermon in chapter 7 pronounces the punishment in store for those who pollute the worship of YHWH in the sacred place or, what is worse, worship other gods there. For its part, the sermon in 17:19–27 announces the end of life in the city for those who abuse the Sabbath rest by turning it into another day of work for their own advantage. After the transitional chapter 25, the fate of the sacred place is resumed in Jeremiah’s temple sermon in chapter 26, a clear echo of the earlier one in chapter 7. The question of time and YHWH’s lordship of Israel’s and the nations’ history is addressed in the chapters 27–29 that deal with the decreed seventy–year exile. The one who brings Israel’s life in the land to an end and sends its people into exile is also the one who decrees the period of exile, after which Israel will be returned to the land—the place—and live ‘before me forever’ (31:36b). Chapters 34 and 35 provide a third and final set of texts on the theme of time and place before the book narrates the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile of the people from the chosen place for the designated period of time. At first glance it would seem that the order of the previous presentations is reversed. The theme of the Sabbath and Jubilee release in chapter 34 indicates that it deals with YHWH’s lordship of time, and the setting of Jeremiah’s encounter with the Rechabites in the precincts of the temple in chapter 35 indicates that it deals with the sacred place. One can certainly align chapter 34 with the abuse of time because the reversal of the release of slaves triggered by the temporary lifting of the siege betrays the same basic attitude to the decreed seventy–years of exile as in chapters 27–28. The king and

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 112 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 113

his kind will grasp the first apparent sign of an early end of Babylo- nian ‘time’ to try and resume their ‘time’, which they have exploited to their own advantage. Chapter 35 is located after chapter 34 in the book because, while it confirms the expulsion of the people from the sacred place (land and city) for their disobedience, it claims that YHWH has established an alternative sacred place. As v 19 implies, this is the ‘place’ occupied by every descendant of Rechab who stands ‘before’ YHWH in prayer and worship. Understandably this place is not identified as the temple because it is destined to destruction. But YHWH will continue to be present in the land, wherever the Rechabites gather to ‘stand before me’ and this will continue ‘for all time’. Thus, even as the book proclaims the end of Judah’s time in the sacred place—taken in the broad sense as the land—it signals that the land remains and will remain YHWH’s sacred place and a key sign of this is the loyal House of Rechab. There may be an implication here that when the people are restored to the land/place in YHWH’s good time, they will find the Rechabites as a model of loyalty that YHWH has provided for them to emulate.

Jeremiah 36 This is widely recognised as a key chapter in the book and an initial indication of this is its chronological setting.29 According to 36:1 YHWH’s instruction to Jeremiah to write all the words spoken to him on a scroll took place in the same fourth year of Jehoiakim as his sermon to all the people in chapter 25. This was the same year as the word he spoke to his faithful scribe Baruch in chapter 45, and the same year that the new Babylonian king Nebuchadrezzar defeated Pharaoh Neco of Egypt and thereby effectively became the power-

29. My comments will be primarily on the function of the chapter within the context of the book of Jeremiah. Understandably, the account of how the spoken words of Jeremiah came to be written, then rewritten and expanded after being burnt by king Jehoiakim, has made it a key text for analysis of the composition of the book. In a recent essay Stipp provides a review of scholarly hypotheses before advancing his own that attributes the final stages of its composition to a post–dtr ‘patrizische Redaktion’ for whom Baruch was the model scribe (‘Baruchs Erben. Die Schriftprophetie im Spiegel von Jer 36’, inStudien zum Jeremiabuch Text und Redaktion, FAT 96 [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015], 381–408).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 113 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM 114 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

broker of the ANE (46:2). According to 25:9, Nebuchadrezzar was YHWH’s appointed servant to invade and conquer Judah and the surrounding nations as punishment for their wickedness. They were to serve the king of Babylon for seventy years, after which Babylon itself would be punished for its own wicked deeds. YHWH is the one Sovereign of history before whom all the nations are, and will be, held accountable for what they do. I would argue that chapters 25; 36 and 46:2 have been given the same chronological setting in order to promote a key component of the theology of prophecy in the book of Jeremiah. There is the initial spoken word, the subsequent writing down of the word to underline its enduring nature, and an accompanying sign that confirms its truth. The sign in this case was the defeat of Egypt by Nebuchadrezzar in his first year, which was also the fourth year of Jehoiakim. As pointed out earlier, the superscription to the oracle on Egypt (46:2) is effectively a declaration that the oracle was fulfilled. A second indication is that the location of chapter 36 after chapters 27–34 provides another instance of chronological reversal. Chapters 27–34 deal with developments during the reign of the subsequent and last king of Judah, Zedekiah, but also look forward to the building and planting of a new order after the condemned disorder in Judah is plucked up and pulled down.30 The chronological setting of chapter 36 underlines the guilt of Judah’s kings and its people by showing how YHWH provided two opportunities for them to listen and obey the word, yet they rejected both. The first was Jeremiah’s review in chapter 25 of his preaching since the days of Josiah, the second was the written version of it on the scroll. Both opportunities were provided in the reign of Jehoiakim when the Babylonians first emerged as the superpower of the ANE. What eventuated was what was prophesied and was entirely justified. In order to make this point, the book tells of the first exile (24), the refusal of king Zedekiah and people to learn from this and accept the decreed period of Babylonian domination (27–29), and the siege of Jerusalem before its demise (32:1–5; 34). The actual account of the conquest of Jerusalem and exile is located after chapter 36. The reason for this was likely twofold. Because chapters 37–39 are mainly in narrative form, they serve to confirm the realisation of the

30. My understanding of the arrangement of chapters 25–36 was presented in the initial ‘Outline of the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 114 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 115

prophecy of Judah’s demise and therefore the truth of that prophecy and indeed all Jeremiah’s prophecies. For their part, chapters 40–44 confirm the truth of the prophecy about the decreed period of Baby- lonian domination. There can be no escape from it. One can therefore see that chapter 36 not only looks back, both chronologically and textually, but also looks forward.31 Although the city and temple was destroyed by the Babylonians the scroll remains or stands as a sign of YHWH’s ongoing presence and rule over place and time, and that the future will unfold according to YHWH’s word, as has the past. The scroll stands as the enduring sign of the enduring nature of this word. The chapter has also become a pivotal text in reconstructions of the composition of the book. Details such as the naming of various officials, the description of locations such as the secretary Gemariah’s chamber in v 10 and the king’s winter apartment, as well as the time of year, suggest the chapter or parts thereof were close in time to the events described. It could therefore have been part of an early version of the book.32 However, similarities between the arrangement of chapter 36 and 26 raised questions as to whether both are historical or one reliant on the other, or both literary creations. Both chapters commence with YHWH’s command to Jeremiah; in chapter 26 it is to preach, in chapter 36 it is to write his words on a scroll. Both chapters report two reactions among the people and officials; in chapter 26 it is their reaction to his preaching (vv 7–15, 16–19); in chapter 36 it is their reaction to Baruch’s reading of the scroll (vv 9–13, 14–19). Both chapters report the reaction of king Jehoiakim; 26:20–23 reports his reaction to an earlier prophet Uriah whom he executed for his preaching; 36:20–26 reports his destruction of the scroll as it is being read to him. Both chapters also tell of the protection of Jeremiah (and Baruch in chapter 36) from likely arrest and execution (like Uriah). It has also been noted that both narratives contain the main structural features of biblical storytelling; namely an initial setting, dramatic factors that drive the story forward and lead to a climax or crisis in the reaction of the king, resolution of this crisis via the protection of

31. Cf Fretheim, Jeremiah, 499; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 285–86; Stulman, Order amid Chaos, 84. Carroll sees it as the end of Part III of the book—chapters 26–36 (Jeremiah, 662), similarly Boadt, Jeremiah 26–52, 82–83. 32. A good review of scholarly research and discussion of this issue, including Mowinckel’s classic theory of 4 sources of the book of Jeremiah, is provided by Ferry, ‘“Le livre dans le livre”’, 283–86.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 115 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM 116 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Jeremiah (and Baruch). These structural features unfold the plot of the story, which in both cases would seem to be the battle between good (the prophetic word) and evil (reaction of those hostile to it but who cannot thwart it).33 Two other contextual considerations have had an impact on the study of chapter 36. One is the contrast between the reaction of Jehoiakim to the reading of the scroll in 36:20–26, and the reaction of king Josiah to the reading of the book of the law discovered in the temple in 2 Kings 22. Whereas Josiah listens to the law being read and obeys, Jehoiakim rejects the words of the scroll. Whereas Josiah tears (Hebrew qara‘) his garments as a sign of repentance (22:11), Jehoiakim tears/cuts (qara‘) the scroll with a knife as a sign of rejection (Jer 36:23). Whereas Josiah burns idolatrous cult objects (2 Kgs 23:4, 6, 11, 16, 20), Jehoiakim burns the scroll (Jer 36:23). The contrast extends even to their deaths, with Josiah promised a burial in peace (2 Kgs 22:20) but Jehoiakim denied both burial and a descendant on the throne (Jer 36:30).34 The other is the proposed connection between Jeremiah being commanded by YHWH to rewrite the scroll after it had been burned, and Moses being commanded to rewrite the words of the covenant on new tablets (Exod 34:27–28) after he had smashed the first set upon seeing the people’s apostasy with the golden calf (32:19).35 Evidence such as this has led a number of scholars to propose that Jeremiah 36 was composed as a literary device to draw such contrasts and parallels, and thereby enhance the portrait of Jeremiah as an advocate of the emerging Torah/Mosaic law in con-

33. Noted for chapter 36 by Carroll, Jeremiah, 666; and di Pede, Au delà du refus, 306. For the features of biblical storytelling, see Amit, Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. 34. Cf Ferry, “‘Le livre dans le livre’”, 295; also Carroll, Jeremiah, 663–64; di Pede, Au delà du refus, 303–4; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 285–86; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 499; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 254–55; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 203, 208; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 605–6; and Pamela J Scalise, ‘Baruch as First Reader: Baruch’s Lament in the Structure of the Book of Jeremiah’, in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen, ed. John Goldingay, Library of Biblical Studies, 459 (New York: T&T Clark, 2007), 291–307, see 292–93. 35. For a discussion of relevant texts see Eckhart Otto, ‘Jeremia und die Tora: Ein nachexilisches Diskurs’, in Tora in der Hebräischen Bibel: Studien zur Redaktionsgeschichte und synchroner Logik diachroner Transformationen, BZABR 7 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007), 134–62.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 116 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 117

trast to rival claims by priestly tradents.36 It is argued the chapter may have undergone some redaction as part of this alleged dispute but the aim was to enhance rather than compromise the text’s elegant literary construction.37 Such hypotheses do not rule out that such an event took place but it was shaped creatively in a way that would promote the book’s agenda. In keeping with the focus of this study, the comments that follow are based on the present text of the MT. The chapter may be divided into the following distinctive parts. After the chronological introduction in v 1,38 vv 2–4 contain YHWH’s command to Jeremiah to write all the words that YHWH has spoken to him on a scroll, followed by a report of how Jeremiah implemented this command—by engaging Baruch as a scribe. Verses 5–8 have a similar structure, with vv 5–7 containing Jeremiah’s instructions to Baruch as to what he is to do with the scroll, and v 8 reporting Baruch’s obedient compliance. Verses 9–26 then recount how Baruch’s reading of the scroll triggered three successive responses; the first in vv 9–13, the second in vv 14–19, and the third in vv 20–26. Each response is portrayed taking place in a different location; the first in the precincts of the temple, the second in the secretary’s chamber in the king’s house, the third in the winter apartment of king Jehoiakim. Verses 27–32 report YHWH’s instructions to Jeremiah to produce a new scroll after Jehoiakim burnt the first one, and YHWH’s condemnation of him for this act. A significant feature of the instruction to Jeremiah in v 3 is YHWH’s hope that the scroll will prompt Judah to turn from their evil ways ‘so that I may forgive them their iniquity and their sin’. In the corresponding sermons earlier in the book, such as 25:6b and 26:3, the outcome of repentance does not seem to be forgiveness so much as the withholding of evil (Hebrew ra‘ah NRSV ‘disaster’) from

36. Thus Carroll,Jeremiah , 666; with McKane in agreement (Jeremiah 2, 901–2.) Lundbom defends the historicity of the text (Jeremiah 21–36, 583). 37. The connections identified above between chapter 36 and 2 Kgs 22–23, as well as terminological and phraseological similarities, are also appealed to by those proposing that the book of Jeremiah was assembled principally by one or more dtr redactors. A key representative of this hypothesis is Thiel,Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45. 38. A widely accepted date for the fourth year of Jehoiakim is 605 BCE with the public reading of the scroll therefore taking place in his fifth year (MT), or 604 BCE (v 9); in preference to the LXX which dates it in his eighth year.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 117 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM 118 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

those who repent of their evil ways. Two reasons may be adduced for this difference. One is that forgiveness of sin would seem to be a more foundational response of YHWH to Judah ‘turning’ from its evil ways, with the reversal of the threat of disaster a sign of forgiveness. If this is correct, then 36:3 goes deeper than the preceding texts to touch the core of Judah’s (and Israel’s) relationship with YHWH.39 The difference may also explain why Jeremiah instructs Baruch to read the scroll on a fast day (v 6). Scholars have proposed that this could refer to a day of prayer in response to the rising Babylonian threat, or to the kind of fast mentioned in the Mishna when the country was faced by drought.40 However, I would judge a more likely day is another proposal, namely the Day of Atonement or one like it, when the people acknowledge their sinfulness and pray for forgiveness.41 Even if this Day was not in the mind of those who compiled the chapter, they may have portrayed Jeremiah giving this instruction in the hope that it would function as an added urge to the people to repent. Two questions arise from reading the next section, vv 5–8. One is why Jeremiah does not write the scroll himself as YHWH instructs him to do in v 2. A number of reasons may be proposed but, in my judgement, the most persuasive one is that in proclaiming the words publicly to Baruch, Jeremiah is doing what prophets were principally called to do—to proclaim publicly the word of YHWH. It was the role of addressees, such as an audience or scribe, to hear the word and keep it—in both obeying it and preserving it (as on a scroll).42 This lends

39. The other occurrences of the verbsalakh (forgive) in the book are 5:1, 7; 31:34; 33:8 and 50:20. In 5:1 YHWH commands Jeremiah to find one just person ‘so that I may pardon (forgive) Jerusalem’. When Jeremiah reports that he cannot find one, YHWH asks (or laments) in 5:7 ‘How can I pardon (forgive) you?’ Both 31:34 and 33:8 promise complete forgiveness in the new order that YHWH will establish after the demise of the old, and this is confirmed in 50:20. 40. Cf Brueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 250; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 499; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 205; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 592, 597. 41. Cf Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 255. A debated matter is whether the Day of Atonement, legislated for only in the book of Leviticus (chapter 15), which is commonly regarded as late priestly material, would have been known in the pre–exilic period. 42. From a historical–critical perspective, the focus here on the role of a scribe may indicate the rise in importance of such officials and the status of the written text in the post–exilic period (cf Ferry, ‘“La livre dans le livre”’, 300–2.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 118 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 119

authority to the scroll as having divine origin. One may add that there is no need for YHWH to spell this out to Jeremiah; as portrayed in the book he is by this stage a seasoned prophet who knows how to operate in a way that is appropriate to each situation. A second question concerns the reason why Jeremiah states that he is prevented from entering the temple. The text does not give a clear reason. Perhaps it is linked to his imprisonment by Pashhur at the gate of the temple in 20:1–6 for pronouncing disaster on Jerusalem and surrounding towns in 19:14–15. However, no date is given for this incident. Alter- natively, it may have been an edict issued by Jehoiakim in response to Jeremiah’s sermon in the temple in chapter 26, which is set at the beginning of his reign. Whatever the case, within the present text the engagement of Baruch as scribe and Jeremiah’s subsequent absence serves to focus attention on the scroll.43 The scroll as it were now takes on a life somewhat independently of the prophet. But it is as much the living and active word of YHWH as the spoken word of Jeremiah. As a further comment on vv 5–7 one may note that the hope Jeremiah expresses in v 7 takes up the one expressed by YHWH in v 3. That is, the people will plead for mercy/forgiveness and their turning from their evil ways will show the sincerity of their plea. The need for this and its urgency is then underlined by reference to the great anger and wrath of YHWH. According to vv 9–10, the initial reading of the scroll by Baruch takes place in the hearing of all the people assembled at the temple for a fast day. It would have been physically impossible for a person in the ancient world to be heard by everybody in a crowd. Two reasons may however be offered for the report. One is that an expression such as ‘in the hearing of all the people’ was an accepted rhetorical device to emphasise the public nature of what was proclaimed. A second is the proposal by Joachim Schaper that a public recitation such as described in this text was in order to put the text ‘in force legally and thus to make it a legal ‘witness’ against those to whom it has been read

43. According to Holladay (Jeremiah 2, 255) the Hebrew verb ‘atsar can refer to prevention, being in custody, or to hiding, and the context effectively rules out a firm decision one way or another. According to Carroll the key point is that the absence of Jeremiah from the temple is necessary for the plot of the story (Jeremiah, 665).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 119 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM 120 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

o u t ’. 44 Schaper bases this proposal on a comparison of vv 1–10 with Deuteronomy 1:5; Habakkuk 2:2–3 and some ANE parallels. In his view, the Hebrew verb ba’ar, which occurs in the piel form in Deuter- onomy 1:5 and Habakkuk 2:2, has the sense of ‘to put into force/make legal’. In Habakkuk 2:2 the verb is employed in connection with the writing down of YHWH’s word so that it may be proclaimed/recited publicly, a similar scenario to that of Jeremiah 36. This understanding of the chapter adds an extra dimension to its meaning and function within the book. Despite the claim in v 10 that the scroll was proclaimed in the hearing of all the people, there is no report of them turning from their evil ways as YHWH hopes in v 3, nor any plea to YHWH as Jeremiah hopes in v 7. Verse 11 records only one listener responding to the reading, a certain Micaiah son of Gemariah son of Shaphan the secretary, who reports ‘all the words he had heard’ to a group of officials gathered in another location, the chamber of another secretary Elishama, at the king’s house (v 13). This prompts them to summon Baruch to bring the scroll and read it. One may note the following salient features in this second reading of the scroll. The first is that the summons to Baruch presumably enables the officials to check the contents of the scroll against what Micaiah reports verbally.45 The second is that the contents of the scroll as read by Baruch cause them alarm and they agree that ‘all these words’ must be reported to the king. This indicates they accept the contents of the scroll to be of national import and requiring immediate attention. Given that such officials would have heard the earlier preaching of Jeremiahcf ( chapters 25 and 26 for example), is their reaction a recognition that the scroll is in line with Jeremiah’s sermons and therefore confirmation of their divine origin and their import? Or is the description of their reaction in 36:16 meant to indicate that the scroll is news for them? Context would tend to favour the former interpretation. The third is their questioning Baruch about the origins of the scroll and his

44. Cf Joachim Schaper ‘On Writing and Reciting in Jeremiah 36’, in Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah, edited by Hans M Barstad and Reinhard Gregor Kratz, BZAW 388 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2009), 137–47. Fischer also sees the public recitation of the scroll as a significant factor in the chapter Jeremia( 2, 290). 45. The officials’ invitation to Baruch to sit with them is seen by some commentators as an indication that he was a respected member of their group (cf Boadt, Jeremiah 26–52, 87; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 295).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 120 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 121

response (vv 17–18). Do they question him so as to be certain that, with so serious and urgent a matter as the message of the scroll, there is no evidence of falsehood or deceit? It came direct from the mouth of Jeremiah.46 The officials’ advice to Baruch and Jeremiah in v 19 looks back to their recognition that the matter needs to be referred to the king, and forward to the encounter with the king that follows. Both texts signal a hostile royal reception and so prepare the reader for what is to come. Despite the indications of a positive attitude of the officials to Baruch and Jeremiah, as indicated in their careful attention to the former’s reading of the scroll, and their advice to both to hide, there is no expression of repentance or plea for forgiveness. Furthermore, despite their concern to check and verify the content and origin of the scroll, they do not refer to it as ‘the words of the Lord from the scroll’, as the narrator does in v 11. In short, do these officials recognise their responsibility, along with that of all the people, to respond with repentance to the words of the scroll or are they dodging this by hand–passing the matter to the king?47 One cannot be certain but it is difficult to escape the impression from a reading of vv 14–19 of a less than full acceptance of the words of the scroll by the officials. The third and final reading of the first scroll is recounted in vv 21–26 and takes place in the king’s winter apartment. The scene unfolds in a similar way to the preceding, suggesting the report of the two readings has been constructed to draw parallels as well as contrasts. There is an initial reporting of the scroll and its contents to the king, matching the earlier report of Micaiah to the officials; the king then sends for the scroll, as the officials earlier requested Baruch to bring the scroll to them; the scroll is then read to the king by a certain Jehudi, as Baruch read the scroll to the officials. There is the reaction of the king to hearing the scroll, namely burning it despite the protests of three of the officials; this contrasts with the alarm among the officials in the earlier reading and their agreement to report its contents to the king. Finally, whereas the preceding scene concludes with the officials advising Baruch and Jeremiah to hide,

46. Granted Schaper’s hypothesis as outlined in fn. 44, there may also be a concern here to check the legal status of the scroll. 47. Di Pede also sees a certain ambiguity in the portrayal of the officials in this second reading by Baruch (Au delà du refus, 300–1), whereas Brueggemann thinks the text portrays them as supportive of Jeremiah (Commentary on Jeremiah, 202–3).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 121 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM 122 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

here the king orders their arrest. The links between the scenes and the sense of an unfolding drama is enhanced by the way the narrative progresses from the temple to the secretary’s house and then to the king’s apartment. There is also the naming of three key officials who are present in both scenes—Elnathan, Delaiah, and Gemariah (cf vv 12b, 25)—and in the third one urge Jehoiakim not to burn the scroll.48 Reflection on these three readings of the scroll within the context of chapter 36 and within the larger context of the book and other HB/ OT literature reveals that the text operates at more than one level, and within a number of areas. From a purely human perspective it seems that as the scroll is borne up the ladder of authority from the people to the officials to the king, its status and authority is questioned, diminished and eventually dismissed. The highest authority in the land rejects it completely by burning it.49 As king, he remains seated while the scroll is destroyed, just as he would remain seated after proclaiming the execution of a prisoner or enemy. But, as the subsequent scene shows, burning a piece of parchment or leather does not destroy its words; rather it heightens their authority. One may also ask whether Jeremiah and Baruch, given the likelihood they knew how the scroll would be received, have been irresponsible in allowing it to fall into the hands of officials and, through them, into the destructive hands of the king. In reply one may say that the same assurance of divine protection YHWH gives to Jeremiah against the assaults of his enemies (cf 1:18–19; 15:20–21), applies equally to the scroll against its enemies.

48. Victor Matthews argues that the narrative is so arranged to make the various locations for the reading of the scroll ‘chained spaces’. Thus ‘The chain of associated activity is reinforced in each case by the presence of the scroll’ (118 of ‘Jeremiah’s Scroll and Linked Zones of Communication’, in BTB, 39/3 [2009]: 116–24). For comments on the three officials named, as well as others in the chapter, see Fischer, Jeremia 2, 293; Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 597–98; McKane, Jeremiah 2, 919–20. 49. Burning the scroll signify rejection of its legal status, as proposed by Schaper (cf fn 44). If one accepts Seitz’s hypothesis that Jeremiah is cast as another Moses, with his loyal disciples Baruch, and later Ebed–melech, paralleling Joshua and Caleb, then the king’s action could be read as a rejection akin to that of the people’s rejection of the Mosaic Torah in the golden calf story, symbolised by Moses’ smashing of the tablets (Exod 32–34) (cf Seitz, ‘The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah’, in Z AW, 101 [1989]: 3–27).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 122 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 123

This point suggests in turn that YHWH’s purpose in commissioning the scroll and its reading is not the hope of repentance and reform, as YHWH states in v 3 and Jeremiah echoes in v 7, but the exposure of king and people as rejecting any such call. If this is the case why does YHWH commission the scroll? This seeming conflict is similar to the one in the temple sermon of chapter 7 and other preceding texts. In the temple sermon YHWH commissions Jeremiah to urge the people to reform, promising that ‘if’ they do YHWH will continue to dwell in their midst (7:2–7). But in v 27 YHWH informs Jeremiah that the people will not listen to his words and will carry on regardless. ‘Therefore’ divine punishment will inevitably envelop them (vv 32–34). In response to this, consideration of texts such as these within the context of the HB/OT indicates that even though the all–knowing God knows beforehand whether a particular call to repentance will be accepted or rejected, the call is still made in the latter case because the one code of conduct applies to all YHWH’s subjects, whether saints or sinners. To apply anything less to the sinner would demean his or her status as YHWH’s subject. By the same token, YHWH’s foreknowledge of what a person or group will do does not lessen their guilt. Divine sovereignty creates rather than restricts human freedom and therefore, unless impeded by some affliction, a person is free to make their decisions and so must bear the consequences. According to the preceding chapters, the preaching of Jeremiah and all the prophets whom YHWH sent persistently to the people and their kings had made clear the alternatives of blessing for obedience, punishment for disobedience. All had been fully informed. The only instances where YHWH is portrayed acting against human freedom is where a person or group claims divine status or authority to do what in YHWH’s eyes is evil, and acts in line with the claim. In such cases, YHWH is portrayed taking over this person or group’s words and actions in order to reassert what must be reasserted according to the Bible, namely that YHWH is the one and only Sovereign. The classic example of this of course is the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in the exodus story. There are three components of the final section of the chapter in vv 27–32; in v 28 YHWH instructs Jeremiah to produce another scroll ‘with all the former words that were on the first scroll’; in vv 29–31 YHWH proclaims judgement against Jehoiakim, his offspring, his servants and all the people in retaliation for burning the first

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 123 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM 124 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

scroll and thereby rejecting YHWH’s word; while v 32 reports the production of a replacement scroll. Two features of the judgement speech may be noted. The first is that one learns for the first time what Jehoiakim said in response to hearing the scroll and it is a question. However, the text does not state explicitly whether the ‘you’ (second person masculine singular) to whom the question is put is YHWH or Jeremiah. One may accept that, in the preceding scene, Jehoia- kim understands his question to be to Jeremiah because he rejects his claim to be a prophet of YHWH. But, for the reader who accepts Jer- emiah is a prophet Jehoiakim is in effect putting YHWH on trial. He initially interrogates YHWH as a judge would interrogate an accused, as Zedekiah interrogates Jeremiah in 32:3–5 (note the same question ‘why’), then he pronounces judgement and symbolically ‘executes’ YHWH by burning the scroll. The second feature is that Jehoiakim’s judgement of YHWH is replaced by YHWH’s judgement of Jehoiakim in vv 30–31. It has two components. The first serves as a reversal of king Jehoiakim’s effective trial and ‘execution’ of YHWH as King. This reversal will be evident in that, unlike the replacement scroll, Jehoiakim will have no successor and will himself be denied proper burial. Not only was such a fate regarded as gross disrespect for the deceased but, according to preceding prophecies in the book, it was a sign of divine punishment. All who see the exposed and decaying body of the king will know who alone is the Sovereign, who alone is judge and alone bestows blessing or imposes curse.50 According to 2 Kings 24:5–8, Jehoiakim was succeeded by his son Jehoiachin, who however reigned only three months. Commentators judge that the Jeremiah text does not contradict the one in 2 Kings because Jehoiachin’s three months’ rule before his surrender to Babylon hardly constitutes succession to the throne (cf 24:12).51 The second component of YHWH’s riposte to Jehoiakim is in v 31, and includes in the decree of punishment all the others in the chapter who, like the king, showed no repentance upon hearing the scroll and thereby rejected its words. The general terms used to describe them—unspecified ‘offspring/seed’ of Jehoiakim, ‘servants’,

50. The fate of Jehoiakim described here may be drawing on the end of the temple sermon in 8:1–3, which prophesies the removal of the bones of the kings of Judah and others from their tombs to be exposed before the elements. 51. Cf Fischer, Jeremia 2, 303, citing the Rabbinic scholar Kimkhi; as does Lundbom, Jeremiah 21–36, 610. Also McKane, Jeremiah 2, 921.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 124 13-May-20 5:26:01 PM Jeremiah 34:1–36:32 125

‘inhabitants of Jerusalem’, ‘people of Judah’—as well as the terms ‘guilt’ and ‘did not listen’, may reflect the location of chapter 36 immediately before the account of the fall of Jerusalem. At this climactic point in the book, 36:30–31 seeks to draw together all the preceding pronouncements of punishment made to all those who are accused of rejecting YHWH’s words. What is significant about the report in v 32 of the production of a replacement scroll is the statement that ‘many similar words were added’ to the words of the first scroll. Just as the reader is not told the actual contents of the first scroll, so he/she is not told what these additional words were. The description of them as ‘similar’ indicates they were not contrary to what was in the first scroll. However, their extent is not specified and this may be to allow the gradual addition to this second scroll of all the words Jeremiah spoke at the command of YHWH after the reading and burning of the first scroll, namely the fifth year of Jehoiakim (v 9). This could of course have been the work of redactors who compiled the book that we now have.52

52. This is the view of a recent study by Leuchter, who links 36:32 with the redaction of other texts in the book, in particular Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles in chapter 29. He proposes that the redaction of the book reflects exilic and post–exilic tension between those who viewed the first exiles of 597 as the favoured group rather than those exiled after the fall of Jerusalem in 587. A significant contribution to this view was the prophecies of Ezekiel. However, in the final stages of redaction ‘The scribes who redacted Jeremiah’s missives and other independent text collections wove the trustees of those collections into a single nation even as they wove the collections into a single book’ (293 of ‘Personal Missives and National History. The Relationship between Jeremiah 29 and 36’, inProphets, Prophecy, and Ancient Israelite Historiography, edited by Mark J Boda and Lissa M Wray Beal [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013], 275–93).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 125 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 126 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM Part Two: Jeremiah 37:1–45:5

Realisation of Decree in Accounts of Conquest of Judah and Jerusalem (37–39) and post-Conquest Servitude (40–44), with Assurance of Protection for Loyal Baruch (45)

Chapter 6: Jeremiah 37:1–39:18: Account of Conquest of Judah and Jerusalem, and Imprisonment by Babylon. Deliverance of Loyal Prophet Jeremiah from Prison

Chapter 7: Jeremiah 40:1–45:5: Account Verifies Prophecy of no Escape from Decreed Servitude to Babylon, not even in Egypt. Contrast: protection for loyal Baruch

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 127 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 128 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM Chapter Six Jeremiah 37:1–39:18

Chapters 37–38, as the chronological introduction in 37:1 indicates, are set in the reign of the last king of Judah, Zedekiah. They tell of a number of dramatic encounters between Jeremiah, Zedekiah and other figures in Jerusalem in the final days before the Babylonian conquest. These take up key issues from prophecies in the preceding chapters of the book to show how they are realised in these encounters. Among them are the false hopes of an early end to the siege and a return to the status quo (cf chapter 34), the imprisonment of Jeremiah by the king and people that in reality exposes them as the real prisoners—of Babylon (cf 20:1–6; 32:1–5), how the only way to survive the conquest and decreed period of servitude is to heed YHWH’s word by surrendering to Babylon (cf 21:9; 27:12; 29:4–14). As noted in the Outline, Jeremiah is a key character in the drama and remains committed to the prophecies he has proclaimed in whatever situation. The actual conquest is narrated in 39:1–10 and has its own chronological introduction. However, the three chapters are clearly linked by the theme of the Babylonian conquest, a link that is made explicit in 38:28. Even though Jeremiah’s prophecy to Ebed–melech is located after the account of the conquest of Jerusalem at 39:15–18, it belongs with the preceding material because it is a prophecy made in the wake of his rescue of Jeremiah from the pit in 38:7–13. There is also, as I will outline below, a structural and thematic link between 39:15–18 and the introduction to chapters 37–38 in 37:1–2. Another chronological reversal occurs in the prophecy to Baruch in chapter 45. The two prophecies are so placed as to mark a break in the narrative sequence. In the case of 39:15–18 it is to indicate that, even though 40:1–6 is similar in some ways to 39:11–14, it marks the commencement of

129

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 129 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM 130 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the account of events in Judah and Jerusalem in the period after the conquest, an account that continues to 44:30.1 In 40:1–44:30 the book effectively shifts from a focus on place in chapters 37–39 (conquest of land and city) to a focus on time in chapters 40–44 (the period after conquest until the flight into Egypt). This sequence of the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem followed by the time of Babylonian servitude serves as confirmation and fulfillment of the prophecy announced in 25:3–11, with Jeremiah defending the declaration of seventy years of exile against false prophets in chapters 27–29. This in turn is in line with the two key sermons delivered at gates in the earlier part of the book. In his sermon at the gate of the temple in chapter 7 Jeremiah announces that because the people have desecrated it, YHWH would destroy ‘this place’ as YHWH destroyed Shiloh in the North. In his subsequent sermon at the gates of the city in 17:19–27, he announces that YHWH will bring an end to Judah’s time in city and land because, by abusing the Sabbath rest they disobey the One who delivered them from slave time in Egypt. For its part, the prophecy to Baruch in chapter 45 marks the end of the oracles on Judah and Jerusalem proclaimed by Jeremiah and preserved in the scroll (chapter 36), before the commencement of the oracles on the (other) nations in chapters 46–51. The connection between chapters 36 and 45 via the person of Baruch, and his role as Jeremiah’s scribe, as well as other factors, have prompted some to identify chapters 36–45 as a ‘Baruch Narra- tive’, a once independent portion of the book written by him.2 Oth- ers, such as H Kremers, have proposed that these chapters constitute what one may call a ‘Passion Narrative’ of Jeremiah, the innocent suffering servant of YHWH.3 In the view of commentators such as

1. The relationship between 39:11–14 and 40:1–6 will be commented on below. 2. Cf for example Artur Weiser, ‘Das Gotteswort für Baruch Jer. 45 und die sogenannte Baruchbiographie’, in Glaube und Geschichte im Alten Testament und andere ausgewählte Schriften (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961), 321– 29. Weiser sees in Jer 45 Baruch’s ‘eigenhändige Unterschrift unter sein Werk’ (329). 3. Cf H Kremers, ‘Leidensgemeinschaft mit Gott im Alten Testament: Eine Untersuchung der “biographischen” Berichte im Jeremiabuch’, in EvT, 13 (1953): 122–40. A similar view is that of Gerhard von Rad, who describes the narrative as a ‘via dolorosa’ (Old Testament Theology, II, translated by DMG Stalker (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 206.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 130 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 131

Ernest W Nicholson and Martin Kessler however, the primary aim of the chapters is theological, to promote the prophetic word and its realisation despite all the attempts to the contrary.4 My analysis of Jeremiah 1–25 showed that Jeremiah faced a crisis in his vocation as the messenger of YHWH’s word, and yet YHWH’s lessons in chapters 13–15 enabled him to overcome it and renew his commitment to the word. This suggests that a similar close relationship between prophet and word is likely in chapters 37–39, and one aim of the following analysis will be to check whether this is indeed the case. A feature of chapters 37–38 that strikes many readers is the recurrence of rather similar scenes.5 King Zedekiah is portrayed consulting Jeremiah on three occasions. He sends a delegation to Jeremiah in 37:3 and receives a reply in 37:6–10; on two further occasions he summons the prophet but meets with him in secret (37:17–21; 38:14–28). Jeremiah is imprisoned twice; initially on the charge of desertion in 37:11–16, secondly on the charge of sedition in 38:1–6. Jeremiah delivers three prophecies to Zedekiah; the first is in response to a delegation from the king (cf 37:3, 6–10), while the second and third are responses to Zedekiah during his secret meetings with Jeremiah (37:17; 38:17–23). As noted in the initial Outline, Jeremiah is portrayed taking the initiative in proclaiming the word of YHWH in only one instance in chapters 37–38; namely to the people in 38:2. All other instances are in response to requests or questions. A proposed reason for this is that Jeremiah is not instructed by YHWH to proclaim any new prophecy in these chapters; his responses to requests and questions effectively reiter- ate prophecies proclaimed in preceding chapters, as the following analysis will show. There are of course differences as well as similarities between what takes place and what is said in these various encounters, and this feature has prompted a number of responses from commenta-

4. Cf Ernest W Nicholson, Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tradition in the Book of Jeremiah (Oxford: Blackwells, 1970), 35–6, 137; Kessler, ‘Jeremiah 26–45 Reconsidered’, in JNES, 27/2 (1968): 81–88. Also Brueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 354. 5. Cf for example, Brueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 339–40; Carroll, Jeremiah, 675; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 311.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 131 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM 132 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

tors. One is to propose that chapters 37–38 have been arranged in such a way that a subsequent scene recalls but also develops themes and motifs in the corresponding preceding scene.6 Another is the more historical–critical one of examining how the various scenes or encounters were assembled and who was responsible for it. This has of course included close attention to the differences between the MT and LXX versions.7 A third is whether a text such as chapters 37–38 is a historical record or an artful construction that may or may not have some historical basis.8 The focus of my analysis of chapters 37–39 will be, as with preceding chapters, the MT. Comment on differences between the versions and likely redactional developments will be made where these can help illuminate the arrangement and meaning of the MT.

6. José M Abrego proposed a chiastic structure for 37:1–39:18, with Ebed–melech’s initiative in 38:1–13 as the centrepiece (Jeremías y el Final del Reino: Lectura sincroníca de Jer 36–45 [Valencia: Institución san Jerónimo, 1983], 65–87). Di Pede also identifies 37:1–39:18 as a section having a chiastic structure, and with 38:1–13 at its centre (Au delà du refus, 168). Mark Roncace too proposes a chiastic structure but one that reaches from 37:1 to 40:6, and which has 38:7–10 as its centerpiece; Ebed–melech’s successful plea on behalf of Jeremiah. Roncace states that his proposed structure does not demonstrate ‘that there is a perfect chiasm in this section but that repeating themes, motifs, and images provide both literary cohesiveness and an overarching structure’ (Jeremiah, Zedekiah, and the Fall of Jerusalem, JSOTSup 423 (New York/London: T&T Clark, 2005], 29). Mary Chilton Callaway proposes that ‘the narrative is written in a cyclical way, composed of scenes united by repeating themes’ (262 of ‘Telling the Truth and Telling Stories: An Analysis of Jeremiah 37–38’, in Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 44 [1991]: 253–65). 7. For a review of various proposals, see McKane, Jeremiah 2, 923–31, 947–62); Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 209–11, with the observation that ‘no approach is without complication’ (210). For a discussion of the contribution of diachronic and synchronic approaches to chapters 37–38, see Brian Boyle, ‘Narrative as Ideology: Synchronic (Narrative Critical) and Diachronic Readings of Jeremiah 37–38’, in Pacifica,12 (October 1998): 293–312. 8. For doubt about a historical basis to the chapters, cf Carroll, Jeremiah, 672–73; John Bright, Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 21 (New York: Doubleday, 1965), 233. However, Holladay (Jeremiah 2, 286) argues that the details of the scenes and the names of those involved point ‘to an eyewitness account, or at least access to Jeremiah’s own testimony, in short, B a r u c h’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 132 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 133

My reading of chapters 37–39 identifies the following constitutive parts that are arranged in a concentric structure or pattern: A—37:1–2 Negative assessment of king Zedekiah, his servants and people B—37:3–10 First consultation of Jeremiah by Zedekiah; Chal- deans will conquer as prophesied C—37:11–16 Jeremiah’s arrest and imprisonment by officials D—37:17–21 Second consultation of Jeremiah by Zedekiah E—38:1–6 Death sentence for Jeremiah E’—38:7–13 Rescue of Jeremiah by foreigner Ebed–Melech D’—38:14–23 Third consultation of Jeremiah by Jeremiah vv 14–16 First dialogue vv 17–23 Second dialogue C’—38:24–28 Jeremiah lies to protect Zedekiah, avoids imprisonment by officials B’—39:1–18 Conquest by Chaldeans; prophecy realised vv 1–3 Report of occupation of Jerusalem by Bab- ylonians/Chaldeans vv 4–7 Report of capture and deportation of Zedekiah v 8 Report of destruction of Jerusalem v 9 Report of deportation of people of Jerusalem v 10 Report of fate of ‘poor people’ left in Judah vv 11–14 Report of special provision for Jeremiah A’—39:15–18 Positive assessment of Ebed–melech; prophecy of deliverance

This structure is similar to those of Abrego and Roncace, cited earlier, in the sense that they also identify Ebed–melech as a central figure. His role is heightened when one compares the conclusion to these chapters with their beginning. The prophecy of salvation and the positive judgement he receives in 39:15–18 (A’) form a telling con-

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 133 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM 134 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

trast with the opening negative assessment on king Zedekiah and the people of Judah in 37:1–2 (A).9

Comments on the constitutive parts of the structure of chapters 37–39 as outlined 37:1–2 The arrangement of these verses is somewhat similar to the introduction to the reign of Zedekiah in 2 Kings 24:17–20, and is therefore likely dtr.10 The reports of Zedekiah’s succession to the throne of Judah are similar in that both make clear he was installed as a vassal of Nebuchadrezzar and therefore did not rule in his own right. But the accompanying assessments of his reign are strikingly different. Whereas the Kings’ text states that ‘he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, just as Jehoiakim had done’, according to 37:2 he did not listen to/hear (shama‘) the words of YHWH spoken through Jeremiah. Moreover not only did Zedekiah fail in this regard, but also ‘his servants’ and ‘the people of the land’. While 37:2 is similar to the judgement formulas in the books of Kings it is much broader and effectively covers not only the king but all the people. As well as this the statement that neither king nor people hearkened to the word of YHWH spoken through Jeremiah presumably refers not only to

9. Wendy J Widder (‘Thematic Correspondences between the Zedekiah Texts of Jeremiah [Jer 21–24; 37–38]’, in OTE, 26/2 [2013]: 491–503) proposes a thematic and structural similarity between chapters 21–24 and 37–38. While there are thematic connections between the two blocks of text and Zedekiah is a key figure in both, I do not find in chapters 37–38 any condemnation of ‘the institution of prophetism’ that parallels 23:9–40 as she claims (493). Also, the proposal that Ebed–melech prefigures the ‘righteous branch’ foretold in 23:5–6 seems rather speculative (492, 501–2). 10. As is widely recognised the accounts of the kings of Israel and Judah in the books of Kings were arranged by dtr redactors according to a ‘regnal framework’ or ‘regnal formula’, made up of the following elements 1)–synchronism (for the period of the divided monarchy); 2)–age of king at accession (for Judean kings only); 3)–length of reign; 4)–capital city (Jerusalem or Samaria); 5)–name of Queen Mother (for Judean kings only); 6)–judgement formula (whether king did evil/good in the eyes of YHWH); 7)–reference notice or source citation); 8)– death and burial information; 9)–notice of succession. For a discussion see my The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reassessment, OBO 92 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), 180–85.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 134 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 135

what he is reported proclaiming in chapters 37–38 but also to his prophetic words proclaimed in the preceding chapters and recorded in the scroll.11 One could also propose that what follows in chapters 37–39 provides the reason and justification for the condemnation pronounced against Zedekiah and his people in 24:8.12 Overall therefore, 37:1–2 signals a continuation and heightening of the dispute and conflict between Jeremiah and Judah’s kings and people over the validity of his prophetic word. 37:3–10. This section commences with a report that king Zedekiah sent a delegation to Jeremiah to ask that he pray to YHWH ‘for us’ (v 3). The two reports that follow in vv 4–5 presumably explain the circumstances that prompted the request, while vv 6–10 contain the oracle that Jeremiah instructed the delegation to tell the king he received from YHWH. Is this meant to be the answer to the requested prayer? The striking thing about the king’s request for prayer is that it occurs immediately after the general judgement against him and his people in v 2. Why would a king who did not listen to his prophet request that he pray ‘for us’; that is king and people? One answer is that v 2 functions as an overall judgement whereas the request in v 3 was made at an early stage in the prophet–king relationship before, as v 4 indicates, Jeremiah was imprisoned. For its part, v 5 indicates the circumstance that prompted the request, namely the temporary Babylonian lifting of the siege to counter an Egyptian incursion. The reader also knows from chapter 34 that the lifting of the siege took place after Zedekiah proclaimed a release of all indentured slave labourers, and that this followed Jeremiah’s prophecy to Zedekiah in 34:1–5 that he would be captured by king Nebuchadrezzar and taken to Babylon, but die in peace. Does the prayer within the context of the lifting of the siege portray Zedekiah assuming he is in favour with YHWH because of his response to the prophecy and his release of indentured labourers? Moreover, is he now discretely indicating to

11. See the remarks on the introduction by di Pede in Au delà du refus, 219; and ‘Le refus et l’espoir’, 381. 12. See the comments on 37:1–2 by Roncace, Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 31–35. I question his assertion (and that of Robert Polzin) that the narrator’s perspective ‘is only one of several possible perspectives’ (31). This may be the case in storytelling, but unlikely in a book such as this, that ostensibly seeks to promote a definite theological understanding of the word of God. Why would the narrator (or those responsible for it) include a view or views that contradict the main thrust of the book?

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 135 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM 136 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Jeremiah that he himself should change from being an adversary to being an ally and pray on his and the people’s behalf? Nevertheless some features of vv 6–10 challenge such a view. Whereas Zedekiah is portrayed sending a delegation to ask for prayers, the prophet claims in v 7 that it was really to ‘inquire’ of him. According to 21:1–2, Zedekiah sent a delegation early in the Babylo- nian siege to ask Jeremiah to ‘inquire’ (darash) of YHWH; namely to seek a word from YHWH that would assure deliverance from Baby- lon.13 The implication is that Zedekiah was doing the same thing on this occasion, hence he received a similar prophecy of doom, with the addition that the Egyptian incursion was destined to fail. This reading subtly reveals Zedekiah as unchanged from 21:1–2, as unheeding of YHWH’s words. In contrast, Jeremiah is portrayed as one who by listening to/hearing the words of YHWH was able to ‘hear’ the words of Zedekiah for what they were, deceptive words, and counter them with the truth—an ironic twist. A further irony in the text is that even as YHWH warns king and people through Jeremiah ‘do not deceive yourselves’, YHWH (and Jer- emiah) knows they are deceiving themselves. A particularly ironic or mocking part of their deception is their presumption that they could deceive YHWH and YHWH’s prophet. Such is the distorted perception that takes possession of those who do not heed the word of YHWH. Despite this YHWH (and Jeremiah) did not deceive the people but continued to call to repentance—‘do not deceive yourselves’, a call that went unheeded, in line with 37:2. The text also has YHWH confirm the decree about the seizure and burning of the city; this provides further evidence that the people could not repent and change. A reader might wonder why the text provides no account of the reaction of king, servants and people to Jeremiah’s reply but this has already been given ‘in advance’, as it were, in 37:2. There was no need to repeat it. In sum, one could say that the function of 37:3–10 within the book is to show just how imprisoned king Zedekiah, his servants and the people were in their intransigence, fueled by their willful, distorted perception of reality. In a way their imprisonment and exile by Babylon was only the external manifestation of this deeper and darker ‘prison’.

13. Roncace correctly shows via a number of texts how the verb darash is used in association with seeking a prophetic oracle. However, I would disagree with his interpretation of 37:7 that Jeremiah did not listen to the words of the king. Jeremiah did listen and perceived the true sense of his deceptive words (Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 37).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 136 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 137

As a final comment on this section one may ask about the relationship between the prophecy in 37:6–10 and the preceding one in 34:13–22, which denounces king and slave owners for reneging on the release of their indentured labourers because the Babylonians had withdrawn to confront the Egyptians. Despite the absence of any cross reference between these two prophecies, it would seem that the one in chapter 34 is set after the one in chapter 37. Verse 9 warns the people ‘do not deceive yourselves’ but the condemnation in 34:13–22 shows they did not heed the (earlier) warning. Given this, one is not surprised to see that it is a more extensive and dramatic version of 37:6–10. The two prophecies are linked by the way both state that the city will be burned with fire (34:22; 37:8b, 10b).

37:11–16 This account of Jeremiah’s arrest and imprisonment unfolds as follows. According to v 11 it took place during the same lull in hostilities that prompted Zedekiah’s delegation in v 3; namely the temporary lifting of the siege as the Babylonians withdrew to confront the Egyptian incursion. Verse 12 reports that Jeremiah set out for his homeland of Benjamin but was stopped at the Benjamin gate (sic) and arrested by a guard named Irijah (v 13). A dialogue ensued between them in vv 13b–14aα, but it ended with Irijah refusing to listen to/hear (shama‘) Jeremiah and bringing him to ‘the officials’ (sarim) (vv 14aβb). Verses 15–16 report that the officials were enraged at Jeremiah; they beat him and imprisoned him ‘in the cistern house, in the cells’ of the house of Jonathan the secretary. One’s understanding of this text and its function within chapters 37–38 and the larger context of the book is complicated by the obscurity of v 12. At issue is the meaning of the hiphil form of khalaq, the only occurrence of this form of the verb in Jeremiah. The difficulty does not only impinge on its English translation; four different verbs are attested in Greek manuscripts. On balance, one may suggest two main competing senses of the verb within the context of v 12. It could refer to the division or allotment of property and so Jeremiah’s planned trip to Benjamin involved the allotment or inheritance of some property. This could, as a number of commentators argue, link it to Jeremiah’s purchase of land in 32:6–15. On this reading the phrase ‘in the midst of the people’ refers to Jeremiah’s kin in Anathoth of Benjamin, and Jeremiah was presumably making the journey alone.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 137 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM 138 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Granted this link, Jeremiah’s journey was meant to confirm the reality of the purchase as a sign of life beyond the looming conflagration. His arrest revealed the failure of people such as Irijah the guard not only to hear the prophetic word but also to ‘see’ the signs that confirmed it.14 Against this proposal however is that the purchase of land in 32:6– 15 took place while he was a prisoner of Zedekiah, whereas according to 37:12 Jeremiah was still able to move about freely. The other main option is that the verb refers to Jeremiah ‘slipping away’ or even ‘escaping’ from the city and that he did so with a number of others.15 On the first reading Jeremiah’s proposed journey can be understood as taking advantage of the lull in hostilities to sort out some family matters, after which he would return. The accusation attributed to the guard Irijah in v 13b that Jeremiah was ‘deserting’ to the Chal- deans could therefore have been mistaken but honest.16 He was only doing his duty as an alert guard. The second reading could however imply that Jeremiah was taking advantage of the temporary lifting of the siege to escape to the Babylonians and so avoid the impending doom of the city. This reading would make Irijah’s accusation accurate but it raises several questions. The text indicates that Jeremiah alone was arrested from among a group of people and charged with desertion. Was Irijah able to single Jeremiah out because he was the notorious prophet who proclaimed doom for the establishment? But wouldn’t such a reading paint Jeremiah—within the context of the book—as a prophet who by attempting to escape effectively betrayed his vocation? His ‘slipping away’ showed that he believed the truth

14. As suggested by di Pede, Au delà du refus, 258. 15. Good discussions of the difficulty and accompanying literature are provided in Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 217; McKane, Jeremiah 2, 926–28; Roncace, Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 47, fn 58. Of particular note is that Gesenius, as reported by McKane, favours ‘slipping away’ or ‘escaping’ as a likely meaning of the hiphil form of the verb khalaq. Gesenisus translates v 12 as ‘so that he might be lost/slip away in the middle of the crowd of people’. McKane’s overall conclusion however is that there can be no final solution to this problem because the ‘corruption of the text is so deep–seated’ (928). 16. It may be noted that the Hebrew verb rendered ‘deserting’ here (naphal), literally means ‘to fall’. It is also translated in this sense in 38:2 and 39:9 but, as will be pointed out, the context suggests it could also mean ‘surrender’, as it does in 21:9 where ‘surrender’ (with the verb ‘go out’) in reference to the Babylonians means safety. The verb ‘go out/go forth’ yatsa’( ) on its own has the same positive sense of ‘surrender’ in 38:2, 17, 18, 21.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 138 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 139

of the prophecy he proclaimed—Judah and Jerusalem were doomed. But, instead of trusting in YHWH as he continually called on king and people to do, he attempted to take matters into his own hands and save himself. Such an understanding of Jeremiah would of course run clean counter to the way he is portrayed in the preceding chapters of the book. Furthermore, in terms of the book’s promotion of YHWH as the just and merciful Sovereign, such an action would surely require the book to record an appropriate response from YHWH in the form of the kind of condemnation that Jeremiah had himself been proclaiming. On this reading, Jeremiah’s sharp denial of being a deserter in v 14a would heighten the need for such a denouncement. On balance therefore, the first reading is to be preferred as the more acceptable one—Jeremiah was not deserting or acting as a traitor, at least not as far as those who put the book together were concerned. Two further points in favor of this reading are; firstly that Jeremiah is described as ‘the prophet’ at the crucial point in the narrative of his arrest; and secondly, Irijah refused to listen to/hear Jeremiah’s declaration that he was not a deserter.17 Even though the text does not have Jeremiah invoke the authority of YHWH in his denial, the occurrence of the verb to listen/hear could be read as recalling the judgement in 37:2.18 If the Hananiah of whom Irijah is described as a grandson in v 13 was the same (false) prophet who challenged Jeremiah in chapter 28 and was condemned to death as a result, the memory of this could have been a factor fuelling Irijah’s hostility.19 But one cannot be sure. The last part of this section, vv 15–16, does not report that the officials conducted any trial, as chapter 26 states the officials in the reign of Jehoiakim did. They are not even reported enquiring of Irijah about his accusation against Jeremiah, although the text may presume that, because he is described in the MT of v 13 as ‘a chief of the guard’, a part of his responsibility was to deliver a report. Whatever the case, their response to Jeremiah takes three rather violent steps; initial rage, followed by beating, and finally imprisonment.20 The implication of this is that the arrest of Jeremiah provided

17. LXX lacks the term ‘the prophet’, in 37:13. 18. Cf Boyle, ‘Narrative as Ideology’, 300. 19. In relation to this, one may note the same term ‘lie’ (sheqer) to describe Irijah’s accusation in 37:13 and Hananiah’s false prophecy in 28:15. 20. For comment on the thrust of the three verbs ‘be enraged’, ‘beat’, ‘imprison’, see Boyle, ‘Narrative as Ideology’, 298.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 139 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM 140 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the officials with the perfect excuse to indulge their hatred of him and all that he stood for. The report of Jeremiah’s imprisonment marks a pivotal point in the book because he remains in one form of prison or another to 43:1–7 which reports him being taken virtually as a prisoner to Egypt by those fleeing the Babylonians, the original prison house from which YHWH delivered Israel. A telling irony emerges when one considers Jeremiah’s imprisonment within the preceding context and in relation to what follows. In relation to the preceding context it recalls Jeremiah’s imprisonment at the gate of the temple by the priest Pashhur in 20:1–6. But, as Jeremiah’s response to Pashhur states, he and his household were the ones who would become prisoners of Babylon. In terms of the following text, Jeremiah’s imprisonment in the court of the guard in 37:15–16 served as a sign of the impending imprisonment of Judah, which was realised when Nehuchadrezzar’s officials took their seats in the ‘middle gate’ of Jerusalem in 39:2. In short, the officials were effectively already in prison, whereas the text portrays their ‘prisoner’ Jeremiah protected from the threat of death and continuing his commission of proclaiming YHWH’s word.21 37:17–21. This final section of the chapter is composed of two parts. The first in v 17 reports that king Zedekiah summoned Jer- emiah and questioned him, and that Jeremiah replied to his question. The second has Jeremiah follow up his answer to the king with a declaration of his innocence and a plea not to be returned to the place where he was imprisoned. It concludes by describing the alternative arrangements the king made for Jeremiah (vv 18–21). This is of course a very spare description of the contents of the text and closer inspection reveals considerable complexity and layers of meaning. The initial report that the king sent for and received Jeremiah indicates he knew of the prophet’s incarceration and this raises the question whether he was complicit in it or not, even though he is not mentioned in vv 11–16. When one compares 37:17–21 with 32:1–6 it would seem the former is set at an earlier time because, according to 37:15 Jeremiah was imprisoned in the house of the secretary Jona- than, whereas according to 32:2 he was in the court of the guard in the palace. This corresponds to where Zedekiah is reported confining him in 37:21 after their exchange.

21. Cf Callaway, ‘Telling the Truth and Telling Stories’, 258–59.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 140 13-May-20 5:26:02 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 141

A second question is why did Zedekiah summon prisoner Jer- emiah and question him secretly. Or, to put it another way, what triggered this initiative? A number of reasons have been advanced for the secret consultation but, in my view the most plausible one is the resumption of the siege.22 The prophecy in 37:6–10 makes no explicit reference to the fate of Zedekiah, as does 34:1–6. Hence the resumption of the siege prompted him to enquire of Jeremiah—about himself. Three things in 37:17–19 support this. One is that Zedekiah questioned Jeremiah secretly because it was about himself; the second is that Jeremiah’s reply shows—as prophet of YHWH—he knew this. Hence his response was only about Zedekiah’s fate and effectively reaffirmed 34:2–3. Also, given that one is meant to read the 37:17–20 interview taking place after the slave–release reversal of chapter 34, it reaffirms the more threatening version in 34:21. The third is 37:19 where Jeremiah is reported asking what had become of the prophets who declared the end of the siege, now that it has evidently been resumed. Zedekiah’s anxiety about his own fate may also be a factor in vv 18–20 where it is Jeremiah who asks the questions. The initial one would seem to refer to more than the incident of leaving the city, as also his statement that not only the king but also his servants and the people (‘you’ second person plural masculine) were responsible for his unjust incarceration. From what has been presented in the book, the reader of course would respond to Jeremiah’s question that he has only done what was good for the people; namely to proclaim the truth of YHWH’s word to them. Hence his imprisonment was completely unjustified, and was a sign of the king, servants and people’s rejection of the word of YHWH. One is prompted to recall again the general judgement in 37:2. Furthermore, the truth of Jeremiah’s preaching is verified in his second rhetorical question on the whereabouts of ‘your prophets’ (again second person plural masculine) who proclaimed the end of the siege. They had apparently abandoned the fray because

22. Fischer thinks it is a sign of Zedekiah’s weakness (Jeremia 2, 320), as does Lundbom (Jeremiah 37–52, AB 21C [New York: Doubleday, 2004], 62), whereas Roncace suggests the privacy factor may indicate Zedekiah’s concern for Jeremiah’s safety (Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 65).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 141 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM 142 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

they had no reply to make to YHWH’s true prophet.23 Whereas the king and people’s reliance on these false prophets condemned them in line with v 2, the thrust of Jeremiah’s rhetorical questions was to prompt an appropriate answer, and that was of course to repent and obey YHWH’s word. Even though king and people were effectively in prison themselves, being surrounded by the Babylonians who were the appointed jailers, obedience to YHWH’s word would ensure a similar protection to that bestowed on Jeremiah. The key figure facing this challenge was of course Zedekiah. Jeremiah’s speech concludes in v 20 with his plea to Zedekiah not to be returned to the house of the secretary Jonathan ‘to die there’. This is the first time in his speech that he addresses Zedekiah as ‘my lord king’ and it is appropriate for what was at stake. Jeremiah’s rhetorical questions have effectively turned the tables on the king and put him in the dock rather than Jeremiah, and this on two counts. One is that he has approved or allowed a completely unjust verdict against Jeremiah who had done no wrong. There is no report of the king rebutting Jeremiah’s assessment of the verdict. The second is the more serious one in that he has followed the false prophets of hope and thereby deliberately rejected YHWH’s true word. Jeremiah’s description of his imprisonment in v 20 amounts to a third offence or crime committed by the king—or it could, depending on the latter’s response. According to this verse, Jeremiah declared that if he were sent back to prison in the secretary’s house he would die there. This clearly implies the officials saw this prison as a convenient way of getting rid of him. If the king knew of this then he was also guilty of attempted murder. Granted that he did not, he would nevertheless be guilty of murder if he sent Jeremiah back there, knowing what Jeremiah is reported saying in v 20. Is Jeremiah’s plea therefore not really or directly about seeking to preserve his own life, because YHWH promised to preserve it in texts such as 1:18–19 and 15:20–21? Rather it is about alerting Zedekiah that he would effectively commit murder by sending Jeremiah back to the prison in Jonathan’s house. Jeremiah was thereby enabling him to avoid such a crime. He thus had the king’s best interests at heart. Zedekiah’s

23. It is perhaps significant that 37:19 is the only text in chapters 37–38 that makes mention of the rival prophets and it is to announce they were no longer there. In recounting the dramatic demise of Judah and Jerusalem the only prophetic voice that is heard (by the characters in the book) is that of Jeremiah.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 142 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 143

relocation of Jeremiah’s place of imprisonment in response to his plea in v 20 indicated that he had not intended the prophet to die in prison in Jonathan’s house, or that on hearing Jeremiah’s word he obeyed it, unlike Irijah and the officials who refused to hear/listen.24 Whatever the case, the instructions Zedekiah is described giving in v 21 are an exercise of royal authority over the officials.25 Does this exchange with Jeremiah, in which he is portrayed acting quite differently to his murderous predecessor Jehoiakim (cf 26:20–23 and 36:26), signal that Zedekiah was at this point, or finally, prepared to listen to the words of the true prophet and obey them?26 A sign or question mark against such a conclusion however is that Zedekiah did not release Jeremiah from prison. Although he removed him from the cistern of Jonathan, he had him committed to another prison, ‘the court of the guard’. Is he portrayed here trying to exercise authority both over his officials and over Jeremiah, or keeping Jeremiah in a prison in order to pla- cate potentially hostile officials? Whatever the case, the court of the guard becomes the locus for two further dramatic episodes involving Zedekiah; the attempt by the officials to eliminate Jeremiah and his rescue by Ebed–melech (38:1–13), and the subsequent secret meeting with Zedekiah in the temple (38:14–28). Each ends with the same remark ‘Jeremiah remained in the court of the guard’ (37:16; 38:13, 28a).

38:1–28 My analysis of this chapter follows the division given in the preceding structural outline. The first section is the report in vv 1–6 of how a number of named officials reacted to Jeremiah’s prophesying to ‘all the people’ by declaring to the king that he deserved the death sentence. Officials reappear in hostile attitude towards Jeremiah at the end of the chapter (vv 24–28). The king acceded to their demand and Jeremiah was cast into a muddy pit, presumably to die there. Given the report in 37:21 that Jeremiah was confined to the court of the

24. Note how in v 20 Jeremiah commences with the plea to the king to ‘hear (shama‘) m e’. 25. The location of the court of the guard is not given here but 32:2 indicates it was in the precinct of the royal palace. 26. A number of commentators note that the portrayal of Zedekiah’s relationship with Jeremiah in chapters 37–38 is rather like that between king Ahab and the prophet Micaiah–ben–Imlah in 2 Kgs 22 (cf Roncace, Jeremiah, Zedekiah, and others).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 143 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM 144 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

guard, a number of commentators wonder how he could have spoken ‘to all the people’ as 38:1 claims. This has led some to propose that chapters 37–38 are not historical report but a redactional combination of two once independent accounts that were joined for thematic reasons. This is indicated by what is judged to be a rather implausible connection between 37:21 and 38:1.27 Whether this was the case or not cannot of course be proved, but one may note that chapter 32, which has the same setting of Jeremiah’s imprisonment in the court of the guard, reports a visit by Jeremiah’s cousin Hanamel (v 8) and an assembly of witnesses for the deed of purchase. Hence a plausible scenario for 38:1 is that certain people were able to access Jeremiah in the court of the guard, he was able to converse with them and they could relay his words in a manner similar to Baruch’s reading of the scroll ‘in the hearing of all the people’ (36:10). The phrase is used in a rhetorical sense to emphasise the public nature of Baruch’s reading. Another way of explaining the textual sequence is that of Cal- laway who sees a combination of linear and circular features in this and other sequences in chapters 37–38. That is, the circular operates within the overall linear sequence and serves, as it were, to pause it and even contradict it in order to advance the overall theological or torah aspect of the text and draw attention to this ‘other’ aspect of the narrative.28 There are two components in the prophecy that Jeremiah proclaims to the people. The first, in 38:2, is very similar to the one in 21:9. This is understandable because the context of both is the Baby- lonian siege. Both decree doom for those who stay in the city and life for those who go out (yatsa’) to the Chaldeans. As the accompanying verb naphal (literally ‘to fall’) in 21:9 makes clear, this means surrendering to them. The second, in 38:3, underscores the absolute need to hear/obey the first because YHWH has decreed that the city ‘will be given into the hands’ (NRSV ‘handed over’) of the Babylonian army.

27. Cf Bright, Jeremiah, 232–33; Carroll, Jeremiah, 679; Clements, Jeremiah, 220; McKane, Jeremiah 2, 968–71. Holladay however accepts that the chapters refer to two different and sequential events (Jeremiah 2, 282–83). 28. Callaway, ‘Black Fire on White Fire: Historical Context and Literary Subtext in Jeremiah 37–38’, in Troubling Jeremiah, edited by AR Pete Diamond, Kathleen M O’Connor and Louis Stulman, JSOTSup 260 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], 171–78). Roncace also accepts that the linear and circular arrangements of the text combine to produce ‘an intertextual hermeneutic’ (Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 68).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 144 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 145

This is the same phrase used to describe Zedekiah’s fate in 37:17b, but whereas the capture of the city would result in it being burnt by fire, as 37:10 affirms, the capture of Zedekiah would result in him being taken to Babylon (32:5; 34:3b). One may note that the references to the city in 38:2a and 3 effectively form a frame around the promise of life for those who surrender (cf v 2b). This positive, salvific element forms the centrepiece of Jeremiah’s prophecies here. Even though 38:1 names four figures who heard Jeremiah’s prophesying, in v 4 they are described as ‘officials’ and so are presumably part of the same group that beat and imprisoned Jeremiah in the ‘cistern house’ in 37:14b–16. On an initial reading their conduct in 38:1–4 would seem to be more in keeping with a formal trial than in the preceding scene. The text does recall some aspects of Jeremiah’s trial in chapter 26 after his sermon in the temple. However, it lacks key features of this earlier one. There was no formal convening of a trial, no opinion about the seriousness of the case by employing the official termmishpat (as in 26:11), and no defense by Jeremiah. The officials began by demanding the execution of Jeremiah. They then presented a distorted version of what Jeremiah was reported saying in 38:2–3. To describe Jeremiah as deliberately seeking the evil (ra‘ah) of the people and not their peace (shalom) can hardly be reconciled, at least in the eyes of the reader, with his promise that those who surrendered to Babylon would save their lives as a prize (shalal) of war. At no point in the text do the officials refer to Jer- emiah as ‘a prophet’ but simply as ‘this man’. This could be read not just as a dismissal of any prophetic status for Jeremiah or his words, but also as a challenge to the king who, according to 37:3 sent a formal delegation to the prophet Jeremiah asking for prayer. The preceding context may also be meant to imply that they knew the king acknowledged some special status for Jeremiah because he changed his prison conditions. The king’s response to their speech marks a change from his response to Jeremiah’s plea in 37:20. There he is portrayed exerting royal authority over the officials. Here the ‘evidence’ they are reported presenting either led him to accept it as true and change his mind about Jeremiah, or he feared the officials would brand him a traitor like Jeremiah if he dared to do otherwise. The scene does not report him offering Jeremiah the chance to defend himself, nor is Jeremiah portrayed taking the initiative to do so, as in 37:18. Instead, 38:5 has

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 145 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM 146 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the king declare ‘he is in your hands; for the king is powerless against you’. A more literal rendering of the second part of the king’s response is ‘because the king is not able/capable of a word/thing with/against y o u ’. 29 This could mean that he accepted the officials had a water- tight case against Jeremiah and there was nothing further he could say or do. Given the ambiguity in the text, the reader struggles to explain this response of Zedekiah in relation to his quite different one in 37:17, 21. Does 38:5 indicate he had genuinely changed his mind about Jeremiah, or that he was ready to capitulate to the officials for peace’s sake? Does the portrayal of him reflect that of the people as presented to Jeremiah by YHWH in the lessons of chapters14 and 15? That is, they would do whatever the situation seemed to require to preserve the status quo. In relation to the preceding remarks, one needs also to ask whether the text portrays the four officials as honest and concerned about the defense of city and citizens. A negative response is indicated by Jer- emiah’s judgement in 37:20 that their earlier imprisonment of him amounted to a death sentence. That attempt was cut short by the intervention of Zedekiah, but the clear implication of their conduct and words in 38:1–4 is that they saw an opportunity to present Jer- emiah’s words in such a way that they would be able to complete what they had initially set out to do.30 As already noted, their initial words to the king are effectively a demand that he be killed.31 Given this, one might ask why they did not do this immediately after the king’s response, rather than let him down by ropes into a muddy cistern.32 One answer from the context of the book is that what happened to Jeremiah was part of YHWH’s promise that he would not succumb

29. The LXX renders the Hebrew verb here as a participle, and ‘with/against you’ in the third person plural (‘against them’). 30. Note that the same term ‘cistern’ (bor) is used to describe Jeremiah’s prison in 37:17 (‘cistern house’) and 38:6. 31. Thus a more accurate translation than the NRSV of the Hebrewjumath na’ is ‘Let this man be put to death’ (cf Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 219). Fischer has ‘er werde doch umgebracht’ (‘he shall be killed’, Jeremia 2, 328). 32. 38:6 is the only text in the book where the Hebrew word tit (mud) occurs (twice). One wonders whether this is meant indicate it was a special or unique feature of this cistern and it was chosen because this made it the worst of its kind.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 146 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 147

to the plots of his enemies.33 Like Joseph in a pit and Daniel in a lion’s den, he would be rescued from the cistern.34 Two elements in our text support this. One is that, as noted above, Jeremiah is not portrayed entering any defense or plea in 38:1–6 as he did in the preceding scene. He is the innocent suffering, trusting servant of YHWH. The other is that his descent into the pit is immediately followed in the text by the intervention of Ebed–melech. One could say that this Cushite was YHWH’s appointed agent to deliver loyal Jeremiah from his ‘place’ of imprisonment, as another foreigner, Nebuchadrezzar, was YHWH’s appointed agent/servant to turn Judah and Jerusalem into a ‘place’ of imprisonment as punishment for their disloyalty.35 38:7–13. The account of YHWH’s deliverance of Jeremiah from the cistern by Ebed–melech, a foreigner (Cushite) and a eunuch in the king’s palace, is in two sections. Verses 7–9 tell of him learning the news about Jeremiah’s imprisonment in the muddy cistern and his appeal to the king. Verses10–13 report the king’s positive response and how Ebed–melech managed to extract Jeremiah from the cistern. There are parallels between this episode and the preceding one, but a comparison of them also reveals striking contrasts.36 Read from the perspective of 38:7–13, a negative assessment of the officials as portrayed in 38:1–6 is difficult to avoid. Like them, Ebed–melech ‘heard’ about Jeremiah; for them it was what he was preaching, for Ebed– melech it was about his place of incarceration. The officials responded to what they heard of Jeremiah’s prophesying by demanding his exe-

33. Another reason may have been secrecy. Lowering Jeremiah into a cistern with ropes and having him die there of hunger or thirst would hopefully leave no trace, unlike the violence of an execution (cf Fretheim, Jeremiah, 521; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 334). Holladay notes that the cistern described was shaped like a bottle with a narrow top, making exit difficult (Jeremiah 2, 282). 34. For the structural similarities between these three stories of imprisonment and rescue, see Roncace, Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 81–82. Callaway points out that Midrash Lamentations Rabbah links these three figures (‘Black Fire on White Fire’, 178). As noted by Stulman (Jeremiah, AOTC [Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2008], 315) and others, there may also be a connection with psalms that associate the cistern/ pit (same term) with Sheol, the realm of the dead (cf Pss 28:1; 30:3; 88:4, 6; also Isa 38:18; Ezek 26:20; 31:16). 35. Cf Roncace, Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 94, fn 102. 36. The contrasts identified here lead me to disagree with Roncace’s assessment that ‘both Ebed–melech and the officials serve as faithful informants to the king’, (Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 90).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 147 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM 148 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

cution as punishment for perpetrating such an ‘evil’; Ebed–melech’s response was to declare to the king that the real ‘evil’ in this instance was what the officials had done to Jeremiah. This Cushite eunuch is described approaching the king seated at the Benjamin Gate, a public place and also the site of Jeremiah’s previous incarceration by Pash- hur the priest (20:1–6).37 When contrasted with this, the encounter between Zedekiah and the four officials in 38:1–6 looks to have been more–or–less a private one. Whereas the officials used the term ‘this man’ to describe Jeremiah, Ebed–melech recognised his prophetic status. Whereas the officials are portrayed as silent about how Jer- emiah should be executed, Ebed–melech made explicit the murderous intent behind their imprisonment of Jeremiah. Here one should note that the LXX of 38:9 has the second person masculine singular and thereby accuses the king of murderous intent. In so far as he gave Jeremiah into the ‘hands’ of the officials in his role as king, he would be responsible for Jeremiah’s death. According to 38:10 the king responded by authorising the removal of Jeremiah from the cistern.38 For the reader his action can be read as another example of YHWH’s promise of protection for Jeremiah from his enemies. Both king and foreigner carry out YHWH’s purpose in exercising their respective roles in the society. The text provides access to Ebed–melech’s motives for his intervention; namely his respect for Jeremiah ‘the prophet’, and his outrage at the gross injustice of his treatment. His respect for Jeremiah and concern for his welfare is evident in the detailed report in vv 11–13 of how he had Jeremiah removed from the cistern.39 However, determining why the king responded to Ebed–melech in the manner described is more difficult, given that one must take the preceding

37. According to Fischer, the Benjamin Gate served as a place of judgement. The king could have been acting in his royal capacity as supreme judge and/or be inspecting the city’s defenses at this critical point in the siege (Jeremia 2, 335). 38. BHS follows minor MSS of the MT and reads ‘three’ men rather than ‘thirty’ (as in LXX). Keown–Scalise–Smothers (Jeremiah 26–52, 224) suggests the number thirty conveyed the need for protection from those hostile to Jeremiah’s release. 39. According to Tom Parker, by recognising the injustice done to Jeremiah, Ebed– melech ‘functions as an exemplar in the book of Jeremiah’ as ‘he enacts the will of YHWH more perfectly than any Israelite in Jeremiah’ (cf 258 of ‘Ebed–Melech as Examplar’, in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen, ed. John Goldingay; Library of Biblical Studies, 459 [New York: T&T Clark, 2007], 253–59).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 148 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 149

narrative into account. One may see his instructions for Jeremiah’s rescue from the pit as effectively an admission of his own guilt in the affair and a move to reverse it. Alternatively, it could have been an attempt to wrest back control of affairs from the officials. Given the public nature of his encounter with Ebed–melech, the king may also have been shamed by the foreigner’s words into action.40 How- ever, according to v 13b, Jeremiah remained confined in the court of the guard. This could be interpreted as a protective measure for Jeremiah against the officials and others, but it also seems to imply that his conviction was not quashed. What might this imply about the character of the king? At this stage in the narrative, the reader has encountered two instances of the king being complicit in an attempt to do away with Jeremiah, then changing tack when challenged—by Jeremiah in 37:18–20 and by Ebed–melech in 38:8–9— but not releasing him altogether. Does such conduct indicate a king who was seeking to do something right in difficult circumstances, or merely granting some concessions in order to maintain or gain an advantage? One further reason is suggested by consideration of the context. According to v 9b Ebed–melech warned the king that Jeremiah, according to a more literal translation than the NRSV, ‘will die there from before the hunger/famine because there is no longer bread in the city’. The Hebrew term for hunger (ra‘ab) is the same as for famine, and with the definite article prefix it is the same form as ‘the famine’ in the trio of afflictions—‘famine, sword, pestilence’. Jer- emiah is reported prophesying these in 38:2.41 The final phrase in 38:9 about the lack of bread has been judged somewhat out of place in the context; BHS thinks it could be a gloss from 37:21, while some see it as a narrator’s comment.42 But, if one retains it as part of Ebed– melech’s speech to the king then the text may be portraying him— inadvertently as a foreigner—linking Jeremiah’s descent into the pit with the onset of ‘the famine’, and therefore the time of punishment

40. The text does not have the king display any animosity towards Ebed–melech, even if the LXX reading of 38:9 is followed. To show animosity in such a situation may of course expose one’s shame or embarrassment. 41. ‘Famine’ occurs also, mostly with the other two members of the trio, in 5:12; 11:22; 14:12, 13, 15, 18; 15:2; 16:4; 18:21; 21:7, 9; 24:10; 27:8, 13, 32:24, 36; 34:17; 42:16, 22; 44:12, 18, 17. 42. As for example, does Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 71.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 149 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM 150 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

via the dreaded trio.43 A sign of this was the absence of bread/food in the city. The implication in the text may be that this was how the king understood Ebed–melech’s statement, and the matter was thus important and urgent enough to warrant the immediate removal of Jeremiah from the cistern so that the king could question him about it. With this in view, the king retained custody of Jeremiah by having him remain in the court of the guard. Despite this, was Jeremiah’s removal from the cistern meant to be read as a sign that YHWH would preserve him from death by famine, sword and pestilence? On the basis of the above comments, one can see why Ebed–melech’s intervention on behalf of Jeremiah forms the centrepiece of the way chapters 37–39 are arranged (E and E’). He is presented as the model of how king and people should have responded to Jeremiah and his preaching, but instead they attempted to silence and even kill him. Hence their punishment at the hands of Babylon was more than justified.

38:14–28 This final section of the chapter tells of a second private encounter between Jeremiah and king Zedekiah that parallels the preceding one in 37:17–21 (cf C and C’ in the proposed structure). It has the following parts. Verses 14–16 and 17–26 contain two dialogues between prophet and king, followed by a narrative report of Jeremiah being interrogated by the officials, but because he followed Zedekiah’s instructions as to what to say to them, his position in the court of the guard remained unchanged until the city was taken (v 27–28).44 Both encounters are portrayed as secret/private, but whereas the preceding one is set in the king’s palace, this one is set in the temple. The king is described taking the initiative in vv 14–16 and 24–26, whereas vv 17–23 have the reverse, with Jeremiah declaring what YHWH has

43. It seems insufficient to state that Ebed–melech’s motivation for rescuing Jeremiah ‘is described strictly in humanitarian terms’, as does Timothy M Willis on page 75 of “‘They Did Not Listen to the Voice of the Lord”: A Literary Analysis of Jeremiah 37–45’, in Restoration Quarterly, 42 (2000): 65–74. 44. Verse 28b seems to repeat the statement about the city being taken in v 28a and is not in the LXX or Syriac versions. It is relocated in the NRSV to the beginning of 39:3 but retained as the introduction to chapter 39 by a number of commentators (cf for example, Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 220–21).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 150 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 151

said (vv 17–18) and what YHWH has ‘shown me’ (vv 21–23).45 This chiastic or A–B–A’ arrangement of the encounter makes Jeremiah’s prophecy and what he is shown the central features. Verses 14–16. The NRSV translation of Zedekiah’s initial speech to Jeremiah renders the two occurrences of the Hebrew word dabar as ‘something’ and ‘anything’. However, depending on context, dabar can mean ‘a thing/something’, ‘a word’, ‘an event’. The reader is not told what sense the king attached to the term but, within the context, he could have been asking for a ‘word’ from YHWH, or a favour, such as a prayer on his behalf to YHWH, or an assuring sign to counter what looked to be the sign of the onset of famine, pestilence and sword with the city running out of bread. What is rather ironic and an indication of a carefully constructed narrative is that Jeremiah’s response in vv 17–23 contains both a prophetic word and a prophetic sign—the women of the royal house being led out to captivity. The king commanded Jeremiah not to ‘hide’ anything from him but, as one reads the remainder of the chapter, it is hard to avoid the impression that the one who really wanted to hide things was the king. This perception would seem to be born out by his instructions in vv 24–26. Jeremiah’s reply in v 15 can be read as playing on the ambiguity of dabar: ‘If I announce a word (what is to happen/event), you will kill me will you not (an event), and if I advise you (word), you will not listen/obey me’.46 That is, the king would respond to Jeremiah’s prophetic word by killing him, an ‘event’ that would serve as a clear sign (a thing) that he refused to obey YHWH no matter what counsel Jeremiah provided. After all, according to what is recounted in the preceding episodes, 37:17–21 and 38:1–6, the king had been complicit in plans to imprison Jeremiah in such a way that he would die.

45. The NRSV uses the English term ‘vision’ in 38:22 but it should be noted that the book of Jeremiah does not use the Hebrew term for a vision (khazon) to describe what YHWH showed Jeremiah, but rather the standard verb ‘to see/show’ (ra’ah in the hiphil), as in 1:11–14 and 24:1–10. The term ‘vision’ occurs only in 14:21 and 23:16 in relation to false prophets. 46. I would disagree with Roncace who holds that the verbs nagad (‘announce/ declare’) and ya‘an (‘counsel/reply’) are not associated with prophecy (Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 97). While this may be the case with the latter (depending on context), the former is clearly used in association with prophecies in texts such as Jer 9:12; 16:10; 31:10; 33:3; 42:4, 20. Jeremiah’s use of nagad in his reply to the king indicates that a prophetic word was what Jeremiah knew the king wanted—in line with previous encounters—and this was what he got in vv 17–23.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 151 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM 152 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

The king is described replying with an oath in secret that, in the context, also seems rife with ambiguity. First, even though the king may have replied in this way because of fear of the officials, its secrecy raises a question about its status and even validity. In the Israelite and ANE context oaths were sworn in public at the city gate/courthouse or in the temple (the location of this encounter). Second, the one swearing an oath believed he or she was in a right relationship with the particular god(s). Was this the case with Zedekiah? On my reading, the portrayal of him to this point would incline one to a negative assessment. Here he is portrayed swearing that he would not put Jer- emiah to death or hand him over to those who wanted to do so. But when Jeremiah told Zedekiah in 37:17 that he would be given into the ‘hand’ of the Babylonians, his reaction to this (and to the oracle in 38:2–3) was to give Jeremiah into the ‘hand’ of the officials (38:5). In this second private encounter, Zedekiah is portrayed swearing he would not kill Jeremiah or give him into the ‘hand’ of those seeking his life. But, as the preceding episodes make clear, he had already done just this. Some commentators see a sympathetic element in the text’s portrayal of the king, but in my view the text paints him as a desperate, self–focused character whose overriding concern was personal survival, particularly since the onset of famine signaled the end was nigh. He could not place his faith in YHWH’s word as the sure refuge against all the odds (unlike Jeremiah). In this sense he wanted things on his terms. As remarked above, surrender to Babylon was the one lifeline left to the king; the fascinating and disturbing thing is that the text implies YHWH kept offering this to a figure whom YHWH knew would not accept it. This recalls Jeremiah’s preaching in the first part of the book where he was told by YHWH to exhort the people to turn/convert, but was also told by YHWH that they would not listen. But what looks from human perspective to be a waste of divine effort conveys an important aspect of the divinity that we have seen in the preceding indictments of the people—enduring commitment/ loyalty (khesed), even to those who rejected YHWH or abused the relationship. Even YHWH’s punishment of such evildoers is a sign of YHWH’s commitment to them; it is designed to get them to see the point and change, even though—and this is another aspect of the creator’s commitment to the creature—YHWH will continue to ‘create’ the very freedom that enables human beings to reject the divine word.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 152 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 153

On 38:17–23. These verses report Jeremiah’s initial advice as to what the king must do (v 17–18), the king’s response to this (v 19), which prompts further words from Jeremiah (vv 20–23). What is notable is that, for the first time in the book, Zedekiah is promised the same outcome for surrendering to the Babylonians as the people in v 2.47 At this point therefore it is instructive to compare these prophecies with others on the fate of Zedekiah. According to the chronology of the book, the first one occurred at the beginning of his reign when Jeremiah donned a wooden yoke and exhorted the neighboring nations, king Zedekiah, and the priests and people to submit to the yoke of Babylon and thereby preserve their lives (cf chapter 27). A chronologically later one is in 21:3–7 when Jeremiah instructed a delegation from Zedekiah at the onset of the Babylonian siege that YHWH had decreed there was no escape and that the king, his servants, and the people in Jerusalem who survived pestilence, sword, and the famine would be given into the hands of Nebuchadrezzar. Jer- emiah also prophesied that Nebuchadrezzar would strike ‘them’ down but just who ‘they’ were is somewhat uncertain. For example, was the delegation addressed in vv 3–5 (you) meant to be included among ‘them’? The rhetorical nature of such prophecies can make identification of addressees difficult. The next prophecy on the fate of Zedekiah is the one in 24:8–10 that is set after the first exile—of king Jehoiachin and others. It spells out the significance of the rotten figs that Jere- miah has been shown. As with 21:3–7 it covers Zedekiah, his officials, those who remained in the land, plus those in Egypt. Once again, it is somewhat uncertain whether v 10, which proclaims YHWH’s resolve to afflict ‘them’ until they are utterly destroyed from the land, refers to their death or their removal from the land by exile. If the latter, then the text presumably includes Zedekiah among those exiled. Historical–critical analysis would tend to see different hands responsible for these prophecies and that they were incorporated, perhaps in clusters, at different stages in the composition of the book.48 They reflect changing assessments of Zedekiah, the last king of Judah. Evidence from texts on Zedekiah in 2 Kings 24–25 has also been

47. As noted by Fischer, Jeremia 2, 339. 48. Thus 21:9; 38:2 and 18–23 are related via the focus on surrender to the Babylonians; 32:3–6; 34:1–5 and 37:17 share the motif of the king being handed over to the Babylonians, while 21:3–7 and 24:8–10 are not only about Zedekiah but his officials/servants and all the people in Jerusalem.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 153 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM 154 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

examined.49 While a gradual process of compilation and redaction is quite plausible, I would judge that the various prophecies have been formulated and incorporated in such a way, and at strategic points in the book, as to contribute to its overall meaning and theology. Thus, because Zedekiah is first introduced in the book in chapter 21, a section that concludes with the showing of the baskets of figs in chapter 24, it is appropriate to have a prophecy that embraces both king and people, that condemns both in the same terms and decrees the same kind of punishment for both (cf occurrence in the two prophecies of the trio pestilence–sword–famine). They are also included in the decree of punishment against Judah and the surrounding nations in chapter 25, even though this is set in the reign of the fourth year of the earlier king Jehoiakim. The subsequent chapters show how the story of Judah unfolded in accord with the prophetic word. Chapter 27 is set at the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah. According to the text Jeremiah dons a wooden yoke and promises the surrounding nations, the new king and his priests and people, that all who accept the decree of chapter 25 and obey it by submitting to the yoke of Babylon will preserve their lives and not die by sword, famine and pestilence (cf 27:8, 13; 28:8). These prophecies affirm the conquest and exile, as they must in the wake of chapter 25, but they claim that YHWH assured the new king and subjects of divine protection, within the decreed period of Babylonian servitude, as long as they obeyed the divine word. As noted earlier, this decreed period of servitude served as an assurance to listeners and readers that YHWH is the same Sovereign over time who established Judah’s time in the land and also brought it to an end. One could say that the book is here appealing to the theology of YHWH as the just and merciful God. Justice required that Judah and Jerusalem be punished for all the sins committed to the point of Jeremiah’s sermon in chapter 25. But the merciful God would ensure a safe ‘time’ of servitude to Babylon for

49. For an analysis of the texts on Zedekiah as indicative of shifting perceptions of him by redactors, see the article by Hermann–Josef Stipp, ‘Zedekiah in the Book of Jeremiah. On the Formation of a Biblical Character’, in CBQ, 58 (1996): 627–48. He sees ‘the progressive development of an ever more negative portrayal of the unlucky ruler’, (643–44). See also J Applegate, ‘The Fate of Zedekiah: Redactional Debate in the Book of Jeremiah’, in VT, 48/2 (1998): 139–60; and ‘The Fate of Zedekiah: Redactional Debate in the Book of Jeremiah, Part II’, in VT, 48/3 (1998): 301–308.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 154 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 155

the new king and his subjects if they did what they are instructed to do. Given the portrait of Israel thus far in the book however, the clear implication is that Zedekiah and his generation would act in accord with their ‘fathers’. There is no report in the book of Zedekiah obeying the command, and this is in line with 2 Kings 24:17–20. This text states that he was installed as a vassal by Nebuchadrezzar but subsequently rebelled and turned to Egypt. But there can be no escape from the decree of Babylonian servitude and, in order to drive this point home, 32:3–5 and 34:1–6 reprise an expression from the first prophecy in the book on this topic, namely 21:3–7. The expression in v 7 combines the verb ‘to give’ and the phrase ‘into the hands of’ Nebuchadrezzar/king of Babylon. According to chapter 34 (also 37:3–10), Zedekiah and the people of Jerusalem thought the Egyp- tian incursion spelt release from the Babylonian threat and that they could resume life as before. Hence they repossessed the indentured labourers/slaves whom they had released. According to 34:17–22, YHWH’s response was to declare that wicked Zedekiah and all who reneged on the release of their slaves would be the ones ‘released’—to Babylon. That is, YHWH would ‘hand them over’ to the Babylonians and the accompanying ravages of sword, famine and pestilence. One further combination of prophecies was needed in the book to, as it were, complete the portrayal of Zedekiah and his generation, and their relationship to Jeremiah and the prophetic word. This involved linking submission to the Babylonian yoke and the assurance of life (cf. chapter 27) with the prophecy that there was no escape from the hand of Babylon. This occurs in the final prophecies that Jeremiah delivered on the fate of king and city; namely 37:6–10, 17; 38:2 and 38:17–26. The first confirmed the inevitability of the Babylonian conquest by asserting that the Chaldeans would return from their temporary withdrawal to deal with the Egyptian incursion. The second confirmed for Zedekiah that when this happened he would be handed over to the king of Babylon. For its part, 38:2 confirmed 27:12 by promising that all those who ‘go out to the Chaldeans’, that is, who surrendered, would save their lives.50 By doing so they would demonstrate that they had ‘heard’ the divine word and accepted it by act-

50. 27:12 has the second person masculine plural ‘you’, and these are identified in v 13 as Zedekiah (‘you’ singular) and ‘your people’. 38:2 has the third person singular, ‘the one/anyone’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 155 13-May-20 5:26:03 PM 156 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

ing in accordance with it; that is, by surrendering to the Chaldeans. Almost paradoxically, by handing themselves over to the Chaldeans in complete trust of YHWH, their lives would be protected by their conquerors.51 YHWH would ensure that they were not destroyed like those who remained in the city and fought against the Chaldeans. The alternative outcomes, preservation of life or destruction, depended on obedience to the word of YHWH, and the same alternatives were presented to Zedekiah in two stages—in 38:17–18 and 19–26. What is striking about the first is that Zedekiah’s surrender to the Babylonians would ensure not only his own life—in accord with the general promise of 38:2—but also that the city would not be burned and all the members of his household would live. By doing what looked to those who rejected YHWH’s word as an admission of complete loss of royal power, the king would—again paradoxically— become a powerful agent in the preservation of the city. This of course is the very thing that a king was meant to do. If however he refused to surrender then he had failed to act as a king should in this situation. He had effectively surrendered or handed the city over to destruction. He himself would have lost all royal power by being handed over to the Chaldeans. Zedekiah’s reply in v 19 would seem to indicate that his real fear if he surrendered was not the Chaldeans but Judeans who had ‘deserted’ to them. Alternatively, he was prepared to accept the word but noted that it referred only to the Chaldeans; did it cover others such as the Judean deserters? One may note that the Hebrew verb used in v 19—naphal—can mean ‘to fall’, ‘desert’, or ‘surrender’, depending on context. It is used in 21:9 in the sense of ‘surrender’ in order to preserve one’s life. Jeremiah’s reply in 38:20 may be meant to point this out; the ones whom Zedekiah labelled ‘deserters’ were in fact those who obeyed YHWH’s word and ‘surrendered’ to the Chal- deans. They would not abuse him as he feared. Zedekiah should do as they had done and all would be well. One may note at this point how the king is portrayed as concerned only for his own well–being, whereas his obedience or disobedience to YHWH’s word would have life–saving or death–dealing implica-

51. Roncace states that ‘Jeremiah does not offer Zedekiah and Jerusalem salvation from the Babylonians upon surrender; he promises only that the city would not be utterly destroyed’ (Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 106). In my judgement, what the text has Jeremiah offer on the authority of YHWH is ‘salvationwith the Babylonians’ rather than ‘from the Babylonians’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 156 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 157

tions for the city and his household. Do we have here an intimation of what Jeremiah feared in v 15b, that Zedekiah would not listen to him and thereby not listen to YHWH either? Perhaps as an urge to him to listen and think of his royal responsibilities rather than just himself, in vv 21–23 Jeremiah tells Zedekiah the ‘event’ (dabar) that YHWH had shown him would take place ‘if’ he refused to surrender. The fate of the royal house is not included in v 18 as one of the evil consequences resulting from the king’s refusal to surrender; the reason it is presented here may be because it provides a dramatic and poetic climax to the exchange between king and prophet. It may also be because the king, if he refused to obey the word, would be judged and dethroned as king in a very public way by those from whom he would have least expected it—the women of his own house. The king was complicit in the sham trial of Jeremiah in 38:1–6 that judged him and condemned him to death for his preaching. But he himself would be judged by the women and his responsibility for the demise of the city publicly proclaimed.52 According to vv 21–23 Jeremiah was privileged to hear an advance rendition of their judgement which they would in due course sing as they were led into captivity after the fall of the city. Their ‘taunt song’ would declare that the one who should have exercised royal power would instead have power exercised over him.53 His supposed ‘friends of peace’ (NRSV ‘trusted friends’) had deceived him and overpowered him. He is like someone stuck in the mud, unable to move one way or the other.54 A fascinating feature of the women’s

52. Cf Roncace, Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 110. 53. The ‘taunt song’ description is from Holladay, who sees parallels with Isa 14:4b– 21 (Jeremiah 2, 290). Roncace sees links with Jeremiah’s lament in 20:7–18 (Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 113–14). 54. Even though the Hebrew word for mud here (bots) is not the same as the mud (tit) in Jeremiah’s cistern prison (38:6), a connection between the two seems intended, as Barbara Green and others propose (cf ‘Sunk in the Mud: Literary Correlation and Collaboration between King and Prophet in the Book of Jeremiah’, in Jeremiah Invented: Constructions and Deconstructions of Jeremiah [Else K Holt and Carolyn J Sharp editors, LHBOTS 595 (London: Bloomsbury, 2015], 34–48). Green examines 38:14–28 as one of seven encounters between Jeremiah and Zedekiah in the book. I would disagree with her assessment that Jeremiah is portrayed as bungling things. This would seem to turn him into a counselor rather than a prophet whose commission, according to the book, is to proclaim the word of YHWH, welcome or unwelcome. However, she does defend him against the charge of lack of integrity by Roncace (Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 111–13) and misrepresentation of the truth by Callaway (‘Telling the Truth and Telling Stories’, 257)

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 157 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM 158 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

poem is the variety of forms it assumes depending on the way one reads it. It is an integral part of a prophecy of what will happen, yet it is also conditional upon how the king responds. Even though it is a prophecy it is also a judgement made by the women on a past event— namely what the king had done. But this is something that in the narrative sequence he has yet to do. It will also serve—when the women pronounce it—as a fulfillment or confirmation of the prophetic word. 38:24–26. Verse 24 is ambiguous in more ways than one. First, the king is reported instructing the prophet not to tell anyone about ‘these words/these things/matters’ (plural of dabar). Does this refer to the words Jeremiah had heard from YHWH and proclaimed, the whole conversation between them (including the king’s oath), or the whole series of words and events, including Jeremiah’s rescue from the pit? Whatever the case, to try and muzzle YHWH’s prophet was to go against the nature of prophecy and against YHWH. But, and this is the second ambiguity in the text, the king may be portrayed here as not regarding anything Jeremiah has said as prophetic. Nowhere in his instructions does he refer to what Jeremiah has said as prophecy. A third ambiguity concerns the sense of v 24b, translated in the NRSV as ‘or you will die’, whereas the Hebrew reads ‘and you (masculine singular) will not die’. It can be read as advice to Jeremiah from the king as to how to preserve his life, or a threat by the king if he were to reveal the ‘words’ spoken (cf NRSV rendering). Either reading would fit with what follows in vv 25–26. If one reads it as a threat then it exposes Zedekiah’s oath in 38:16 as a sham and a repudiation of YHWH’s authority (the one by whom an oath is sworn). If it is advice then it is pointless because Jeremiah has already proclaimed the doom of Judah and the city a number of times and has been delivered from death in the pit, in accord with YHWH’s promises (1:18–19; 15:20–21). This suggests that the real meaning of the text lies elsewhere and the king’s subsequent instructions about what to say to the officials provide a clue (vv 25–26). The focus of the king’s concern was not the word of YHWH but what the officials would do, and he effectively ‘prophesies’ what they would do unless Jeremiah concealed what he prophesied. The implication in the king’s instructions is that if the officials were prepared to kill Jeremiah then they were also prepared to kill the king. There is a certain irony here. The king’s advice to Jeremiah showed that the word of Jeremiah was a matter of life and death for

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 158 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 159

him and the officials, even though the text does not state that he acknowledged it as prophecy. For the reader of course, Jeremiah’s words were indeed a matter of life and death, but the officials, and the king too depending on how one reads v 24b, presumed to play God and decide who should live and who should die for what they say, whereas the one who is actually in charge of life and death is the one whom they refused to hear and obey. Another feature of the text worth noting is that, whereas YHWH promised life for Zedekiah and his family if he obeyed the word, Zedekiah's own words to Jeremiah were about death. He warned Jeremiah about death if the officials came to know what was said or, depending on how one reads v 24b, he threatened Jeremiah with death if he revealed ‘these words’ (NRSV ‘conversation’) to anyone. According to vv 25–26 he instructed Jer- emiah to lie to the officials if they questioned him, in order to avoid death at their hands. The words that he instructed Jeremiah to say in order to preserve his life refer to his earlier death sentence. Another ambiguity occurs with v 25 which varies in the versions. The LXX has what looks to be a repetition, ‘tell us what the king said to you, do not hide it from us . . . what the king said to you’. The MT preserves the two occurrences of the verb ‘said’ but makes Jeremiah the subject of the first one, as in the NRSV. On this reading the officials would demand to know both what Jeremiah said to the king and what the king said in reply.55 Despite these uncertainties one can gain some idea of the thrust of the text. If one takes the MT arrangement it is significant that the statement about death lies between the two references to what was said. Given that this tells us what the king stated the officials would say, it may be revealing as much or more about the king’s situation vis–à–vis the officials than about Jeremiah’s. Was Zedekiah the one who had death on his mind, who feared death at their hand (cf 38:5)? This reading is in accord with the remarks above about the king’s instructions being effectively about death rather than life. I would suggest therefore that Zedekiah’s words in vv 24–26 are really a plea to Jeremiah for help against the officials. The king was powerless and effectively pleaded for Jeremiah to lie to protect his own life rather than Jeremiah’s. Within the larger context, the king feared for his life not only from the Babylonians (as shown by his repeated

55. The Syriac makes the two demands clear by reading; ‘what you said to the king and what he said to you, do not hide it from us . . .’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 159 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM 160 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

consultations with Jeremiah about them), but also from the Judeans who had deserted (cf 38:19), and from the officialscf ( 38:5). But he had been guaranteed a way out by Jeremiah as long as he feared (revered) YHWH and obeyed the word of YHWH’s prophet, instead of all these other fears. The impact of these fears is suggested by the way the king is portrayed attempting to put a blanket prohibition on Jeremiah saying anything about ‘these words’. Secrecy is a hallmark of fear. But, was Zedekiah a man consumed by fear or by arrogance? The latter interpretation is possible but if so, he was completely deluded because he had effectively admitted he had no power to back up his arrogance. Hence the better reading is that he was afraid. As portrayed in vv 24–26, Zedekiah could not or would not accept the counsel provided by YHWH in vv 17–23, and this served to validate what Jeremiah ‘prophesied’ in v 15 (hence the A–B–A’ structure for this section). As already noted, there is no mention of YHWH in Zedekiah’s words. One may also say that the king’s instructions and his quotation of what the officials would say creates a complication that leads to a crisis in the following verses. Hence, we have another little story or an episode within the larger drama. But by now a reader knows that Jeremiah would not die and would in some way escape the wicked officials— and that this would be a sign of YHWH being with him, as promised. 38:27–28 (cf 38:1–6; B and B’). The report of Jeremiah lying to the officials may appear initially surprising and disturbing—given the portrait of the loyal and true prophet thus far. However, the preceding context prepares the reader to accept that Jeremiah told the lie not to protect his own life but in order to protect the life of the king from the officials.56 Why did he do this? The text does not inform the reader directly but, drawing again from the context two reasons can be offered. One is that Jeremiah was well aware of the king’s conflict- ing attitudes and was willing to lie (no oath is called for by the officials) to protect his life and thereby give him a final chance to change (to turn shub) and accept YHWH’s command to surrender as the one life–saving option. The second reason is that, as a loyal prophet in tune with the mind of YHWH, Jeremiah knew the king would not change. But YHWH, not Jeremiah, was the judge who would decide Zedekiah’s fate.

56. Fretheim (Jeremiah, 526) argues that Zedekiah effectively placed his life in Jeremiah’s hands by asking him to lie to the officials.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 160 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 161

In relation to the theme of lying, one may recall how YHWH instructs Moses to lie to Pharaoh in Exodus 3:18 as part of the divinity’s righteous purpose—delivering Israel from the evil of oppression and death. In 1 Kings 22:22–23 YHWH grants approval to a lying spirit to induce prophets to lie and thereby bring wicked king Ahab undone. One may also say the story compares Jeremiah’s good lie or lie for a good purpose with the king’s lies for a bad or corrupt purpose. The intriguing irony of this scene is that Jeremiah, in response to the officials who claim (falsely) that they are seeking the truth, is portrayed telling a lie that, according to the claim of the narrator, confirmed he was YHWH’s true prophet at the service of the divine purpose/plan. Even more intriguing, the narrator employed another layer of irony to make this point—Jeremiah ostensibly lied to protect himself (not to be sent back to prison; cf 37:18–21) but the reader knows that this was itself a lie. Jeremiah was really lying to protect the king from potential murderers. One might ask why the officials did not simply kill Jeremiah as they set out to do in 38:1–6. Why not finish the job? One response is that this is a limitation in the plot; the storyteller needs the key character Jeremiah for the rest of the story and therefore makes no reference to this option. Another is that this is history, but one has to say it is unlikely history if 38:1–6 is also history. But one may also argue from the larger context that it was YHWH who protected Jer- emiah from the officials, in accord with 1:18–19 and 15:20–21. Even though they acted on the conviction they were in charge, the course of events reveals YHWH as the one Lord of history/time. Passages such as 38:14–28 are an example of how prophetic texts also function, at times indirectly, as torah or instructions.57 Reflection on Jeremiah’s lie shows how it worked to protect the king. His plea to the king to be more lenient showed that the king did not intend to show any leniency to Jeremiah, and in this sense was in agreement with the officials’ treatment of himcf ( 37:16). In the eyes of the officials, as characters in this story, the prophet’s lie also

57. On instruction or counsel being a feature of 38:14–28, see Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 76; for the larger portrait of Jeremiah as teacher see Christl Maier, Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora. Soziale Gebote des Deuteronomiums in Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches, FRLANT 196 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002); also ‘Jeremiah as Teacher of Torah’, in Interpretation, 62 (2009): 22–32.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 161 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM 162 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

convinced them that he was focused only on himself (his own peace/ welfare) and not on the people, as in 38:1–3 (in the officials’ eyes, this was for the people’s harm/evil), and that the king had no intention of releasing him. Hence there was no danger of Jeremiah defecting as he was accused of doing in 37:11–14. Clever, or inspired, Jeremiah (as portrayed in the text) thus achieved a win–win situation and in effect seized the initiative from the officials. He saved the king’s life but also turned the tables on his enemies. And he did this at the very moment the city and its inhabitants—which they believed they could save—were doomed to destruction and imprisonment because they refused to heed the prophetic word. In this way the story portrays the resolution of the crisis triggered by the king’s words to Jeremiah in 38:25, words that, again depending on one’s reading of v 24b, carried the threat of death at the hands of the officials. One may also note that Jeremiah’s lie meant the officials did not hear the prophetic word he proclaimed to Zedekiah. Given the officials’ and others’ rejection of the prophetic word there is a certain ironic appropriateness that the prophetic word was replaced by a lie that they believed. The scene thus forms a fitting prelude to the account of the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem in 39:1–10, which has no further prophetic word from Jeremiah.

39:1–18 Verses 4–13 are not in the LXX. A widely accepted view among commentators is that the MT version probably drew on 2 Kings 25. There are similarities with Jeremiah 52:7–11 which may also be based on the Kings version. Jeremiah 39:4–13 may have been omitted from the LXX because of haplography or scribal omission due to a copying error.58 The MT version or addition does however make two important and related contributions. It provides narrative continuity with the preceding chapters 37–38 (the final siege), and as well reports the fulfillment or realisation of Jeremiah’s prophecies about the fate of the city, land, people and king.59 As with other such reports in the book, the narrative does not explicitly claim fulfillment but it is clearly implied from the context.

58. For a concise presentation of this feature of the text and list of relevant authors, see Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 228. 59. As noted by di Pede, Au delà du refus, 338–39.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 162 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 163

The chapter may be divided into the following parts: 39:1–3. Report of occupation of Jerusalem by Babylonian officials (MT and LXX) 39:4–7 Report of capture and deportation of king Zedekiah (MT) 39:8 Report of destruction of Jerusalem (MT) 39:9 Report of deportation of the people of Jerusalem (MT) 39:10 Report of situation of the ‘poor people’ left in Judah (MT) 39:11–13/14 Report of provision for Jeremiah (MT for vv 11–14/ LXX for v 14) 39:15–18 Prophecy of salvation for Ebed–melech (MT and LXX) 39:1–3 (MT & LXX). These opening verses cover the whole siege, from its onset in the ninth year of Zedekiah to the capture of the city two years later. This means that it embraces various times and events mentioned in the preceding chapters, such as the tenth year or Zedekiah in 32:1–2, and the Egyptian incursion reported in 34:21b– 22 and 37:5, which probably occurred early in the siege. For this, commentators propose the summer of 588. There is some uneven- ness in the MT and the NRSV has transposed the awkward end of 38:28 in the MT to the beginning of 39:3 to give a smoother sequence. If left at 38:28 the MT effectively has a double reference to the capture of Jerusalem but, as noted earlier, a problem with this is that Jeremiah is the subject of the verb in 38:28b whereas the feminine ‘city’ is the required subject once the verse is transferred to 39:3. This requires the feminine form of the corresponding Hebrew verb. As pointed out in my preceding study, there are three key sermons with accompanying prophecies delivered by Jeremiah in the first half of the book, and each is delivered at a specific gate. These are the sermon at the gate of the temple in chapter 7, at the gates of the city in 17:19–27, and at the gates of the royal palace in 22:1–5. Each sermon warns that access through these respective gates would be terminated because of the failure of kings and people to obey YHWH’s commands. According to 39:3, all the officials of the king of Babylon came and sat in the middle gate of the city, a report that is clearly intended as fulfillment of the prophecy in 1:15b. The report also shows that the Babylonians have been appointed by YHWH as the new custodians of the city gates in place of the Judean kings, priests and people. Their

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 163 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM 164 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

‘appointment’ thus signifies that YHWH has brought an end to the existing disorder in Judah and Jerusalem. A further point to be noted is that the four officials named in v 3 may be meant as replacements for the four officials named in 38:1, who are enemies of Jeremiah and therefore also of YHWH. 39:4–7 (not in LXX). Already powerless (according to chapters 37–38) and blocked from exit through the gates of the city by the Babylonian officials, Zedekiah and the soldiers are reported making one last bid to avoid captivity—they attempted to flee through a gate but, unsurprisingly in the context and probably also from a historical point of view, the king was captured.60 In an ironic reversal the gate of the city through which he tried to escape becomes the gate or entrance into his ‘prison’. In relation to the larger context, one may also say that his attempt to escape was pointless because he was in reality already a ‘prisoner’ of the Babylonians from the moment he became king. Their looming presence and power determined his every move. In another irony, his flight reveals a rejection of the one thing that would have enabled him to escape this form of imprisonment—obedience to the prophetic word to surrender to the Babylonians and thereby preserve his life ‘as a prize of war’ (Jer 21:9; 38:2b). There is an implied parallel, and contrast, between the captivity of Zedekiah here and the earlier captivity of Jeremiah by Irijah. Both planned to leave the city through a gate but both were taken prisoner. Jeremiah was brought to the officials who beat him and imprisoned him, Zedekiah was brought to Nebuchadrezzar at Rizpah who executed his sons before his eyes, blinded him and took him bound as a prisoner to Babylon.61 To see his sons slaughtered and then be blinded signified that he would see no more sons—so no successors— and would spend all his remaining life in captivity being reminded of this. The sword that struck down Zedekiah’s sons effectively struck Zedekiah also and ‘killed’ him as a king.62 The one who fled in dark-

60. Only the king is reported captured at this point, although 39:5 states that the Babylonians pursued ‘them’. The focus on Zedekiah is presumably because the following verses are about his fate. 61. Cf the prophecy in 34:2–5 that Zedekiah would be taken as a prisoner to Babylon, and the quotation of this by Zedekiah in 32:3–5. 62. Keown–Scalise–Smothers judges that Nebuchadrezzar’s treatment of Zedekiah is in many ways ‘worse than a sentence of death’ (Jeremiah 26–52, 230). As such, 39:6–7 may be related to 21:7.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 164 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 165

ness in an attempt to escape imprisonment ended up a prisoner not only of the Babylonians but also of the darkness (blind). There was no one to deliver Zedekiah from this lonely prison of darkness whereas, according to 39:11–14, Nebuchadrezzar gave instructions for the faithful prophet to be delivered from the prison to which Zedekiah confined him, and he returned to his own people. In my judgement, the account of Zedekiah’s fate also serves to clarify one’s understanding of him as portrayed in the preceding chapters. Whereas, within the preceding context, one could be inclined to think he was a complex figure, beset by a welter of competing forces but struggling to find the best way forward for city and country, when one takes into consideration his attempted escape it is difficult to avoid the impression of a person who was only, and certainly finally, on about himself. The secrecy of his nighttime escape attempt recalls the secrecy of his meetings with Jeremiah in 37:17 and 38:14–16, and which were about himself. The reader is prompted, again, to align him with YHWH’s portrayal of the duplicity of the people in the lessons conducted for Jeremiah’s benefit in chapters 14 and 15. Like the people, Zedekiah would do whatever he hoped was enough to avert the looming crisis and have things return to the status quo and to his advantage. He may have displayed apparent trust in YHWH by initially seeking Jeremiah out in a public way in 21:1–3 and 37:3. Such displays were also no doubt to convince the people that, as king, he was there for them. But his furtive flight and abandonment of city and people showed that self–preservation at whatever cost to others was his priority.63 39:8–10 (not in LXX). These verses in the MT version may be taken together because they report what were three common features of the conquest of a city in the ANE; destruction of the city and its walls (v 8), exile of part of the population (v 9), retention of another part to provide food and tribute for the conquerors (v 10). Within the context of the book, these mark the fulfillment of preceding prophecies. The burning of the king’s house and city in v 8 is prophesied in a number of texts such as 34:2b, 22; 37:10b and 38:18, 23b. There has

63. According to Roncace, ‘Zedekiah’s action are “undecidable” from a historical standpoint and—as a senstivie reading reveals—from a literary one as well’, (Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 168–69). While he may be right ‘from a historical standpoint’ I would disagree about the ‘literary one’, as my remarks indicate. See also the reflections on Zedekiah by Green in ‘Sunk in the Mud’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 165 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM 166 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

been some question over the report of those taken into captivity in v 9 because it includes ‘the rest of the people left in the city’ (presumably after hostilities ceased), as well as those who had surrendered. The latter group is in line with the prophecy of 38:2b, but the preceding one is not. Two points may be made in response.64 One is to note that the MT of v 9 repeats the phrase ‘the rest of the people, the ones remaining’, but after the reference to those who surrendered. Even though the second occurrence may be an addition it seems to have been deliberately placed to form a frame with the first occurrence around the reference to those who surrendered and thereby to differ- entiate the two groups. A second point is that the phrase ‘those who remained’ (plural participial form of the verb sha’ar) occurs in 24:8 to refer to ‘the remnant of Jerusalem, who remain (‘the ones remaining’) in this land’. According to v 9 YHWH will cause these to become a horror and a curse in all the lands where they shall be driven. But according to v 10 there are or will also be those who remain in the land and upon whom YHWH will bring the sword, famine and pestilence until they are destroyed from the land. Presumably these refuse to surrender to the Babylonians in accord with 21:9; 27:17 and 38:2b. According to the book there were two ways in which one’s life would be preserved by surrendering to the Babylonians. One was to be taken to Babylon, as is the case with the ‘good figs’ in 24:4–7, the addressees of Jeremiah’s letter in chapter 29, and those in 39:9. The other was to be left in the land for the designated period of Babylonian servitude. The text of 39:10 does not state that Nebuzaradan left the poor people in the land, and gave them vineyards and fields, because they surrendered to him. However, within the context, it is reasonable to presume that this is how the verse is meant to be read. The context of chapter 24 is of course the initial siege and exile of 597; hence the prophecy presumably also has the final conquest of Judah and Jerusalem and the ensuing exile in view. The prophecy about the remnant in Jerusalem is realised, according to the claims of the book, with those referred to in 39:9. This remnant was taken into exile along with those who surrendered but the implication is that they were a separate group to the ones who surrendered and were destined to a different fate, one in accord with 24:8. In my judge-

64. The discrepancy is pointed out both by Carroll Jeremiah( , 692; 93) and Roncace (Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 120), but neither has the explanations offered here.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 166 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 167

ment, the remnant targeted in 24:9–10 were the ones remaining in the land after the conquest of Jerusalem and who are a key focus of chapters 40–44. These chapters tell of their refusal to obey YHWH’s injunction to serve Babylon and of their resolve to flee to Egypt after the murder of Gedaliah, taking Jeremiah and Baruch with them by force. But according to chapter 44, Jeremiah declared that this would provide no escape from Babylon’s imprisonment because YHWH had given even Egypt into their hands.65 This in turn serves to confirm the prophecy in chapter 25 of a long period of Babylonian domination (seventy years). The time of Judah’s return to and reoccupation of the land can only take place when YHWH decrees. 39:11–14 (vv 11–13 not in LXX). Jeremiah is not reported surrendering to the Babylonians to save his life as he urged his countrymen and king. Instead, these verses claim Nebuchadrezzar himself took the initiative in relation to Jeremiah. Consideration of the context allows one to suggest several reasons for this. An initial one is that being still confined to the court of the guard (38:28) would have made ‘going out’ to the Babylonians to surrender difficult, if not impossible for Jeremiah. A second is that portraying Jeremiah taking the initiative in ‘going out’ to the Babylonians could imply he was complying with the prophecy for personal advantage. A third and probably more persuasive reason is that, in keeping with his portrayal in the book as the faithful servant of YHWH, Jeremiah would wait obediently for a word or sign from YHWH and only act in light of this and in accord with it. He had no fear of the Babylonians because they were not among his enemies from whom YHWH promised to deliver him (1:18–19; 15:20–21). In relation to this, it is significant that the only speech reported in 39:1–14 (MT) is Nebuchadrezzar’s instructions for the care of Jeremiah.66 Within the context it is reasonable to take this as YHWH’s ‘servant’ speaking on behalf of his Master (25:9; 27:9), who had entrusted him with the care of another ‘servant’ Jeremiah. Whereas the verb laqakh is used in 39:5 to describe the capture/taking of Zedekiah, in Nebuchadrezzar’s speech it refers to the opposite, that Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard, is to ‘take’ Jeremiah from

65. To flee to Egypt was also to reverse the exodus and to return to Israel’s original ‘prison’. 66. As noted by di Pede, Au delà du refus, 341.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 167 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM 168 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

prison in the court of the guard, and to do him no evil (NRSV ‘harm’) but only what ‘he shall/may say to you’ (NRSV ‘he may ask’).67 Nebuchadrezzar’s treatment of Jeremiah also forms a striking contrast to Zedekiah’s. Unlike Zedekiah (‘Yahweh is my righteousness’), who was powerless or unwilling to free Jeremiah or heed his word, as YHWH’s servant Nebuchadrezzar was given power by YHWH to do what the Judean king could not. He instructed his officials not to do Jeremiah any harm/evil and to heed his word. In contrast Zedekiah was unrighteous; he failed to instruct his officials not to harm Jer- emiah but instead to listen to him. The Babylonian king effectively replaced the failed Davidic king and ruled as a Davidic king should (if this is an accurate reading, it would have been an outrageous and challenging claim for a Judean audience and members of the dynasty). The Babylonians knew nothing of this and probably could not have cared less. They had their gods and their own theological propaganda to match. In relation to this it is worth noting that the book of Isaiah calls the Persian conqueror Cyrus ‘his (YHWH’s) anointed’ or ‘mes- siah’ (45:1), the only time the term is used in that book. The conquest of Babylon by Persia was explained in Isaiah as the just punishment of Babylon and its rulers for not following their divine mandate (cf Jer 25:12; Isa 47; the same interpretation is applied earlier to Assyria in Isa 10:5–19). Verses 13–14 report Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, and all the chief officers, carrying out Nebuchadrezzar’s orders. However, there are some features of v 14 that require comment. The Babylo- nians entrusted or ‘gave/handed over’ (Hebrew natan) Jeremiah to a certain Gedaliah, and even though the reader knows something of Gedaliah’s father and grandfather from the preceding chapters, there is no information at this point about his own status. BHS considers ‘to Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan’ to be an addition from 40:6, where information on his status is provided by the preceding v 5.68 The phrase rendered in the NRSV as ‘to be brought

67. Roncace (Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 127–29) has some thoughtful reflections on why Jeremiah was well treated by the Babylonians but, in my judgement, he does not take into account Nebuchadrezzar’s depiction as YHWH’s servant in 25:9 and 27:6, and the clear implication in 39:11–14 that he was acting as an obedient servant in his treatment of Jeremiah. 68. Jer 39:14 is the first mention of this Gedaliah who was ‘son of Ahikam son of Shaphan’ in the book; the Gedaliah in 38:1 was ‘son of Pashhur’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 168 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 169

home’ is somewhat unclear in the Hebrew, and BHS proposes a reading that translates into English as ‘to let him go out and come in’. It is however unclear whether this implies Jeremiah had complete freedom of movement to enter and exit the city, or only in relation to the place where he presumably stayed after release from the court of the guard. The NRSV translates the final phrase as ‘So he stayed with his own people’, whereas the Hebrew conveys a more general sense ‘and he dwelt in the midst of the people’. Within the context of the conquest the term ‘people’ presumably refers to the ‘poor people’ of v 10 who were left in the land and given vineyards and fields. Verses 13–14 may have undergone adjustments to provide more of a setting or context for the subsequent narrative. Despite these textual difficul- ties, one feature of the passage is clear; there is no report of a word from Jeremiah. As was the case in his dispute with Hananiah (chapter 28), the loyal prophet waited in silence until instructed by YHWH to speak a word. 39:15–18. This final passage of chapter 39 provides another example of chronological reversal. It is set while Jeremiah was still in the court of the guard but, according to 39:14, he had been taken/released from there. For this reason, some relocate it after 38:13 or 38:28.69 However, a number of features can be pointed out, both in the text itself and in is relation to the context, that show it is strategically located. The narrative introduction to the passage is a clear signal that the reader needs to connect Jeremiah’s oracle that follows with the episode of Ebed–melech’s intervention on his behalf in 38:7–13. Jeremiah delivered the oracle after he had been rescued by Ebed–melech from death in the pit and transferred to the court of the guard. Even though Jer- emiah spoke it privately to Ebed–melech while still in the court of the guard, the reader is now given the key reason why the Ethiopian/ Cushite foreigner acted as he did. As YHWH declares in v 18 it was ‘because you have trusted in me’. Although a foreigner, Ebed–melech believed in YHWH and accepted Jeremiah as YHWH’s prophet, as the description he is reported using in 38:9 in relation to Jeremiah testifies (‘the prophet’). Hence, he was assured of the same promise as all the Judeans who accepted Jeremiah’s word and surrendered to the Chaldeans (‘you shall have your life as a prize of war’; cf 21:9; 38:2b). Ebed–melech’s trust in YHWH would be even more impressive for

69. For example, Boadt, Jeremiah 26–52, Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 268.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 169 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM 170 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

a Judean reader when one adds the fact that, even though he was an Ethiopian/Cushite he did not back the pro–Egyptian faction during the siege.70 As a model of fidelity to YHWH’s word as proclaimed by Jer- emiah, it is appropriate therefore that the passage on Ebed–melech is located at this point in the narrative. As noted earlier it forms an inclusio with 37:1–2, in particular the judgement in v 2 that there was no such figure in Judah; neither the king, nor his servants, nor the people of the land. This inclusio signals that a central feature of chapters 37–38 is the prophetic word and that its truth is verified both via the infidelity of Zedekiah and the people, and the fidelity of the foreigner Ebed–melech. It is also appropriate to have 39:15–18 follow Nebuchadrezzar’s declaration to Jeremiah in 39:12. As the Babylo- nian king is portrayed acting as YHWH’s servant on behalf of Jer- emiah who was a prisoner of the Judeans in the court of the guard, the reader now knows that another foreigner, Ebed–melech, was also acting as YHWH’s servant on behalf of Jeremiah when he was imprisoned in the deadly cistern. Given this, the reader may presume that, even though there is no report to this effect, Nebuchadrezzar acted as YHWH’s servant by securing the life of this Ethiopian in the aftermath of the conquest, as he secured the life of Jeremiah. Finally, also as noted earlier, within the larger context this passage on Ebed–melech forms a parallel with the passage on Baruch in chapter 45. Both are portrayed as loyal ‘servants’ of YHWH and Jeremiah; both receive assurances that their lives would be saved as a result, and the respective passages on each marks the conclusion of an important section of the book.71

70. The promise of salvation for Ebed–melech is also formulated in 39:17b as ‘and you will not be given into the hands of the men from before whom you are in dread’. The adjectiveyagor (‘fearing/dreading’) occurs elsewhere in the HB/OT only in Jer 22:25 in a prophecy that king Coniah/Jehoiachin/Jeconiah would be handed over to Nebuchadrezzar. Given Ebed–melech is described as an Ethiopian/Cushite, he acted as he did despite the hostility between Babylon and Egypt. 71. In relation to the larger HB/OT, Seitz proposes that the portrayals of Ebed– melech and Baruch are modeled on those of Joshua and Caleb (cf ‘The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah’, 16–27). Roncace sees parallels between chapters 37–40 and the stories of the exodus and conquest (Jeremiah, Zedekiah, 125, 134).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 170 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 171

In my view, relationship to the divine word is the axis around which the portrayal of each character revolves. The most straight- forward portrayal is that of Babylonians. They are YHWH’s servants and faithfully execute YHWH’s plans. They are what narrative critics would call ‘flat characters’ who are constant throughout their portrayal. However, Nebuzaradan’s speech in 40:2b–5a adds another dimension by seeming to present him as a believer in YHWH (although the text is somewhat unclear). In terms of the larger context of the book the Babylonians are fated to commit much the same sin as Israel/Judah and to be judged and condemned accordingly (cf. 25:12–14; 50–51). Zedekiah is a character who dissembles completely as the story unfolds. The king who initially sent a royal delegation to obtain the word of YHWH (cf 21:1–2; which initially appeared to be an act of faith/trust in YHWH and YHWH’s prophet) ended up being completely incapable of responding to the challenge of the word, of being able to trust it. The result of this is that, as the story unfolds, he loses all royal power, he becomes a ‘non–king’, fearful and effectively a prisoner not only of his own officials and courtiers, but also of ordinary Judeans who have deserted to the Babylonians (38:19). Within the context of the story, these are the ones whom Jeremiah states have done the right thing—presumably, they are to be trusted. This king ended up rejecting or being unable or unwilling to accept the very thing that could bring welfare to his city and his kingdom, which was the whole reason for being a king. One senses some sympathy for this feckless character in the book but he was given every chance by YHWH and YHWH’s prophet to save himself and his people (within chapters 37–39 there are three speeches from Jeremiah, the perfect number). The officials are portrayed as consistently hostile to YHWH’s word as spoken by Jeremiah and therefore hostile also to Jeremiah. As such their primary role in the story is to provide a foil for casting Jeremiah as the loyal prophet in the face of hostility and death. The words that he proclaimed meant salvation for the city and people, and those who trusted the prophet and his word would save their lives ‘as a prize of war’. YHWH had the welfare of ‘my people’ at heart but an integral part of this care of the people was that evil must be expunged from their midst. Evil would not win and could not be seen to win: otherwise no true salvation. In keeping with the conduct of his master,

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 171 13-May-20 5:26:04 PM 172 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Jeremiah is portrayed saving a fearful king from harm by his officials and trumping them at the same time. In a bold piece of irony, or cheekiness, the text has Jeremiah achieve these two triumphs of good over evil by telling a lie. Can one tell a lie to thwart evil? Yes, says the Bible, but it presumably depends on the circumstances (cf YHWH in Exod 3:18 and 1 Kgs 22:18–20). This is not the same as a blanket ‘the end justifies the means’ scenario because one has to consider the circumstances and make a judgement. In my opinion, the story implies that Jeremiah did just that. The care with which chapters 37–38 (39) have been assembled is evident in the proposed structure outlined above, in the way later scenes recall earlier ones and develop aspects of them, and in the way each crisis involving Jeremiah is resolved sufficiently to allow the larger story to develop. As noted earlier, one could say that this story of Jeremiah and the fall of Jerusalem is made up of a series of smaller stories or episodes, somewhat like chapters in a book. The way each crisis is resolved also indicates that they serve a more important theme in the story; namely a torah or teaching about the truth of the prophetic word. A sign of the truth of this word is that it is realised in time and place (a claim that the book makes by the way it tells the story). From a reading of chapters 37–39 one can see that it is very much about place; from the conflict about the temporary Babylonian/ Chaldean withdrawal from the city, to Jeremiah’s arrest at the gate, to his subsequent prisons/places, to the places where he and the king meet to discuss the fate of ‘this city’, to the exile from the city after the conquest. This relates to the focus on place in 7:1–17:18. The time element can be seen in the day of Jeremiah’s arrest (37:11–16), his particular time in prison (cf 38:28) and the time/date of the Babylonian conquest (39:1–2), signaling the end of Judah and Jerusalem’s ‘time’. But YHWH’s sovereign rule over all time is signaled in the assurance that those who surrendered to Babylon for the decreed period of seventy years would preserve their lives. YHWH is as much in charge of this time as YHWH was in charge of Israel’s time in Egypt, and its time in the land. YHWH’s sovereignty over time is also signaled in the prophecy of salvation ‘on that day’ for Ebed–melech in 39:15–18. While the time element is present in chapters 37–39 it becomes a key feature of the subsequent chapters 40–44 (and 45). This section relates to chapters 27–29 in that it shows, in narrative form, that there can be no escape from the decreed period of servitude to Babylon.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 172 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM Jeremiah 37:1–39:18 173

Any attempt to gain freedom and control of one’s own ‘time’ will fail, as the account of Ishmael’s assassination of the Babylonian appointed governor Gedaliah and its aftermath shows. When such attempts to terminate the prison ‘sentence’ imposed by YHWH fail, there is one last thing a person can do—place one’s trust in another god who you believe will ‘free’ you from the hand of YHWH and the appointed jailer Babylon. This is what those fleeing to Egypt after the assassination of Gedaliah are reported attempting to do in their worship of the queen of heaven. However, according to chapter 44, Jeremiah dismissed any claim that she had to divine status and decreed that those who worshipped her were doomed to a dreadful fate. It is to an analysis of these chapters that we now turn.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 173 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 174 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM Chapter Seven Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5

This section of the book commences with an account of how Jeremiah was separated from those being taken to exile in Babylon, and how he came to lodge with Gedaliah, the Babylonian appointed governor of the towns of Judah (40:1–6). This is followed by 40:7–12, which paints an initially positive picture of life in the Babylonian province of Judah under Gedaliah. However, what looks to be a promising beginning to life in Judah under the Babylonians unravels in three successive episodes. The first in 40:13–41:15 tells of the assassination of Geda- liah by a member of the royal family, Ishmael, who was lodging with Baalis, the king of the Ammonites. This episode concludes when a certain Johanan, who originally alerted Gedaliah to the plot against him and his forces, confronted Ishmael at Gibeon. Ishmael fled to the safety of the Ammonites, his apparent sponsors. The second episode in 41:16–43:13 sees the first appearance of Jeremiah in the narrative since 40:1–6. Prompted by fear of Babylonian reprisals, Johanan and the people with him intended to flee to Egypt. But before they did so, they asked Jeremiah to ‘pray to the Lord our God for us’ (42:2). After ten days Jeremiah received a word from YHWH that urged them to remain in Judah and not to fear the king of Babylon. There could be no escape from the decreed servitude to Babylon and any flight into Egypt would spell disaster (42:7–22). According to 43:1–7 Jeremiah’s words were rejected and he and his scribe Baruch were taken, virtually as prisoners, to Taphanhes in Egypt. There Jeremiah confirmed the words he proclaimed by performing a symbolic action (43:8–13). He buried stones in the pavement at the entrance to Pharaoh’s palace as a sign that Nebuchadrezzar would set his throne above the stones, as his officials had earlier set their seats in the middle gate of Jeru- salem (39:3). Chapter 44 tells of the debate or dispute Jeremiah had

175

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 175 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM 176 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

with Judeans in Egypt, in particular those who had become devotees of the queen of heaven. Their claim was that she, and not YHWH, was the one who granted them good times as a reward for their devotion to her, and bad times as punishment for their neglect of her (44:17– 18). Their faith claims mark the complete reversal of the faith claims of Yahwism, and the implications of this will be explored in the more detailed analysis to follow.

40:1–6 The fact that these verses cover much the same ground as 39:11–14 has prompted a variety of explanations as to how the present textual sequence came about. These range from theories of redactional enhancement of a shorter original, the bulk of which is normally identified in 39:11–14, to two originally separate accounts both of which were incorporated into the book.1 This latter explanation would tend to be favoured by those who regard the book as a loose collection of material with no overall discernible plan. However, given the thesis of this study that the book is more than just the sum of its parts, and that the parts have a dynamic relationship, it is worth analysing why these two similar yet different accounts of the release of Jeremiah after the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem are located at this point in the book. Given that 40:1–6 is the longer version and comes after the one in 39:11–14, it is reasonable to think that it is meant to fill out aspects of the shorter version rather than being a piece of independent prov- enance that contradicts it to some degree. The shorter version is comprised of the following parts. There is the initial command from Nebuchadrezzar to Nebuzaradan his captain of the guard concerning Jeremiah. A more literal translation of the command in v 12 than the NRSV is, ‘Take him and set your eyes upon him; and do not do to him anything evil, but only as he shall/may say to you, so do with him’. This is followed by the report in vv 13–14 that Nebuzaradan and other

1. For an outline of these theories, see pages 130–31 of the essay by Hill, ‘Jeremiah 40.1–6: An Appreciation’, in Seeing Signals, Reading Signs: The Art of Exegesis: Essays in Honour of Antony F Campbell SJ on his Seventieth Birthday, edited by Mark A O’Brien and Howard M Wallace. JSOTSup 415 (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), 130–41. They are discussed by McKane in some detail cf( Jeremiah 2, 982–88).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 176 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 177

officials ‘sent’ and ‘took’ Jeremiah from the court of the guard. They then ‘sent’ (NRSV ‘entrusted’) him to Gedaliah son of Ahikam son of Shaphan ‘to bring him out to the house’, and the report concludes with the statement that ‘he (Jeremiah) dwelt in the midst of the people’. As I hope to show in the following comments, 40:1–6 can be read as spelling out what happened as a result of Nebuchadrezzar’s speech in 39:12. The only evidence of apparent contradiction is that whereas 39:13–14 names a number of officials besides Nebuzaradan, as well as ‘all the chief officers’, to see to Jeremiah’s removal from the court of the guard, 40:1–6 speaks only of Nebuzaradan. Rather than a contradiction, it is best to see 40:1–6 not as denying the presence of these other officials but as focusing on Nebuzaradan because he was the one who received Nebuchadrezzar’s command in 39:11–12, and he is the one who delivers the speech to Jeremiah reported in 40:2b–5a. This focus on Nebuzaradan also indicates that a key aim of the fuller version in 40:1–6 is to enhance the theological thrust of the book. The passage does this by spelling out what took place between the report of Nebuzaradan and the officials ‘taking’ (cf 39:11 and 14a) Jeremiah from the court of the guard and the subsequent report that they ‘gave’ (NRSV ‘entrusted’) him to Gedaliah ‘to bring him out to the house’ (NSRV ‘to be brought home’).2 It is reasonable to assume that this involved a journey from Jerusalem, where the court of the guard was located, to Mizpah where Gedaliah was located (40:6). Ramah is between Jerusalem and Mizpah and was possibly one of a number of staging posts for exiles on their journey from Judah to Babylon.3 According to v 2, Jeremiah was part of such a group but, in obedience to Nebuchadrezzar’s instructions in 39:11, Nebuzaradan singled him out at Ramah and released him (cf v 4).4 This action is

2. This phrase may or may not refer to Jeremiah’s ‘home’ cf( NRSV), but it could also refer to Gedaliah’s ‘house’. Also, the final phrase of 39:14 may refer to Jeremiah dwelling in the midst of his kin (in Anathoth) or among the people gathered around Gedaliah. 3. As suggested by Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 293–94; and Keow–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 235. 4. The report that Jeremiah was taken in fetters from Jerusalem to Ramah is not in conflict with the account in 39:11–14. Jeremiah was among prisoners on their way to Babylon and they would presumably have had their wrists bound. But by being taken to Babylon their lives would be spared in accord with 21:9; 32:2. Hence, they would not suffer evil but be beneficiaries of YHWH’s mercycf ( Nebuchadrezzar’s command in 39:11 not to do Jeremiah evil).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 177 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM 178 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

preceded by his speech in vv 2b–3, a key component of the passage. A number of commentators note that these verses are effectively a fulfillment of prophecy but such speeches are normally introduced by being placed in the mouth of a prophet. Verse 1 provides such an introduction in reference to Jeremiah but it is not followed by a prophecy. Various attempts have been made to explain this and the one that I would judge catches most accurately the thrust of the text is that of Thiel, who argues that a dtr redactor connected vv 1 and 2b–3.5 This allows one to see that the word that came to Jeremiah in v 1 was the speech that he heard from Nebuzaradan. The attribution of such a speech to a foreigner may at first sight seem odd but, if the book of Jeremiah and other books of the HB/ OT claim that YHWH can raise up foreigners like ‘my servant’ Nebu- chadrezzar and the Persian Cyrus to do YHWH’s bidding, then YHWH presumably can also inspire foreigners to proclaim or confirm a divine word. Within the book of Jeremiah, 22:8–9 declares that, in the wake of Jerusalem’s demise, ‘many nations’ will ask themselves why YHWH destroyed ‘that great city’, and they will answer by affirming that YHWH has punished its inhabitants because they abandoned the covenant and served other gods. A very similar passage to 22:8–9 occurs in Deuteronomy 29:24–28. Perhaps the most famous foreigner summoned to prophesy in YHWH’s name is the prophet Balaam of Pethor in Numbers 22–24. His prophecies that those who bless YHWH are blessed, while those who curse YHWH are cursed, are confirmed by another foreigner, the prostitute Rahab (Josh 2:8–13). One may also note the prophetic words of Pharaoh Neco to king Josiah in 2 Chronicles 35:21.6 There are three features of Nebuzaradan’s speech in vv 2b–3. The first is his declaration that the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem was indeed the realisation of the ‘disaster’ that YHWH threatened for ‘this place’ in the preceding prophecies proclaimed by Jeremiah (cf 7:3, 6). The second is the key reason why such a disaster occurred; it was because the people ‘did not obey’ the voice of YHWH. The occurrence of the verb shama‘ (‘listen/hear/obey’) provides a further link

5. Cf Thiel, Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45, 57–61. This is also the view of Fretheim, Jeremiah, 537. Other redactional proposals are discussed by McKane, Jeremiah 2, 996–97. 6. For comments on Rahab and Pharaoh Neco, see Keith Bodner, After the Invasion: A Reading of Jeremiah 40–44. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 16.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 178 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 179

with the preceding prophecies where this verb occurs frequently.7 The third feature is the shift from the second person masculine singular address (‘YHWH your God’) in v 2b to the second person masculine plural address in v 3. At this point the speech addresses not just Jer- emiah but the group of Judeans with him, and of course the reader as well. ‘You’, not Jeremiah personally, were to blame for the disaster, along with all the others who are portrayed in the book refusing to listen to the word and change their behaviour. These three features show clearly that the speech attributed to Nebuzaradan is the first explicit fulfillment of prophecy speech in the book and serves to confirm the preceding prophecies of Jeremiah.8 Whereas the speech of Nebuzaradan in vv 2b–3 is addressed both to Jeremiah and those with him, what follows in vv 4–5 is addressed to Jeremiah alone and is about his future. These verses state that Nebu- zaradan provided three options and Jeremiah was free to choose any of them. As a sign of being thus free Nebuzaradan informed Jeremiah that he was removing his fetters (v 4). The first option was to accompany the captain of the guard to Babylon who assured him that ‘I will set my eyes on you’ (NRSV ‘I will take good care of you’). This assurance recalls Nebuchadrezzar’s instructions to Nebuzaradan in 39:12 and indicates he was an obedient and loyal servant of his master. But this assurance also implies that Jeremiah would be dependent on or under the ‘watch’ of Nebuzaradan. He would effectively be Jeremiah’s master. In terms of the larger context, what Jeremiah was offered here would seem to echo the welfare/peace promised to the exiles in his letter in chapter 29, as long as they accepted Babylon was master. The text records two further options made to Jeremiah if he decided not to accompany Nebuzaradan and remain in Judah. These are spelt out in vv 4b–5. Their meaning is however complicated by the textual uncertainty of the beginning of v 5. The NRSV offers as a translation based on the Syriac (‘If you remain’) but with an accompanying note that the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain. The available evidence

7. On the relationship between Nebuzaradan’s speech and the question and answer pattern in 22:8–9 and other speeches in Jeremiah, as well as in Deut 29:24–28, see Hill, ‘Jeremiah 40.1–6: An Appreciation’, 132–33. 8. As Hill states, ‘This is the first explicit statement in the book thatYhwh’s judgment against Judah and Jerusalem has been realised by the Babylonian conquest of 587’ (‘Jeremiah 40.1–6: An Appreciation’, 133). And, as Miller notes, it ‘comes from the lips of the enemy’ (‘The Book of Jeremiah’, 857).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 179 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM 180 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

seems insufficient to reach a definite conclusion, but a quite plausible proposal is to read the key disputed verb yashub as ‘answer’ rather than ‘return’ and that the beginning of v 5 is narrative report rather than a continuation of Nebuzaradan’s speech. On this understanding it reads ‘when he (Jeremiah) did not answer’ to be followed by an addition to the text ‘Nebuzaradan resumed/continued’.9 This reading helps to make sense of Nebuzaradan’s speech in vv 4b–5. If Jeremiah opted not to accompany him to Babylon then he could go wherever he decided in the land. Note however that it was Nebuzaradan who declared that ‘the whole land is before you’.10 The Babylonians were now masters of Judah and for the decreed period of the exile it was their land. According to the reading adopted for the first part of v 5a, Jeremiah did not answer Nebuzaradan’s offer and this prompted the captain of the guard to recommend or urge Jeremiah ‘make your way to Gedaliah’.11 This however was a recommended option not an order, because the speech concludes by reasserting the option that Jeremiah was free to go wherever he decided in the land. One could say that by giving Gedaliah his full official title, Nebuzaradan was encourag- ing Jeremiah to take this option. Within the larger context however, the description of Gedaliah prepares for the following account of his governorship and its violent end. Following the speech, v 5b reports that Nebuzaradan gave Jere- miah food and a present and then ‘let him go’. The Hebrew verb here carries the sense of ‘sent/dispatched’ and, given that he ‘sent’ Jeremiah to Gedaliah, it follows well after Nebuzaradan’s recommendation to Jeremiah to ‘make your way to Gedaliah’ after he did not reply to the initial offers. On this reading, the captain of the guard effectively made the decision for the silent prophet, who obeyed. The final v 6 states that Jeremiah ‘went to Gedaliah at Mizpah, and stayed with him

9. For a discussion of the options, see McKane (Jeremiah 2, 1000–1) who proposes the reading followed here. Bodner also prefers narrative report rather than continuation of Nebuzaradan’s speech, but follows the NJPS rendering ‘But Jeremiah still did not turn back’ (After the Invasion, 29). 10. As Hill notes (‘Jeremiah 40.1–6: An Appreciation’, 136), according to Gen 47:6, Pharaoh used much the same expression when he offered settlement in his land to Joseph and his family. Other texts in Gen are 13:9 (Abraham and Lot) and 20:15 (Abimelech and Abraham). 11. Here following the NEB rather than the NRSV (also McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1001).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 180 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 181

in the midst of the people, the ones remaining in the land’ (NRSV).12 Within the larger context this may imply that the character Jeremiah is here portrayed discerning the words of Nebuzaradan as an instruction from YHWH about the next stage of his work as a prophet and that it would involve another one designated by YHWH to advance YHWH’s purpose. It this case it was of course Gedaliah, the governor of the conquered province of Judah appointed by the Babylonians. He was a servant of Babylon and in this sense also a servant of YHWH. Nebuzaradan’s offer to Jeremiah to accompany him to Babylon as a privileged guest indicates this was the easier option; nevertheless he responded by undertaking a mission that, as with his previous ones, he must have known faced the prospect of conflict and rejection.13 This is confirmed in no uncertain terms by the subsequent narrative. A further significant feature of 40:1–6 is how it and 39:13–14 portray two foreign ‘servants’ of YHWH at the service of YHWH’s Judean servant Jeremiah, and how these frame 39:15–18, which records how another foreign ‘servant’ of YHWH, Ebed–melech, was rewarded by YHWH for his work on behalf of Jeremiah. It implies that a similar reward or blessing is in store for Nebuchadrezzar and Nebuzaradan as long as they remain loyal to their vocation as servants of YHWH. YHWH is the one Sovereign of all peoples and of all history.

12. This statement that Jeremiah ‘dwelt in the midst of the people’ agrees with 39:14, the one difference being that 40:6 identifies them as the ones who remained in the land. The NRSV’s ‘his people’ in 39:14 cannot refer to Jeremiah’s kin who lived in Anathoth, but may be meant to imply that YHWH’s people were also Jeremiah’s people. 13. K–F Pohlmann (Studien zum Jeremiabuch. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches, FRLANT 118 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978], 106, 196, 213, 224) thinks that 40:1–6, along with other passages, was part of a pro–Babylonian Golah redaction in the book of Jeremiah, a view also espoused by Seitz (Theology in Conflict, 280–81). However, in light of his analysis of the passage Hill concludes ‘whatever pro–Golah passages there may be in chapters 37–44, 40:1–6 was not one of them’ (‘Jeremiah 40.1–6: An Appreciation’, 139). If there was a pro–Golah redaction that was hostile to the remnant left in Judah and those in Egypt, it is significant that 40:1–6 ends by indicating Jeremiah’s commitment to them in the same was as he was committed to the people in the lead up to the exile. His commitment is in turn a sign of YHWH’s unswerving commitment to pluck up and root out evil so as to build and plant a new order.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 181 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM 182 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

40:7–12 These verses provide the narrative setting for the account of the assassination of Gedaliah and its aftermath. The passage is comprised of two reports in vv 7–8 and 11–12 that frame a speech by Gedaliah in vv 9–10. These reports are about two different groups who heard of Gedaliah’s appointment and went to join him at Mizpah. The first group in v 7a was comprised of ‘the leaders of the forces in the open country and their troops (Hebrew “their men”)’. Of the four leaders named in v 8, Ishmael and Johanan play key roles in the subsequent narrative; the other two, Seraiah and Jezaniah, are mentioned only here.14 These leaders and their men, described as being ‘in the open country/field’, are not mentioned in the report of the conquest in chapter 39. The second group is named in v 7b and comprised the ones whom the Babylonians placed under Gedaliah’s care, namely the poorest of the land, men, women and children. They are presumably the same ones referred to in 39:10.15 Does the text indicate or imply that the four leaders and their men had not been captured by the Babylonians and were still able to move about more or less freely? If this was the case, does the report about them effectively contradict Jeremiah’s prophecies that only those who surrendered/went out to the Babylonians and served them would save their lives (21:9; 27:17; 38:2)? According to 24:9–10, those who did not would either be driven by YHWH into foreign lands where they would become a curse or, if they remained in the land, they would be destroyed by the sword, famine and pestilence. I would respond that this was not the case and this group, as well as those who had taken refuge among neighboring nations and are reported returning in v 11, can be incorporated into the prophecy–fulfillment theology of the book. Even though from a historical point of view groups may have been able to avoid capture or death at the hands of invaders by taking refuge in secret hideouts away from towns, or

14. Johanan and Ishmael appear at this point in the book for the first time. The reader learns only in 41:1 that Ishmael was a member of the royal family, although whether he was an heir apparent to the throne is not indicated. Seraiah and Jezaniah are mentioned here for the first and only time in the book. Seraiah is not the same person as in 36:26; 51:59, 62; 52:24, nor is Jezaniah the same as the one mentioned in 42:1. 15. As noted in my comments on this verse in the preceding chapter, it is reasonable to presume from the context that these poor people were well treated by Nebuzaradan because they surrendered.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 182 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 183

by fleeing to a nearby nation, from a theological point of view this did not mean that they thereby escaped YHWH’s judgement.16 As stated in 25:9, and reaffirmed in 27:6–7, YHWH had resolved to give Judah and all the surrounding nations into the hands of Nebuchadrezzar for a decreed period (according to 27:7, ‘until the time of his own land comes’). Judah and the surrounding nations referred to in 40:11 were therefore under Babylonian subjugation and the only way to ensure one’s life was to surrender to Babylon, in accord with 21:9; 27:17 and 32:2. There was no escape for Judeans, either by hiding in ‘the open country’ or in neighbouring nations. As 16:16–18 states, the eyes of YHWH were ‘on all their ways’ and they would be taken by YHWH’s hunters, the Babylonians, ‘from every mountain and every hill, and out of the clefts of the rocks’.17 The narrative does not say why they came to Gedaliah at Mizpah and, in my judgement, the reason for this is that the focus of the text is Gedaliah’s speech in 40:9–10. Whatever their personal motives might have been his words were the message that they needed to hear and heed. Verse 9 presents his speech as an oath and this means that the promise of well–being for those who stayed (yashab) in the land and served the king of Babylon was not made on Gedaliah’s own authority but on that of YHWH whom he served and whose message he was conveying.18 This is clear because the promise Gedaliah makes in his speech is the same one that YHWH authorised Jeremiah to make in the lead up to the conquest and exile. The one difference is the injunction or command to stay in the land, an addition to the versions of the promise in 21:9; 27:17 and 32:2b. This is an important addition for several reasons. On the one hand, it reinstated Judah as YHWH’s chosen ‘place’ for the people but, of course, in a different sense to that in preceding texts such as the temple sermon in chapter 7. It was the chosen ‘place’ of servitude for those left in the land and those in the neighbouring nations—their designated prison. They should all will-

16. Holladay (Jeremiah 2, 294–95) thinks groups were able to survive an invasion of Judah by having secret hideouts away from the towns. Lundbom (Jeremiah 37–52, 110, 113) thinks that penetration of the Babylonians into land north of Jerusalem was minimal, with no major disruption of life. 17. Within this context there may be an ironic sense in the use of the term hassadeh (‘the field/countryside’) in 37:7. It was part of the Babylonian prison, particularly if the term includes hideouts in what were regarded as secret places. 18. In disagreement with Bodner who thinks ‘there must be some hesitancy or unease since he swears an oath to them in vv 9–10’ (After the Invasion, 37).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 183 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM 184 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

ingly come, from the open country and the countries round about, to do ‘their time’ in YHWH’s prison. But granted they accepted this as YHWH’s decree then Gedaliah promised ‘it will be good for you’ (NRSV; ‘it shall go well with you’), and after the decreed period of punishment they would presumably again ‘inherit’ this land on the same terms as their ancestors. A second reason and one related to this is that the injunction singles out Judah from all the surrounding nations as the chosen people’s place. This would remind them of their heritage and fuel their conviction to live out the time of their servitude. It has long been noted that Jeremiah is not mentioned in 40:7–12 nor in the subsequent narrative until 42:1. Nevertheless, given the report in 39:14 and 40:6 that Jeremiah was sent to Gedaliah after the conquest, and given the close similarity between Gedaliah’s oath and Jeremiah’s prophecies, it is difficult to deny that Gedaliah in v 9 was not speaking on Jeremiah’s behalf or that he did not have Jeremiah’s backing. Indeed, given the preceding prophecies that Jeremiah proclaimed, there was no need for the narrator to have him speak at this point in the narrative.19 What was said then applied equally here. As an added encouragement to his audience to accept his message and as a sign of his commitment to them as governor, v 10a has Geda- liah assure his audience that he would stay in the land (at Mizpah) ‘to stand before the Chaldeans who come to us’.20 This more literal translation catches better than the NRSV how Gedaliah is portrayed uniting himself with his audience (‘us’) in dealing the Chaldeans. One could say that Gedaliah understood all those assembled at Mizpah to be a community that YHWH had mercifully gathered together to preserve as a remnant in the land as long as they obeyed the divine injunction to serve the Babylonians. However, the one thing lacking in his speech is any reference to YHWH. The significance of this may become clearer in the subsequent narrative. Gedaliah’s speech ends with instructions to those assembled to gather fruits and oil and store them and to live in the towns they have taken over. He does not say from where they are to gather this fruit and oil; it could have been from orchards and vineyards left unharvested

19. Seitz (Theology in Conflict, 274) proposes that ‘Gedaliah’s words at 40:9 (‘serve the king of Babylon and it shall go well with you’) echo Jeremiah’s earlier statements to the post–597 remnant (27:11ff.)’. 20. Lundbom understands the phrase ‘to stand before’ to mean ‘to be in the service of’ both the Judeans and the Babylonians (Jeremiah 37–52, 112).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 184 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 185

because of the invasion, or it could have been from places where har- vested goods had been stored before the invasion. I noted above that the absence of clear motives in the leaders and their forces coming to Gedaliah at Mizpah was probably a deliberate narrator’s ploy, to focus attention on Gedaliah’s speech. The same kind of relationship may be operative here, in reverse. That is, the absence of detail in Gedaliah’s instructions about provisions is designed to focus attention on the report in v 12 which, in the context, serves to confirm the truth and reliability of his words. One could even say that the two texts function as prophecy and fulfillment. The speech and subsequent report also serve to show (and instruct) that when the people do as Gedaliah, loyal servant of YHWH and Nebuchadrezar, instructed, the outcome was indeed ‘good for you’ (40:9b). The gathering of Judeans from the open country and from the surrounding nations to Gedaliah at Miz- pah as one community (‘us’), and the bounty they gathered fostered hope that the time of servitude would continue ‘good’ for them.21 But, as one might expect on reading to this point in the book, and as the following narrative confirms, this was not to be the case.

40:13–41:15 If vv 7–12 provides the setting for the story of the Babylonian appointed governor Gedaliah and his fate, this section introduces a key factor that drives the story forward to a crisis and resolution/ conclusion. The key factor in question was the plot by Baalis, king of the Ammonites, to have the governor assassinated. Gedaliah was initially informed of the plot by the leaders gathered round him at Miz- pah, but he refused to believe them (vv 13–14). One of the leaders, Johanan, then asked Gedaliah for permission to kill the would–be assassin, Ishmael, thereby saving Gedaliah’s life and also preserving the well–being of the remnant of Judah. In reply Gedaliah accused him of lying (vv 15–16). In sharp contrast to the clear impression of unity and cooperation in vv 7–12, this passage portrays three key characters in the narrative—Gedaliah, Johannan and Ishmael—in deep conflict. This, plus the succinct nature of the text, has prompted

21. As Di Pede states, with the gathering of dispersed Judeans to Gedaliah and the bounty they enjoy, ‘les promesses de Bonheur semblent se realizer’ (Au delà du refus, 224). Cf also Fischer, Jeremia 2, 375.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 185 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM 186 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

considerable reflection about the likely motives behind the words and actions of these characters as presented in the narrative, and what this might indicate about them historically. What is intriguing about vv 13–14 is Gedaliah’s refusal to believe the leaders of the forces in the open country, the ones who came to him at Mizpah. Yet according to vv 9–10 he presumed they would accept the truth of his words and act on them. Given the report in v 12 that they did as he instructed, why then did he not accept the truth of their words? One possible reason is that he was reluctant to believe such an accusation about a member of the royal family. Another is that he did not trust the accuracy, or perhaps even honesty, of the leaders. After all, they were leaders of groups who had not followed his policy as enunciated in vv 9–10, at least not until he enunciated it. There is also his remark at the end of v 10 about them living in ‘the towns you have taken over’. The verb here istaphash, which can mean to ‘seize’ or ‘capture’. Were these towns taken over violently by the leaders and their forces because they had been weakened by the Babylonian onslaught, or did they occupy what were effectively empty, abandoned, towns? If Gedaliah was reluctant to believe that a member of the royal family was plotting hostilities then, given the portrayal of him thus far, one would think he would at least have consulted Jeremiah, who was with him at Mizpah, about such a life–and– death matter.22 Whereas the people and their leaders are censured in previous chapters for consulting Jeremiah but rejecting his response, is Gedaliah being indirectly censured here for refusing to believe Ish- mael was plotting against him without consulting the prophet? Johanan’s offer to eliminate Ishmael in vv 15–16 raises further pressing questions about motivation. Did Johanan approach Geda- liah secretly in order to protect the governor’s standing in the community, or to protect his own, or that of both of them? His concern for Gedaliah’s life seems noble but given his desire also to protect the well–being of the newly formed community at Mizpah, would it

22. For a list of likely reasons from commentators for Gedaliah’s refusal to believe, see page 88 of Eric Peels’ essay ‘The Assassination of Gedaliah (Jer. 40:7–41:18)’, in Exile and Suffering: A Selection of Papers Read at the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Old Testament Society of South Africa OTWSA/OTSSA, Pretoria August, 2007, edited by Bob Becking and Dirk Human, Oudtestamentische Studiën (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 83–103. One who interprets the absence of any mention of Jeremiah in the text as implying a failure on the part of Gedaliah to consult him is di Pede, Au delà du refus, 225.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 186 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 187

not have been better to have a public trial of Ishmael rather than an execution that was presumably meant to be kept secret?23 Gedaliah’s hostile response to Johanan in v 16 would seem to confirm the reason given above for his refusal to believe the leaders, namely that Ishmael would not commit such a crime and it was a lie to accuse him of planning it. Up to this point in the book however, only Jeremiah has made a judgement about who was telling a lie.24 Within this context is the implication that Gedaliah, rather than turn to Jeremiah for guidance, had taken it upon himself to pronounce judgement on Johanan? As with his words in vv 9–10, Gedaliah is not reported invoking YHWH in support of his judgement of Johanan.25 The only other person in the book accused of telling a lie is Jeremiah himself in 43:2, where the accusation is made by Johanan, Azariah, and all the ‘other insolent men’. At this juncture the reader knows very little about Ishmael, except that he was one of the four leaders of the forces remaining in Judah after the conquest, that he presumably took part fully in the establishment of the community at Mizpah, and that Johanan warned Gedaliah about him. A reader would expect to learn more about this character as the narrative unfolds. The disagreement between Gedaliah and Johanan in vv 15–16 over Ishmael is about who knew how events were going to unfold—as Gedaliah thought or as Johanan thought—hence it is effectively about time. The survivors of the invasion had been assured in vv 9–10 that they could live in the land /the place as long as they served the Babylonians as YHWH had decreed and for the period decreed. As in the situation before the

23. On the option of a public trial Bodner avers that ‘in retrospect this will undoubtedly be a blot on Gedaliah’s leadership and a tragic example of the “pattern of ignored warnings” that brings disaster on the community after the invasion’ (After the Invasion, 43). 24. Cf Jer 8:8; 27:10, 14, 16; 28:15; 29:9, 21, 31; 37:14. In the final text cited Jeremiah labels the accusation by the guard Irijah a lie. 25. Bodner argues that Gedaliah ‘should not be overly faulted for failing to consult the prophet or respond differently to the accusations leveled by the captains, for Gedaliah—like Jeremiah before him and after him—will similarly be a victim of ideologically charged forces’ (After the Invasion, 48). Lundbom judges that the non-appearance of Jeremiah ‘is of no importance really, unless one assumes a narrative where mention of the prophet must be made at every turn’ (Jeremiah 37–52, 109), while Leuchter argues that in chapters 40–41 Gedaliah acts as a stand– in for Jeremiah in much the same way as Baruch does in chapter 36. His absence is not evidence that this story was a once independent tradition, as a number of commentators have argued (The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45, 122).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 187 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM 188 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

exile it is YHWH as Lord of history/time who decides when a nation is to be built and planted or torn down and uprooted.26 41:1–15. These verses constitute a distinct part of the larger narrative because of their focus on Ishmael’s assassination of Gedaliah and others at Mizpah, and its aftermath. One can divide it as follows; there is the assassination of Gedaliah and others in vv 1–3, the subsequent murder of northern pilgrims in vv 4–8, except for ten who were spared, the disposal of the corpses of all those killed in v. 9, the commencement of the return journey to the Ammonites in v 10, and their interception by Johanan and Ishmael’s escape in vv 11–15. Verse 16 commences the final section of the narrative; the flight into Egypt by Johanan, the other leaders, and all the people (40:16–44:30). The account of the assassination in vv 1–3 takes place in the context of a shared meal between governor Gedaliah and Ishmael and his ten men. As in 40:7–12, the text is somewhat reticent about the various characters’ motives for saying or doing certain things. The reader is not told why Gedaliah hosted a meal for Ishmael or joined in dining with him in the wake of the warnings given in vv 13–16. Various proposals can and have been made to fill this gap but I would judge the most plausible one is that the text is portraying Gedaliah being entirely consistent with his previous behaviour.27 According to vv 7–12 he saw those assembled before him at Mizpah as one community (‘us’) and committed himself to its service; according to vv 13–16 he utterly rejected the accusations against Ishmael. Hence, his behaviour in sharing a meal with Ishmael and his men at Mizpah was entirely consistent. But he acted solely on his own judgement, with no recourse to YHWH for guidance or to YHWH’s prophet Jeremiah. As 17:9–10 states, only YHWH knows the human heart and what the human being will do.

26. In relation to this point it is significant that 41:1 contains the last chronological notice in the book that is somewhat similar to the ones in the preceding chapters; the previous one being 39:2. As commentators have noted, it is difficult to identify the year to which the seventh month in 41:1 belongs. Is this an oblique way of indicating that the assassination of Gedaliah was a final definitive sign of the end of Judah’s time in the land under the old order? For a discussion and proposals see Fischer, Jeremia 2, 366, 383; Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 109, 115; Peels, ‘The Assassination of Gedaliah’, 95; Bodner, After the Invasion, 51–53. 27. The different proposals can be consulted in Brueggemann,Jeremiah , 380–1; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 377, Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 114–15.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 188 13-May-20 5:26:05 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 189

Apropos the account of Gedaliah’s assassination in vv 1–3, one may well ask why the book does not portray YHWH taking pity on this honest governor by sending Jeremiah to warn him, or Johanan to protect him. One answer of course is that the text reflects the historical fact that the assassination took place without the knowledge of Jer- emiah or Johanan. However, within the context of the book, one may respond to the first question by stating that Jeremiah only functioned as prophet when summoned by YHWH to do so. Without what is called ‘prophetic inspiration’ he was just another human being and may not have been aware of what was presumably an unannounced meeting. The text may be implying something similar in terms of the second question, namely the absence of Johanan. What vv 1–3 do provide is more information about Ishmael, which is understandable given his role in these and the subsequent verses. The reader learns for the first time that he was a member of the royal family (house of David) and that he assassinated Gedaliah because the king of Baby- lon had appointed him governor.28 One may link this information about Ishmael’s motive with Johanan’s claim in 40:14 that he was an agent of Baalis king of the Ammonites. That is, Baalis had sponsored Ishmael’s plot in the hope that it would cause havoc in the province of Judah and thereby deflect Babylonian attention from Ammon.29 Hence the execution of all the Judeans who were with Gedaliah at Mizpah, as well as the garrison of Babylonian soldiers, was all part of the plan.30 This would have made identification of the assassins difficult, thereby increasing the likelihood of indiscriminate Babylonian reprisals. Ishmael’s hostility to the Babylonian appointed governor may well have been intensified by living in one of the nations occupied by the Babylonians that—according to the book—still had its king, whereas Judah did not. Hope of being able to establish a similar situation in Judah by replacing Gedaliah with himself may have been

28. Although Ishmael’s royal lineage is clear in the text, it is difficult to establish just where he belonged in it. For comments see Peels, ‘The Assassination of Gedaliah’, 89; Bodner, After the Invasion, 53–54. Stipp accepts that Ishmael was of the Davidic line but regards the bulk of the story about his violent campaign as fiction, designed to demonise the house of David, and so is anti–monachical (‘Gedalja und die Kolonie von Mizpa’, in Studien zum Jeremiahbuch, 409–32. 29. Cf Peels, ‘The Assassination of Gedaliah’, 91. 30. For Stipp, the numbers reportedly killed in v 3 is an indication of the story’s implausibility (‘Gedalja und die Kolonie von Mizpa’, 427–28).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 189 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM 190 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

another factor fueling Ishmael’s action. Given the power of Babylon it is unlikely this could have been done quickly, but perhaps Ishmael, like the Judeans in chapters 27–28 and 34, was banking on a short period of occupation. However, the book does not provide any further information about Ishmael after the report of his escape in 41:15. The focus of the narrative that follows is firmly on Johanan and his forces and their plans. The statement in v 4 that what took place after the assassination occurred, ‘before anyone knew of it’ sends a clear signal that the murder of the seventy pilgrims from the north was not motivated by the need to stifle news of the assassination getting out. Why then did Ish- mael and his gang kill them? Whether it was actually a coincidence that the pilgrims turned up when they did or not, I would propose that the most plausible explanation for this part of the narrative is one that takes into account its context within the book.31 A parallel text that provides some insight into the pilgrims and Ishmael’s reaction to them is 3:22–24, a prophetic announcement of Israelites heeding YHWH’s call to return, acknowledging their sin and shame, and coming in repentance to Jerusalem. They are told in 4:1-2 that if they swear by YHWH in ‘truth, in justice and in uprightness’, then they would fulfill their vocation of being a blessing to the nations, as proclaimed to Abraham in Genesis 12:3. The following passage in Jere- miah, 4:3-4, summons Judah to follow the lead of Israel and repent or experience YHWH’s wrath, a summons that the subsequent chapters of the book declare it did not heed. According to our Jeremiah passage, the pilgrims in 41:4–5 are coming from what were once three key ‘places’ in the north—Shechem, Shiloh, and Samaria—but each of which was condemned for one kind of evil or another. Shechem was the site of the division in the kingdom because of Solomon’s infidelities (cf 1 Kings 12); Shiloh the shrine abused by the sons of Eli the priest (cf 1 Sam 2:12–17); and Samaria the capital of the northern kingdom condemned for its idolatries in 2 Kings 17. By the time of Jeremiah, each ‘place’ had come to the end of its time. The journey of the pilgrims indicated that they accepted the temple in Jerusalem was the one true place of worship and so

31. For an outline of scholarly comments on these pilgrims and their purpose and discussion, see McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1026–29.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 190 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 191

they had come to lament its destruction.32 But the fact that they came from these three defunct northern places could or would indicate to an avid monarchist like Ishmael that their mourning was aligning the fate of the capital city of Judah, its king and its temple with that of the former northern kingdom of Israel. In short, the arrival of these mourning and repentant pilgrims served as a sign that confirmed the same fate had fallen, or was falling, on Judah as on the north. This would have been totally unacceptable to Ishmael, fired by his successful assassination of Gedaliah. Hence his approach to the pilgrims in v 6 was a deliberate strategy of deceit with the aim of eliminating them. Like the Judeans addressed in 4:1–3, Ishmael showed no repentance here for what had happened to Judah or any responsibility of the royal house for causing it. There is a bitter irony in his invitation to them to ‘come to Gedaliah son of Ahikam’.33 On the surface it would appear a diplomatic courtesy to invite pilgrims to meet the governor on their way to Jerusalem. But its real meaning in the context of this account is ‘join Gedaliah in death’. In a further irony, Ishmael’s violent uniting of these pilgrims in death with Geda- liah, and his throwing of their corpses into a pit, prefigures how this would–be restorer of royal rule over Judah would himself be cast into the ‘cistern’ of Ammon with all his kind, there to rot slowly away. This interpretation of Ishmael’s treatment of the pilgrims also allows one to see why he spared the ten who claimed to have stores of food hidden ‘in the field’ (v 8).34 Not only would access to such stores have been valuable during a future campaign but the willingness of these northerners to hand over their ‘property’ to Ishmael could well have been seen by him as an initial sign of what he planned to eventually do, not only take over Judah but also the former northern kingdom. In this way, Davidic rule would be fully restored.35

32. Commentators judge that their pilgrimage coincided with the autumn festivals of which a key feature was the Day of Atonement (cf Lev 16:29) (so, Fretheim, Jeremiah, 541; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 383). 33. As noted by Bodner, After the Invasion, 66. 34. It is worth noting that because the pilgrims were from the north these storage places were presumably in rural districts (in the field/open country) of the former northern kingdom. 35. Bodner (After the Invasion, 68) makes the pertinent observation that this deal with the pilgrims satirises Ishmael in two ways. One is that he was happy to do with the pilgrims what he refused to do with the Babylonians; the other is that in taking what was effectively a bribe he epitomised ‘the failed and corrupt king’, the very opposite of how he presumably saw himself.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 191 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM 192 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

In light of the interpretation presented thus far, Ishmael’s setting out to return to Ammon in v 10 was presumably part of the plan that originated with, or was backed by Baalis. That is, assassinate governor Gedaliah and those with him in Mizpah and then return to the safety of Ammon, out of range of the Babylonian reprisals that would almost certainly engulf Judah. The outcome of such strife would hopefully be to Ishmael’s and Ammon’s advantage. Taking the rest of the people who were at Mizpah could be seen as a gesture to gain their support because, by being removed to Ammon, they would escape the reprisals. Consideration of the list of those taken by Ishmael to Ammon does however raise two questions. The first concerns the king’s daughters. One would have expected the Baby- lonians to take them into captivity to ensure complete control over all the royal family. Perhaps their identity was successfully concealed from the Babylonians. Whatever the case, their presence in the text can be read in two ways. One is that taking them to Ammon would have been part of Ishmael’s plans vis–à–vis restoration of royal rule. He could both ensure but also be in charge of the future of the royal family. The alternative is that, rather like the pilgrims, their journey into captivity was in reality a sign that the rule of the Davidic house had come to an end, not that it would be restored. This is in accord with Jeremiah’s prophecies, particularly if, as some propose, these were the daughters of Zedekiah.36 The second question is why Ish- mael did not take Jeremiah into captivity in Ammon, as he is later in the narrative taken to Egypt? In answer to this one need only recall the promise made to him in 1:18–19 and 15:20–21, and demonstrated in a number of episodes in the book, that YHWH would protect him from his enemies in order to further YHWH’s purpose. Hence one can say that YHWH protected him from captivity by Ish- mael here because he was destined to proclaim YHWH’s message in chapter 42, initially to the ones fleeing feared reprisals from the Babylonians, and subsequently to them and all the Judeans in Egypt in chapter 44. Verses 11–15 recount Johanan and his forces’ interception of Ish- mael en route to Ammon, the rescue of the captives, and Ishmael’s

36. This is proposed by Bodner (After the Invasion, 76) who cites the analysis of Oded Lipschits, The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylonian Rule (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 90–91.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 192 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 193

escape to Ammon with eight men.37 Verse 11 lends support to the earlier observation on vv 1–3 that Johanan was not aware of the unannounced meeting between Gedaliah and Ishmael, and so only learned of ‘all the evil’ he had done afterwards. But once made aware, the text describes him responding in a way that is in keeping with his behavior in 40:13–16. Commentators have noted that the great pool in Gibeon is southwest of Mizpah and so not on a direct route to Ammon in the north east, which one would expect Ishmael to have taken.38 One might suppose he took this more circuitous route in order to put pursuers off the scent, but a more likely reason is that the narrator focused on the pool in Gibeon because it triggers associa- tions with a key story in Israel’s monarchical past. This is the account of the battle between the forces of David and Saul at the pool in 2 Samuel 2 and how the subsequent execution of Abner of the house of Saul by Joab effectively spelt the end of the battle between the house of David and the house of Saul for control of the kingdom (3:30).39 In relation to this, Jeremiah 41:11–15 can be seen to contain another ironic reversal; at this ‘second’ battle at the pool in Gibeon it is the house of David, represented by Ishmael, that was defeated by the rival ‘house’—Johanan and his forces. The leader and his group who were able to execute Gedaliah and his group, the Babylonian garrison at Mizpah, as well as seventy pilgrims, is portrayed completely powerless against Johanan and his forces and the other leaders and their forces. Their powerlessness is marked by the way the text does not report any actual conflict and that the captives were able to cross to Johanan and his forces of their own accord. Verse 13b reports that when they saw Johanan and all the other leaders ‘they were glad’. This indicates they were not in favour of Ishmael’s monarchist ambi- tions, or that they saw Johanan and those with him in a very positive light compared to Ishmael. This would seem to be borne out by the way they side with Johanan in the subsequent narrative. From the

37. There is no mention of Jeremiah being among Ishmael’s captives but Bodner believes ‘there is no reason to dismiss the inference that he was one of the hostages’ (After the Invasion, 96–97). 38. The matter is complicated by debate over the location of Mizpah. For a discussion see Peels, ‘The Assassination of Gedaliah’, 93–94. 39. On the intertextuality between Jer 41:11–15 and 2 Sam 2–3 see pages 103–4, 111 of Yates, ‘Ishmael’s Assassination of Gedaliah: Echoes of the Saul–David Story in Jeremiah 40:7–41, 18’, in WTJ, 67 (2005): 103–12. Parallels are also noted with 2 Sam 13; 17; 19; 1 Kgs 15; 2 Kgs 10 (cf Fischer, Jeremia 2, 396),

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 193 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM 194 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

point of view of the authors of the book however, Johanan and the other leaders were wicked. But though portrayed as wicked, does the context imply that Ishmael was worse than they, the very antithesis of what was expected of a member of the house of David?

41:16–43:13 This part of the larger narrative commences with a report of the journey from Gibeon by Johanan, the other leaders, and all the captives of Ishmael whom they had freed. They intended to go to Egypt because of fear of Babylonian reprisals but stopped on the way at Geruth Chimham near Bethelehem (vv 16–18). Verses 1–6 of chapter 42 reveal why they made the stop; it was to approach the prophet Jere- miah with a request to pray to YHWH to tell them where they should go and what they should do. After a ten day wait, the text reports that Jeremiah received a response from YHWH which he conveyed to the people (vv 7–22). Even though the run of the narrative indicates that the stopover at Chimham was, in part at least, to consult Jeremiah, its proximity to Bethlehem (v 17a) suggests to some commentators an example of intertextuality like the one proposed above for Gibeon.40 In this case, the parallel text is 2 Samuel 19:31–40 in which Barzillai, who was loyal to David during Absalom’s revolt, declined David’s offer of joining him in Jerusalem because of age. Instead he offered him the services of a certain Chimham. It has been proposed that Geruth Chimham was a piece of land subsequently granted to this person by Solomon, under the instructions of David (cf 1 Kgs 2:7).41 Its stated proximity to Bethlehem suggests the text is linking David’s birthplace and the place that recalled the role of those who supported him in his crisis with Absalom and helped him triumph. It is of course unlikely the connection was intended by those making the journey; the southern location of Geruth Chimham and Bethlehem would make them convenient stopover points on the way to Egypt. It was presumably an alert narrator/scribe who saw an opportunity to signal that this jour-

40. Cf for example, Yates, ‘Ishmael’s Assassination of Gedaliah’, 111; Bodner, After the Invasion, 94–95. 41. So Holladay (Jeremiah 2, 298), who cites Edward R Dalglish, ‘Chimham’ in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, volume 1 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962), 561.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 194 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 195

ney and what is recounted taking place during it was effectively the reversal of Israel’s original exodus journey that reached its apogee in the establishment of the Davidic monarchy. If so, this may be another case of narrative irony; by making this journey, Johanan and all the others were contributing to the same reversal of the fortunes of the Judeans that Ishmael unleashed through his violence. Jeremiah 42:1–6 reports a dialogue between Jeremiah and Johanan, the other leaders, and all the people ‘from the least to the greatest’. The dialogue is arranged chiastically with the people’s words in vv 2–3 and 5–6 framing Jeremiah’s reply to their request in v 4. This is the first time Jeremiah appears in the text and speaks after 40:6, and the passage does not say whether he was lodging at Chimham (or nearby Bethlehem), or whether he had journeyed with the others from Miz- pah. On the basis of 39:14 and 40:6, it is best to assume the latter was the case. One is prompted to ask why he was not consulted earlier, in particular by Johanan about Ishmael. Perhaps the importance of this moment prompted the approach. What is also striking is that Jeremiah agreed to pray on their behalf, whereas earlier YHWH had forbidden him to pray for a recalcitrant and rebellious people (cf 7:16; 11:14 and 14:11). Given his experience of dealing with the people thus far, and the instructions he received from YHWH in chapters 14–15, it is reasonable to expect that Jeremiah would have been suspicious of the people’s motives. However, as a faithful prophet his primary task was to speak when commanded to speak, and to communicate the message he received. If the people were being devious, then YHWH’s word would expose this and the prophet would point it out. One may also add that the positive portrayal of the assembly at Mizpah in 40:7– 12 suggests a new era had begun for the Babylonian province of Judah and, in light of this the prohibition against praying on behalf of the people had been lifted, especially for this important moment. According to v 1 all the commanders and all the people approached Jeremiah with a request, expressed in humility and sincerity, that he pray to YHWH for ‘us’.42 This recalls Gedaliah’s emphasis on one com-

42. This impression of humility is strengthened by their reference to YHWH as ‘thy God’ (that of Jeremiah) in vv 2a, 3a, 5b. They do not presume to be in a right relationship with YHWH. However, Jeremiah assures them that YHWH is also ‘your God’ in v 4a, and this is echoed by the people in v 6a where they speak of YHWH as ‘our God’. This switching between personal pronouns is noted by Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 298; and Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 130.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 195 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM 196 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

munity in 40:10, one that included Jeremiah. The purpose of their request was to know from YHWH ‘where we should go and what we should do’ (vv 2–3). Jeremiah agreed to the request and promised to ‘keep nothing back from you’ of what YHWH would communicate to him (v 4). They responded with effectively three commitments to obey whatever YHWH said. These were; that if they did not ‘act according to everything’ that YHWH conveyed to them via Jeremiah then YHWH would be a witness against them (v 5); that they would obey whether the news was good or bad (v 6a), and that they would obey in order that ‘it may go well with us’ (v 6b). One may relate this radical commitment to the narrative report that they intended to flee to Egypt as follows. From their limited human perspective this seemed the best thing to do and Egypt the best place to go, but their reply to Jeremiah in 42:5–6 indicates they accepted that this plan must be judged by YHWH before they acted on it, and if YHWH judged otherwise then YHWH must be obeyed. However, as commentators have noted, their approach to Jere- miah and request recalls the earlier one in 37:3, which is preceded by the judgement in v 2 that neither Zedekiah nor the people ‘listened to the words of the Lord that he spoke through the prophet Jeremiah’.43 Granted this connection and the leaders and peoples’ commitment in 42:6 to ‘obey/listen/hear’ the voice of YHWH, the consultation of Jeremiah at Chimham and his reply mark a critical point in the relationship between the people and YHWH. An earlier key ‘voice’ of YHWH in the book is Jeremiah’s sermon in chapter 25 which decrees that YHWH, the Lord of history, would bring Judah’s time in the land as a sovereign and free nation to an end because of its sins.44 It had been warned about this in the sermon on the loss of place (temple, city and land) in chapter 7, and about its future as a free nation in the sermon at the gates of the city in 17:19–27. In this second sermon, the Sabbath rest is singled out as the prime symbol of free time that YHWH established for the people in the exodus. One cannot of course separate place and time; one always lives one’s time in a cer-

43. For the connection between the two passages, cf Bodner, After the Invasion, 97; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 401; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 248 and Willis, ‘“They Did Not Listen to the Voice of the Lord”’, 81–82. 44. As noted by Holladay in his comments on 42:8–17 (Jeremiah 2, 300), YHWH’s sovereignty over the history/time of any nation is proclaimed in 18:1–12. YHWH shapes a nation’s history as a potter shapes and reshapes a piece of clay.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 196 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 197

tain place or places. Hence chapters 27–29 assure the people they can still live as YHWH’s people and under YHWH’s care as long as they accept their ‘new’ place of assignation in the wake of the Babylonian conquest—whether the province of Judah or Babylon itself—and the decreed period of time for which they must do this (cf 25:11b; 27:7; 29:10). Those who obey this decree would save their lives, and they and their descendants would in due course be replanted and built again in the land/place. The nature of this restoration is proclaimed in the prophecies of chapters 30–33. The issue in the consultation of Jeremiah at Chimham is whether there was another place—Egypt— where the Judeans could be assured of a future, or whether it was only by living in the Babylonian province of Judah in obedience to YHWH’s word that they could have a future as a people/community. In order to emphasise that the words Jeremiah spoke in reply were not his but the words of YHWH, the narrative reports a ten–day wait. This recalls Jeremiah’s dispute with Hananiah in chapter 28 where Jeremiah also had to wait until he received YHWH’s reply. According to the theology of prophecy advanced in the book, a prophet can only function as such on YHWH’s initiative. As noted earlier, this factor may also explain the absence of any prophetic word from Jeremiah in the preceding narrative. Bodner provides two further reasons for the delay. One is that it signals a shift from the predominance of action in the preceding narrative to the word. Whereas to this point it has focused more on how leaders attempted to resolve differences and conflict through actions, often violent ones, in order to ensure a sta- ble future, 42:7–22 and the subsequent texts focus more on what one should know in order to achieve the same goal. A second reason is that this speech is the last one that Jeremiah delivers in the land of Judah; hence it is a pivotal one.45 There are three distinct parts to Jeremiah’s speech in vv 9–22; namely vv 9–15a, 15b–17 and 18–22. Each is introduced by the prophetic messenger formula; ‘thus says the Lord (the God of Israel/ of hosts)’. The first two parts have the same ‘if—then’ or protasis– apodosis arrangement, with the first promising a good outcome ‘if’ YHWH’s instructions are obeyed, the second a negative outcome ‘if’ they are not obeyed. After vv 9–12 present the blessings that would flow from obeying YHWH’s word, in vv 13–15a Jeremiah draws the

45. Cf Bodner, After the Invasion, 101–2.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 197 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM 198 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

audience’s attention to the awful consequences ‘if’ they do not obey.46 The threat of such consequences for disobedience becomes more charged in v 18 where YHWH states it is not a matter of divine wrath being unleashed on the audience ‘if’ they do not obey, but ‘when’ they do not obey; that is, ‘when you go to Egypt’. This reveals that YHWH already knew the people would not heed the words. The chapter concludes in vv 19–22 with Jeremiah reminding the people of the core of the divine speech and his judgement that they would not obey it just as they had not obeyed anything that YHWH sent Jeremiah to tell them.47 A number of additional features in vv 9–12 invite comment. Verse 9 serves as an introduction, with the messenger formula announcing that what follows are the words of YHWH made in response to Jeremiah’s presentation of their plea. As noted, YHWH’s response is in the form of two conditional prophecies; the first one promises a positive outcome or consequence ‘if’ the people obey YHWH’s command to ‘remain’ in the land.48 But such a formulation requires that the alternative also be stated; namely the negative outcome ‘if’ the people do not obey. This forms the second response from YHWH. What is striking about the first ‘if—then’ sequence in vv 10–12 is that this is the first time in the book that the words spoken by YHWH in 1:10 to describe Jeremiah’s prophetic commission are addressed directly to the people, and in a very positive sense.49 Such a promise signals that remaining in the land in obedience to YHWH was an integral part of YHWH’s saving purpose for Israel and all the nations. YHWH’s statement in 42:10b (NSRV: ‘for I am sorry for the disaster

46. Here following Lundbom (Jeremiah 37–52, 135) who reads vv 13–15a as the words of Jeremiah. 47. Some judge that, as a speech by Jeremiah, 42:19–22 would be better relocated after 43:1–3 because it interrupts an original connection between 42:18 and 43:1. For a discussion see Carroll, Jeremiah, 719; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 411–12, Hollady, Jeremiah 2, 281; McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1045–46, 1048; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 249. For the purposes of this study, the MT sequence is followed. 48. There is some uncertainty over the first phrase in v 10, whether the initial verb should be read as ‘return’ or ‘remain/stay’. The first gives a reading ‘if returning you remain’, and the second ‘if remaining you remain/stay’. This is the reading preferred here; the initial infinitive absolute of the verb yashab (‘to remain/dwell/ stay’) adds emphasis to the phrase (cf McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1032–33). 49. In 1:10 Jeremiah is appointed over nations and kingdoms ‘to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 198 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 199

that I have brought upon you’) is striking and has occasioned considerable debate as to its meaning, a key issue being the verb nikhamti translated in the NRSV as ‘I am sorry’. In my judgement the translation that best fits the context is the one by McKane who, after weighing the options, proposes ‘I am no longer minded to bring disaster upon you’.50 That is, YHWH has carried out the decreed punishment as divine justice required and was now (equally) committed to the next stage of the divine purpose, which was to build and plant. The statement serves as an additional motivation to obey the divine word. But remaining in the land could not be a step forward into a benevolent time if the remnant of Judah was living in fear of the Bab- ylonians. The remaining part of the first speech tackles this issue; its importance being captured by the three occurrences of the verb ‘to fear’ in v 11. Here YHWH gives the people the confidence to obey the command not to fear the king of Babylon by making two statements, each of which is then followed by two verbs that explain the meaning of the respective statements. The first is that ‘I am with you’ and the manner of this divine presence is ‘to save you’ and ‘to rescue you from his hand’.51 YHWH’s presence would protect an obedient remnant from the destructive ‘hand’ of the king of Babylon in executing his role as YHWH’s agent of punishment of Judah and the surrounding nations. The second is that ‘I will grant you mercy’, a blessing that would be evident in the king of Babylon having mercy on them and restoring them to their native soil (v 12). Just as this king served as YHWH’s agent of punishment when required, so he would also serve as YHWH’s agent of mercy when required. Furthermore, the prophecy assures the audience that this would be how he would act in relation to YHWH’s obedient people. Note that this promise has the decreed period of Babylonian domination in view because it

50. Cf McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1030. He provides a fuller version on 1033, ‘My present attitude to you is benevolent and is not the one which prevailed when I executed punishment against you’ (followed by Bodner, After the Invasion, 103). Lundbom’s proposal is similar (Jeremiah 37–52, 132). Holladay argues that the verb cannot here mean ‘repent’, ‘regret’ or ‘be sorry’ because YHWH cannot reverse the fall of Jerusalem. This would expose YHWH as unjust (Jeremiah 2, 300). Carroll prefers the notion of YHWH’s change of mind but cautions that all language about the deity is metaphorical and problematic (Jeremiah, 718). 51. As noted for example by Holladay (Jeremiah 2, 285), vv 11–12 are similar in form to the so–called ‘oracles of salvation’ found in prophetic books, in particular Second–or Deutero–Isaiah (41:8–13, 14–20; 43:1–7; 44:1–8).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 199 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM 200 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

was the king of Babylon, the ruler appointed by YHWH over Judah and the surrounding nations, who would let the people dwell in their respective farmlands.52 As noted above, I take vv 13–15a as presenting the words of Jer- emiah; they provide a pause between the first and subsequent pronouncements of YHWH, and also serve as an appropriate lead in to the two pronouncements of YHWH that follow in vv 15b–17 and v 18, the second of which declares that the fate of those fleeing to Egypt would be in complete accord with what YHWH did to Jeru- salem and its inhabitants. Verse 13 shows that Jeremiah knew why the people and their leaders paused at Chimham and why they asked Jeremiah to pray to YHWH on their behalf. When one asks how he knew this, an obvious answer is that he knew because he was travel- ling with them. However, the way Jeremiah is portrayed here quoting the words of the people, or their thinking, indicates that on receiving YHWH’s reply to his intercession he also received knowledge of their true motive. Whatever the case, as a prophet loyal to his people Jeremiah warned them that fleeing to Egypt was another example of what the people are portrayed doing throughout the book—disobeying the voice of YHWH. From a purely human point of view, one migrates to another place in the hope that it may lead to better times. And then, as now, one hopes to experience better times in the three customary arenas of sight (war), sound (trumpet) and feeling/taste (food). The reader of course learns in chapter 44 that these Judean migrants were placing their hopes not so much in the land of Egypt as in a deity believed to rule over this place and its time—the queen of heaven. The resumption of the divine discourse in vv 15b–17 and 18 serves as both a response to what Jeremiah quotes the people saying in vv 13–14 and as an anticipation of the intense debate in chapter 44 as to which divinity has authority over time and place, YHWH or the queen of heaven. YHWH’s reply is directed to the ‘remnant of Judah’

52. I read the MT heshib in v 12 as the hiphil of yashab (‘dwell/stay’) as in vv 10 and 13, rather than of shub (‘return’); following McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1034–35. Verse 12 does not refer to the return to the land after the seventy years of exile as in 29:10, but to dwelling securely and peacefully in the Babylonian occupied province of Judah, according to 40:9–10. The noun’adamah (plural with pronoun suffix ‘your lands’) is used here rather than the more general term for land (’erets) to refer to farmlands in distinct districts of Judah.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 200 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 201

(v 15a), and the following verses point to two groups who comprise this remnant. The first is ‘you’, namely those assembled at Chimham, although of course ‘you’ presumably includes all readers of the book. Fleeing to Egypt would not enable the people assembled at Chimham to escape war (the sword) and famine and enjoy a peaceful time there, because YHWH is Lord of all places and times. The punishing power of YHWH’s servant Babylon embraced Judah and all the surrounding nations (cf 25:9). Verse 17 includes in this remnant not only those assembled before Jeremiah at Chimham but ‘all the people’ who have also ‘set their faces’ to go to Egypt. That this was an additional group is indicated by the shift from second person plural pronouns in vv 15b–16 (‘you’) to third person pronouns. The fate of all who flee to Egypt would be the same and ‘if’ they all flee there it would spell the end of ‘the remnant of Judah’. As already noted, v 18 asserts that this decreed punishment is completely consistent with what YHWH enacted against the inhabitants of Jerusalem. Within the context one may read this as an urge to the addressees to take such a prospect into account in deciding ‘if’ they would stay in Judah. In relation to this, it is significant that in v 18 YHWH declares that divine wrath would be poured out ‘when you go to Egypt’ rather than ‘if you go to Egypt’. This suggests divine retribution would only be enacted once the people have acted; that is, their journey to Egypt would be the sign they have repudiated the divine word. Their punishment would make them ‘an object of execration and horror, of cursing and ridicule’. This describes how the nations would react upon witnessing the people’s doom, and in doing so they would effectively make the same confession of faith in YHWH as Nebuzaradan in 40:3 (cf also 22:8–9 and Deut 29:24–28). It is generally agreed that vv 19–22 should be read as the words of Jeremiah rather than of YHWH. In v 19a he reminds his audience of the central element in YHWH’s words; namely the command ‘Do not go to Egypt’. He then offers an explanation on what has taken place between himself and the people in vv 19b–22. Unfortunately, the MT of v 19b, which is not in the LXX, and the first part of v 20 are not clear. NRSV translates v 19b as ‘I have warned you today’ but another proposed reading is ‘I have testified against you this day’ which would seem to relate more to Jeremiah’s role as YHWH’s mes-

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 201 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM 202 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

senger than as a commentator on YHWH’s words.53 Similarly, v 20a can be translated as ‘You are deceiving YHWH and putting your lives at risk’ rather than ‘you have made a fatal mistake’ as in the NRSV.54 Perhaps one can gain some sense of the thrust of vv 19b–22 via Jer- emiah’s remark in v 21 that the people had not obeyed YHWH’s voice in anything so far. On the basis of this his judgement was that they would do the same in this case, despite their declaration that they would do whatever YHWH said. Are his words then a condemnation in advance, or a last desperate attempt to get them to wake up and reform? Verse 22, which warns them of what will happen in the place ‘where you desire to go and settle’ may be leaving the door slightly ajar. They desire to go there but, in keeping with v 18a, they have yet to act on that desire. Both texts underline the seriousness of the plan to go to Egypt because it amounts to a reversal of the exodus, a return to the place of slavery and a time of slavery, as well as a rejection of the covenant relationship.55 43:1–13. Verses 1–7 of this chapter report the response of the leaders and people to the words of YHWH that Jeremiah communicated to them in 42:9–22, and their subsequent journey to Egypt. It is followed in vv 8–13 by the account of Jeremiah’s symbolic action at Tahpanhes in Egypt. Verse one emphasises two things; one is that Jer- emiah conveyed all the words to the people that YHWH spoke to him; he withheld nothing. The other is the repeated statement that YHWH is ‘their God’. Whatever YHWH says or does, whether for punishment or blessing, is an integral part of YHWH’s relationship with the

53. Cf McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1037–38. Given the translation he provides, his comment on 1038 seems somewhat in conflict with it. He holds that, given Jeremiah was remonstrating with the people rather than witnessing against them, then the sense of the text is that he ‘is attempting to disengage them from a wrong stance, not condemning them for a wrong decision which is irretrievable’. 54. The accusation that the people have deceived YHWH seems rather odd given that, according to the book, no one can deceive YHWH. However, one could read it as an accusation that the people have been untrue to YHWH. Some prefer ‘you have deceived yourselves’ or ‘you have done/are doing injury to yourselves’ but McKane argues that the hiphil form of the verb effectively rules out the reflexive sense (Jeremiah 2, 1039). Holladay (Jeremiah 2, 301) thinks that an implicit object is however assumed from the context and translates ‘You have led astray the whole group at the cost of your lives’. 55. As Brueggemann notes, the sentence pronounced is effectively a list of the covenant curses (Jeremiah, 394).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 202 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 203

chosen people and YHWH’s purpose for them. This implies that no matter what the people may say or do, YHWH will remain their God. This divine commitment to the chosen people, and through them all the nations, is evident in what YHWH is portrayed saying and doing via the loyal servant and messenger Jeremiah. It is perhaps significant that, if one includes the oracles on the nations in 46–51, then there are three sequences of Jeremiah’s words followed by symbolic actions or signs that confirm the words. Chapters 42:1–43:7; 44:1–28 and 46:1–51:58 are the words while 43:8–13; 44:29–30 and 51:59–64a provide the symbolic actions/signs. A common feature of the latter is that although they prefigure what will take place the book does not report any of them actually taking place. As Jeremiah disappears into Egypt the book ends as it began with a focus on the prophetic word he proclaimed and the symbolic actions/signs that serve to confirm the word (cf also the signs of the almond tree and the tilting pot in 1:11–14). According to 43:2 the leaders and the insolent fellows rejected Jer- emiah’s words by recourse to three related criteria.56 The first is that ‘you are telling a lie’ (LXX does not have ‘you are telling’).57 This is the first time in the book that Jeremiah has been accused of telling lies; up to this point he is the one who has accused others of doing so. Given that his audience was referring to what he presented as the words of YHWH, were they accusing him of falsely claiming to speak with YHWH’s authority? This would amount to blasphemy. Their second criterion indicates this was not the case because they declare that YHWH was not the driving force behind Jeremiah but rather his scribe Baruch. Some commentators are surprised that Baruch is suddenly introduced here but I would argue that it fits well into the

56. This is the first text that mentions Azariah son of Hoshaiah as a leader of the people, and names him before Johanan. He may have been a brother of the Jezaniah son of Hoshaiah who is mentioned in 42:1. It is also the only text in the book that refers to ‘the insolent men’ (not in the LXX). It may be intended to signal the hostile response that follows. 57. As Holladay notes the leaders and people misquote YHWH’s words, changing the ’al in the command ‘do not go to Egypt’ in 42:19 to lo’ and thereby making it a permanent prohibition. Ironically, they are right because YHWH has not permanently prohibited them from going to Egypt (Jeremiah 2, 300).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 203 13-May-20 5:26:06 PM 204 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

context.58 Baruch is portrayed in chapter 36 speaking words that Jer- emiah instructed him as his scribe to write on a scroll. The claim here that Jeremiah was speaking only what this scribe told him implies mocking sarcasm. For a prophet who claims to speak on YHWH’s authority to be told that he was merely mouthing what his scribe/ secretary told him is surely the ultimate demotion—if it were true. It amounts to a complete dismissal of any prophetic authority for Jere- miah. What is worse, the leaders and insolent men effectively accused Baruch of propagating lies through Jeremiah so that the remnant would fall into the hands of the Babylonians and thereby either be killed or exiled to Babylon. While Baruch is the primary target of v 3, it is probably meant to include Jeremiah who, in speaking Baruch’s words, was therefore complicit. The implication is that they were the ones who wanted the remnant of Judah to perish. One wonders why Johanan, who wanted to execute Ishmael to preserve Gedaliah’s life and prevent the remnant of Judah from perishing (40:15), did not execute Jeremiah and Baruch on the spot. According to v 3b they posed a similar threat to the remnant as Ishmael. Per- haps the implied reason why Johanan and the insolent men did not is that YHWH protected the loyal prophet and his scribe from them as YHWH protected them from Jehoiakim and his kind in 36:26. If this connection is justified, then both texts serve as further confirmation that YHWH acted in accord with the promise given to Jeremiah in 1:18–19 and 15:20–21. In vv 2–3 Johanan and the others assume the role of judges, claiming that they could discern when a person was or was not proclaiming YHWH’s word and that they were the ones who acted in accord with that word. But this was a false claim as the following narrative makes clear. The subsequent report of the journey into Egypt is framed by two statements that this took place because ‘they did not obey the voice of the Lord’ (vv 4, 7). Within the context the ‘voice of the Lord’ refers to YHWH’s command ‘do not go to Egypt’. Verse 5 reports that Johanan and the commanders of the

58. For Carrroll, ‘The sudden appearance of Baruch is inexplicable’ (Jeremiah, 722). Others appeal to the presence of Baruch here as support for the hypothesis of a ‘Baruch scroll’ in chapter 37–45, of which he was the author (cf James Muilenberg, ‘Baruch the Scribe’, in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, edited by John I Durham and JR Porter [Richmond, Va: John Knox Press, 1970], 215–38; and Brueggemann, ‘The “Baruch Connection”: Reflections on Jer 43:1–7’, inJBL, 113 [1994]: 405–20).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 204 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 205

forces ‘took’ with them all the remnant of Judah and also Jeremiah and Baruch. The verb ‘took’ laqakh( ) can mean being taken by force, and this may be its sense in relation to Jeremiah and Baruch being taken to Egypt, along with all those listed in v 6. However, this would not seem to be its meaning in 41:16 where it also occurs. The reader is thus left somewhat uncertain as to whether Jeremiah and Baruch went along with the migrants because Jeremiah did not receive any word from YHWH against it, whether it was out of concern for all those obliged to make the journey, especially the women, children and princesses, or whether it is another instance of Jeremiah as the loyal prophet. As a disciple of YHWH, he remained committed to the people and proclaimed whatever YHWH commanded him to proclaim, even when it led to hostility and his rejection by the people.59 Verses 5–6 state that Johanan and the commanders took to Egypt all the remnant who had returned to Judah from the surrounding nations as well as everyone entrusted to Gedaliah by Nebuzaradan. This means there were no Judeans left in the Babylonian province of Judah, nor any from the surrounding nations who might return there in due course. As has been noted, such a sweeping description was one of the factors that led to the myth of the ‘empty land’.60 However, it would seem unlikely that a conquered land would be left without anyone working it and providing tribute for the conqueror. The likely historical reality was that Babylon left sufficient numbers in Judah in order to do this, or they brought in migrants for the same purpose— as 2 Kings 17:24–34 would seem to imply. As noted above, 43:8–13 describes the symbolic act that Jeremiah was instructed by YHWH to carry out at Taphanhes and the words that accompany it. The Judeans were to witness Jeremiah digging up the pavement and burying the stones, and he was to declare to them

59. For comment on the verb laqakh here see Bodner, After the Invasion, 117. Brueggemann proposes that this narrative continues the theme of Jeremiah’s rejection and imprisonment (Commentary on Jeremiah, 398). Fischer also thinks it envisages them being taken against their will (Jeremia 2, 420–21). 60. For an analysis of the myth of the ‘empty land’ see Stipp, ‘The Concept of the Empty Land in Jeremiah 37–43’, in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts, edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin; BZAW, 404 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2010), 103–54, and Barstad, The Myth of the Empty Land: Study of the History and Archaeology of Judah During the Exilic Period (Oslo: Aschehoug, 1996).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 205 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM 206 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

what would follow.61 This would confirm once and for all that YHWH is Sovereign over all nations and the one who determines whether they flourish or perish. There is no report in the book of Jeremiah carrying out this instruction or of a Babylonian invasion of Egypt but, given the evidence of prophecies being fulfilled or realised in the preceding chapters, perhaps those who assembled the book judged there was no—further—need for this.62 Taphanhes, where Jeremiah is reported receiving this instruction, was located in the eastern Nile delta and was apparently a frontier town and a commercial centre on a major trade route.63 Even though it was not the capital city its position at the ‘entrance’ as it were to Egypt made it a suitable ‘place’ to draw an important parallel between the looming fate of Egypt and the earlier fate of Judah. The symbolic action of setting up foundation stones for Nebuchadrezzar’s throne in front of the royal palace signifies that Taphanhes plays the same kind of role in the book as the gates of Jerusalem. According to 39:3, the officials of Nebuchadrez- zar erected their seats in the middle gate of the city, a clear sign that they had taken control of this ‘place’ and henceforth controlled entry and egress from it. In like manner, YHWH declares in 43:9–10 that Nebuchadrezzar would set up his throne at this gateway into Egypt as a sure sign that he had taken full control of it. Verses 11–13 describe the kind of control or rule that Nebu- chadrezzar would exercise over Egypt and, because he was to come as YHWH’s servant (cf v 10a which is not in the LXX), he would

61. Some have questioned the likelihood of Jeremiah actually digging up the pavement in front of Pharaoh’s palace and burying stones there. Carroll for one asks ‘how would the Egyptian guards have responded to a foreigner digging up their premises’ (Jeremiah, 726). As noted in my first volume, a similar problem occurs with the symbolic action of the soiled loincloth in chapter 13, if one reads the Hebrew term parat as referring to the distant Euphrates river rather than to a small wadi near Jeremiah’s home of Anathoth. 62. According to ANE historians, extra–biblical records point to two Babylonian invasions or incursions into Egypt, one in 582 and the other in 568. It is difficult to know to which one the prophecy is referring, if indeed it has one of them in mind. Lundbom prefers the earlier date (Jeremiah 37–52, 147), while McKane reports that earlier commentators such as Volz, Rudolph, Weiser and Bright favoured the later date. McKane himself thinks it may refer to a Persian invasion by Cambyses in 525, the records of which specifically mention the resistance mounted by Heliopolis (Jeremiah 2, 1065–67). 63. So Bodner, After the Invasion, 118–19.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 206 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 207

purge land and cities of all their evil and disorder as he did Judah and Jerusalem. The verses refer first of all to people, then to Egyp- tian gods, with a final description of how thorough this purge would be. Verse 11, which refers to the people, is a quotation of 15:2 and, as with the earlier text, the presumed sense is that YHWH decides who is ‘destined’ for pestilence, captivity or the sword. The prophecy presumably embraces Egyptians as well as the Judeans who witnessed Jeremiah perform the symbolic action. One may note that it leaves open the possibility that some may be destined to be preserved from pestilence, captivity or the sword. As YHWH’s servant, Nebu- chadrezzar implemented what YHWH decreed even though he may have been unaware he was doing so. Verse 12a refers to the gods of Egypt. Nebuchadrezzar was to burn their temples and take their stat- ues and images to Babylon as booty.64 Verse 12b assures the witnesses that no one would escape Nebuchadrezzar’s purge. There may be an echo here of 16:16–18 in which YHWH vows to hunt down all those judged deserving of punishment. The verb translated as ‘he shall pick clean’ in the NRSV can also mean ‘he shall wrap’, if one follows the LXX translation. Commenta- tors debate the matter and it probably cannot be resolved definitively. If one follows the MT as in the NRSV, then the sense is one of purge; Nebuchadrezzar will pick the land clean of vermin as a shepherd carefully picks his cloak clean. If one follows the alternative, then the sense is more of booty. Nebuchadrezzar will wrap up and carry away the spoil of Egypt as a shepherd wraps his belongings in his cloak and moves on.65 Either reading catches the irresistible power that YHWH would give Nebuchadrezzar over Egypt and its gods. The burning of

64. One may be tempted to read the subject of the first verb as ‘he’, as in the LXX, Syriac and Vulgate, rather than ‘I’ as in the MT. The two following verbs in the verse have the third person masculine subject. However, Lundbom makes the interesting observation that the switch between ‘I’ and ‘he’ in the MT could be to show how YHWH and Nebuchadrezzar act as one (Jeremiah 37–52, 146). YHWH would kindle the fire and Nebuchadrezzar would see that the temples were thoroughly burnt. Following Carroll (Jeremiah, 725–26), I read the phrase in v 12a ‘and carry them away captive’ within the context as a reference to Egyptian gods being taken as booty rather than people. 65. The MT reading is preferred by Carroll,Jeremiah , 725; the alternative by McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1050, 1059; and Bodner, After the Invasion, 124. Carroll does note on 726 that the image of Nebuchadrezzar departing in peace may favour the alternative.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 207 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM 208 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the temples of the gods in particular would be a sure sign that YHWH alone is ruler of all place and time. Verse 13 repeats the topic of v 12, namely the burning of Egyptian shrines and may be an addition to include the ‘obelisks of Heliopolis’.66 The prophecy of the destruction of Egyptian cults in vv 12–13 anticipates the key issue of the dispute in the following chapter 44 between Jeremiah and the devotees of Egyptian gods, in particular the queen of heaven.

44:1–30 This chapter unfolds a debate or dispute between Jeremiah and Judeans living in the land of Egypt. It commences with Jeremiah relaying to them three speeches of YHWH, each introduced by the prophetic messenger formula—vv 1–6, 7–10 and 11–14. Verses 15–19 present the reply of Judeans who are devotees of the queen of heaven, with Jeremiah’s reply to them in vv 20–23. This exchange is then followed by three further YHWH speeches in vv 24, 26–28, and 29–30. As with the first set of three speeches of YHWH there is a narrative introduction to this second set in v 24a, with v 24b making clear that what follows is the word of YHWH, as distinct from the words of Jer- emiah that preceded in vv 20–23. Although vv 29–30 are a continuation of the YHWH speech that commences in v 25 they are distinct in that they are about a forthcoming sign that will verify the truth of YHWH’s words. As such they form a parallel to the prophesied symbolic action about which Jeremiah receives instructions in 43:8–13. As noted above, the book does not report Jeremiah performing that symbolic action, but neither does it report the realisation of the sign in 44:29–30, the capture of Pharaoh Hophra (Amasis). The formulation of this sign is clearly meant to evoke the prophecies about the capture of king Zedekiah by Nebuchadrezzar in 32:3–5 and 34:2–5, the realisation of these being reported in 39:4–7. The introduction to the first YHWH speech in 44:1 states that it is addressed to ‘all the Judeans living in the land of Egypt’; the remainder of the verse names four places which may be all the areas in which Judeans were living in Egypt, or they may be meant to refer to the four

66. According to Fretheim, Heliopolis, which means ‘house of the sun’, is thought to have been a shrine near Cairo famous for its obelisks (Jeremiah, 555).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 208 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 209

principal zones of the country.67 The verse is not meant to be taken literally but is a rhetorical way of claiming that YHWH’s word is meant for all in Egypt. The NRSV translation has attempted to capture this by rendering the Hebrew adverb ’el, which normally means ‘to’ or ‘towards’, as ‘for’. The sweeping reach of v 1 and the way the addressees are described as ‘dwelling’ (NRSV ‘living’; participle of the verb yashab) indicates that what is presented in chapter 44 is understood to have taken place some time after the arrival of Johanan and the people in Egypt.68 The initial focus of the first YHWH speech in vv 2–10 is a review of what had happened so far (vv 2–6). This sets the topic for the ensuing debate which is about time—how to explain the passage of events and their interrelationship. The great debate commences with something that all the participants—YHWH, Jeremiah, and the Judeans in Egypt—can agree had happened; namely the devastation of Jeru- salem and the towns of Judah (v 2). But there are two items about which, as the chapter unfolds, there is intense disagreement. These are YHWH’s claim to be the one who brought about the devastation and the reasons for it, namely the idolatry of the inhabitants of Jeru- salem and the towns of Judah, as well of you (the addressees) and ‘your ancestors’ (vv 2–3). These three groups are named together here because the following verses of this first section as well as the subsequent ones cover the people’s origins and distant past (hence the ancestors), the recent past of the conquest of Jerusalem and Judah (hence the former inhabitants), and the addressees in the book as well as readers of the book (hence ‘you’ masculine plural). The subsequent verses switch between these, depending on the point being made.69 As expected in light of vv 2–3, vv 4–6 seek to absolve YHWH of any blame in what happened to Judah and Jerusalem. Verse 4 states that YHWH ‘persistently’ (NRSV; the verb shakam means to rise early) sent prophets to warn ‘you’ against doing ‘this abominable thing that I hate’. According to v 5 ‘they’ refused to ‘listen’ and

67. For the proposed location of these towns and places, see Keown–Scalise– Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 262–63; also Samantha Joo, Provocation and Punishment: The Anger of God in the Book of Jeremiah and Deuteronomistic Theology, BZAW 361 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2006), 213. 68. Cf Fretheim, Jeremiah, 560; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 434; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 262–63. 69. This rhetorical device may explain some of the differences between the MT and the versions. For a discussion of the differences see McKane,Jeremiah 2, 1069–73.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 209 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM 210 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

repent of ‘this abominable thing’, which is revealed at the end of the verse as the cult of foreign gods.70 This refusal to listen and change exposed their guilt and justified the devastation that YHWH wrought and which is evident to the addressees (v 6). There is a switch from the second person masculine plural ‘you’ in v 4 to the third person masculine plural ‘they’ in v 5. Verse 4 is so formulated because the word of the prophets is never just past tense; it is a living and active word that reverberates through the generations. In this sense all the generations are one addressee of the prophetic word. Moreover, the one proclaiming these words is the prophet Jeremiah. However, v 5 switches to the third person in order to make a distinction between those who experienced the devastation of Jerusalem and Judah (‘them’) and the addressees in Egypt (‘you’). The fact that—according to the text—they stand before Jeremiah in Egypt means that YHWH had not (yet) wrought on them the punishment that was decreed in Jeremiah’s pivotal sermon in chapter 25 and which brought about the devastation described in 44:2. One may say they were preserved by YHWH so that they might hear and face the same challenge made to ‘them’ who heard the words of the prophets, rejected them, and therefore deservedly had their world brought to an end. Given the addressees’ rejection of YHWH’s words in 42:9–22, the reader can presume that the same would happen to them. But the words of YHWH are never wasted or to no purpose. This speech reasserts a key theological component of the book; namely that YHWH alone is Sovereign of history. The importance of this faith claim is emphasised by the way it is made here within the context of a very public dispute with a rival claimant, the queen of heaven. Verses 7–10 put three key questions to the addressees—the remnant of those left in Judah after the conquest who had sought refuge in Egypt.71 They are similar to the questions that are part of the prophetic form termed a ‘covenant lawsuit’; examples of which occur in

70. One may note the echoes of 25:3–7 in the assertion that YHWH ‘persistently’ sent prophets to warn the people but they refused to ‘listen’ and repent of the cult of foreign gods. 71. The NRSV reads v 8b as a question ‘will you’, giving four questions altogether (so Brueggemann, Jeremiah, 405). However, the adverb lema‘an, with which v 8b commences, usually means ‘only’ or ‘so that’, and hence I read v 8b as a statement that continues the thrust of the question ‘why’ in v 8a (following McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1068 and Carroll, Jeremiah, 728).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 210 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 211

Jeremiah’s first sermon in chapter 2.72 As the preaching of Jeremiah in the book commences with Israel being put on trial and challenged to explain its (mis)conduct, so his preaching comes to a climax and conclusion here with another trial scene. The first question in v 7, after the introductory messenger formula is ‘why’ were the addressees doing the very things that would ensure their being cut off from Judah without a remnant? The clear implication here is that there could be no survival for such Judeans outside Judah, a declaration that is in keeping with YHWH’s speech in 42:9–22. Their particular actions have life and death implications (they bring ‘great evil’; NRSV ‘great harm’). The response that should of course be made by believ- ers in YHWH is an expression of repentance and plea for forgiveness (cf 3:22–24). However, given the context provided by the preceding chapters, especially chapter 42, the more likely implied answer is that these addressees believed that what they were doing would bring them ‘good’ (tob) and not ‘evil’ (ra‘ah). Matters become more intense with the second question in v 8a. The addressees are now asked ‘why’ they provoked YHWH to anger by worshipping other gods in Egypt. The answer that should be given is that they had been seduced by the foreign cults. How- ever, the answer that the text implies the addressees would make was that they no longer accepted the salvation–punishment theology proclaimed by the prophets, or they thought they had discovered a god or gods who had the power to bless or curse rather than YHWH. Hence they would not accept that what YHWH declares in v 8b to be the consequences of their actions would in fact happen. Again the key issue—implied here—is who is in charge, who has the power to bring about blessing or curse, good times or bad/ evil times?73 The third question in v 9 follows on from this, asking whether the addressees have forgotten the crimes of three groups in their history; namely their ancestors/fathers, the kings and their

72. As noted in my first volume (14) some prefer a less legal term to describe these speeches, such as ‘disputation’ (cf Michael de Roche, ‘YHWH’s rib against Israel: A Reassessment of the So–called “Prophetic Lawsuit” in the Pre–Exilic Prophets’, in JBL, 102 [1983]: 563–74). This is also the description of the text by Fischer, Jeremia 2, 435. 73. Fischer (Jeremia 2, 438) notes that the terms ‘cursing’ and ‘ridicule’ occur together only in Jeremiah (24:9; 42:18; 44:8b; 49:13).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 211 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM 212 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

wives, and the addressees themselves and their wives.74 An answer is effectively supplied for this third and final question in v 10; the absence of any sign of contrition or fear, and the failure to ‘walk in my laws and my statutes’ clearly showed that ‘you’ had forgotten the evils that have been perpetrated from the ancestors to ‘this day’. They had forgotten them in the sense of putting them completely out of their minds. Within the disputation, vv 9–10 function as the judgement that follows on the examination of the accused. They also serve to confirm the initial assessment of the guilt of the ones listed in v 3. The indictment is followed in vv 11–14 by the announcement of sentence or punishment by YHWH, who is portrayed in this speech both as prosecuting lawyer and as judge. A literal rendering of the judge’s decision about the accused in v 11a is ‘I have set my face against you for evil’. A literal rendering of the sentence as expressed in v 11b is ‘to cut off all Judah’. The verb to ‘cut off’ is the same verbkarat use to ‘cut’ or make a covenant. The text may be implying the complete reversal of the covenant that YHWH established with Israel at Sinai. Verse 12 then fills out the details of the sentence of punishment for ‘you’ who are ‘the remnant of Judah’. There are three of these. The first concerns the place of punishment; it will be the land of Egypt where the remnant have fled in the belief that there they would not perish and would experience good and not evil. The second is the manner of their punishment; they will perish by sword and pestilence. The third is that no one will escape the punishment; it will reach ‘from the least to the greatest’.75 But YHWH, the God Israel, remains their God and so even their doom will serve as a sign of YHWH’s justice and power to those who witness it. That is, their horrified reactions will confirm for others the prophecies of 18:16 and 22:8–9 (cf also Nebuzaradan’s words in 40:2–3). Verse 13 asserts that the punishment announced against those in Egypt would be fully in accord with the punishment enacted against Jerusalem. YHWH is completely consistent as judge in the same way that YHWH is completely consistent in the messages that are entrusted to the prophets; this consistent message is in essence

74. The mention of wives here may be in preparation for the prominent role given to the women/wives in vv 15–19 (so Bodner, After the Invasion, 134). 75. On these three features of YHWH’s retribution see also Fischer, Jeremia 2, 440.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 212 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 213

‘hear (that is “obey”) the word of YHWH’. Verse 14 sums up the announcement by stating that the punishment would be so devastating that they will seek to escape it by completely reversing what they committed themselves to do—namely, to migrate to Egypt in order to preserve their lives. They will desire to return to Judah in order to preserve their lives but be unable to do so. Except for some survivors they will all perish in Egypt.76 Verses 15–19 report the response of the accused to YHWH’s verdict and punishment against them, as proclaimed by Jeremiah. As v 16 makes clear, they refused to listen (shama‘; same verb as for ‘obey’) to ‘the word’; that is, they rejected everything that Jeremiah had spoken to them. They then declare that everything they do will be in accord with the word/teaching to which they have committed themselves, and it is of course the ‘doctrine’ about the rival goddess, the queen of heaven. The reader learns in v 17 that, according to the testimony of the addressees, she has been the object of devotion not only of themselves but of their ancestors and their kings and officials. In short, they claim that worship of the queen of heaven is not something new; it has always been there in the life of Judah. In making such a claim they are, ironically, validating Jeremiah’s claims that the people have persistently refused to listen to/obey YHWH’s word despite the preaching of all the prophets against the cult of foreign gods (cf 7:9, 25–26; 25:4–7; 35:15; 44:4–6). When one reads 44:15–19 in light of 42:1–6, there may also be a connection with the portrayal of the people as duplicitous in the lessons that YHWH conducts for Jeremiah in chapters 14 and 15. They will posture as YHWH worshippers when it suits them but in reality their loyalty lies elsewhere. The response of the addressees as presented in 44:15–19 would seem to indicate that things have gone a step further in that they openly profess allegiance to the queen of heaven and, presumably

76. This final remark about survivors is regarded as a gloss by many commentators that contradicts v 14a (cf Carroll, Jeremiah, 730; McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1074–75) but the Hebrew word palet (‘fugitive’, ‘survivor’) that occurs in 44:14 occurs also in 44:28, and this verse does not appear to be a gloss or later addition. These survivors had a designated role to play in YHWH’s universal purpose and it was to declare in Judah that YHWH’s words are the only true ones that bring about what they proclaim; certainly not the words of the devotees of the queen of heaven.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 213 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM 214 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

thereby, definitively reject YHWH (and Jeremiah).77 The reason for doing so is their conviction—their take on their experience—that she and not YHWH is in charge of (their) history. When they honored her times were good, but ‘from the time’ they ceased doing so the reverse was the case (v 18).78 As is clear from Jeremiah’s reply in vv 20–23, the devotees of the queen of heaven make the same distinction as Jeremiah between good and bad times but explain them, not as the consequence of a right or wrong relationship with YHWH but with the queen of heaven. In their judgement she is the one who determines, in whatever place they live, whether they experience blessing or curse, good times or bad times. The final verse of this section brings the women to the fore. Even though the introductory ‘And the women said’ in the NRSV is not in the MT and is drawn from the Syriac, it is clear from the subsequent reference to ‘our husbands’ that the women/wives are the speakers here. Whereas v 15 indicates that both men and women are the speakers in the following verses, here the women appropriately step into the foreground because they are the ones in a household who would be primarily responsible for baking cakes ‘marked with her image’.79 But they make clear that their

77. There were a number of goddesses in ANE pantheons and this has prompted attempts to determine which one the general title used in 44:17–19 may have in mind. For a useful discussion see the Excursus in Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 266–68. For a more complete study see Jill Middlemas (The Troubles of Templeless Judah, OTM [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005]) who judges that analysis cannot really advance beyond considered conjecture. Perhaps the general term ‘queen of heaven’ is used in the book to cover all ANE goddesses. Their number and variety testify to the popularity of the cult of a goddess. An indication of the attraction of her cult is that she is mentioned specifically, along with unnamed ‘other gods’ in the key sermon in the temple (7:18). 78. This has been taken by a number of scholars as an allusion to the Josianic reform (cf Bodner, After the Invasion, 138–39 and the literature he cites there; also Miller, ‘The Book of Jeremiah’, 873). In my opinion however, the devotees are accounting for the same periods of good and evil in Judah to which Jeremiah refers, but in relation to the queen of heaven rather than YHWH. According to 2 Kgs 22–23 the reign of Josiah was not marked by famine and war. As Bodner (After the Invasion) himself notes, the queen of heaven is not mentioned in the Deuteronomistic History. 79. According to Karel JH Vriezen these cakes may have been shaped in an upright stance in order to also serve as an image of the goddess (‘Cakes and Figurines: Related Women’s Cultic Offerings in Ancient Israel?’ in On Reading Prophetic Texts: Gender–specific and Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Dijk–Hemmes, edited by Bob Becking and Meindert Dijkstra [Leiden: Brill, 1996], 251–263).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 214 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 215

husbands were fully involved in this, presumably by agreeing to them making and baking the cakes. Jeremiah’s response to the devotees of the queen of heaven in vv 20–23 is instructive because it shows that there can really be no solution to such a dispute because it is about what one believes and one cannot prove one’s faith. If one could, then there would be no need for such faith. All Jeremiah can do in these verses is counter the devotees by reasserting what he states in his preceding speech, namely that the disaster that has struck Judah—a reality about which both sides agree—is YHWH’s just punishment of them for their evils and not the work of the queen of heaven. What is distinctive about Jeremiah’s response however is that is identifies two key components of their evil that resulted in the present situation. The first is one that the devotees would be ready to acknowledge, and that is the cult of the queen of heaven that they publicly perform. As v 22 states, YHWH could no longer ‘bear the sight of your evil doings’. In their eyes the cult of the queen of heaven is a sign of their devotion and assures them of blessing. The second evil is one that they refuse to acknowledge but which Jeremiah claims to be the key one—hence he lists it after the first. This is the charge that they have not obeyed YHWH’s voice as expressed in the law, the statutes and the decrees. This is a charge that the devotees, as they have expressed themselves in vv 15–19, would refuse to admit. In their eyes they have not disobeyed any of YHWH’s laws because their focus has been the laws of the queen of heaven, the ones that ultimately demand their obedience. The people claim they are sincere in their commitment to the queen of heaven but, given how the people have been portrayed in the preceding chapters of the book, the reader may suspect that they do whatever they think will be to their advantage at this or that point in time. As noted, there are three sections in vv 24–30. The first two, in vv 24–25 and 26–28 are introduced by the call to ‘hear the word of the Lord’. The third section in vv 29–30 is the prophecy about the capture of Pharaoh Hophra by Nebuchadrezzar that will serve as a sign, the purpose of which is ‘that you may know that my words against you will surely be carried out’ (v 29b). The call to ‘all you Judeans who are in the land of Egypt’ indicates that what follows is YHWH’s final word in this dispute. YHWH’s words commence in v 25a by acknowledging that the addressees have acted in accord with their vows; that is, their profession of faith in the queen of heaven as the deity who

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 215 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM 216 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

dispenses blessing and curse, and their commitment to her. However, the preceding dispute would indicate that they are not denying that YHWH is a god, rather it is a question of who is the ultimate sovereign over history, the time of this or that nation on earth. Their switching of allegiance indicates they do not think YHWH has the power to govern—certainly not to overrule the queen of heaven— and so there is no point invoking YHWH’s name, presenting peti- tions, or offering sacrifices. However when one considers the people’s vows to the queen of heaven within the preceding context one must wonder how loyal they will be. After all they make a vow before Jeremiah in 42:2–6 to do all that YHWH tells them but, once they heard the words of YHWH they immediately and belligerently broke that vow. Perhaps this is why v 25 ends with what seems to be a sarcastic comment by Jeremiah himself; ‘By all means, keep your vows and make your libations’.80 But it may also serve as a lead in to the following vv 26–28 in which YHWH vows to do two things that counter the two things the devotees commit themselves to do; fulfill the vows they profess and perform the prescribed cultic rituals for the cult of the queen of heaven (v 25a). One takes vows by swearing in the name of the God that one wor- ships. Hence, in order to ensure that there is no confusion as to whom the vows are being made, YHWH resolves that the great name will no longer be pronounced by any of the Judeans in Egypt.81 According to the declaration made by the devotees of the queen of heaven in vv 15–19, when they honoured her they experienced good fortune, when they stopped doing so they suffered misfortune. On this basis, if they only invoke the queen of heaven and the name of no other god

80. This is generally taken as a sarcastic remark by Jeremiah, and somewhat similar to his remark in 28:6 (cf Bodner, After the Invasion, 144; Carroll, Jeremiah, 742; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 446). Lundbom suggests that the feminine plural verb forms in v 25 may be because the women performed the rituals (Jeremiah 37–52, 166). 81. It is unlikely that this declaration is meant to be taken literarily; it is a rhetorical ploy and may be made with the same sarcastic touch as v 25b. Some think that a reversal of the revelation of the divine name to Moses in Exodus 3 may be alluded to here. For example, Stulman says ‘God’s self–disclosure made possible Israel’s story. The absence of the divine name is tantamount to an abrogation of the covenant relationship’ (Jeremiah, 341); cf also Bodner, After the Invasion, 145–46). Brueggemann has a similar interpretation (Commentary on Jeremiah, 409). In keeping with the tenor of my analysis, I have attempted to read v 26 primarily within its context.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 216 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 217

is heard, certainly not YHWH’s, then they should experience good fortune as a result. But if they suffer misfortune then either the queen is not up to the job or some other god is responsible. This provides the context for the second thing that YHWH vows to do, and that is to ‘watch over them for harm (evil) and not for good’.82 The few who escape the evil that will strike and manage to return to Judah shall know ‘whose word will stand, mine or theirs’ (v 28b). This declaration implies that the preservation of these ‘few’ is part of YHWH’s plan to preserve witnesses. They will provide definitive evidence that the cult of the queen of heaven, along with that of all other gods, is false, and that her alleged words/promises have no more standing than mere human words—those of her devotees. The declaration by YHWH in the wake of the dispute between the worshippers of the queen of heaven and Jeremiah concludes in vv 29–30 with a sign, the purpose of which is ‘that you may know that my words against you will surely be carried out’. The sign is that YHWH will give Pharaoh Hophra (Amasis) into the hands of his enemies as YHWH gave Zedekiah into the hands of Nebuchadrezzar.83 The people are destined for a similar fate. As with the symbolic action that Jeremiah is instructed to perform in 43:8–13 and the one about which he himself gives instructions in 51:59–64a, there is no report of the realisation of this sign. But, as noted above, given the realisation of Jeremiah’s prophecies about the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem, the reader is meant to presume that the same will happen in the case of these symbolic actions and sign. By way of concluding this analysis of chapters 40–44 it may be worthwhile commenting on some key features that are similar to those in the preceding chapters of the book as well as ones that are different. In my first volume, I argued that an important feature of chapters 1–25 was the way it exploited the importance of place and time. These are almost unavoidable categories in which to comment on human life because we all live in place and time, and we make sense of our lives

82. The presence of the verb translated as ‘watch over’ recalls the play on this verb and the term for an almond tree in 1:11–12 (cf Fischer, Jeremia 2, 448). 83. As noted in the Outline, Hophra was captured in battle and dethroned in 570 (cf McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1082). According to Keown–Scalise–Smothers the date was 566 BCE (Jeremiah 26–52, 268). The parallel in the decreed fates of Zedekiah and Hophra asserts that YHWH is Sovereign not just of Judah and its rulers, but of any nation and its rulers.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 217 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM 218 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

by assessing the significance of what happens in particular places and at particular times. Was this/is this/will this be a good place to spend time and was my time/is my time/will my time there be a positive or negative experience? Important factors that will affect my assessment are the views, predictions and reviews of another or others, in particular those whose judgements I respect and value. My reaction to their judgements will depend to a considerable degree on the nature of my relationship with them. Within a religious society such as Israel, and indeed the ANE in general, belief in a national god or gods and the individual and society’s perceived relationship with a god or gods was a key factor in evaluating the meaning of time and place. In my first volume, I argued that ‘gates’ play a key symbolic role in Jeremiah’s preaching. Gates mark entry to places, and whether gates are open or closed, and who opens and closes them, determine how much time one spends in the place to which the gates provide access. What happens inside the gates will affect my evaluation of time there; was it good fortune or misfortune. YHWH informs Jeremiah in 1:15 that an invader will come from the north and set up his thrones at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem, thereby controlling entry and exit and determining the fate of the city. As part of his preaching Jeremiah delivers two key sermons at gates; the first is at the gate of the temple in chapter 7 and the second at the gates of the city in 17:19–27. He warns that disobedience to YHWH’s command will result in the places to which these gates provide access—temple and city—being destroyed. The second sermon links the theme of place to that of time via the Sabbath command. This is the great sign that YHWH had freed the people from slave time in Egypt; hence to conduct business during the Sabbath was an abuse of YHWH’s gift of time, and the punishment for this would be that Judah’s time in the place (land and city), where it was meant to live in YHWH’s freedom, would come to an end. These prophecies of the end of Judah’s time in the land are confirmed in the programmatic sermon that Jeremiah delivers in chapter 25, delivered after twenty-three years of trying vainly to get the people to ‘listen/obey’ the word of YHWH communicated via the prophets. According to YHWH’s decree Judah would in a sense ‘return’ to slave time in a place to which entry and exit was controlled by another. That is, it would live for a period of time decreed by YHWH—namely seventy years—under Babylonian rule, both in Babylon and in Judah. According to chapters 27–29, which are set at the beginning of the

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 218 13-May-20 5:26:07 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 219

reign of Zedekiah and so after the first exile of 597, YHWH provided instruction via Jeremiah as to how the people would be able to maintain their lives during these seventy years in the two places in which Judeans were to be assigned; namely the Babylonian province of Judah and Babylon itself. If those in Judah refused to serve the king of Babylon or those in Babylon refused to seek its welfare then a further, much worse, disaster would consume them. And this is the fate that strikes the rebellious people in the final conquest of Judah and Jerusalem and the onset of the ‘second’ exile and period of subjugation to Babylon. According to 39:3 the Babylonian officials set up their ‘thrones’ in the middle gate of Jerusalem, thereby taking control of the city and signifying that Judah and Jerusalem’s time in which it enjoyed free movement within land and city had come to an end. The people who were once slaves/prisoners of Egypt were now prisoners of Babylon as punishment for their sins. But even though this disaster had struck, a merciful God remained committed to them. Those who surrendered to the Babylonians in accord with YHWH’s instructions were taken to the Babylonian capital where they were presumably to live in accordance with the instructions given to the first exiles in chapter 29. Those whom the Babylonians left in the land (39:10) and those who had taken refuge in neighbouring countries were given the same instructions as those living in Judah in the wake of the first exile. That is, serve Babylon and you will live. As a sign of YHWH’s commitment, Jeremiah was sent by YHWH’s servant Nebuchadrezzar to the governor of the province of Judah, Gedaliah. This is the setting with which the account of the exilic period in chapters 40–44 commences; Gedaliah assured all who assembled to him at Mizpah that if they served the Babylonians in ‘their place’, the province of Judah, their time would go well. However, the murder of Gedaliah triggered a crisis; the people and their leaders could not or would not trust any longer in the words of Gedaliah— which were in line with the words of Jeremiah—and remain in the land under the Babylonians (40:1–41:15). Fear of Babylonian reprisals for the murder of the governor meant they could not or would not heed YHWH’s promise to ‘restore you to your native soil’ if only they relied on this word and not their own fears (chapter 42). Chapter 44 reveals, or exposes, that those fleeing to Egypt discovered, or rediscovered, a deity who they believed could preserve them from the Babylonians and ensure good times in their chosen

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 219 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM 220 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

place of Egypt. This was the queen of heaven and their open admission that they had switched allegiance to her is the clearest rejection of YHWH as Lord in the book. According to their faith assessment, when they looked back over their past they realised that when they failed to honour her they suffered bad times, but when they did honour her they experienced good times. The context of their dispute with Jeremiah indicates that both sides agree on what were the bad times and what were the good times. But one faith attributed these to YHWH, another to the queen of heaven. The final verses of chapter 44 can be read as an attempt to prove that YHWH is the one in charge of history and not the queen of heaven via the prophesied sign of the doom of Pharaoh Hophra. However, there is no report of this taking place in the book, and in any case the devotees of the queen of heaven could always appeal to something in their theology to account for it. Another feature where there is continuity and difference between chapters 40–44 and the earlier parts of the book is the portrayal of Jeremiah. Up to the account of the conquest of Judah and Jerusalem he is the prominent human presence in the book, and is described initiating encounters with kings and people at YHWH’s bidding, as well as facing hostility and rejection by his own people to such an extent that he has a crisis about his vocation that erupts in a series of laments and complaints (the so–called ‘confessions of Jeremiah’). In contrast, he is absent from the narrative of the first part of chapters 40–44, and when he does reappear it is at the request of the people and their leaders who, in keeping with the reaction of most of his addressees in the preceding chapters, reject the words of YHWH that he conveys. In contrast to the account of Babylon’s conquest of Jeru- salem, there is no report of the rescue of Jeremiah from his ‘prison’ in Egypt where he was forcibly taken. But, and here is the continuity, the last words that he speaks carry the same power and theological weight as his earlier pronouncements. This heightens what is commonly perceived as a key theme of the book, that the Word of God is ever alive and active. Unlike frail humanity it never fades and dies. Another area where there is continuity and difference is that of people’s response to the word of YHWH. An almost depressing feature of the book is the consistent rejection of the word of YHWH that Jer- emiah proclaims. The repeated phrase to describe this rejection is that ‘you/this people have not listened to/heard/obeyed the voice/word of YHWH’. The one Hebrew verb that is translated in various ways in English to suit the context is shama‘, its basic meaning being ‘to hear’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 220 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 221

There is an ironic side to its usage in the book; in one sense the people certainly ‘hear’ the words that are spoken to them. But they do not, or will not, ‘hear’ the words in their deeper sense, which is to do what the words say. The only ones in the book who obey the word of YHWH and are singled out for doing so are the good figs of 24:4–7, who trusted in YHWH’s promise that those who surrender to the Babylonians would save their lives, and did so. This applies to those who surrendered during the first siege (21:9) as well as to those who surrendered during the second and final siege (32:2; 39:9). They are the subject of Jeremiah’s letter in chapter 29 and are assured of a secure life in Babylon for the designated seventy years of exile, as long as they seek the welfare of the city (29:7). Only two other groups in the book are singled out for their fidelity to the word; the people in Hezekiah’s time (26:18–19) and the Rechabites in Jehoiakim’s time who remain faithful to the word/teaching of their founder Jonadab son of Rechab (chapter 35). The rejection of the words of a speaker carries the implication that one’s own words are a better response to the matter being addressed, or that one has an alternative source to turn to for a better word—either a text or a speaker. This favoured alternative is indicated in texts that accuse the people of following other gods, and in the key temple sermon in chapter 7 the queen of heaven is named as one of these alternative or rival gods. This feature is however brought into prominence in chapter 44 in the dispute between Jeremiah and the devotees of the queen of heaven.84 This is the first

84. The prominence of the queen of heaven in chapter 44 has stimulated a number of studies, from feminist and other perspectives, on the contrast between the way the text portrays the female queen of heaven in contrast to the male divinity, YHWH. Kelly Whitcomb applies deconstructionist and feminist analysis to argue that despite the text’s assertion of the superiority of the male deity YHWH over the female queen of heaven, the former is dependent on the latter to make his case and this deconstructs his claims to superiority. I would agree that the text is biased in favour of YHWH but is YHWH any more ‘dependent’ on the queen than a judge on a criminal in prosecuting a case? Moreover, as the text portrays it, the dispute is not so much about rivalry between male and female gods but about which divinity has power to bring about what it declares (cf 91–92 of ‘The Queen of Heaven or YHWH of Hosts: Does the God of Israel Protest (In)sufficiently in Jeremiah 44?’, in Conversations with the Biblical World, 33 [2013], 82–97). James E Harding argues that the gendered language of the chapter renders truth as masculine (‘The Silent Goddess and the Gendering of Divine Speech in Jeremiah 44’, in Prophecy and Power: Jeremiah in Feminist and Postcolonial Perspective [New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013], 189–207).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 221 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM 222 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

time such a dispute occurs in the book. As was presented in the analysis, these two deities are portrayed as rival claimants to the power to bring about well–being or woe in response to the loyalty or disloyalty of their followers. The dispute is not over which experiences are good and which are bad but over which divinity is responsible for them. The way in which this dispute ends in the book also indicates that those who put it together recognised one cannot prove definitively the case for YHWH. Verse 29–30 of chapter 44 prophesy a sign that will show YHWH’s words are the true ones but its realisation is not reported. The book does not provide the proof, instead it calls on the reader, depending on his or her historical situation, to believe that it did take place or will take place. In keeping with the overall thrust of the book, the emphasis is on the word and belief in the word or, as the book expresses this, ‘hearing/obeying’ the word. On reading chapters 40–44 one becomes aware of a contrast between the portrayal of the Judeans in these chapters and that of the exiles in Jeremiah’s letter in chapter 29. The latter are identified as the good figs of 24:4–7 who obeyed YHWH’s voice and surrendered to the Babylonians. They are therefore assured that as long as they seek the welfare of Babylon it will go well for them. However, the former are the bad figs of 24:8–10 who will be among all those punished for refusing to obey the word of YHWH. As Yates observes in a recent article, for a number of scholars this indicates that ‘The clear intention of the book of Jeremiah is to demonstrate that the hopes for Israel’s future as a nation lay with the exiles in Babylon, who appear to have taken the brunt of YHWH’s anger’.85 Closer analysis has however shown that the matter is not so black and white. Historical critical analysis by Seitz and Carolyn J Sharp indicates that the pro–Golah view represents one redactional layer in the book that it is countered

85. Cf 12 of Yates, ‘New Exodus and no Exodus in Jeremiah 26–45. Promise and Warning to the Exiles in Babylon’, in Tyndale Bulletin, 51 (2006): 1–22. See also the literature cited on pages 4–17. In a 1985 article, Seitz asserted that the book views the exiles in Babylon as ‘God’s obedient folk’ (see page 94 of ‘The Crisis of Interpretation over the Meaning and Purpose of the Exile: A redactional Study of Jeremiah xxi–xliii’, in VT, 35 [1985]: 78–97).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 222 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 223

to a certain extent by a more pro–Judean view.86 Granted that different groups during the exilic and post–exilic periods were responsible for the kinds of rival views that Seitz, Sharp and others claim to have identified, nevertheless their presence in the final text of Jeremiah suggests that this may have been done with the aim of bringing them together or achieving some kind of reconciliation. Yates’s analysis is made with a view to check this theory of competing views and he believes one of the functions of the narrative in chapters 40–43 was to provide a warning for the exiles in Babylon.87 Just like the letter to the exiles in chapter 29, the remnant in the land received a promise of divine blessing for obeying YHWH’s word but forfeited it when Johanan and the people rejected the word and went down to Egypt. According to Yates the portrayal of the Judean remnant in chapters 40–43 amounts to the reverse of the ‘new exodus’ or return prophesied in chapters 30–33. But a key function of this contrast is to serve as a warning to the Babylonian exiles not to follow suit. The danger of this is underscored by the report of false prophets in Babylon and the hostile priest Shemaiah of Nehelam, who seeks to have Jeremiah arrested (cf 29:20–32). Yates’s conclusion is that ‘In the book of Jeremiah, the Jewish remnant in the land is not so much a rival group to the exiles as a mirror image to help the exiles see for themselves the ultimate consequences of failure to follow the prophetic counsel to settle down and submit to Babylon’.88 The analysis I have presented here would be in basic agreement with this view.

Jeremiah 45:1–5 The word that Jeremiah is instructed to speak to Baruch is set in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and so is another instance of the chronologi-

86. In his later 1989 study Seitz identifies a Golah redaction and what he terms a ‘Scribal Chronicle’ that is more open to life in the Babylonian province of Judah (cf Theology in Conflict, 236–44). Carylon J Sharp’s 2003 study also proposes two major redactions. She agrees that one was the work of pro–Golah ‘traditionists’ who were in exile in Babylon after 597 BCE; the other however was the work of ‘traditionists’ in Judah who sought to counter the pro–Golah claims in a number of ways (cf Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in the Deutero–Jeremianic Prose, Old Testament Studies [London/New York: T&T Clark, 2003], 157–58). 87. Cf Yates, ‘New Exodus and no Exodus in Jeremiah 26–45’, 18–19. 88. Yates, ‘New Exodus and no Exodus in Jeremiah 26–45’, 20.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 223 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM 224 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

cal reversal or ‘flashback’ that occurs at what I have argued are strategic points in the book. A key function of such reversals is to connect the prophecy with a preceding text in the book that effectively confirms it for the reader. It claims the truth of the prophetic word without explicitly saying so. The parallel example that most immediately comes to mind in the case of chapter 45 is the prophecy to Ebed–melech in 39:15–18 which is a prophecy of salvation delivered to him at the time of his rescue of Jeremiah in 38:7–13, but is located after the account of the conquest of Jerusalem and its immediate aftermath in 39:1–14. An alternative explanation of the location of the chapter is that it concludes a collection of Baruch’s memoirs, or a ‘Baruch document’ that can be identified in chapters 36–45.89 A different version of this is the proposal by di Pede that it forms the conclusion to a narrative that runs from chapter 32, where Baruch is first mentioned, to chapter 45.90 As stated a number of times, the aim of this study is not to try and adjudicate between competing hypotheses on how the final text of Jeremiah was compiled, but to see what meaning can be gained by examining the text as it stands and within its context. From this perspective chapter 45 emerges as a remarkable text that in five verses forges connections with preceding passages in the book as well as with ones that follow, in particular the oracles on the nations. Despite disagreement and debate among some scholars it seems difficult to deny that the phrase ‘these words’ in v 1 refers to the content of the scroll that, according to 36:1–4, Baruch wrote under Jeremiah’s instructions in the fourth year of Jehoiakim.91 It was on this occa-

89. For a discussion of these theories see Carroll, Jeremiah, 665–66; McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1100–4. For the hypothesis of a Baruch document, see Brueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 414. It is worth noting that Lundbom does not think the chapter was the conclusion of a Baruch ‘memoir’ or ‘document’ but rather of an edition (expanded) of the book and that it presents a ‘colophon’ of Baruch (Jeremiah 37–52, 171–73). This is somewhat similar to Thiel who identifies the chapter as the conclusion to the D (dtr) reaction of Jeremiah Die( deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jer 26–45, 82–90). 90. Cf di Pede, Au delà du refus. For my comments on this hypothesis, see part 1, chapter 3 above. 91. For a discussion of the disagreements see McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1099–1104. In Lundbom’s view ‘these words’ ‘were those contained in the First Edition of 1–20, then upon the relocation of the colophon (45:1–5), made to include all the oracles and narrative in a book of fifty-one chapters’Jeremiah ( 37–52, 174).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 224 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 225

sion, well before the setting of chapters 40–44, that Jeremiah spoke the words of YHWH to him recorded in 45:1–5. The text commences with YHWH quoting Baruch’s lament about his situation, in particular that YHWH ‘has added sorrow to my pain’. That is, his initial painful situation has become worse. Given Baruch said this in the wake of his writing and reading of the scroll, the ‘pain’ could have been triggered by the hostile response to him and Jeremiah, resulting in them both going into hiding. The additional ‘sorrow’ could refer to writing the second scroll, which had ‘many similar words’ added to the content of the first scroll, additions that were no doubt further prophecies of condemnation. Within the larger context of the book, the lament of Baruch recalls the laments or confessions of Jeremiah himself, in particular 15:10–15 and 20:7–17.92 In this sense one could say that the prophet’s disciple shares in the vocation of the prophet. In the case of Jeremiah it is a vocation that brings the pain of a hostile response from the people to one’s preaching, and the sorrowful prospect of seeing their demise. The subsequent vv 4–5 develop this connection further. Verse 4 reiterates the commission that YHWH gave to Jeremiah but a notable difference is that whereas in 1:10 YHWH appoints Jeremiah over the nations to ‘pluck up and to pull down’ by the power of the words that YHWH puts in his mouth, here YHWH announces that ‘I am going to break down’ and ‘pluck up’. That is, while Jeremiah is the one who proclaims what is to come about, it is YHWH who brings it about. In relation to this Baruch’s role will be to witness what YHWH does in ‘the whole land’ and to testify that it is in fulfillment of the words that Jeremiah proclaimed.93 The reference to the land here may imply a link to Jer- emiah’s purchase of a field in 32:6–15. Even though this is set in the reign of the last king Zedekiah, it is the first time Baruch appears in

92. Cf Boadt, Jeremiah 26–52, 116; Varughese–Modine, Jeremiah 26–52, 264–65. Jeremiah utters the same cry ‘woe’ in 15:10 as Baruch. 93. I would disagree with Seitz’s proposal that 45:4–5 refers to the subsequent oracles on the nations, because the plucking up and pulling down has already occurred with the fall of Jerusalem and the deportations. According to him chapter 45 originally introduced these oracles. This overlooks the setting described in the superscription which Seitz nevertheless retains against those who would delete it (cf 19–24 of ‘The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jeremiah’). For a discussion that is partly in favour of Seitz’s view, see Bernard Gosse ‘Jérémie XLV et la place du recueil d’oracles contre les nations dans le livre de Jeremie’, in VT, 99/2 (1990): 145–51.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 225 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM 226 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the book and one in which he also functions as a witness entrusted with the record of the purchase. As v 16 states, the purchase of land is a prophetic sign that ‘houses and vineyards shall again be bought in this land’. But before this can take place, the existing disorder must be plucked up and pulled down. Just what the command in v 5a ‘do not seek great things for yourself’ refers to is rather elusive but I would propose that the most plausible explanation is one derived from the context. I have proposed above that Baruch’s pain and sorrow was the outcome of his involvement in the writing and reading of the scroll. Its hostile reception resulted in him and Jeremiah being obliged to hide. This is the reverse of what one would normally expect from the all–powerful God in whom one believes. Jeremiah himself is depicted in 12:1–4 complain- ing why YHWH does not single out the wicked and clean up the mess they create. Instead, it is YHWH’s loyal followers who are singled out and treated as criminals. But, as with Jeremiah in 12:5, YHWH warns Baruch in 45:5 not to expect a quick easing of his pain because what he has experienced so far is only the beginning. YHWH’s purging purpose does not have just Judah as its target but all flesh. This is a clear evocation, and a reminder for Baruch and the reader, of the decree in 25:31 that YHWH ‘has an indictment against the nations, and is entering into judgment with all flesh’. In relation to this divine purpose, the great thing that Baruch can do for himself, and for all, is to accept that it is YHWH who sets the agenda.94 As a number of commentators note, the reference to YHWH’s judgement of ‘all flesh’ also prepares the reader of the MT version for the oracles on the

94. On the portrayal of Baruch in chapter 45, see Scalise, ‘Baruch as First Reader’, 300–7. She questions the established view, going back to Calvin, that Baruch is an ‘ambiguous model’ for readers (300), and supports a more recent one, advocated by Holladay (Jeremiah 2, 311) who interprets Baruch’s complaint positively. However, I do not think this pays sufficient attention to the phrase ‘for yourself’ in YHWH’s warning in v 5. As with Jeremiah, who is given a series of lessons in chapters 14–15 to correct his attitude and which conclude with the stark challenge of 15:19, so Baruch needs to be corrected and to change in order to remain loyal to YHWH and his commission as Jeremiah’s scribe and disciple. Jeremiah and Baruch are portrayed in the text as models for readers, not because they are perfect but because they are willing to hearken to the word of YHWH and change.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 226 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM Jeremiah 40:1–44:30 and 45:1–5 227

nations in chapters 46–51.95 These provide examples of the kind of judgement that YHWH, the universal Sovereign, has in store for ‘all flesh’; that is, for each and every nation in its place and time. All flesh of course includes Baruch, and the final part of v 5 reveals YHWH’s judgement on him. It is to give him his life as a prize of war wherever he may go. A number of comments can be made about this decree of the universal judge. One is that it is presumably in response to his loyalty to Jeremiah in the drama and crisis associated with writing and reading the scroll. It is an assurance that will be upheld as long as Baruch stays loyal. In this sense the assurance echoes the one given to Jeremiah in his commission (1:18–19), and again in 15:20– 21. The second is that the assurance of having one’s life preserved as a prize of war is also, as with Ebed–melech in 39:15–18, effectively a prophecy of more strife to come. The truth of this is confirmed for the reader of the text via the preceding account of the hostility of the remnant of Judah to Baruch and Jeremiah in 43:2–3 and their forced journey into Egypt. Finally, the promise of divine protection ‘in every place to which you may go’ would not seem, within the context, to suggest that YHWH would accompany Baruch on whatever journeys he under- takes on his own initiative. Rather these journeys are likely to be ones on which he will be taken as a captive, as he and Jeremiah were taken to Egypt as captives of the remnant and their leaders. The text does not say so but it would seem reasonable to envisage Baruch taking the scroll on these journeys and safely guarding it, and this is one of the reasons why YHWH assures him of protection. Jeremiah fades from the scene after his dispute with the devotees of the queen of heaven. But chapter 45 reveals that Jeremiah’s departure is also part of YHWH’s purpose and that, as with the rewriting of the scroll in 36:28–32, he made provision for it by commissioning Jeremiah’s loyal disciple and assuring him of the same divine protection. The text does not say so explicitly, but it is reasonable to presume that Baruch’s key role is to preserve and proclaim the scroll in whichever place he may go (that is, be taken as a prisoner, like Jeremiah). As with Jeremiah, Baruch’s vocation is to be at the service of the divine word.

95. Cf Carroll, Jeremiah, 506–8; RE Clements, Jeremiah, Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988), 151.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 227 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 228 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM Part Three: Jeremiah 46:1–52:34

Collection of Oracles/Decrees on Purge of Nations around Judah (46–49) and Babylon (50–51)

Chapter 8: Jeremiah 46:1–49:39: Oracles/Decrees on Purge of Nations around Judah, Realised in the Babylonian Conquest

Chapter 9: Jeremiah 50:1–51:64: Oracles/Decrees on Purge of Babylon, Confirmed by being Inscribed on Scroll and read by loyal Seraiah (brother of Baruch)

Chapter 10: Jeremiah 52:1–34: Postscript from Another Source that Confirms Prophecies of Book

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 229 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 230 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM Chapter Eight Jeremiah 46:1–49:39

Because the focus of this study is the MT of the book of Jeremiah, I will not undertake an analysis of the differences between the oracles on the nations (or OAN) in 46:1–51:64 and the LXX version in 25:15–31:44.1 Nor will I comment on how 46:1–51:64 may have been compiled, even though it is likely this was done in several stages.2 Rather, my aim is to investigate the meaning and interrelationship of

1. The English word ‘oracle’ is normally a translation of the Hebrewmassa’, which does not occur in Jeremiah 46–51. In fact it is used only in a pejorative sense in 23:33–40 by punning on its other meaning ‘a burden’. The noun comes from the verb ‘to lift up’ and so an oracle can be uplifting or a crushing burden. The general term probably derives from the book of Isaiah where most of the oracles on the nations in chapters 13–23 are introduced by the term massa’. 2. For example, Duane L Christensen, along with others, regards the present text as a combination and enhancement of oracles on Ammon, Moab, Edom, Aram/ Damascus that were pre–Jeremianic (or ‘archaic’), with oracles on Kedar/Hazor, Philistia, Egypt, Elam and Babylon that originated with Jeremiah (cf Prophecy and War in Ancient Israel. Studies in the Oracles Against the Nations in Old Testament Prophecy. Bibal Monograph Series 3 [Berkeley, CA: Bibal Press, 1975], 208, 224, 278–79. Historical critical analysis has also tended to accept that the MT version is a later expansion of an earlier Hebrew Vorlage on which the LXX was based. Nathan Mastnjak has recently challenged this view, arguing that ‘Rather than one version being original and the other an editorial rearrangement, both the LXX and the MT represent independent organizations of this collection’ (25 of ‘Jeremiah as Collection: Scrolls, Sheets and the Problem of Textual Arrangement’, in CBQ, 80 [2018]: 25–44). If this was the case then one should be able to trace the development of each version without recourse to the other.

231

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 231 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM 232 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the various parts of 46–51 as well as their function within the larger book.3 The oracles on the nations are in two sections, the ones on the nations listed in chapters 46–49, and the ones on Babylon in chapters 50–51. As presented in the initial Outline, I identity the superscriptions for the oracles on Egypt in 46:2 and Kedar and Hazor in 49:28a as a frame that presents the oracles on these nations and the ones in between as realised in the conquests of Nebuchadrezzar. Although presented in a different form, their function within the book is the same as chapters 37–39 and 40–44. That is, they are about the realisation of the prophecies in 25:8–11 and the accompanying symbolic action of the cup of the wine of YHWH’s wrath in vv 15–26a. These declare the coming conquest of Judah and the surrounding nations by Babylon and their subjugation for a determined period of time. As also noted in the Outline, 46:2–49:33 do not contain any account of events in the surrounding nations during their decreed period of Babylonian domination that would confirm 25:11b and correspond to what is recounted in chapters 40–44. I suggest this may well be because such information was not available to those who assembled the book of Jeremiah, or that 46:26b; 48:47; 49:6, 39 (perhaps also 49:11) presume a period of subjugation to Babylon before these prophesied restorations take place. In contrast to 46:2–49:33, the oracles on Babylon are presented in the book as prophecies yet to be realised. However, a reader of the book in the post–exilic Persian period would have been able to confirm that they had indeed been realised and thereby validated. I stated in the Outline that I would comment on two other superscriptions that need to be taken into account. One is for the oracle on the Philistines (47:1); the other for

3. Given the highly rhetorical and poetic nature of such oracles no interpretation is likely to be definitive. The context within which one reads them is also an important factor in their interpretation. A good example of another interpretation than the one offered here is that of Amy Kalmanofsky who, by drawing on film and literary theory about ‘revenge fantasies’, argues that the oracles reveal ‘God to be the subject of the transformation central to all revenge fantasies. God transforms from victim to avenger’ (cf 127 of “‘As She Did, Do to Her!”: Jeremiah’s OAN as Revenge Fantasies’, in Concerning the Nations: Essays on the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, edited by Else K Holt, Hyun Chul Paul Kim, and Andrew Mein; HB/OTS 612 [London/New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015], 109–127).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 232 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 233

the oracle on Elam (49:34). The meaning and function of these will be included in the analysis of each oracle.

46:1–28: Oracles on Egypt There are two main oracles on Egypt, each with a narrative introduction; vv 3–12 (with introduction in v 2) and vv 14–24 (with introduction in v 13). A third oracle in vv 25–26 is generally regarded as a prose piece (cf. NRSV formatting) with its own short introduction ‘The Lord of hosts, the God of Israel said’. Verses 27–28 are a salvation oracle addressed to Jacob/Israel that is very similar to 30:10–11. Verse 1 serves as a general introduction to the oracles or speeches on the nations. The preposition‘al that prefixes the reference to the nations at the end of v 1 is the only occurrence in the collection. Other references to a nation have either the single letter prefixl e (48:1 [Moab]; 49:1 [Ammon], 7 [Edom), 23 [Damascus], 28 [Kedar)) or the preposition ’el (47:1 [Philistia]; 49:34 [Elam]). The preposition‘al can mean ‘on/upon/against’. Granted that it is presumably meant to provide an introduction to the collection of oracles that follow in chapters 46–51, and in which there are a number of references to the restoration of a nation after its punishment, as well as a number of references to Israel’s restoration, the broader terms ‘concerning’ or ‘on’ would seem to be a better translation than ‘against’. Verse 1 commences with ’asher, usually translated as a relative pronoun meaning ‘who/which/what’. Relative pronouns in English are normally dependent on a preceding substantive clause. However, Beat Huwyler argues that ’asher can commence a non–self–standing or self–standing relative clause, and in the latter case it is its own substantive clause.4 This is presumably the case here. Verse 2 is the specific narrative introduction for the following poem about Egypt in vv 3–12 and relates it to the defeat of Pharaoh Neco by Nebuchadrez- zar at Charchemish on the Euphrates river. The agreed date for this battle is 605 BCE and that it established the Babylonian king as master of the ANE. The significance of this for Judah is implied by the

4. Beat Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker. Untersuchungen zu den Völkersprüchen in Jeremia 46–49 (FAT 20; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997), 372. Carroll (Jeremiah, 759) notes that it occurs as an introduction also in 14:1 (lacks ‘the prophet’); 47:1; and 49:34.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 233 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM 234 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

accompanying information that it occurred in the fourth year of king Jehoiakim. This was also the year in which Jeremiah delivered the sermon recorded in the pivotal chapter 25, the same year that Baruch recorded Jeremiah’s words on a scroll (chapter 36) and Jeremiah conveyed YHWH’s promise of protection for this loyal scribe in the coming troubles (chapter 45). As the preceding analysis has shown, and as the following comments on the oracles on the nations will show, this was a pivotal year in the history of Judah and ANE nations because it was an integral part of YHWH’s plans for the future of both. Study of oracles on the nations in Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and other books has led to a greater awareness of their distinctive features. Even though they are presented as the words of YHWH, at times the prophet may speak, at other times a witness may describe or comment on what is taking place in the poem; one may also hear the voice of an enemy either as attacker or as vanquished. At times there is no clear indication of change of speaker and the reader must make a judgement.5 Another feature of these texts is the way they switch between past, present and future, and between different images and metaphors to describe people, things or events, again often without explicit indication. War images are of course a staple of such oracles. The highly rhetorical and even exaggerated thrust of such poems— at least in the judgement of many modern western readers—means they can at one point declare or report the destruction of an enemy but then announce its restoration, either to be decimated in another war or enjoy the blessing of peace. Awareness of such features helps a reader grasp the meaning of each oracle and its relationship or lack of relationship with other oracles.6 The first poem or oracle in the collection is 46:3–12; it is generally regarded as a unified piece in two main parts; vv 3–6 and 7–12. In my

5. For a consideration of speakers and audiences in a selection of the OAN, see the recent study by Raul R Raabe, ‘What is Israel’s God Up To among the Nations? Jeremiah 46, 48, and 49’, in The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, Interpretation), 230–52, especially 234–44. 6. On the switching between speakers and the uncertainty at times of discerning who is the intended speaker, see Brueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 426; on the relationship between past, present and future, that is whether the oracle was uttered before, during or after the battle, see Carroll, Jeremiah, 763–64; on the use of imagery and metaphor and rhetoric, see Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker, 268–71; and Daniel Bourguet, Des Metaphores de Jéremie, Études Bibliques, Novelle série 9 (Paris: Gabalda, 1987).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 234 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 235

judgement, the focus of vv 3–6 is place while the focus of vv 7–12 is time. These are the two arenas in which human life is lived. The preceding chapters of the book have claimed that YHWH is the universal Sovereign who assigns each person and nation its time in this or that place. When a nation such as Judah obeys the commands of the Sov- ereign, its time in its designated place is assured and blessed, when it does not then YHWH may expel it from its place or put the place in charge of another for a designated period of time—for example the seventy years of subjugation to Babylon decreed in 25:11b. Analy- sis of the oracles on the nations that follow will show this claim of YHWH’s sovereignty being applied to each nation in varying forms. Verses 3–6 unfold as an initial series of commands in the second person masculine plural to unnamed warriors to draw up in battle formation (vv 3–4), followed in v 5aα by a question from an onlooker/ observer as to ‘why’ they are terrified, and a report of their frantic but failed flight in vv 5aβ–6.7 The poem does not identify these warriors but the introductory superscription in v 2 would suggest they are the Egyptians who were defeated in battle against Nebuchadrezzar on the river Euphrates at Carchemish. Verse 5b reports words that YHWH speaks; within the context it would seem these are the statement at the end of v 5 as well as v 6 that ‘terror is all around’.8 In effect YHWH answers the question ‘why’ of the observer in v 5a; the three statements that follow in v 5 describe the way in which the warriors are ‘terrified’.9 Verses 3–4 clearly refer to the place or space occupied by

7. Repetition of different literary forms in vv 3–5 enhances the impact of what is portrayed. There are seven commands in vv 3-4, emphasising power aimed at victory, but this is followed by three statements in v 5 that emphasise the reverse, complete loss of power and defeat (cf Fischer, Jeremia 2, 472). 8. The statement ‘terror is all around’ occurs elsewhere in the book in 6:25; 20:3 10; 49:29. In the first text it clearly refers to an enemy threat as here, in the second it is a name YHWH gives the priest Pashhur who imprisons Jeremiah. Because of this it is he and his house, not Jeremiah, who will become the ‘real prisoners’, of Babylon. I judge the third to come from Jeremiah, expressing his sense of being completely surrounded by enemies (Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 1–25, 180). The final one is similar to 46:5a, and the two occurrences can be seen to frame the oracles on the nations from Egypt to Kedar. The narrative introduction to the oracle on Elam, as pointed out earlier, sets it somewhat apart from the preceding ones. 9. It should be noted that the adjective translated in the NRSV as ‘terrified’ khat( ) does not have the same root as the noun translated as ‘terror’ in v 5b (magor).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 235 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM 236 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

a battle formation. The commander or commanders order the warriors to ‘take your stations’. This also allows the reader to understand YHWH’s explanation as to why they are terrified. It is because these warriors and the place they occupy are surrounded on all sides by a ‘terror’—within the context this most likely refers to the Babylonian army. According to the observer in v 5 the (Egyptian) forces flee the battlefield but, according to YHWH in v 6, they will not succeed. They cannot flee away because ‘terror is all around’ and so they stumble and fall at the place identified at the end of v 6 as ‘in the north by the river Euphrates’.10 The warriors and their commanders tried to seize control of this place by force but YHWH shows—to the reader—who is the real Sovereign over this and every place by surrounding them with ‘terror’ and rendering them powerless. The question in v 7 marks a shift from place to time. Just as the river Nile rises and subsides according to the season, so powers like Egypt tend to think they are in charge of the course of ANE history. They are the ones who determine the fates of other nations, their rise and fall. But, the simile of the rise and fall of the Nile hints that there are other factors that determine the course of history, just as there are other factors—such as rainfall in the south—that determine whether the Nile will rise or fall at this or that time. This hint becomes a clear declaration in v 10. According to v 8b Egypt made the decision to ‘cover the earth’, believing it to be the sovereign. According to v 9a its troops were sent on campaign, along with those of its allies—Ethio- pia, Put, Ludlim. The speaker(s) giving the orders in v 9 may be the same speaker(s) as in vv 3–4.11 Within the context, v 9 refers to the campaign that was launched but ended in a disastrous confrontation with the forces of Babylon at the battle site in vv 3–6. And as with v 5b, which reveals who is really in charge of the place of battle, so v 10 reveals YHWH as the one who is really in charge of Egypt’s campaign season. Whereas Egypt thinks it will enjoy the day of victory, it is

10. A further indication that the oracles on Egypt and Kedar/Hazor, and their accompanying superscriptions, form a frame around the oracles in between is that the statement or cry ‘terror is all around’ occurs only in these two oracles (46:5 and 49:29). 11. Keown–Scalise–Smothers see v 9 as a reprise of vv 3–4a (Jeremiah 26–52, 286).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 236 13-May-20 5:26:08 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 237

actually being brought to attend YHWH’s day of retribution.12 This time of punishment is presumably because of its arrogant assumption that it was sovereign, and its dismissal of any others as mere pre- tenders who would be destroyed.13 Whereas Egypt thought it would slaughter its enemies as one slaughters a sacrificial offering, it will in fact itself be the sacrificial offering that YHWH will slaughter in the land of the north before all the nations to show them who really is in charge and the one to whom they should all pay homage. The switch from masculine imagery to that of ‘virgin daughter of Egypt’ in v 11 is appropriate as the poem moves to a post–war setting. In an apparent contradiction that is in reality a mark of the high rhetoric of these poems, even though Egypt is to be slaughtered and sacrificed in v 10, it returns to life in the poem in feminine form in vv 11–12 and is addressed personally, the only point at which this happens in the chapter.14 Portrayed as a desperately sick woman Egypt is exhorted in rather mocking terms by a speaker—who in the context may best be taken as YHWH—to embark on another campaign, this time to the medical centre of Gilead.15 As the war campaign proved fruitless so will this search for what is an incurable affliction. What is this affliction? Verse 12a provides a clue with its reference to the

12. Some see in the imagery of Nile floodwaters (v 7) an allusion to the cosmic flood unleashed by the god or goddess of chaos (cf Tamm, Tiamat), and the ‘day of YHWH’ (v 10) an allusion to the final eschatological battle between the forces of chaos and of order. However, Huwyler discounts this (Jermia und die Völker, 90–91). One’s interpretation may change to some extent as the context within which these oracles are read expands—from the context of the OAN in Jeremiah, to the context of prophetic literature, to the HB/OT, etc. 13. Interestingly, Lundbom notes that the Rabbinic commentator Kimhi and Calvin thought that the retribution was for Pharaoh Neco’s killing of king Josiah (Jeremiah 37–52, 198). 14. Egypt is also called ‘virgin daughter’ in vv 19, 24 as are Moab, Ammon and Babylon in 48:18; 49:4 and 50:42 respectively. Fretheim points out that the fact Israel is also called ‘virgin daughter’ in 6:23; 18:13 and 31:4, 21 indicates that all these nations are daughters of YHWH and so ‘children of God’ (Jeremiah, 583). Hence YHWH is concerned about the welfare of all the nations. On this aspect of the OAN see also Yates, ‘Hope in the Midst of Wrath. Promises for Outsiders in Jeremiah 46–51’, in Biblioteca Sacra, 175 (2018): 67–82). 15. Some think that the balm from Gilead (cf 8:22) was an ointment famous for its healing properties (so Varughese–Modine, Jeremiah 26–52, 273) but Huwyler is doubtful of this and thinks the reference is sarcastic (Jeremia und die Völker, 92–93).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 237 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM 238 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

shame of defeat (loss of status before the surrounding nations) and a cry.16 Verse 12b indicates this is a cry of mourning over all the warriors fallen in battle. Egypt’s time as a power that could launch war campaigns is at an end. The second oracle on Egypt in vv 14–24 has a superscription or introduction in v 13 that indicates it is about Nebuchadrezzar’s invasion of Egypt after the victory at Carchemish, to which vv 3–12 refer. The introduction presents what follows as a prophecy of what is to take place; namely ‘the coming’ of Nebuchadrezzar to attack Egypt. This prophecy covers in highly imaginative fashion what will happen in battle (vv 14–16), what YHWH decrees ‘daughter Egypt’ must do in the wake of inevitable defeat by Nebuchadrezzar in order to save her life (vv 18–19), and what YHWH foresees Egypt and those around her will actually do (vv 20–34). There is some debate about when and even whether Nebuchadrezzar actually invaded and conquered Egypt.17 Whatever of this, the thrust of the text is, as YHWH announces in chapter 25, that just as ‘my servant’ Nebuchadrezzar has been summoned to remove Judah from its place, so he has been summoned to remove Egypt and the surrounding nations from their places. And as the conquest of Judah marks the onset of a new time under YHWH’s sovereignty—the decreed seventy years of exile—so the conquest of the land/place of Egypt marks the onset of a new time decreed by YHWH, ‘the time of their punishment’ (v 21b). The arrangement of vv 14–19 is similar to vv 3–12. As in v 4 there is an initial command, presumably by a commander, to ‘take your stations’. Here however it has a mocking or sarcastic sense because

16. Fischer notes that the reference to shame in 46:12a may be meant as a reversal of the shame that 13:26 prophesies the city of Jerusalem (feminine) will experience (Jeremia 2, 478). 17. The debate revolves around whether Jeremiah uttered the oracle in 604 when a Babylonian invasion of Egypt seemed likely in the wake of the victory at Carchemish, or whether it envisages an invasion of Egypt in the wake of the conquest of Judah (so in 587), or that it refers to a Babylonian invasion that did take place in 568/7. According to historians, Babylon did not conquer Egypt then but arranged matters to its advantage. An invasion or incursion forty years after the battle at Carchemish seems too long a period and some, such as Carroll, prefer a date within two decades after the fall of Jerusalem. One reason for this is that v 17 seems to play on the name Hophra, and he was Pharaoh around the proposed time (Jeremiah, 765–66). Lundbom prefers a date between 604 and 597 (Jeremiah 37–52, 212).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 238 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 239

‘the sword shall devour those around you’. Defense is futile. Verse 14a specifies three key locations in Egypt that cannot be defended against the envisaged Babylonian invasion—Migdon, Memphis, Taphanhes. It is presumably no coincidence that these are the same three locations where Jeremiah delivers his final sermon in chapter 44. As he proclaimed the doom of Judeans who dared to settle there in Egypt, so this oracle proclaims the doom of warriors attempting to defend Egypt at these places. The following question—answer sequence in v 15 matches the one in v 5, although there is a significant difference. Whereas YHWH speaks directly in v 5b, v 15b answers the question by reporting what YHWH has done. It is as if the one who asks the question now knows the answer.18 The reported speech in v 16 is presumably that of mer- cenary soldiers of whom there were plenty in the Egyptian army (cf v 21). They are presented in this prophetic ‘vision’ accepting the doom of Egypt and planning to return to their own land. Their ‘final’ comment on their service in the Egyptian army is to give their supreme commander a new and mocking name, ‘Braggart who missed his chance’ (v 17).19 But perhaps the text is also mocking their assumption that they can return home. As v 21 indicates, they face the same judgement and punishment as Pharaoh and the rest of Egypt. The Hebrew term translated in the NRSV of v 17 as ‘chance’ can mean ‘appointed time/season/place’. Within the context, I would judge that it refers to time. An arrogant Pharaoh boasted that his invasion of the north would usher in a new era of expansion and power for himself and Egypt, but he failed to see or hear that another (YHWH) had appointed his campaign ‘season’ as the end of his time.

18. The beginning of v 15 (MT) has the masculine singular niphal form of the verb sakhap (‘to sweep away’) with a masculine plural subject ‘your (singular) mighty ones/warriors’; hence ‘why have your mighty ones been swept away’. The LXX reads the niphal form as two words nas and khap and renders it ‘why has Apis fled’ with khap as subject, identified as Apis, the sacred bull of an Egyptian cult (cf NRSV). This masculine singular subject gains support from the following text that reads ‘he did not stand because YHWH thrust him down’. However, one may follow the MT and read the shift from plural ‘mighty ones’ to the singular ‘he/ him’ as indicating that YHWH struck down all the warriors of the Egyptian army ‘a s o n e’. 19. As already noted, a number of commentators think that the Hebrew verb translated as ‘missed’ is a play on Hophra (so he‘ebir), the name of the Pharaoh Apries (cf Carroll, Jeremiah, 768; Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker, 114–17).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 239 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM 240 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

The one who appointed the end of Pharaoh’s time and appoints the beginning and end of everyone’s time speaks in v 18 and assumes the title of ‘the King’. The clear implication is that only YHWH can truly wear such a title. The accompanying name ‘Lord of hosts/armies’ forms a telling contrast with the one given to Pharaoh in v 17. This is the third and last time that YHWH speaks in these oracles on Egypt (cf vv 5b, 11–12) and it is appropriate that YHWH addresses Egypt personally as ‘daughter Egypt’, matching vv 11–12. As if to provide a fitting human symbol of YHWH the all–powerful, universal king, v 18 states that no one will be able to ignore or avoid Nebuchadrezzar’s march south. It will be visible to all, as is the isolated peak of Mt Tabor, and the imposing Carmel promontory that juts out into the Mediter- ranean. Faced with this, the only hope for sheltered daughter Egypt is to accept exile (v 19)—an instruction that parallels the one given to the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem during the Babylonian invasions. Given this parallel one may also say that obeying the instruction is the one thing that will ensure life for defeated daughter Egypt. But will Egypt obey the instruction or, like Judah, attempt to do things on its terms? In the third part of this word of YHWH about the ‘coming of Nebuchadrezzar’, the text switches from first person address to a description of the reaction of Egypt and her mercenaries to the devastating impact of the invasion. Within the context established by v 13 this section is effectively a prophecy of what will happen. It begins by revisiting the battle portrayed in vv 14–16 via the metaphor of a heifer stung by a gadfly. On initial reflection, likening the Babylonian invasion to an insect biting a beast may look rather odd but one needs to take into account that this particular gadfly comes ‘from the north’.20 This changes everything, as vv 14–16 make abundantly clear. Another link to the preceding verses is the description of the mercenaries in v 21. In accord with their plans in v 16, they attempt to flee Egypt to secure their future. But this will not happen because what they are to experience has already been decreed and is in train; namely the ‘day of their calamity’, ‘the time of their punishment’. Verse 22 then describes or prophesies what Egypt herself will try and do, to glide away like a snake hissing.

20. If one takes the LXX reading of v 15, the heifer may be meant to evoke Apis, which was the sacred bull venerated as the incarnation of the Egyptian god Ptah (cf Carroll, Jeremiah, 768 and authors cited there).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 240 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 241

The two images of the invading enemy that follow in vv 22–23 provide an ironic contrast—in reverse order—to the two images used to describe Egypt. In contrast to the almost inaudible hissing of a retreating snake, the sound of the invading army will be like the smashing of axes against timber and the thud of trees crashing to the ground. In contrast to a single gadfly biting Egypt and throwing her into disarray, the invading army will be like a plague of locusts ‘without number’. All of this will only add to the perception of those around her that she has been utterly defeated by Babylon, and this in turn will only deepen her shame (cf v 12). Verse 24 ends by reaffirm- ing that Babylon will not bring about this defeat of its own accord; as with Judah, Egypt will ‘be handed over’—as part of the unfolding of YHWH’s sovereign purpose. Verses 25–26a are a prose piece that summarises the preceding poems as a prophecy of the punishment that YHWH has in store for Pharaoh, Egypt, her gods, and all those who trust in them. The text is also thereby a declaration of YHWH’s complete sovereignty over all those named, and an implied instruction that YHWH alone is the one in whom each and everyone should place their trust. As noted, v 26b is a prophecy that after Egypt has endured the time of her punishment and displacement, YHWH will re–establish her again as a nation, and she will enjoy a new time of well–being and peace ‘as in the days of old’. This prophecy is followed by one that assures Jacob/Israel that it will enjoy a similar return to its designated place from the land/place designated by YHWH for its period of captivity. The final part of v 28 can be applied equally to Egypt and the nations listed in chapters 47–49. That is, despite what is at times stated or appears to be stated in this highly rhetorical poetry, from a theological point of view YHWH’s overall purpose is not to destroy a nation but to purge it of all the evil and disorder in it. In the words of 1:10, it is to pluck up and pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, (in order) to build and to plant. Once this final stage of YHWH’s purpose is in train, a nation can be assured of enjoying ‘quiet and ease’ (v 27b).21 This passage also occurs, with a few minor variations, in the so–called ‘book of consolation’ in 30:10–11.22 Some think the oracles

21. There may be a playful pun between the Hebrew word for ‘ease’ sha’anan( ) in v 27b and the Hebrew word ‘noisy/braggart’ (sha’on) to describe Pharaoh in v 17. 22. For these minor variations see Carroll, Jeremiah, 773; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 488.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 241 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM 242 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

on Egypt may reflect a move to encourage Judah away from relying on Egypt and to accept Babylonian vassalage.23 This would presumably have been the work (a redactional layer) of a pro–Babylonian party. There were no doubt pro–and anti–Egyptian parties in Judah in the tumultuous period leading up to the conquest and exile. However, the texts in chapter 46 that display a more favourable and even positive attitude to Egypt—vv 19 and 26b—would seem to argue against this.

47:1–7: Oracle on Philistia The oracle on Philistia that follows the superscription in v 1 is commonly identified as having two parts, a poem on the fate of the Philis- tines in vv 2–5, and a concluding piece about the ‘sword of the Lord’ in vv 6–7. The superscription states that what follows is YHWH’s word about Philistia before Pharaoh attacked Gaza, one of the Phi- listine pentapolis (Gaza, Ashkelon, Ekron, Gath, Ashdod). Being an attack by Egypt this would have come from south of Gaza. However, v 2 of the oracle speaks of waters rising ‘out of the north’ and this would seem to refer to Babylon, not Egypt. A number of solutions have been proposed for what looks like a discrepancy, and they can be consulted in the commentaries.24 I would propose that the textual sequence makes sense if one takes two things into account; the first is that the oracle is a prophecy of what YHWH will bring about, the second is the context provided by the preceding oracle on Egypt. The reader learns from chapter 46 that Egypt’s plan to mount a campaign north is doomed to be disastrously reversed by an advancing foe from the north, namely Babylon and that, as the superscription in 46:2 reports, it defeated Egypt at Carchemish in the fourth year of Jehoiakim. The superscription in 47:1 sets the following oracle on Philistia ‘before Pharaoh attacked Gaza’. This remark means that Pharaoh did mount a

23. Cf for example, Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 296. 24. The apparent discrepancy applies only to the MT; LXX has the simple introduction ‘concerning the Philistines’. Varughese–Modine (Jeremiah 26–52, 277) provides a good survey of various views. The discrepancy also raised questions about the historicity of v 1b. For a discussion see Carroll, Jeremiah, 774–75, and Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker, 142–45. Interestingly, Fischer thinks the text may reflect Egyptian and Babylonian rivalry over control of states along the fertile–crescent route. Thus Philistia (and Tyre and Sidon) were threatened from both directions (Jeremia 2, 493).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 242 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 243

northern campaign against the Philistines but, as 46:2 asserts, he was defeated at Carchemish north of Philistine territory by Nebuchadrez- zar. Within the context one is presumably meant to understand Pha- raoh’s attack on Gaza and subsequent defeat by Nebuchadrezzar as stages in the one campaign. But according to the oracle, the king who would destroy Philistia was not Pharaoh, whatever he may actually have done on campaign, but Nebuchadrezzar, the one ‘rising out of the north’ like floodwater (47:2). Hence, this prophecy, like the one on Egypt and the subsequent ones on surrounding nations, was fulfilled. As for the oracle itself, one can see in vv 2–5 a further example of the book’s claim that YHWH alone is Sovereign over place and time/ history. The trope of place is evident in the prophecy that the waters rising from the north will swamp all of Egypt—land and city and its people. This imagery of what one may call ‘rival floodwaters’—Nile and Euphrates—recalls 46:7–10. In order to catch the impact of a military invasion the imagery shifts in 47:2b–3 to the overwhelming and threatening noise created by the charging of cavalry and chariots. There is no reference to such attacks being blocked or countered by Egyptian forces, the implication being that they have been rendered powerless, presumably by YHWH. All the Philistines, whether military or civilian, parent or child, are in the same predicament and the text deftly expresses this by using singular as well as plural terms. Verse 2b uses general singular terms by referring to the cries of ‘the man/human being’ (ha’adam), and the wailing of ‘every inhabitant of the land’ (kol yosheb), whereas v 3b uses the plural in order to emphasise that no parent is able to turn back for their child. All are obliged to evacuate their places under the impact of the unstoppable foe from the north. Verse 4 marks the shift to the time factor, asserting that all that is to take place is according to a schedule that has been arranged (‘the day that is coming’) for the destruction of ‘all the Philistines’. Accord- ing to 47:1b, Pharaoh had a plan to attack the one Philistine city of Gaza whereas what is scheduled or planned is destruction not only of all Philistia but the Phoenician trading centers of Tyre and Sidon as well. Verse 4b then reveals that YHWH is the one personally implementing this schedule of destruction. Although there is some uncertainty over the meaning of ‘imqam in v 5a (NRSV ‘their power’), the verse appears to describe the mourning rites of the ‘remnant’ of the Philistines in Gaza and Ashkelon in response to the disaster that

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 243 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM 244 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

has struck them.25 The question ‘how long will you gash yourselves’ effectively means that such rituals, which presumably were an appeal to the gods of the Philistines, are pointless. What is taking place is under YHWH’s sovereignty and no foreign god can reverse things and return to a ‘day’ before the calamity. The end of v 5 addresses Phi- listia in the feminine singular, recalling how 46:11 addresses virgin daughter Egypt.26 As Egypt is reminded that there is no point seeking medicine in Gilead or elsewhere for her condition, so Philistia is effectively told it is pointless to inflict ritual wounds on herself in the vain hope it will reverse her situation. Verses 6–7 are constructed as a dialogue. Verse 6a has a similar ‘how long’ question as v 5b but it is addressed to the ‘sword of the Lord’. The similarity suggests a connection between them. One may presume the same unnamed speaker(s), that one often encounters in these oracles, is responsible for both questions. There is one thing that can or may lead Philistia to cease her useless rituals and it is that the sword of the Lord cease its destructive work.27 But another voice—perhaps here that of the prophet—answers the question, and it is introduced by a third question ‘how’ in v 7. The bloodthirsty sword—presumably a symbol of the invading Babylonians—is under YHWH’s orders and therefore must complete the task to which it has been appointed.28 Even though there is no crime of which Philistia is explicitly accused in vv 2–7, within the larger context of the prophecies on the nations in 25:15–31 and 46:1–51:64, one is presumably

25. The NRSV translation reads‘imqam as ‘strength’, presumably on the basis of a Ugaritic parallel (cf Bright, Jeremiah, 310). ‘emeq in Hebrew means ‘valley’ but ‘remnant of their valley’ is regarded as ‘hardly intelligible’ (so Carroll, Jeremiah, 776). Another, and widely preferred reading is ‘remnant of the Anakim’ (cf Carroll, Jeremiah, 775; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 334; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah, 26–52, 301; McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1151). The Anakim were a pre– Israelite people of Canaan that Josh 11:21 claims were wiped out as part of Israel’s conquest of the land. 26. NRSV has the second person feminine plural, presumably to match ‘Philistines’ in v 4b. 27. Hence the time factor again, although Huwyler observes that the phrase ‘ad–’anah, translated in the NRSV as ‘how long’ (like v 5b) can also mean ‘how far/where’. Both senses may be implied, or the question may be about the extent of the destructive work of the sword (Jeremia und die Völker, 139). 28. Most translations emend the second person feminine singular form of the verb ‘you be quiet’ to the third person masculine singular (‘it be quiet’) in line with the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 244 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 245

meant to read the passage as one among YHWH’s judgement of all the nations. As 25:31b states ‘he is entering into judgment with all flesh, and the guilty he will put to the sword’.

48:1–47. Oracle on Moab Apart from chapters 50–51 on Babylon, this is the longest oracle or collection of oracles on a particular nation. It has the short superscription ‘to/concerning Moab’ that is also used to identify each nation in chapter 49. It is the most complex of the oracles in chapters 46–49 in terms of its mix of poetry and prose, its variety of literary forms, and the images and metaphors used to describe Moab, its cities and its people. There are perceived similarities with a number of other passages in Jeremiah as well as passages in other prophetic books, in particular Isaiah. All of this has, as one would expect, stimulated considerable critical analysis of the chapter. Historical criticism has questioned whether such a rich variety of material could all have come from Jeremiah, and has argued for several stages of composition. Both historical and synchronic approaches have examined the present text, both in its MT and LXX forms, to see whether there is some overall arrangement and/or unity in the chapter or whether it is a loose collection of material. Lack of evidence of organisation in the material does not of course mean that there was no purpose behind its production. Redactors may have deliberately put the pieces together in a disordered fashion in order to evoke the impact of the collapse of a once proud and long–standing nation such as Moab.29 This may in turn have been designed to have an instructive and for- mative impact on its presumed Judean audience.30 Another issue that

29. For example, the close historical–critical study carried out by Huwyler leads him to conclude that the discrete parts of the chapter have been assembled in a way that is meant to enhance the rhetorical impact of the content of these parts (Jeremia und die Völker, 155). 30. The recent essay by Sharp proposes that the oracles are not just meant to entertain Judean ears with a kaleidoscope of texts about the doom of their old enemy. Rather the book constructs a portrait of Moab that is meant to challenge a Judean audience about how it perceives itself; that it is effectively ‘at risk of becoming an outsider, becoming “Moabite’” (108 in ‘Embodying Moab: The Figuring of Moab in Jeremiah 48 as Reinscription of the Judean Body’, in Concerning the Nations: Essays on the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, edited by Else K Holt, Hyun Chul Paul Kim, and Andrew Mein, HB/OTS 612 [London/ New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015], 95–108).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 245 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM 246 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

has occupied study is the more theological one; is there a dominant theological thrust in the chapter and if so, does it or does it not form part of an overall theological meaning in chapters 46–51 as well as of the book of Jeremiah as such. The limited analysis that follows will, as with other texts, be based on the MT and will, in light of analysis of the preceding oracles on Egypt and Philistia, as well as in light of analysis of the book thus far, have a particular interest in discerning whether chapter 48 proclaims the sovereignty of YHWH over place and time, and if so, in what way. The nature and extent of the chapter makes it difficult to identify the constitutive parts. Various proposals have been advanced and these can be consulted in the commentaries. The variety of proposals testifies to both the limitations of interpretation as well as the fluidity of the text, particularly in the case of poetry. Also, the division of a text does not thereby mean that the parts identified are separate from one another. Further analysis is needed in order to try and establish this. Nevertheless, making a division is a necessary part of the analysis of a text because we are only able to grasp a ‘whole’ by identifying its constitutive parts. One’s initial presumption is that these parts combine to produce a whole and this implies there will more than likely be some fluidity between the division points. I identified this phenomenon in the pivotal sermon of chapter 25. With these observations in mind, the basic division of the chapter that I propose is: 48:1–8 (subdivided into vv 1–2, 3–6, 7–8) 48:9–10, 11–13, 14–25 (subdivided into vv 14–17, 18–20, 21–25) 48:26–27, 28–34, 35–39, 40–46, 47. The short superscription provides no chronological setting for these oracles, unlike the ones on Egypt, Philistia, Kedar (during the reign of Nebuchadrezzar), and Elam. A number of proposals have been made in an attempt to fill this ‘gap’ but with no consensus. The matter will not be investigated here. Nor is the enemy invader identified. Even though some of the oracles may pre–date or post–date the Babylo- nian domination of the ANE in the late seventh and sixth centuries BCE, within the context of chapters 46–49 the enemy is unquestion- ably Babylon. As noted, three related parts can be identified in vv 1–8. Verses 1–2 are a woe oracle pronounced directly by YHWH. The centre of it is the declaration that ‘the renown of Moab is no more’, and this is framed by references to two places in v 1b (Nebo and Kiri-

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 246 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 247

athaim) and two places in v 2 (Heshbon and Madmen). Although these places are generally identified as being in the northern part of the country, the way they frame the statement about Moab indicates that the ‘renown’ of Moab depends on their prestige and loyalty. With the fortress of Kiriathaim put to shame and Heshbon plotting to remove ‘her’ (Moab) from among the nations, she has no chance.31 And this is so because, as the introductory messenger formula makes clear, the one bringing this about is the Sovereign of place and time, YHWH. What YHWH decrees is always realised. Verse 3 reports a cry from Horonaim that confirms the destruction of Moab, in accord with YHWH’s decree. In light of the preceding verses this may be a picture that the prophecy ‘creates’ of what will take place in YHWH’s good time. Such will be, or is, the destruction that children will have lost their parents and become orphans, wandering aimlessly up the ascent of Luhith and down the descent of Horonaim, weeping bitterly. A voice, YHWH or a sympathetic observer (cf the observers who speak in chapter 46), advises them that the only escape is the desert. The address in v 7 is in the second person feminine singular and, within the context of v 4, is to Moab. She is told the reason why the disaster announced in the preceding verses will overtake her; namely her trust in ‘your strongholds/works’ and ‘your treasures’. These may be taken as general references to what Moab has built and acquired—the marks of her renown. The following mention of the god Chemosh of Moab may, in this context, imply that he is nothing more than another acquisition.32 Thus, Moab will be unable to offer any resistance, human or divine, to ‘the destroyer’ who will conquer every town and raze valley and plain (v. 8). This is the first time that the invader who will wreak destruction on Moab is named. Within the context a reader is meant to take it as a refer-

31. The place named ‘madmen’ in v 2b is unknown and it has been proposed, on the basis of Isa 15:9, that Dibon may be meant. LXX can be rendered ‘she shall completely stop/be silent’ and as such would form part of the words of the plotters in Heshbon who are presumably planning a deal with the invader. Huwyler provides a detailed discussion but concludes ‘Der Text bleibt schwierig’ (Jeremia und die Völker, 157–58). 32. Chemosh is the Qere reading of the MT Ketib khemish and is the one generally adopted. According to Fischer it was common practice for victors to take the cult objects of conquered nations and display them in their national temple or shrine (Jeremia 2, 507).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 247 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM 248 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

ence to Babylon.33 The final part of v 8 states that all that will take place, and the reason why it will all take place, is because YHWH has decreed it. Verses 9–10 may be taken as instructions from YHWH as to what is to be done in the wake of what has been decreed in the preceding verses. Verse 9 is addressed to a group and the tenor of the instruction points to Judah. The verse instructs addressees to prepare salt to strew over the land. This was a way of rendering conquered land infertile and so prevent it ever again becoming a haven for an enemy. The thrust of the verse is not that salt will actually be sown but that those who set salt aside in preparation for such an action do so because they believe the decreed destruction of Moab will take place.34 Hence their preparations are an act of faith and this makes Judeans the likely addressees. Verse 10 on the other hand is not an address but a curse against anyone who is slack in doing ‘the work of the Lord’ once a military campaign gets under way. The intended recipients of the warning may well be the forces of the destroyer (v 8) but it could also be meant for anyone who is summoned to do YHWH’s purging work.35 While the focus on the destruction of Moab’s place (fortresses, towns, valley and plain) is clear in vv 2–9, there is an equally clear shift to time in vv 11–13—past, present and future.36 Moab was apparently famous for its viticulture and this may well explain the image of wine that is well cared for and allowed to mature, and not decanted from one vessel to another, thereby disturbing it.37 The text emerges from

33. According to Rudolph, as reported by Carroll (Jeremiah, 780), the ‘valley’ is the territory east of the Jordan and north of the Dead Sea, and the ‘plain’ is the plateau north from the Arnon to the area of Heshbon. 34. Following NRSV The Hebrew of v 9a is uncertain and the LXX reads ‘signs’ instead of ‘salt’ while Targums has ‘wings’ with which Moab will fly away (followed in the ESV). For a useful discussion of the terms and the difficulty with the following verb see Keown–Scalise–Smothers (Jeremiah 26–52, 313–14) who comments that salt is an ‘apt metaphor’. 35. Huwyler finds the general nature of the curse striking but, along with other historical critical analysts, judges it to be a later addition (Jeremia und die Völker, 162–63). 36. As noted by Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker, 164. 37. While the phrase ‘like wine’ (NRSV) is not in the MT or LXX it is a reasonable insertion both in terms of historical background (Moab and viticulture) and textual context.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 248 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 249

the metaphor to refer to exile at the end of v 11a, indicating that being emptied from ‘vessel to vessel’ in the metaphor may refer to successive domination by foreign nations.38 It is significant that the text does not say Moab itself was responsible for such a benign past and present (the flavour ‘has remained’ and his aroma ‘is unspoiled’). This invites the reader to reflect on who then is responsible for the past and present, and v 12 indicates pretty clearly that it is YHWH. As with Israel, Judah, Egypt and Philistia, YHWH is Lord of the times of all nations and is directing all their histories as part of the divine purpose. Hence the one who has preserved Moab to the present time (the time of this oracle?) is the one who determines what will happen next, and in order to catch this continuity v 12 resumes the metaphor employed in v 11. Hence, even though v 11 is poetry and vv 12–13 is prose, it is best to consider vv 11–13 as a distinct section of the chapter. The metaphor of smashed jars recalls the symbolic action of Jer- emiah smashing the potter’s jug in 19:10–13 as a sign of YHWH’s power to bring wicked Judah’s time to an end. Verse 13 prophesies that once YHWH’s sovereignty over Moab’s time is manifest in what is to take place then Moab will be ashamed of its god Chemosh, exposed as powerless. This claim recalls the one that Jeremiah makes in chapter 44 in the dispute with the devotees of the queen of heaven; what will happen in the future will confirm YHWH as the only God and expose her as a no–god. It is not clear whether the comparison with Bethel in v 13b refers to the northern shrine of Israel, or a god named Bethel, or perhaps the images of a bull calf that 1 Kings 11:25– 33 condemns Jeroboam for establishing in Bethel and Dan.39 Within the book of Jeremiah, v 13b may be alluding to Israel’s shame over its infidelity and its repentance in 3:21–24, a sharp contrast to Judah’s intransigence that the subsequent texts expose. As noted, I identify three related sections in vv 14–25; namely vv 14–17, 18–20, and 21–25. One could say that the three sections provide the answer, or three related answers, to the rhetorical question in v 14. The ones who assert ‘We are heroes and mighty warriors’ should

38. In relation to this Lundbom thinks that Moab’s location meant that it escaped the subjugation that many surrounding nations suffered, and although it was a vassal of Assyria, there was a good relationship between them (Jeremiah 37–52, 263). 39. Lundbom (Jeremiah 37–52, 268) judges that it is an epithet for a west–semitic god, but McKane (Jeremiah 2, 1169) is not in favour of this. Huwyler links it with the cult of the bull calf at Bethel (Jeremia und die Völker, 167–68).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 249 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM 250 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

be able to repel the ‘destroyer’ and therefore show they are in charge. However, the subsequent verses respond that the one who is really in charge is ‘the King, whose name is the Lord of hosts’ (cf 46:18). Contrary to what the Moabites assert in v 14, ‘the King’ unfolds his strategy. Even though the passage shares aspects of the lawsuit dispute, there is no real dispute, rather the unfolding of the divine plan. Verses 15–17 present the three steps that the divine plan will take. The first is the definitive defeat of the heroes and might warriors (v 15). The ‘destroyer’ has come up and this means that the elite Moabite troops have effectively ‘gone down’ to their death.40 The second is that this defeat in battle signals the imminent end of Moab (v 16). The third step will be the mourning rites that all the surrounding nations will perform at the news of the smashing of the once mighty sceptre, the glorious staff.41 Verses 18–20 are also composed of three parts that match or parallel the three steps of YHWH’s strategy identified above. The section commences, as in v 14, with a personal address but here it is to ‘enthroned daughter Dibon’ (a Moabite city north of the river Arnon) to leave her throne and sit on the ground, because her time of power and prestige is over. One is reminded of Jeremiah’s call in 13:18 to the king and queen mother to ‘take a lowly seat’, and to Isaiah’s call in 47:1 to virgin daughter Babylon to sit in the dust after her prophesied defeat by Cyrus of Persia. Dibon is invited or commanded to do this for the same reason as given in v 15; namely that ‘the destroyer of Moab has come up’ and demolished her strongholds. Verses 19–20aα parallel the second stage in v 16. The conquest of Dibon and its strongholds signals the impending doom of all Moab. Those fleeing Dibon and its strongholds will testify to this. When asked ‘what has happened’ they will affirm that Moab is put to shame. That is, it has lost all power. Verse 20aβ–b parallels the third step in v 17, namely the call to ‘wail and cry’ because Moab is ‘laid waste’ and its king is a broken sceptre (v 17b).

40. Reading ‘the destroyer of Moab’ as in NRSV rather than the MT ‘Moab is destroyed’. This reading is supported by the MT in v 18 (so Keown–Scalise– Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 315). 41. This is presumably a reference to the king of Moab who is wisely left unnamed in the text even though ‘all who know his name’ will know who to mourn over when the prophecy is realised.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 250 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 251

Verses 21–25 comprise the third and concluding section of vv 14–25 and, being in prose, may be a later addition. They state that the disaster presented in vv 14–20 has come upon ‘all the towns of the land of Moab, far and near’ (cf v 24b). None escapes. A number of towns, presumably prominent ones, are named as testimony to the truth of this general assertion. The first word of the section specifies that what has happened or will happen is ‘judgement’ (mishpat), and that the same judgement applies to all. The last words of the section declare that this judgement is YHWH’s decree (v 25b). The formulation of this statement as ‘oracle of YHWH’ recalls the earlier one in v 15 which has ‘oracle of the King, YHWH of hosts is his name’. Both of these references to ‘oracle of YHWH’ are not in the LXX. For their part, vv 26–27 form a link with vv 11–13 and its references to the past, present and future of Moab. As in these earlier verses, here the nations of Moab and Israel are portrayed for rhetorical effect as individuals. The addressees are in the second person masculine plural and may be an Israelite/Judean audience.42 Verse 26 provides instructions to Moab’s captors to make him drunk and the reason for doing so.43 It is YHWH’s judgement for him because ‘he magnified himself against the Lord’. The verse also reveals how YHWH’s plan in v 12 will be implemented—‘I shall send to him decanters to decant him’. Verse 27 provides a further reason for the judgement and it is that Moab treated Israel as a laughing stock when there was no justification for doing so (‘though he was not caught among thieves’).44 In short, the future or fate of Moab is a complete reversal of the ease and status that Moab has enjoyed since his youth (v 11). Verses 28–34 are about the implications of the judgement that has been proclaimed and is to be enacted against Moab. The section commences with advice, presumably from YHWH, to the inhabitants of Moab to leave the towns and take refuge among the rocks and gorges of the land. Another will destroy their former ‘places’. But although displaced, like the people of Judah and Jerusalem, YHWH makes pro-

42. So Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 284. 43. There may well be, as a number of commentators propose, an allusion here to the cup of the wine of YHWH’s wrath in 25:15–17, 27–29. 44. It is difficult to decide the historical event or events to which this charge may be referring. According to Keown–Scalise–Smothers (Jeremiah 26–52, 317–18) a likely one is Jeremiah’s exhortation to the nations in 27:2–11 to accept Babylonian hegemony for the decreed period.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 251 13-May-20 5:26:09 PM 252 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

vision for another place or places for them. If they obey the command in v 28 then presumably, like the Judeans in the Babylonian province of Judah, they will survive. The other place to which the remnant of Moab will go is exile (cf v 7b)—once again, like the Judeans this will also be to Babylon. In v 29 a group ‘we’, who within the context may be the inhabitants of Moab, acknowledge YHWH’s judgement about their nation that they have heard. They therefore agree to obey the injunction to leave Moab’s towns. But whereas they only come to know this through hearing the message, with YHWH the case is dramatically different. YHWH does not hear about Moab’s insolence but knows it as YHWH knows each nation and individual completely. When one reads vv 31–32 in light of v 30, the sense would seem to be that YHWH’s knowledge of Moab or any nation and individual is so profound that it causes not only divine wrath and judgement but intense weeping and mourning.45 This recalls 9:10–11 (MT 9:9–10) where the MT has YHWH say ‘I will take up weeping and wailing for the mountains’ because they are laid waste but a few verses on has YHWH also say ‘I will make Jerusalem a heap of ruins’ because of the evil of its inhabitants. One might say that the latter expresses YHWH’s commitment to do justice and re–establish right order by dealing with the perpetrators. If YHWH did not act against evil then how could one have faith in YHWH’s righteousness and proclaim it? By the same token, YHWH’s grief and weeping is an expression of a deep desire that the person acknowledge his or her sin, accept the penalty and return as soon as possible to a right relationship with YHWH and with the community.46 As Ezekiel 18:23 says ‘Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the Lord God, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live?’ Hence, while YHWH weeps for Moab and Jazer in Jer 48:31–32, v 33 states that this in no way affects YHWH executing the decreed judgement against Moab. Verse 34 functions rather like vv 21–25 by providing a concluding list of the towns that cry out as a result of the general desolation that the divine decree has brought about.

45. Because of the first-person subject ‘I’ in the two preceding verbs of v 31, it is generally agreed that the third verb, which in the MT is ‘he mourns’, should be corrected to the first person, as in the LXX. 46. Fretheim makes the interesting comment that for YHWH ‘the internal side of judgment is grief’ (Jeremiah, 602). That is, the moral order affects the natural order.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 252 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 253

Verse 35 marks a shift from the end of life in the towns of Moab for its people to the end of the cult that is/was practiced in these towns. This also marks a shift from focus on places to a focus on time because cultic activities in Moab, as in all ANE societies, was primarily about securing future welfare. Each society believed that if it honoured its national god in the proper way the future of the nation was assured. YHWH declares in v 35 that ‘I will bring to an end’ the offering of sacrifices and offerings to the gods of Moab on the high places.47 The sign that the gods of Moab are utterly unable to stop this will be that instead of festival headdress and clothing, every head will be shaved, bodies will be gashed, and on the housetops where thanksgiving sacrifices were offered to the gods of Moab only lamentation will be heard. But, as YHWH weeps over the doom that is to strike Moab’s towns and land, so YHWH’s heart moans ‘like a flute’ for the impact the end of the cult will have on Moab (v 36).48 The last part of v 39 sums up the impact that YHWH’s interventions in Moab, as presented in the preceding verses, will have on its neighbours. This analysis has identified three main sections in 49:1–39, namely vv 1–13, 14–27 and 28–39. Each one claims YHWH’s sovereignty over place and time and does so in the same sequence, focusing initially on place—land/towns/valley/plain, etc, and then moving to time—the day/making Moab a laughing stock/bringing about an end. As a dramatic finale to the oracles on Moab, vv 40–46 provide three further or final poems on these two tropes of place and time. In doing so they allude at strategic points to the preceding passages. The poems combine striking imagery and clever word plays, some of which occur in other biblical texts such as Isaiah 24:17–18 and Num- bers 21:19, 28 and 24:17b.49 The first is in vv 40–42 and deals with the

47. It is generally agreed that what YHWH brings to an end is not the lives of worshippers but the cessation of their cult—via its destruction (cf McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1188). 48. The sound of the flute would presumably, particularly at funerals and other rituals of lament, be a soft background sound, not intrusive. The parallel in Isa 16:11 has the sound of a harp. Verses 31 and 36 are also linked by the reference in both to the people of Kir–heres. 49. This of course has led to debate over which text is original and which borrowed. As Carroll notes ‘these reflect the many strands of anti–Moabite material in the Bible’ (Jeremiah, 795). That is, they formed part of the repertoire of ancient Israel’s language that authors and editors could and did avail of, as has been the case throughout history with most cultures.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 253 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM 254 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

day of the definitive battle. ‘On that day’ the eagle’s wings will envelop the whole of Moab and its places—the towns will be taken and the strongholds seized (cf vv 7, 9). On that day the ‘hearts of the warriors will be like the heart of a woman in labor’ (cf 30:6). Verse 42 provides the reason for this invasion/defeat; it is because of the pride of Moab (cf vv 26, 29). The second poem in v 43 warns there can be no escape from this disaster because YHWH has prepared the perfect entrapment. This is described in vv 43 and 44b by three terms that have a close assonan- tal connection—phakhad, phakhat, phakh—‘terror’, ‘pit’, ‘trap’ (cf also Isa 16:17).50 Though distinct words the common sounds link them closely. Thus being filled with terror in a battle is like falling into a pit, like being trapped. One is powerless and so a prisoner of the enemy. The terms may also have an association with hunting in the ANE. That is, one first scared the prey (terror) so that it tried to flee. One then arranged its attempted flight so that it either fell into a prepared pit or crashed into a trap. YHWH, the hunter par–excellence (cf. 16:16–18), knows precisely how to terrorise and trap soldiers and citizens attempting to flee. As v 41 announces the onset of YHWH’s punishment via the day of battle, so the second poem concludes by bringing in the time factor. The term ‘day’ is a suitably dramatic term to describe the intense but short time of a battle in the ancient world, but the more fitting word for the imposition of a sentence of punishment is ‘year’. The third poem in vv 45–46 is similar to Numbers 21:28–29 and 24:17. It is not in the LXX. Taken by itself, v 45 could indicate that the fugitives halted in the shadow of Heshbon have escaped the terror, pit and trap of vv 42–43. Are the two poems therefore in disagreement? However, if one reads v 45 in context then the fire coming to Heshbon could be meant to symbolise the definitive trap. There is no escape past Heshbon for these or any other fugitives. Hence the final ‘woe’ pronounced over Moab in v 46, which forms an inclusio with the initial ‘alas/woe’ in v 1.51 The only inhabitants who will not perish are the sons and daughters taken into captivity—presumably in the aftermath of the conquest of Moab (v 40). These captives are needed

50. The term translated as terror here is different to the term in 46:5b and 49:29 (magor). 51. Even though the Hebrew term in v 46 is ’oy and the one in 46:1 is hoy they carry the same sense of mourning and lament.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 254 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 255

because of the promise of the restoration of Moab in the latter days that concludes the collection in v 47.52 Without them there would be no remnant of Moab.

49:1–39, Comprising Oracles about the sons of Ammon (49:1–6), Edom (49:7–22), Damascus (49:23–27), Kedar and Hazor (49:28–33), and Elam (49:34–39). 49:1–6. Oracle on the Sons of Ammon. The oracle on the Ammo- nites in 49:1–6 has been customarily divided on form–critical grounds into three parts, vv 1–2, 3–5 and 6.53 However, I would propose that vv 1–5 can be taken as one piece in which a central call to ‘wail’ in v 3 is framed by two sets of rhetorical questions in vv 1 and 4, each of which is followed or ‘answered’ in vv 2 and 5 respectively.54 Each of these is identified as a decree of YHWH (twice in v 2 and once in v 5). Verse 6 is a prophecy of restoration and so distinct from the preceding verses. Ammon is mentioned frequently in biblical texts and these give the impression that its relationship with Israel was ‘frequently hostile’.55 The conflict at issue in 49:1 is Ammon’s dispossession of the territory and towns of Gad, one of the East–Jordan tribes of Israel. Ammon is accused of usurping territory that was part of Israel’s God–given heritage. This may have been justified if Israel had no sons or no heir to live there but the implication is that this is clearly not the case. Ammon has claimed what YHWH had given to Israel; according to the faith claims of the book and the larger HB/OT, this

52. In the judgement of Huwyler, the verse, like the other promises of restoration in the collection, is not meant in the eschatological sense of the ‘end times’ (Jeremia und die Völker, 192). 53. Cf Brueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 454–55; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 367; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 322; Stulman, Jeremiah, 367. 54. This is in basic agreement with the proposal of Christensen, Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Testament Prophecy. Studies in the Oracles against the Nations, HDR, 3 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1971), 226. 55. So Stulman, Jeremiah, 367. Texts in which Ammon appears are Gen 19:30–38; Deut 23:3; Judg 3:12–14; 10:6–18; 1 Sam 11:1–11. Ammon is one of the nations censured in Amos 1:13–15 and its king Baalis was involved in the assassination of Gedaliah in 40:13–14. They are also listed among the nations addressed by Jeremiah in chapter 27.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 255 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM 256 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

is completely unjustified. It is uncertain whether the text is referring to the period before the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel, or after it. Whatever the case, the implication of the text is that without YHWH’s authorisation such as that given to Baby- lon, neither Ammon nor any other power is justified in claiming and occupying land that YHWH gave to the chosen people. The divine Sovereign of all places will therefore act against Ammon’s action, one that v 1b implies was done on the authority of its god Milcom.56 This only adds to the insult and to the nature of YHWH’s response in v 2. Ammon does not decide that the time has come to expand its territory/place and take possession of Gad; this is entirely under YHWH’s control and the ‘time is surely coming’ when the dispossessor of the Israelites will himself be dispossessed and the true heir of YHWH will regain its heritage (v 2b).57 The sentence against Ammon is that it will not only be driven out of Gad but its capital and villages will be decimated; a measure of the gross nature of the crime it has committed. The text of v 3 is somewhat uncertain but its overall thrust is reasonably clear.58 Those in the major centers of Heshbon and Rabbah (one can read ‘villages’ for ‘daughters’) are called to wail and don mourning attire in preparation for what will surely take place. The two outcomes named refer back to vv 1–2; namely the devastation of Ammon’s place and the end of the time of the cult of Milcom. As noted, the section in vv 4–5 also commences with a question. The addressee is still Ammon but portrayed here as a woman (‘faithless daughter’). The question and its answer parallels the preceding one. Just as Ammon had no justification for occupying Gad, so ‘she’ has no justification for boasting of her power (NRSV ‘strength’) because it is fading. The treasures that she relied on are, in light of the question

56. As Fischer (Jeremia 2, 537) and others note, the Hebrew word can refer to the Ammonite god Milcom or to ‘their king’ depending on vocalisation. Given the context, my preference here is for the former. 57. Brueggemann (Commentary on Jeremiah, 454) notes a play on the Hebrew root yarash which is rendered as ‘heir’ in v 1, ‘dispossess’ in v 1, and ‘dispossessor’ in v 2 (twice). 58. For a detailed discussion see McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1206–8. It is generally agreed that Ai is not the town of the same name in Israel. Volz emended the phrase to read the same as 48:18, but McKane prefers ‘without great conviction’ emending Ai to ‘city’ to read ‘the city is destroyed’ (1207).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 256 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 257

attributed to her (‘who will attack me’), presumably her walled cities and fortresses. But, as vv 1–2 have made clear, these are doomed to destruction in the terror (same term as in 48:43–44) that YHWH will unleash. Whereas Moab acted on ‘her’ presumed boast in taking over the territory of Gad, in light of what has been decreed she does not have any justification for even mouthing such boasts, let alone acting on them. According to v 5b some (cf ‘fugitives’ in v 5b) will survive the retribution but, unlike the oracle on Moab in 48:46, there is no reference to them being taken into captivity.59 However, their presence provides, as with 48:46, the context or setting for the assurance in 49:6 that the sons of Ammon will have a future. 49:7–22. Oracle on Edom. As with Ammon, there are quite a number of texts in the HB/OT on Edom, an eastern neighbour of Israel and Judah across the Jordan, and as with Ammon these texts indicate that relationships between them were often conflictual.60 Things apparently came to a head when Edom sided with Babylon during the conquest of Judah for its own gain. It is cursed for this in Psalm 137:7–9, and Lamentations 4:21–22 would also seem to be associated with this period. The prophetic text that is closest to Jeremiah is Obadiah; Jeremiah 49:9–10a is similar to Obadiah 5–6 and 49:14–16 to Obadiah 1–4. The direction of dependence is debated. As with the preceding oracle on Ammon, this one on Edom commences with a trio of rhetorical questions in v 7. In fact, there are four sets of questions in the text. The second occurs in v 9 and a third in v 12, while the fourth in v 19b brings this question–answer sequence to a dramatic end with a further trio of questions.61 Even though vv 12–13 are in prose in BHS along with vv 17–18, and this may indicate they are later additions to the poems, in terms of the present text the location of the rhetorical questions indicates that v 8 is to be taken as a response to the questions in v 7, vv 9b–11as a response to the question in v 9a, vv 13–19a as a response to the question in v 12, and vv

59. The Hebrew of v 5b reads literally ‘no one gathering (masculine singular participle) to wander/flee’. This would suggest a translation such as ‘with no one gathering as fugitives’. 60. Cf Isa 34:1–17; 63:1–6; Ezek 25:12–14; 35:1–15; Amos 1:11–1; Obad; Mal 1:2–5. Edom is cursed in Ps 137:7–9; and Lam 4:21–22 assures her that she will drink the cup of YHWH’s wrath as punishment for her sins. 61. Whereas NRSV has one question in v 9, McKane identifies two Jeremiah( 2, 1213) and Holladay none (Jeremiah 2, 370).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 257 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM 258 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

20–22 as a response to the questions in v 19b. This series of questions and answers evokes a trial scene in which the accused (Edom) is confronted with the evils it has done by the prosecuting attorney, in light of which the judge pronounces sentence. As in other prophetic lawsuit texts, YHWH acts as both prosecuting attorney and judge (cf for example Jer 2:4–37; Hos 2:1–13). The trio of questions in v 7 is in a chiastic arrangement with questions about wisdom framing one about counsel.62 This suggests that Edom sees its wisdom in its ‘counsel’ (within the context a better translation for ‘etsah may be ‘strategy’ or ‘plan’). In other words, Edom thinks that it can plan and bring about its future on its terms. But its actions reveal that the reverse is the case. Just what Edom has initiated as its plan is not spelt out in the text but the response in v 8 implies it was against YHWH’s plan. The most likely candidate for this ‘plan’ of Edom is its alliance with Babylon and hostility towards Judah. YHWH will show who is in charge of the destiny of nations, who makes the plans, by implementing a time of punishment for Edom. This is in fact made explicit in v 20, which calls on all to ‘hear the plan (‘etsah) that the Lord has planned (ya‘ats) against Edom’. The second question in v 9 may be addressed to Edom but the subsequent statement about Esau (ancestor of Edom) in v 10 would suggest it is to an individual observer/listener/reader (second person masculine singular). Hired grape gatherers would of course leave gleanings for poor people as is evident in Ruth 2, because this was an expectation in Israel and no doubt also in the wider ANE. Even thieves would only take what they wanted and would do so surreptitiously so that they could come back for more at a later date. But YHWH is not harvesting a crop or stealing from another but purging an evil, and the gross evil that has been perpetrated and must be punished is Edom’s attempt to steal what YHWH had bestowed on Israel/Judah as its heritage.63 This requires stripping the place bare to expose every hiding place and its evil occupant. Esau/

62. As Fischer notes (Jeremia 2, 540), Teman can refer to the south of Edom, it can also be a person’s name (cf Gen 36:15), or a place name. Lundbom take Teman as a reference to the south of the country and Dedan the north (Jeremiah 37–52, 328). 63. One could perhaps here invoke the play on the word ‘heir/inherit’ in 49:1–2. YHWH will dispossess or disinherit the one who dares to dispossess Israel of its God–given heritage.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 258 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 259

Edom is to be brought to an end, at least the Edom that thought it could plan its future on its terms. Verse 11 indicates that this complete purge applies to the military forces of Edom because the verse invites Esau/Edom (second person masculine singular addressee) to leave his orphans and widows in YHWH’s care. This is the closest the oracle on Edom comes to the promises of restoration for Moab and Ammon. Within the context of the book, the question in v 12 invokes YHWH’s instructions to Jeremiah in 25:15 to ‘make all the nations to whom I send you’ drink the cup of the wine of wrath. Granted that not all these nations are as guilty as Edom, how can ‘you’ think you can do what you plan and not escape the divine punishment that the cup symbolises? Sentence is then pronounced in v 12b and its scope decreed via an oath in v 13.64 Verse 14 has a first person speaker— presumably the prophetic voice—report that a messenger has been sent to the nations who, like YHWH’s servant Nebucadrezzar in 25:9, are summoned to execute the sentence pronounced. In vv 15–16 YHWH resumes the address to Edom with information about the impact this will have on ‘her’ standing among the nations.65 It is justified because of the terror ‘you inspire’ and the ‘pride of your heart that has deceived you’. Verses 17–19a provide two telling comparisons that assist the addressees and readers to appreciate the impact of the sentence as it is executed. The first in vv 17–18 states that Edom will become like the legendary and notorious Sodom and Gomorrah that were utterly overthrown because of the evils their citizens committed. The second in v 19a likens YHWH’s intervention to that of a lion whose sudden appearance causes terror in its prey. In relation to this, one may note that, as with Judah in the preceding chapters, YHWH does not conceal from the nations in chapters 46–49 the sentence

64. Bozrah was the capital of Edom (cf Fretheim, Jeremiah, 610). The description of the fate of Bozrah and her towns in v 13 is similar to the curse in Deut 28:37 65. Somewhat similar to the assonance noted in 48:43–44, Lundbom notes an assonance based on the Hebrew letter ‘b’ that commences the three phrases/ terms in v 15, (bagoyim) ‘among the nations’, (bazuy) ‘despised’, and (ba’adam) ‘by humankind’ (Jeremiah 37–52, 339). Cf also Stulman, Jeremiah, 368–69. The switch between masculine and feminine in vv 14–16 is a feature of these oracles, and as Keown–Scalise–Smothers remarks in the comment on 48:15, is no reason for insisting on textual emendation (Jeremiah 26–52, 315).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 259 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM 260 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

against them. This is in marked contrast to their deceit and attempts to conceal their evil intentions. As already noted, v 19b is comprised of a trio of questions that match the ones with which the oracle commences in v 7. The three questions invite three comparisons; the first is about the uniqueness of YHWH; there is no other being, human or divine, like YHWH. The second and third are more specific; according to the second YHWH is answerable to no one, while according to the third no one can justify himself/herself before YHWH, as a shepherd brings a report about his care of a flock to its owner. The response in vv 20–22 provides the final definitive answer to the three questions as well as to the preceding ones about the impact of YHWH’s intervention against Edom. This is indicated by the way v 20 refers to the ‘plan’ (here it is YHWH’s and not Edom’s plan) and by the way it refers to the inhabitants of Teman (v 7a). Verse 20b–21 identify three key things that will happen. The first is that YHWH’s intervention will reach into each family and separate the ‘little ones’ of the flock.66 The breakdown of society’s order will be total. The second is that this will cause the fold (most likely the male heads of households, the ‘pater familias’) to be appalled. Nothing like this has ever happened before and nothing can be done about it. The third is that no observer will be able to ignore Edom’s end. Its fall will cause the earth to tremble and the sound of the Edomites’ (dying) cry will be heard as far away as the Red Sea (sea of reeds).67 Verse 22 provides a fitting conclusion and climax by emphasising that it is YHWH who brings about all that has been prophesied. The verse does so by drawing two comparisons. The first is that YHWH is likened to a swooping eagle that overwhelms its prey. The second is that

66. This separation or ‘dragging away’ of the little ones may be related to v 11 where YHWH promises to keep orphans and widows alive. 67. In agreement with McKane (Jeremiah 2, 1228), it seems best to take the reference to ‘fall’ in v 21 as referring to Edom rather than to ‘them’, which in the context would seem to refer to the ‘little ones’ of v 20. The emendation is based on the virtual repetition of this passage in 50:44–46 which speaks of ‘the sound of the capture of Babylon’. Fischer proposes that the recurrence links the two passages and that what happens to Edom serves as a prelude as to what will happen in the demise of Babylon. Her cry will be heard not just at the Red Sea but among all the nations (Jeremia 2, 547).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 260 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 261

the hearts of the prey ‘in that day’, namely the Edomite warriors, will be like the heart of a woman in labour. 49:23–27. Oracle on Damascus. This short oracle on Damascus is judged to be ‘composed almost entirely of traditional materials characteristic of the genre’.68 The two cities mentioned in the opening verse of the oracle were well north of Damascus and would presumably come under threat from a northern invader such as Assyria or Babylon before Damascus. Such a threat could be the ‘bad news’ that has confounded these two cities. However, within the context of the oracle it may be better to take the ‘bad news’ as referring to Damas- cus, the capital of Aram/Syria, the focus of the following verses. What is striking about vv 24–27 is that they appear to reverse the sequence of the preceding oracles which have YHWH’s resolve against a nation, defeat of its forces, lamentations of the defeated. Instead, in vv 24–27 there is initially a description of anguish and sorrow in Damascus (vv 24–25), which is then followed by a decree of what will happen to her young men and soldiers (v 26), with the final v 27 revealing YHWH’s personal involvement in the destruction—a verse that is similar to Amos 1:4, except for ‘house of Hazael’ in place of Damascus. On closer inspection however, one can discern the thrust of this sequence and it is to portray YHWH’s destruction of a city like Damascus in three dramatic stages. The first stage is the threat from an invader and the panic this causes (vv 24–25); the second is that the death of the soldiers signals the doom of the city (v 26); while the third is the funeral pyre that YHWH lights and which will engulf city and strongholds. The funeral pyre also serves as a clear sign that Damascus’s destruction was YHWH’s initiative. Verse 27 also implies another theological claim; given that YHWH is the one setting fire to the city, then the ‘day’ of its destruction is the day on which YHWH asserts divine sovereignty over all time. 49:28–33. Oracle on Kedar and Hazor. As already noted, the superscription to this oracle in 49:28a forms a frame with the one in 46:2, the effect of this being that the oracles on Egypt and Kedar and Hazor, as well as the oracles on the nations in between, had been fulfilled or realised at the time of writing. As noted, this arrangement also serves to confirm the prophecy in 25:9–11 and the accompanying sign of the

68. So Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 333. Cf also Huwyler, Jeremia und die Völker, 233.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 261 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM 262 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

cup of the wine of YHWH’s wrath in 25:15–26a that the surrounding nations would suffer the same fate as Judah and would come under Babylonian rule for a designated period. Another feature of this oracle on Kedar and Hazor is that it is the only one in chapters 46–49 that refers to Nebuchadrezzar (cf v 30b), and this may explain the statement about his victory in the superscription. The Kedarites (or Qedarites) were a semi–nomadic Arabic people who inhabited the eastern desert south of Edom. As v 28b indicates, they lived in tents and traded stock. Hazor was a well–known town in Israel but the context makes clear that this is not the place to which the oracle refers. Analysis of the Hebrew and cognate terms in Arabic has led to the conclusion that it most likely refers to an unwalled settlement, and the oracle identifies two related semi–nomadic peoples and their life– styles. The term qedar (Kedar/Qedar) refers to a people who lived in tents and shepherded flocks, while khatsor (Hazor) refers to a people who lived in unwalled settlements, most likely near desert oases.69 The oracle may be divided into two sections; vv 28b–30 and 31–33.70 Each is introduced by the command ‘rise up, advance against Kedar/a nation at ease’. The first command is against the semi– nomadic ‘people of the east’; namely Kedar. As v 30b indicates, the command is to Nebuchadrezzar and his army who, according to the claims of the book, are YHWH’s agents against all the nations of the ANE.71. Nebuchadrezzar has planned a plan (same combination of verb and noun as in 49:20a) against Kedar, which is also YHWH’s plan or purpose, and that is to take all its tents and flocks. These would of course be valuable booty for an army on the march through desert country. There is no escape because the vast Babylonian army can even surround a people who are frequently on the move and therefore able to evacuate an area rapidly. As v 29b states, echoing the cry in 46:5b, ‘terror is all around’; a cry that, as noted earlier, occurs only in relation to the first (on Egypt) and last (on Kedar/Hazor) oracle in the collection. Given there is no escape, the people are urged in v 30 to flee away. This verse describes them as ‘inhabitants of Hazor’, the

69. Cf Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 383; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 337. 70. Cf Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 336 (although I see no compelling reason to exclude v 33). Lundbom identifies two sets of oracles, the first in vv 28b– 29a, 29b–30a, and the second in vv 31–32a, 32b–33 (Jeremiah 37–52, 351; 357). 71. Though not mentioned explicitly, the peoples of Kedar and Hazor are presumably the ones in 25:24 who are described as the ‘mixed peoples who live in the desert’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 262 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 263

first time the term has occurred in the oracle, and it prepares for what is portrayed in vv 31–33. The second command in vv 31–33 declares that YHWH has commanded Nebuchadrezzar to go up against a people who think that because they live far away from the main traffic routes between the great powers, they are ‘at ease’ and live ‘secure’.72 No one will trouble them and so there is no need to fortify their settlements with gates or bars. As v 33 makes clear, these are the people of Hazor; like the people of Kedar they are semi–nomadic desert dwellers but they have established permanent, unwalled settlements. The Babylonian army, the arm of YHWH, can reach the remotest parts of the ANE, and will ‘bring calamity against them from every side’ (a phrase that is similar to ‘terror all around’ in v 29b). The resultant onslaught will so devas- tate these settlements that Hazor will become ‘an everlasting waste’ in which no one can live (v 33). An important role of this oracle on movable, migratory people is to claim that YHWH’s sovereignty over place and time encompasses not just the nations that claim sovereignty over a particular place or places (cities, strongholds, fields, etc) and their time there, but also all the nations that do not ‘fit’ this cat- egory. YHWH is Sovereign over every nation in whatever place they may be and at whatever time they may be there. 49:34–39. Oracle on Elam. Elam is the most easterly nation of the ones in the collection. It is also the only one dated to the beginning of the reign of the last Judean king, Zedekiah.73 Unlike the superscriptions in 46:2 and 49:28a, the one for Elam in 49:34 does not indicate that the oracle had been realised at the time of writing of the book of Jeremiah. The main clue as to why this is the case is provided by the oracle itself. It is about a nation that lies at the furthest extremity from Israel and Judah and the nations that were around them.74 It presents the fate of Elam as the definitive manifestation of YHWH as universal Sovereign. The first person ‘I’ of YHWH is much more to the fore

72. Cf the reference to Moab living at ease in 48:11. 73. Lundbom dates it to 597 BCE and that there is evidence of conflict between Babylon and Elam in 596/595 BCE (Jeremiah 37–52, 362, 364). 74. The history of Elam can be traced back to the early third millennium BCE. It is mentioned among satellite nations of the Neo–Babylonian empire, and Cyrus the Great was a prince of the region of Elam called Anshan. According to Isa 11:11 Israelites were exiled there as well as among other nations. It is included among the dead nations lying in the pit in Ezek 32:24–25.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 263 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM 264 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

in the description of what is in store for Elam than in the preceding oracles. As well as this, v 36 prophesies that YHWH will wield cosmic forces such as the four winds from the four quarters of heaven. The power to wield the four winds demonstrates that YHWH is Sovereign over every place. The cosmic impact of the four winds will result in the one nation Elam being scattered among all the nations, a perfect example of a powerful nation being rendered utterly powerless. Babylon is not mentioned in the oracle although, within the context of the oracles on the nations and 25:12–29 where Elam is named in v 25, one is presumably meant to include it among Babylon’s conquests. As a final manifestation of universal sovereignty YHWH declares in v 38 that ‘I will set my throne in Elam’, a definitive sign that the time of the former occupant of the throne of Elam has come to a decisive end. In short it is a most appropriate oracle for its location in the collection, separate from the list of the preceding nations that were Judah’s neighbours, yet included in the oracles on the nations because its prophesied fate underscores the universal reach of YHWH’s sovereignty. What YHWH will do to Elam is what YHWH will do to ‘all flesh’ that is, according to 25:31, under divine judgement. YHWH’s universal power is further emphasised in the reversal of v 39. The one who can completely destroy is the only one who can equally restore. Also, it is fitting that as the first oracle in this collection concluded with a promise of restoration for Egypt, so the last oracle concludes with a similar promise. And all this, the book claims, is in accord with YHWH’s resolve to pluck up and pull down, to destroy and to overthrow the existing disorder, in order to build and plant a new order after the decreed period of subjugation to Babylon. The assertion via the superscriptions in 46:2 and 49:28a, that the nations listed suffered defeat by Babylon in accordance with YHWH’s prophecies, lends weight to the claim that the oracle on Elam will also be realised in YHWH’s good time. A final comment on chapters 46–49 is that the oracles appear to have been arranged geographically, with a move from the western side of the known ANE to its far eastern side. The collection commences with Egypt, located to the south west of Judah, followed by Philistia, Tyre and Sidon to the immediate west and north. The next oracle is on Moab which lies almost directly east of Judah. It is followed by two sets of oracles on nations to the north and south of Moab. Ammon and Edom are north and south of Moab respectively,

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 264 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM Jeremiah 46:1–49:39 265

and the same geographical locations apply to the subsequent nations named, Damascus (north) and Kedar and Hazor (south). Via this geographical arrangement the nations to the east, north and south of Judah are covered. Finally, and lying somewhat beyond this sweep of nations is Elam to the far east of Judah.75

75. The arrangement of these oracles in the LXX version (26:15–31:44) is different and, according to Lundbom (Jeremiah 37–52, 181) ‘has no apparent significance’ (similarly Carroll, Jeremiah, 759). However, Guy C Couturier thinks that the ‘LXX adopted a logical pattern, the nations’ political importance’ (33 of ‘Jeremiah’ in The Jerome Biblical Commentary,edited by Raymond E Brown, Joseph A Fitzmyer and Roland E Murphy, volume I, The Old Testament [London: Prentice–Hall International, Inc, 1968], 301–36).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 265 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 266 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM Chapter Nine Jeremiah 50:1–51:64

These two chapters are a collection of oracles on Babylon in 50:2–51:48 (with narrative introduction in 50:1), followed by a narrative report in 51:59–64a of Jeremiah writing the oracles on a scroll, entrusting the scroll to Baruch’s brother Seraiah who is to go to Babylon, read the scroll there and then throw it into the Euphrates river. The final half verse 51:64b states ‘Thus far are the words of Jeremiah’. The oracles on or against Babylon are the longest in the OAN and the recurrence of similar literary forms such as commands to attack Babylon, declarations about its destruction, celebrations of its destruction, commands or urges to exiled Israelites to leave the city and land, as well as the dramatic and highly rhetorical nature of these forms, make it difficult to determine how the chapters are arranged. The repetitive nature of the text, the mix of poetry and prose, as well as evidence of adaption or borrowing of passages from other prophetic books, also points for many to considerable reworking of what most presume was a core collection of oracles, presumably stemming from Jeremiah himself.1 Historical critical analysis has devoted considerable attention to probing the likely growth of these chapters in the hope that a clearer understanding of how the chapters were assembled would enhance

1. A perceptive recent study of these issues in chapter 50–51 as well as in 46–49 is the essay by Lundbom, ‘Language and Rhetoric in Jeremiah’s Foreign Nation Oracles’, in The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, Interpretation,edited by Jack R Lundbom, Craig A Evans, and Bradford A Anderson, VTSup 178 (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018), 211–29.

267

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 267 13-May-20 5:26:10 PM 268 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

our appreciation of the nature of the final or present text.2 However, no general consensus about the composition of the chapters has emerged. This has led some to argue that there is no overall structure in 50–51 or if they were arranged in a particular way, it is one that resists clear delineation. David J Reimer identifies a variety of units (for him a unit is a coherent group of lines) but does not think these have been organised into any particular structure or structures.3 Rather the textual sequence is somewhat like a convict’s rope made up of separate bits of towels, sheets, blankets, etc. There is no logical order to the way these ‘bits’ have been joined together. Hence the discrete units of chapters 50–51 have not been assembled into ‘stanzas’ or groups with a particular structure and key theme or themes. In contrast, Patrick D Miller thinks there is a discernible structure or arrangement but the parts of the text relate together rather like an orchestral piece of music.4 There is a recognisable development but it occurs via resumption and reworking of themes and images already employed. Reimer is critical of proposals such as that of Alice Odgen Bel- lis who, by employing the rhetorical analysis of James Muilenburg, identifies six blocks of units in the oracles that she terms ‘poems’, each with clearly defined boundaries and internal structure, and of KT Aitken who initially divides the text into six major blocks or ‘movements’. This is followed by a division of each movement into its major thematic sections and how they are structured together rhetorically.5

2. For a good survey of historical–critical analysis of these chapters see Keown– Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 357–59. The commentary notes that one of the more thorough attempts to distinguish authentic Jeremiah material from later supplementation, borrowing, and editing is that of Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 402–8. 3. David J Reimer, The Oracles Against Babylon in Jeremiah 50–51. A Horror Among the Nations (San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press, 1993), 103. 4. Cf Miller, ‘The Book of Jeremiah’, 912. Smelik remarks that ‘Jeremiah 50 and 51 structurally looks more like a musical composition than a political manifesto’ (page 90 of ‘The Function of Jeremiah 50 and 51 in the Book of Jeremiah’, in Reading the Book of Jeremiah. A Search for Coherence, edited by Martin Kessler [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004], 87–97). 5. Cf Alice Ogden Bellis, The Structure and Composition of Jeremiah 50:2–51:58 (Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1995); and ‘Poetic Structure and Intertextual Logic in Jeremiah 50’, in Troubling Jeremiah, edited by AR Pete Diamond, Kathleen M O’Connor and Louis Stulman, JSOTSup 260 [Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999], 179–99); KT Aitken, ‘The Oracles against Babylon in Jeremiah 50–51: Structures and Perspectives’, in Tyndale Bulletin, 35 (1984): 25–63.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 268 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM Jeremiah 50:1–51:64 269

Reimer’s criticisms of some points in their proposals are quite pertinent but, without a more thoroughgoing analysis, do not prove they are wrong as such, as is the case with most hypotheses in the humani- ties. Another recent study of the oracles on the nations (OAN), in particular chapters 50–51, is that of Else K Holt, but as well as this she examines the impact of these chapters on the theology of the book as such.6 As part of this larger contextual analysis, she judges that chapters 4–6, which she terms the Foe from the North Oracles (FNO), combine with the OAN in chapters 46–51 to form a frame or inclusio around the book, with the oracles in chapter 25 the ‘Epicentre of the Inclusio’.7 In her assessment the relationship between these texts and their function within the book indicates that Stulman’s understanding of the book, in particular chapters 26–52, overstates the positive. However, my comparison of the FNO with chapters 50–51 in particular tends to support Stulman. The FNO oracles declare that YHWH has summoned the foe from the north, namely Babylon, to punish Israel and Judah, but in chapters 50–51 the situation is effectively reversed. That is, YHWH summons another foe from the north (Per- sia) to punish Babylon, and this is for the sake of Israel and Judah, as 50:4–10, 17–20, 33–34; 51:24, 34–37, 45–46, 50–51 make clear. How- ever, I would agree with the conclusion of Holt and others that ‘Baby- lon in the Book of Jeremiah functions as a metaphor or a code word, capable of representing any superpower in the afterlife of the book’.8

50:1–46 It is widely agreed that 50:44–46, in particular v 46, forms an inclusio or frame with the opening vv 2–3.9 One may therefore accept the medieval chapter division without of course separating it from chap-

6. Else K Holt, 198 in ‘The Meaning of an Inclusio: A Theological Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah MT’, SJOT 17/2 (2003): 183–205; cf also Hill, Friend or Foe, 157 and Thelle, ‘Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah (MT)’, 232. 7. Cf ‘The Meaning of an Inclusio’, 198. On 199 she agrees with Hill’s judgement that 25:3–14 contains no suggestion of salvation or restoration for Judah (cf ‘The Construction of Time’, 155–56). I commented on this in the initial Outline. 8. Cf ‘The Meaning of an Inclusio’, 204. Here again in basic agreement with Hill in Friend or Foe?, 218. 9. Cf Aitken, ‘The Oracles Against Babylon’, 30; Bellis, ‘Poetic Structure’, 199; Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 428; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 361.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 269 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM 270 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

ter 51, in which the oracles against Babylon continue. My division of the chapter is as follows. After the superscription or narrative introduction in v 1, there is a command from YHWH to declare to all the nations the doom of Babylon at the hands of a nation from the north (vv 2–3). This is followed by a speech from YHWH in vv 4–7 that prophesies what will happen to Israel and Judah in the wake of the end of Babylon’s time, and the reasons for this. In my judgement, the remainder of the chapter is comprised of seven distinctive sections. The first three are vv 8–20, 21–28, 29–34. They have the same basic sequence of a command to non–Babylonians, followed by an address to Babylon, and a concluding statement on Israel. However, the first two also have a further set of three commands after the address. The remaining four sections in vv 35–38, 39–40, 41–43 and 44–46 are different to the first three and each has a distinctive form and thrust.10 What is striking about vv 2–3 is that this is the first text in the oracles on the nations where a command is given to declare something to all the nations. The importance and the public nature of the news that follows is underscored by the three parallel commands in v 2a. The content of what is to be declared is given in v 2b, formulated as three parallel statements. The first is the basic statement that Babylon is taken, while the second and third spell out the implications of this. It means that her chief god (Merodach/Bel) is exposed as powerless and therefore shamed.11 A key sign of this is the way that the images of her gods are treated—smashed or taken as booty—by the conqueror(s). Within the context of the oracles on the nations and the larger book of Jeremiah, the clear implication is that the end of the nation that ruled the world (ANE) occurs at a time, a day in history, that reveals to all the universal sovereignty of the one or ones who brings it about. As the superscription signals, YHWH is the one God who enjoys this universal status and is able to render powerless and shame other

10. The three ‘poems’ that Bellis identifies in chapter 50 are vv 2–20, 21–32, 33–38, with ‘a series of scriptural additions at the end’ of the chapter (‘Poetic Structure’, 179). The three blocks or ‘movements’ identified by Aitken are vv 4–20, 21–32, 33–46 (‘The Oracles Against Babylon’, 31–40). The ‘units’ identified by Reimer are vv 2–3, 4–5, 6–7, 8–10, 11–13, 14–16, 17–19, 20, 21–23, 24–25, 26–27, 28, 29–30, 31–32, 33–34, 35–38, 39–40, 41–43, 44–46 (The Oracles Against Babylon, 27–64). 11. Merodach is the Hebrew version of the Babylonian name of its chief deity Marduk. Bel was an ancient god of Nippur but appears here as a title for Marduk (cf McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1252).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 270 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM Jeremiah 50:1–51:64 271

gods. Verses 2–3 are therefore linked to Jeremiah’s declaration of YHWH’s purpose that initially involves the punishment of Judah and surrounding nations by ‘my servant’ Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon, and then the subsequent punishment of Babylon itself. No reason for this punishment is given here but there is an indication of it in v 7 that follows, as well as in subsequent texts in chapters 50–51. The arrangement of vv 2–3 is in accord with the theology of the book. It is YHWH’s creative word that determines how events unfold in time and place. Hence the divine purpose for Babylon is proclaimed first in v 2 and then followed by a description of what will happen in v 3. The nation or foe from the north in the preceding chapters of the book was of course Babylon itself. Verse 3 introduces another foe from the north and in this case it is a foe of Babylon.12 As with v 2, three parallel statements are employed to portray three outcomes of the invasion. The third, that ‘both human beings and animals shall flee away’ provides a lead in to the following vv 4–7 on the future of Israel and Judah. Because the description of the journey that Israel and Judah will make in vv 4–5 stems from YHWH (‘says the Lord’), it is much more than a desire by the refugees to set as much distance as they can between themselves and their former place of exile. This is captured by another occurrence of three parallel statements. The first is that the key motive for the journey will be a seeking of YHWH by a repentant people (v 4b).13 The second is that this ‘return’ to YHWH will be manifest in the way the attention of the pilgrims is focused on Zion (v 5a), while the third marks their ‘arrival’ at their desired goal, namely the sealing of an everlasting covenant relationship with YHWH in Zion. The nature of this everlasting covenant is described in 31:31–34.

12. In v 9 this foe from the north is described as ‘a company of great nations’, in v 41 as ‘a people from the north, a mighty nation and many kings’, in 51:11, 27–28 as ‘the kings of the Medes’, and in 51:48, 53 as ‘the destroyers from the north’. In the book of Isaiah the conqueror of Babylon is Cyrus of Persia. Within the book of Jeremiah it may be best to take the reference to a foe/foes from the north in a more general sense. It symbolises the one power that YHWH can wield to subdue the conqueror of the world (cf Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 365). 13. The picture of weeping Israelites and Judeans seeking YHWH in Zion recalls the pilgrims from northern Israel in 41:4–7 who were murdered by the Judean member of the royal family, Ishmael. What was a violent sign of the division between north and south will, according to this prophecy, be reversed as Israelites and Judeans come weeping together to Jerusalem.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 271 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM 272 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Verses 6–7 highlight the transformation that Israel and Judah will experience in the wake of Babylon’s conquest by contrasting it with what they have been like up to this point. The contrast is well captured by another series of three parallel statements. They have been led astray by their shepherds, they have wandered like lost sheep from mountain to hill, and they have forgotten the sheepfold to which they belonged. Despite all this v 6a states they remained ‘my people’.14 Verse 7 may refer to the attitude and conduct of the Babylonians and their allies (for example, Edom), but it may also have a more general reach in mind, to include the Assyrian conquest of the northern kingdom of Israel and its exile. Whichever the case, the verse provides a reason or justification for the liberation and return of exiles. Although Judah (and Israel) were guilty of completely disobeying YHWH’s word and their punishment was justified, this did not give their conquerors the right to play the judge. YHWH is the only one who can judge Judah (and Israel) or any nation justly and decree its punishment. Any nation that attempts to play judge and executioner to their advantage will itself be judged and punished. As outlined above, I identify the next section of chapter 50 in vv 8–20, with two similar sections in vv 21–28 and 29–34. Within vv 8–20 one can identify the following distinct parts. The first is the command to flee Babylon. Given that the command is in the plural and to unnamed addressees, it may be best to understand it as addressed to all foreigners exiled in, or living in, Babylon, among whom of course were Judeans.15 In being likened to male goats or rams who normally lead their flock out of the sheepfold, the command is presumably indicating that the Judean refugees should be the first to respond. The reason for immediate response and flight is given in vv 9–10; namely to avoid becoming the target or booty of warriors who do not return from war empty handed. This set of commands effectively re–expresses the two topics of the preceding verses but in reverse sequence—conquest of Babylon, and liberation of her prisoners. Within the next section, vv 11–12 are addressed to Baby- lon although the text switches between second person feminine singular and plural forms (cf ‘plunderers’ and ‘your mother’ ‘who bore

14. This portrayal of shepherds leading YHWH’s sheep astray in v 6a recalls 23:1–4. 15. So Bellis, ‘Poetic Structure’, 183; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 575 (who sees vv 2–7 providing the context for this particular command); Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 365; McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1258.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 272 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM Jeremiah 50:1–51:64 273

you’). The one who exults in her power and prestige is destined, on the word of YHWH, to undergo a complete reversal.16 These verses form a taunt song that is a feature of oracles on the nations (cf Isa 14:12–20). After this direct form of address, v 13 switches to the third person to explain—to any audience/reader—that what is to happen to Babylon is due to ‘the wrath of the Lord’. The divine wrath issues in three commands in vv 14, 15, 16, and the first indicates that they are made to warriors. Although unnamed they are presumably ones belonging to the invading nation from the north. In v 14 they are commanded to completely surround the city (the siege), and in v 15 they are commanded to shout in anticipation a song of victory over her. Given that the words of this song come from YHWH, the warriors effectively become prophets or mouthpieces of YHWH.17 What they sing will surely take place. In v 16 they are commanded to seal the city from any outside supplies of food. Instead of the sickle wielded at harvest time, the only instrument that will be wielded will be the ‘destroying sword’. Faced with this all those from around the country of Babylon and beyond who provide supplies for the capital will flee. In this poem, the primary target of YHWH’s wrath is the city. Subsequent oracles, particularly in chapter 51 will embrace the whole land and all who are in it. A significant feature of vv 14–15 is that Babylon, for the first time in the chapter, is explicitly accused of sin against YHWH (v 14b) and that this is the reason why she is to be destroyed. This is reaffirmed in v 15 where the invaders are commanded to ‘take vengeance’ on Babylon, to ‘do to her as she has done’. As the first part of v 15b makes clear, this vengeance is the vengeance of YHWH, retribution for her sin. These verses do not spell out the nature of the sin, but one can read v 17 as filling the gap.18 It accuses Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon

16. I take v 12b as a continuation of the speech. There is no ‘she shall be’ in the Hebrew which reads ‘Behold, the last of the nations, a wilderness, dry land and desert’. 17. The phrase translated as ‘She has surrendered’ in v 15a renders the Hebrew ‘She has given her hand’. Holladay (Jeremiah 2, 415) reads it as an offer to surrender (cf Lam 5:6). However, Keown–Scalise–Smothers (Jeremiah 26–52, 366) notes that the phrase can refer to making a covenant or treaty. In this case the text would state that none of the treaties that Babylon has made can save her. Other interpretations are discussed by McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1266–67. 18. While the image of Israel as sheep recalls vv 6–7 there is a difference. In vv 6–7 they pictured as wandering, lost sheep, whereas in v 17 they are hunted sheep, victims of predatory lions.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 273 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM 274 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

of the same gross abuse of Israel as Assyria inflicted earlier (‘Babylon has gnawed its bones’). A significant feature of vv 17–18 is that while Nebuchadrezzar is accused of being monstrous in his behaviour towards Israel the subsequent announcement of punishment does not refer to him specifically but uses the more general term ‘king of Babylon’. This suggests the text is meant to conform to the prophecy in 25:12 that Israel/Judah would only be delivered from Babylonian subjugation after seventy years. Whether one takes this literally, or as a round figure, it clearly looks beyond the life of Nebuchadrezzar himself. This is in effect underscored by 27:7 where Jeremiah informs the envoys of the nations that they will be under Babylonian power during the reigns of Nebuchadrezzar, his son and grandson. However, this does not mean that Nebuchadrezzar, his son and grandson did not commit any crimes. Though Nebuchadrezzar is YHWH’s servant in the conquest of Judah he is a flawed human being and can sin, and texts such as 50:17–18 and 51:34 insist he did. However, it is YHWH who decides the appropriate time for the punishment of such sins, as YHWH decreed the appropriate time to punish Judah for the sins of its kings and people.19 The run of ANE history requires that the punishment decreed for Nebuchadrezzar’s sins be in line with what YHWH meted out to wicked Assyria; namely the end of its capital and empire. Even though Assyria and Babylon can be commissioned to punish Israel and Judah, to try and destroy Israel is to overstep their mandate and this results in destruction being unleashed upon them. For readers of the book of Jeremiah, the destruction of Assyria was an established fact and this would encourage their conviction that the same would happen to Babylon. Once Babylon is punished, Israel will be returned to the land; moreover no one in the future will be able to accuse either Israel or Judah of being guilty of sin and deserving of punishment, because YHWH ‘will pardon the remnant that I have spared’. This prophecy of the restoration of Israel and Judah and their reunion adds a further component to the content of 50:4–5.

19. The accusation of gross abuse by Nebuchadrezzar and other Babylonian kings would gel with v 7 where Babylon and all those who have taken advantage of Israel/Judah set themselves up as judges and executioners on their own terms. When human beings play God the result is almost inevitably evil and chaos. This accusation, as well as providing justification for the punishment decreed in v 18, also provides the reason for the prophecy of Babylon’s punishment in 25:12–14.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 274 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM Jeremiah 50:1–51:64 275

The second section in vv 21–28 is also comprised of an initial command (cf vv 21–23), an address to Babylon (vv 24–25), followed by three further commands in v 26a, 26b and v 27, and a concluding report about Israelite refugees coming to Zion in v 28.20 If the commands in vv 14–16 are more about YHWH’s plans against Baby- lon, the laying of a siege against her and making sure she is cut off from all help, the commands in vv 21–27 are more about the actual attack from ‘every quarter’ (v 26). As v 27 announces, ‘the time of their punishment’ has come. Even though, in contrast to vv 14-16, the MT of v 21 has the command to go up and attack in the masculine singular, it seems unlikely, as Holladay proposes, that it refers to Israel.21 The imperatives in vv 26–27 are masculine plural and, as well as this, a certain switching between singular and plural, masculine and feminine, seems to be a feature of the oracles on the nations. The terms ‘Merathaim’ and ‘Pekod’ that are used to describe two areas of Babylonian territory may well have been chosen because they allow a wordplay on the Hebrew terms for ‘double rebellion’ and ‘visita- tion/punishment’ respectively.22 Given this wordplay, punishment is certainly justified against the one who multiplies rebellion. Verse 24 concludes with the command to ‘do all that I command you’ and vv 22–23 describe the response of the army to the command.23 As part of the noise of battle one may read v 23 as a song of victory like the one in v 15. There is no need in this instance to have YHWH command them to sing the song as in v 15 because by doing so they are carrying out ‘all that I have commanded you’. In parallel to vv 11–13, v 24 addresses Babylon again in the second person feminine singular, and it is best to include v 25 in this part of the section. Whereas the attacking army is informed of the reasons for the punishment of Babylon in vv 14b and 15b, here Babylon is personally informed by YHWH as to the reason for her punishment. There is a mocking irony in the address; Babylon arrogantly thought that she was the one who planned and brought about the doom of others, but in behaving thus she was in reality setting a

20. The parts of this section agree with the individual units identified by Reimercf ( fn 10 above). 21. Cf Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 418. 22. Pekod is named along with Shoa and Koa in Ezek 23:33 as provinces of Babylonia, while Merathaim may refer to a brackish, bitter river in its south (so Keown– Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 367). 23. Following Fretheim, Jeremiah, 630.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 275 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM 276 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

snare for herself. The verb to know in Hebrew (yada‘) often carries the sense of ‘recognise/accept’, particularly in the context of the covenant relationship, and I read it in this sense here. Babylon refused to accept or recognise any other authority than her own. This was tantamount to challenging YHWH’s authority, a challenge that could not be allowed to stand and so ‘you were discovered and seized’.24 Hence v 25 announces, presumably still to addressee Babylon, the response that is to be made—the task to be done—and which the surrounding verses attest is already under way.25 Verses 26–27a contain three more commands that match the three in vv 14–16. The initial one in v 26a is very similar to the first of the three in vv 14–16—surround Babylon on all sides. The second command in v 26 is, like the third one in v 16, about food supplies. But whereas the preceding one is about ensuring no food supplies get through from outside Babylon, v 26 orders the attackers to open and ransack her granaries—the stores of food she already has—so that nothing is left for her.26 The third command in v 27 is to kill all her bulls, and v 27b would seem to imply that the term ‘bulls’ refers to Babylon’s soldiers (a similar use of bestial imagery occurs in Isa 34:6–7).27 The reference to day and time in v 27b forms a link with the same references in v 20. The time of Babylon’s punishment will be the day on which her guilt is exposed and on which Israel’s pardon and restoration is revealed. The conclusion to the section in v 28 signals the success of YHWH’s attack against Babylon, as portrayed in vv 21–27, as well as (initial?) fulfillment of the prophecy in vv 4–5. The

24. As Fretheim states ‘Babylon had arrogantly set itself up over against the Lord, apparently a reference to Babylon’s violation of God’s charge regarding the nature of the judgment to be exacted (see v 29; cf 48:26, 42). Babylon insisted on its own way in these matters’ (Jeremiah, 630). 25. Holladay notes that v 25 has the only occurrence of the word ‘storehouse’ in the HB/OT to describe YHWH’s store of weapons. In other text such as 10:13, YHWH’s storehouse is full of rain, hail, snow and mist (Jeremiah 2, 419). The text may be alluding to these as YHWH’s weapons of war. 26. The sense of the first clause in v 26a is not clear. LXX has ‘search her as a cave’ and the Syriac ‘leave her as a naked woman’. After a discussion McKane proposes that the ‘verse moves from the opening up of granaries which are a metaphor for the ransacking of stores of wealth to the heaping up of spoil “like stacks of grain’” (Jeremiah 2, 1279). Hence it could refer to captives (cf LXX; those hiding as in a cave) or the spoils of war. 27. Stulman thinks it likely the bulls refer ‘to the virile men of war who defended the kingdom’ (Jeremiah, 374); also McKane, although he notes the convention that tends to attach the names of certain animals ‘to grandees’ (Jeremiah 2, 1280).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 276 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM Jeremiah 50:1–51:64 277

arrival in Zion of fugitives and refugees from Babylon is a clear sign that YHWH has carried out a key component of divine vengeance; that is, YHWH has paid Babylon back for her brutal destruction of YHWH’s place (the temple) with the destruction of Babylon’s place. The third and final section in this group (that is, vv 29–34) has the same main features as the preceding two; namely an initial command in v 29 (which is in reality a set of three commands), followed by an address in v 31 to a male named ‘O arrogant one’, a description in v 32 of the arrogant one’s fate, and a concluding statement in vv 33–34 about the situation of Israel and Judah and what YHWH is resolved to do about it. The three commands in v 29 are 1)–summon archers, 2)–encamp all around her, and 3)–repay her according to her deeds. The commands ‘let no one escape’ and ‘just as she has done do to her’ belong to commands 2 and 3 respectively.28 This series of commands parallels the ones in vv 14 and 15. There is no parallel to the command in v 16 because vv 29–30 are about the complete destruction of the Babylonian army and not about others attempting to bring in supplies (the sower, the wielder of the sickle). Another link with vv 14–15 is the reason for the attack. In v 14b it is because Babylon has sinned against YHWH, in v 15b it is because YHWH is taking vengeance or retribution for wrong done, presumably the sin of Babylon. The theme of Babylon’s sin is taken up again in v 29b but information is now provided about the nature of her sin; it is because ‘she has arrogantly defied YHWH, the Holy One of Israel’. Three forms of vengeance or retribution are decreed as punishment for this sin. The first is the statement in v 30 that Babylon’s soldiers will all be destroyed on the day of battle.29 The second is the announcement to the ‘arrogant one’ in vv 31–32 that this day is also the time of his punishment.30 This announcement forms a parallel to the first one in vv 11–13 and to the second in v 24. Verses 33–34 conclude this third section by resuming the two main components of vv 17–29/20. The first is the oppressed situation of Israel and Judah as prisoners of Babylon (v 33; cf v 17). The

28. The MT ketib)( lacks a word after the particle’al for a negative command/ prohibition and many manuscripts and versions supply the imperative singular of the verb ‘to be’ from v 26 to read (qere) ‘let there be no escape’ (NRSV: ‘let no one escape’). 29. Verse 30 appears to have been taken from 49:26, the oracle on Damascus. 30. The use of the second and third person masculine singular instead of the feminine, as in v 29, is presumably required because of the masculine noun ‘arrogance’ (zadon).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 277 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM 278 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

second is YHWH’s resolve to plead their cause, which is the role of a redeemer (go’el), and YHWH is the redeemer par excellence.31 This will mean rest for YHWH’s people but no rest for the wicked of Babylon, as the preceding vv 29–32 make abundantly clear (v 34; cf vv 18–19). Verses 35–38 are clearly a distinct section in the chapter and are described by Lundbom as a curse in the form of a rhetorical anapho- ra.32 It applies to all the inhabitants of Chaldea/Babylon, from officials and sages to diviners, to the military and their equipment, as well as to foreign troops. Verse 37b extends it to cover all the treasures of Babylon so that they may be plundered. The term ‘drought’ in v 38a can also be read as ‘sword’ because of the similarity between the words.33 However the reference to drying up of waters would seem to favour ‘drought’.34 Once the waters of Babylon, a city built on the Euphrates with irrigation canals and an artificial lake, have been dried up no can move there to replace those destroyed by the sword. The final v 38b provides the reason for the work of the sword; it will bring a definite end to Babylon’s mad obsession with images and idols of false gods. YHWH alone is God. One may presume that YHWH is the one assigning the various tasks of the sword but the passage is intriguingly reticent about its identity. However, the preceding and following passages would suggest it is the army/foe from the north, as yet unidentified. This identification is given in 51:11 and 27b.35 The final three sections of chapter 50 all seem to be based on other passages in the book of Jeremiah, or in other books. Thus vv 39–40 is similar to 49:13, 18 (oracle on Edom) and to Isa 13:19–22 (oracle on Babylon). A clear point of contact with the Isaiah text and Jer 49:18 is the comparison with Sodom and Gomorrah. Verses 39–40 follow well after the passage on the sword; the outcome of the various tasks it is assigned to do will be that Babylon will never again be ‘inhabited for

31. As Fretheim remarks ‘Once again, as long ago in Egypt when the pharaoh refused to let the people go, God is the redeemer of the oppressed’ (Jeremiah, 632). 32. Cf Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 418. for Fischer it is a song of the sword (Jeremia 2, 586); for Brueggemann an ‘ode to a sword’ (Commentary on Jeremiah, 471); for Fretheim, it is more like a litany (Jeremiah, 633). 33. The Hebrew for a sword iskhereb , for a drought khoreb. 34. This would also suggest another link with the exodus story and the drying up of the waters of the sea. However, Fretheim prefers ‘sword’ as the lectio difficilior (Jeremiah, 633). 35. Carroll thinks that it could stand either for ‘Yahweh’s uncanny defeat of Babylon or for the invading (Persian) forces or both’; clarity is uncertain (Jeremiah, 832).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 278 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM Jeremiah 50:1–51:64 279

all generations’. Like Sodom and Gomorrah, Babylon will become an example of the cursed city from which the curse will never be raised. The only one who can raise such a curse is the Sovereign YHWH and there is no mention of a future restoration of Babylon in chapters 50–51, as is the case with a number of the nations in the preceding chapters. Verses 41–43 are in their turn very similar to 6:22–24, which is however about Israel. As noted above, these verses allow one to identify the sword as the mighty nation coming from the north. This reference to the nation from the north also creates a link, an inclusio, with 50:2–3. The king of Babylon is portrayed reacting in the same way to this news as the inhabitants of Zion in 6:24. The final passage in 50:44–46 is very similar to another segment on Edom, namely 49:19–21. A significant difference however is that, whereas in the passage on Edom the sound of those within her who suffer doom will be heard at the Red Sea (Sea of Reeds), in the case of Babylon all the nations will hear about her doom. The cosmic dimension of Babylon’s doom is developed further in chapter 51 as an important component of the book’s claims for the universal sovereignty of YHWH.36

51:1–58 The first distinct section that I identify in this chapter is vv 1–10 and it has two parts, vv 1–5 and 6–10. Verses 1–5 parallel and continue the announcements of YHWH’s initiatives against Babylon but what is different about vv 1–5 is that they commence with a first-person declaration by YHWH. Like a king or general in charge of the army, YHWH personally oversees the attack; according to v 1 ‘I’ will ‘stir up a destructive wind’ and according to v 2 ‘I will send winnowers’.37

36. Cf Brueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 472; Carroll, Jeremiah, 834; Stulman, Jeremiah, 377. 37. The NRSV footnote offers the alternative meaning of the phrase ‘destructive wind’, namely ‘the spirit of a destroyer’. Given v 11 reports that YHWH has ‘stirred up’ (same verb as in v 1) the spirit of the kings of the Medes ᾽to destroy᾽ (verb form of the noun in v 1), this may be the better rendering. The term ‘winnowers’ in NRSV of v 2 involves a repointing of the MT ‘foreigners’. The consonants are the same as for the verb ᾽winnow᾽ that follows. Given this, the repointing makes sense (so Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 368). Crops are usually winnowed when there is sufficient wind to drive the chaff away, and this may involve another play between ‘destructive wind’ and ‘the spirit of a destroyer’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 279 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM 280 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

YHWH next issues three commands to the invading army in v 3, but it is with a series of three commands. The archer is commanded to prepare himself for battle, not to spare ‘her young men’, and to utterly destroy the Babylonian army.38 Another difference between vv 1–5 and the preceding passages is that YHWH’s purge will envelop not just the city of Babylon but will ‘empty her land’ (v 2b), and the manner of this emptying is given in v 4. The land as well as the city/cities will be filled with the slain of the army. The comment on Israel and Judah in v 5 parallels those in the preceding chapter. What YHWH does against Babylon is an integral part of the divine purpose for Israel and Judah. What is different about v 5 is the reference to their land. Like the land of Chaldea it is ‘full of guilt’ and so must be purged, as all the earth needs to be purged (cf 25:31–32). The text does not state what kind of guilt has afflicted the land but perhaps, within the context, it refers to the land’s pollution during its occupation by Babylon. YHWH had entrusted it to Nebuchadrezzar ‘my servant’ but he and his people became gross and arrogant (50:17, 31–32). As vv 1–5 portray YHWH personally overseeing and arranging the destruction of Babylon, so vv 6–10 portray YHWH personally seeing to the welfare of all the exiles in Babylon. The initial command to flee Babylon is the same as in 50:8 and is presumably also addressed to all the exiles in Babylon, among whom are of course Judeans. If 50:8 is an instruction about what to do in response to the looming attack against Babylon, the command in 51:6 emphasises that flight from Babylon is a life and death matter. If the addressees do not leave they will perish with Babylon because failure to flee will indicate they do not accept the sovereign power of YHWH, or the justification of what YHWH has decreed against Babylon; namely that she must be punished for her crimes. Verses 7–10 can be read as a dialogue between

38. There is uncertainty as to whether the Hebrew consonants alef and lamed are to be vocalised as a negative (so ’al) or as the preposition ‘to’ (so ’el). If one adopts the former (as in the NRSV) then the command is to a Babylonian defender, and the implication is that there is no point trying to defend the city. If one adopts the latter then the command is ‘to’ an attacking archer to bend his bow and put on his armour. Given the subsequent command not to spare her young men, this would seem to be the better reading. For a discussion see McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1297–98. Lundbom reads the consonants as referring to God (’el) which continues the emphasis on the divine initiative in vv 1–2 but, if this is the case, why the switch to the third person? (Jeremiah 37–52, 434).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 280 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM Jeremiah 50:1–51:64 281

different groups of exiles in Babylon with Judeans playing a key role.39 Their participation in the dialogue is indicated by their statement in v 10. Jeremiah is the likely speaker in v 7 and, within the rhetoric of the text (the book never reports him going to Babylon), he reminds the addressees (and readers) of what YHWH summoned Babylon to do. He does this via the image of Babylon as a golden cup being passed around to the nations, an image that recalls the cup of the wine of wrath in 25:15–27. He reminds the audience how effective Babylon was as the cup of the wrath of YHWH (‘so the nations went mad’). But the situation has been completely reversed; Babylon is now ‘fallen and shattered’ like a cup that has been smashed. The call to wail for fallen Babylon and to try and heal her wound can be read as the sympathetic reaction of a group of pro–Babylonian exiles, or as a sarcastic remark by Jeremiah.40 Jeremiah 51:9a would seem to be a response by another group who report that they tried to heal Babylon but unsuccessfully. This would seem to indicate that v 8 is to be taken in a sympathetic sense. These same speakers, or the Judeans among the exiles, then offer an explanation in v 9b as to why Babylon cannot be healed, and it clearly implies that her wickedness became so gross as to require the direct intervention of heaven. As noted, in v 10 the Judeans among the exiles are the speakers; they declare that what is happening to Babylon is YHWH’s doing and their vindication.41 They accept that what they are required to do is return and proclaim in Zion the work of YHWH, because it is this work that will cleanse the land of Israel of the guilt it has incurred during the period of Babylo- nian hegemony (cf v 5). The next distinct section of the chapter is in vv 11–26. Its structure is somewhat similar to the parallel passages in chapter 50 but with some differences that suit its context. There are the initial commands to prepare for battle in 51:11–12, followed by what is the final address

39. Here following the lead of Lundbom (Jeremiah 37–52, 436–40) who identifies several speakers in the passage. 40. Carroll thinks that it could be satirical (Jeremiah, 844), whereas Reimer thinks it shows genuine sympathy (The Oracles Against Babylon, 153). 41. The Hebrew word translated in v 10 as ‘vindication’ istsedaqah and depending on context is rendered as ‘righteousness’, ‘justice’, ‘vindication’, etc. In my view a consistent notion in the use of the term is that of right relationship, between YHWH and Israel, between Israel and nations, between Israelites themselves. On this see my Restoring the Right Relationship. The Bible on Divine Righteousness.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 281 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM 282 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

to Babylon in the book, and it reaches from v 13 to v 26. It commences in vv 13–14 by informing ‘you’ (feminine singular address) of what YHWH has planned (v 12b) and what it means for her. It is followed by a passage in vv 15–19 about the uniqueness of ‘the Lord of hosts’ (cf vv 14, 19b) in comparison to idols, a passage that is effectively a quotation of 10:12–16. It climaxes with the declaration in v 19a that ‘Israel is the tribe of YHWH’s inheritance’, the God who is in control of all armies (hosts). The power of YHWH is then celebrated in the poem on the war club in vv 21–23. Verses 24–26 form a coda to the preceding in summary form. The first-person statement by YHWH in v 24 resumes the one in vv 1–2 and through it vv 11–12, while the address in vv 25–26 resumes the address in vv 13–14. A notable difference between this passage and the preceding ones in chapter 50 is the identification for the first time of YHWH’s agent of destruction against Babylon—the kings of the Medes (51:11).42 This also links vv 11–19 with the initial declaration in vv 1–5 because, as already noted, both v 11 and v 1 have the same verb ‘to stir up’, and the same word that can be rendered ‘wind’ or ‘spirit’ (ruakh) to describe what YHWH is to unleash on Babylon. A further link between the two is the statement in v 11b that the destruction of Bab- ylon is YHWH’s vengeance for his temple. As v 10 indicates, this is the work of YHWH that will purge the land of Israel of its guilt (v 5). Despite what looks to be a clash with history in naming the kings of the Medes rather than Cyrus of Persia as YHWH’s agents of conquest, v 12b effectively makes the claim—for the benefit of readers and listeners—that all that will take place will be in accord with the words of YHWH that are in the book. As noted, vv 13–14 are an address to Babylon (second person feminine singular) that asserts YHWH’s complete sovereignty over Babylon’s place and time. Her privileged location by mighty waters rich in treasures will be completely taken over by a swarm of troops

42. Given that Cyrus of Persia is the king who conquered Babylon and that the Medes at the time were part of his empire, one might have expected the phrase ‘kings of the Persians’. For a discussion see Keown–Scalise–Smothers (Jeremiah 26–52, 363–64) who cites scholars that the Medes conquered the three nations listed in v 27 in the early sixth century BCE, and this is a pointer to the authenticity of both passages. Perhaps the best solution is the one proposed by Fretheim (Jeremiah, 637) who states that the empire was popularly known as ‘the Medes and the Persians’ (cf Esth 1:19; Dan 5:28; 8:20).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 282 13-May-20 5:26:11 PM Jeremiah 50:1–51:64 283

like locusts, and her time will end like a thread cut when the invaders raise their shout of victory. Verses 15–19 seem to be a quotation from 10:12–16 (or vice versa) and have some similar features to what are identified as idol satires in Isaiah 40:18–20, 41:5–7; 44:9–20; 46:1–2.43 In contrast to idols that are the work of delusion and are temporary, YHWH is an everlasting reality, as shown by what YHWH says and does. Those who do not see this are stupid and without knowledge. Jeremiah 51:15–19 concludes with the bold and challenging assertion that the key sign YHWH is the one God who formed all things is the choice of one particular tribe as YHWH’s special possession or inheritance. The particular confirms the universal or, as the following verses intimate, YHWH chooses what is weakest to manifest YHWH’s strength. Although the identity of the war club in vv 20–23 is not given and this apparent gap has generated considerable debate, I would argue that within the context the passage follows well after vv 15–19, in particular the last statement that ‘YHWH of armies is his name’. In my view, Israel is the ‘war club’ that in the hands of YHWH has the power to conquer any nation or kingdom against which YHWH wields it.44 A nation does not have to be a Babylon or an Assyria to be YHWH’s agent of punishment of the nations. As already noted v 24 parallels vv 1–2 with its first-person speech by YHWH; it reasserts YHWH’s resolve in vv 1–2 to punish Babylon and the reason for this in v 11b. It is to take vengeance for YHWH’s temple, which in the words of v 24 is ‘to repay Babylon’ for all ‘the wrong that they have done in Zion’. The ones who will be witnesses to this and are addressed in the second person masculine plural are, within the context, all those exiles in Babylon who are addressed in v 6. Verses 25–26 conclude the section with the final words in the collection that are spoken directly to Babylon, addressed here in the second person masculine singular,

43. An analysis of 10:1–16 is provided in Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 1–25 (MT), 71–72. 44. In agreement with Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 405–7. Lundbom earlier identified it as Jeremiah (cf Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric, SBLDS 18 [Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975] 91) but in his commentary, he opts for Babylon (Jeremiah 37–52, 451–52), as does Keown–Scalise–Smothers (Jeremiah 26–52, 370). Fischer identifies the club as Jeremiah (Jeremia 2, 607), while Fretheim opts for Persia (Jeremiah, 639). Perhaps a small indicator that Babylon is not the war club (mappets) is that in 50:23 another term ‘hammer’ (pattish) is used for Babylon.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 283 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM 284 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

presumably because of the masculine Hebrew noun har (mountain). Babylon is addressed as ‘O destroying mountain’.45 There is a play on the terms destroying/destroys here and in vv 1 and 11. The one who claimed it could destroy the whole earth will in turn be destroyed by the destroyer that YHWH is stirring. Verses 27–33 constitute the third sequence of commands from YHWH about the war against Babylon and the consequences.46 In line with the commencement of the second sequence in v 11, this one names three kingdoms that are presumably allies of the Medes (cf v 28). There are seven commands in vv 27 and 28; namely raise a war standard, blow the war trumpet, prepare the nations for the war, summon the three named kingdoms, appoint a marshal in charge, bring up the horses, and finally prepare the kings of the Medes and their officials for war. Granted that seven is a perfect number in the HB/OT, the preparations for this campaign are perfect. Also, the implication from the context is that all the preparations announced in preceding texts are brought together here. This is the final passage in chapters 50–51 that has commands for war against Babylon. Verses 29–30 describe the kind of impact that such a definitive campaign is bound to have. It identifies three areas of impact, presented as complete reversals. The once extensive and fruitful land trembles and writhes because its situation will be completely reversed; it will become uninhabitable. The once all conquering Babylonian army loses all strength to fight and cannot even move from their strongholds. Another complete reversal. What was once the base from which they launched attacks now becomes their prison. The third reversal is that her once grand buildings are set on fire and the bars on the gates of the city that were once operated in a way that controlled entry and exit are now broken. Another indication of Babylon’s defeat is the way vv 31–32 portray multiple frantic runners and messengers reporting to the king that

45. Because Babylon was built on the Euphrates plain some have found the title ‘destroying mountain’ somewhat anachronistic. However, it may be meant in a symbolic sense, like Babylon as a hammer (50:23), or it may refer to the famous ziggurat. 46. Even though I would not agree with all of Aitken’s analysis of 51:1–33, which he describes as a ‘movement’, the three sections commencing with commands (vv 1–3, 11–12, and 27–28) coincide to a certain extent with his identification of three ‘interventions’ (vv 1–2/3–5, 11–19, 27–33) (The Oracles Against Babylon, 46).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 284 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM Jeremiah 50:1–51:64 285

YHWH’s purposes against Babylon, as presented in vv 29–30, are indeed coming to pass. The city is taken ‘from end to end’, the fords are seized and the marshes on fire (the land has become uninhabitable), and the soldiers are in panic and unable to fight. The final verse of the section, v 33, has YHWH of armies (‘hosts’) declare that all that is described is akin to the treading process that separates grain from chaff. Babylon is the threshing floor. Once this has been completed—yet a little while—the time of the harvest will come, namely the gathering of the grain that has been trodden out.47 The next distinctive section I identify comprises vv 34–44 that, unlike the preceding ones in the chapter, commences not with commands or preparations for an attack against Babylon but with the testimony of a plaintiff speaking in the first person.48 A particular nation or individual now steps forward and provides testimony that confirms the charges laid against Babylon before all the nations (cf 50:2). The speaker would appear, from v 35, to be a personified Jerusalem who speaks on behalf of the ‘inhabitants of Zion’. What Jerusalem has suffered at the hands of Nebuchadrezzar is described in two groups of three parallelisms that, if there was only the first set of three parallelisms, would amount to the charge of cannabilism.49 However, the second set of parallelisms, which adds details to each of the preceding three, contains some similes and this indicates the verse is to be taken metaphorically overall. Thus the accusation of being swallowed ‘like a monster’ relates to being ‘devoured’, the accusation that Nebuchadrez- zar filled his belly with ‘my delicacies’ or ‘choice parts’ relates to being ‘crushed’ to pieces, and the accusation of being ‘spewed out’ or ejected ‘as vomit’ relates to being made an ‘empty vessel’50 The inhabitants of

47. The term ‘harvest’ is an image of judgement (so Fretheim,Jeremiah, 641; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 428). Lundbom thinks it refers to the final battle that is yet to happen (Jeremiah 37–52, 469). 48. Even though the MT (ketib) of v 34 has the first-person plural ‘us’ as the suffix except for ‘delicacies’, BHS and commentaries read the first-person singular ‘me’ in line with qere. This is supported by the first person singular suffixes in v 35. 49. The Babylonian king is not named Nebuchadrezzar in the LXX, Syriac or Vulgate. Despite this there does not seem to be any persuasive argument to delete it from the MT (cf Brueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 478; Carroll, Jeremiah, 845– 46; McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1323–34; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 351). For the relationship of this charge against Nebuchadrezzar to his portrayal in chapters 25:9 and 27:6 as YHWH’s ‘servant’ see my comment on 50:17 above. 50. These alternative renderings to the NRSV are from McKane,Jeremiah 2, 1322.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 285 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM 286 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Zion and Jerusalem are then urged or invited by an unnamed speaker or group in v 35 to plead for justice by invoking the respective curses, ‘May my torn flesh be avenged on Babylon’ and ‘May my blood be avenged on the inhabitants of Chaldea’.51 YHWH’s response to the curses comes in the following vv 36–44. Aitken proposes that the section is arranged as a concentric or chiastic pattern, with vv 34–35 and v 44 forming the outer frame (A, A’), vv 36–37 and 41–43 the inner frame (B, B’), and vv 38–40 the center (C). This initially looks attractive but a difficulty is that in v 34 the accused is Nebuchadrezzar whereas in Aitken’s proposed matching v 44 (A’) the one punished is not Nebuchadrezzar or a king of Babylon but the god Bel. His concentric structure also overlooks three things that YHWH resolves to do after declaring to the plaintiff that ‘I will defend your cause’. Each is formulated, like the initial declaration, in the first person, and taken together they assure Jerusalem and the inhabitants of Zion of Babylon’s complete destruction, in line with the preceding declarations. According to the first one in v 36b, ‘I’ will dry up Babylon’s sea (her waters) and reduce her to such a state of ruin that she will be uninhabitable (cf v 29).52 According to vv 38–39, ‘I’ will stir up her lions with such an illusion of impending victory that they will consume the drink YHWH provides.53 This will send them into a perpetual sleep, unable to offer any resistance (a reversal of v 7). According to v 39 the third and final thing that ‘I’ will do is consign these drunken soldiers to their doom, as one takes beasts to be slaughtered (cf 50:27; 51:7). Verses 41–43 can be read as another piece of testimony by a group of witnesses—perhaps the surrounding nations. But instead of the lament of plaintiff Jerusalem in v34, this group celebrates the realisation of what YHWH decrees in vv 35–37, shouting aloud ‘how’

51. So Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 473. One may note that the NRSV’s ‘the inhabitants of Zion shall say’ and ‘Jerusalem shall say’ in v 35 can also be read as commands/ exhortations; thus, ‘let the inhabitants of Zion say’ and ‘let Jerusalem say’, as in a number of translations and commentaries. 52. Holladay argues that in this context the sea does not refer to the rivers, canals and lakes of Babylon so much as the mythical waters of chaos. In Babylonian mythology, Bel is the conqueror of these chaotic waters but this verse claims YHWH is the one who exerts such power (Jeremiah 2, 429). 53. The lions are not identified here but, in light of v 57 where I would judge they are identified, the term refers to all those who regard themselves as part of the power structure of the empire.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 286 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM Jeremiah 50:1–51:64 287

Sheshach is taken and ‘how’ Babylon has become an object of horror among the nations.54 All that Babylon counted as evidence of power and prestige and which are outlined in the preceding passages of chapters 50–51 has been completely reversed. The section concludes with a further personal ‘I’ statement by YHWH that this reversal also involves the punishment of the god Bel of Babylon, which in turn involves the liberation of all those held captive under this religious banner (‘what he has swallowed’), and the end of the Bel cult among the nations. The definitive sign of this will be the leveling of the high walls around Babylon. Following this response to Jerusalem and her inhabitants’ lament or testimony, there are two calls or commands to the exiles to leave Babylon (vv 45–46, 50–51), each call being accompanied by an assurance that the ‘days/time is surely coming’ when YHWH will punish the images and idols of Babylon (vv 47–48, 52–53). The speaker in vv 45–46 is appropriately YHWH who also responds personally to the plaintiffs in v 36. The speaker in vv 50–51 may be YHWH or another voice (Jeremiah?) endorsing what YHWH says in vv 45–46. The clear implication in v 45 is that to disregard the call to leave would be tantamount to rejecting YHWH and render one subject to the same retribution announced to Judah and Jerusalem in the pre–exilic period, namely the ‘fierce anger of YHWH’. The awful consequences of disobeying the call to leave Babylon is the real thing they should therefore fear, not the rumors about ongoing internal power struggles in Baby- lon and what impact these might have on them.55 It is not the con- tenders for the throne of Babylon and their gods who will determine the future (time) but YHWH, as the following vv 47–48 declare. The days are surely coming when YHWH will punish not just Bel but all

54. Verses 41–43 can be read as a mocking lament (so Fretheim, Jeremiah, 642). The cryptogram Sheshach for Babylon occurs elsewhere in the book only in 25:26b, where Sheshach is to drink from the cup of the wine of YHWH’s wrath after the other nations have drunk. The same combination of word and symbolic action is applied to Babylon as to Judah and the other nations to underscore the book’s conviction that, like them, it will be called to account for the evil it does. 55. This reference to ‘ruler against ruler’ may refer to the instability that plagued the neo–Babylonian empire after the death of Nebuchadrezzar, thought to have taken place in 562 BCE (cf Carroll, Jeremiah, 851; Fretheim, Jeremiah, 643; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 430; McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1336–37). From a historical point of view, v 46 may reflect some conflict among the Babylonian exiles themselves about their future during this period. Verses 44b–49a are not in the LXX.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 287 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM 288 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

the images of Babylon. That is, their powerlessness will be exposed by what happens to the land and all its inhabitants. But the cosmic places of heaven and earth and all those in them will rejoice at the end of this particular place (land) of Babylon. The final v 49 evokes YHWH’s reply to plaintiff Jerusalem in v 36. Babylon’s end is vengeance for what it did not only to Israel (my people of v 45) but all the slain of the earth.56 The prophecy that destroyers will come out of the north recalls the similar text with which these oracles on Babylon commence (50:3). As noted, the second part of this section about the end of Baby- lon and its implications has the same two–part sequence. In v 50 the addressees are called ‘you survivors of the sword’ and it is somewhat uncertain whether this refers to their survival of the conquest of Jerusalem or their envisaged survival of the prophesied fall of Baby- lon. The latter seems the more likely given that the urge not to linger resonates with the one in v 46 not to be faint–hearted or fearful.57 Whereas vv 45–46 focus on the need to go from Babylon because of the impending doom of this ‘place’, vv 50–51 focus more on the ‘holy places’ towards which this journey from Babylon is headed— namely Jerusalem and YHWH’s ‘house’. The focus on place/land in vv 50–51 is nicely captured by the chiastic arrangement of vv 50b–51. The survivors are urged to remember YHWH in the distant land/ place of Babylon. The next line identifies that aspect of YHWH that they should remember, namely Jerusalem (A). But in doing this the text envisages that they will (‘we’) confess shame and dishonor (B). The reason for this is then given; namely that aliens have desecrated the ‘holy places’ within YHWH’ ‘house/place’ (A’). Another implied reason for their shame at the realisation of what has happened to Jerusalem is that they are themselves responsible for it because they disobeyed YHWH.58 The following vv 52–53 are similar to vv 47–48. They commence with much the same assurance of YHWH as Sover-

56. Verse 49 is somewhat obscure. For comments see Fischer, Jeremia 2, 621; McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1339–40. 57. Keown–Scalise–Smothers (Jeremiah 26–52, 372) reads it as referring to survivors of the looming onslaught against Babylon, while Lundbom (Jeremiah 37–52, 487) thinks it refers to survivors of the conquest of Jerusalem. 58. There may be an allusion here to Jeremiah’s sermon in the temple in 7:1–8:3. The Babylonian conquerors and their allies may well have been responsible for desecrating the city and temple by dragging corpses from their tombs and exposing them to the elements (cf 8:1–2).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 288 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM Jeremiah 50:1–51:64 289

eign over time/history. Furthermore, all Babylon’s attempts to thwart her doom by building her power as high as heaven (v 53a) cannot stop or reverse it. The destroyers that YHWH will personally unleash on her (v 53b) will ensure that the heavens and earth and all in them will see and rejoice over her doom (v 48). After the preceding declarations that the days and the time of Bab- ylon’s doom are ‘surely coming’, v 54 reports a cry and a great crashing sound coming from Babylon, with the speaker of the verse providing three reasons for it in the following vv 55–56. Each is introduced by the particle ki in Hebrew (NRSV ‘for’). The first reason is that the sound reverberating world–wide is because (for) YHWH is laying Babylon waste. In a touch of irony, the sound of Babylon’s doom completely ‘stills her loud clamor’. She is now—in the rhetoric of the text—reduced to silence and another sound replaces the one she used to make. The sound of Babylon’s doom evokes 50:46. The second reason for the sound is that a destroyer has come against her and completely conquered her. The attack of the destroyer recalls the opening verses of chapters 50–51, as well as 51:1 (the spirit of a destroyer) and 11. The third explanation or reason is that this destruction of Babylon is YHWH’s recompense or retribution for all that she has done.59 This recalls 51:6, 11, 24, 35–36, 49. As noted earlier, I would judge that the first-person YHWH speech in v 57 identifies the lions in vv 38–39. These are to be made so drunk they will collapse into a ‘perpetual sleep’ (cf v 39b). Thus, YHWH will personally see to the complete elimination of Babylon’s power, and as the one universal King and ‘Lord of hosts/armies’ can certainly do so. As the preceding texts that are recalled or alluded to indicate, vv 54–57 form an inclusio with 50:2–3 and so frame the oracles on Bab- ylon. Verse 58 forms part of this framework by providing a summary of the whole in three statements.60 The first and most important is the

59. The Hebrew word gamulah (‘recompense’, ‘retaliation’) in v 56b occurs elsewhere only in 2 Sam 19:36 and Isa 59:18. The latter carries the sense of repayment in kind; ‘According to their deeds (gemulot) so he will repay, wrath to his adversaries, requital to his enemies’. 60. On vv 54–58 as forming an inclusio with the opening verses, as well as a conclusion to the oracles on Babylon, see Boadt, Jeremiah 26–52, 147; Carroll, Jeremiah, 852; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 372; Brueggemann thinks v 58 may provide the conclusion to chapters 46–51 (Commentary on Jeremiah, 483).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 289 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM 290 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

emphasis on the word of YHWH. According to the theology of the book, the assertion that what is in the book is the word of YHWH forms the basis for all other assertions and arguments. The second follows from this; Babylon will certainly be destroyed in accord with what the preceding prophecies assert. The third relates to the first; what YHWH says is what matters and is what will happen. Whatever people try to do of their own accord, whether Israelites or foreigners, will fail. The final statement that ‘the nations weary themselves for fire’ is rather like the English adage ‘it all goes up in smoke’. It is similar to a statement in Habakkuk 2:13. 51:59–64a The oracles on Babylon in Jeremiah are followed by a passage that some commentators describe as a ‘colophon’ or a ‘colophon–oracle’.61 It is comprised of three parts; an introduction in v 59, a report of Jeremiah writing a scroll in v 60, and his subsequent instructions to a certain Seraiah as to what to do with the scroll in vv 61–64a. The introduction in v 59 describes what follows as thehadabar (NRSV ‘the word’) that Jeremiah commanded a certain Seraiah to carry out during a visit to Babylon with king Zedekiah.62 The initial Hebrew term normally means ‘word’ but, depending on context, can also mean ‘thing/matter/instruction’. Within the context I would judge ‘matter’ or perhaps even ‘task’ to be the more suitable rendering, because what Seraiah was commanded to do involved more than a word or words.63 Two pieces of information are provided about Seraiah; that he was Baruch’s brother (cf 32:12), and that he was a person of rank (NRSV: ‘quartermaster’).64 Jeremiah entrusted him with a task because he was accompanying king Zedekiah in the fourth year of his reign on a visit

61. Cf Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 501; Leuchter, ‘Sacred Space and Communal Legitimacy in Exile: The Contribution of Seraiah’s Colophon (Jer 51:59–64A)’, in The Prophets Speak on Forced Migration; edited Mark J Boda, Frank Ritchel Ames, John Ahn, and Mark Leuchter, Ancient Israel and its Literature, 21 (Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015), 77–99. The term ‘colophon’ refers to a scribal addition commonly found at the end of a work. 62. LXX inserts ‘Lord’ before ‘commanded’ to give the initiative to YHWH. 63. McKane translates it with the plural ‘Instructions’ (Jeremiah 2, 1350). The LXX has the verb ‘to say’ following it, and so takes hadabar to mean ‘word’. The MT is followed here, in keeping with the overall policy of this study. 64. Lundbom takes the phrase sar menukhah to mean ‘caravan prince’, whereas Keown–Scalise–Smothers vocalises menukhah as minkhah, following LXX, to give ‘in charge of the tribute’ (Jeremiah 26–52, 354, 357).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 290 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM Jeremiah 50:1–51:64 291

to Babylon.65 This piece of chronological information has the visit to Babylon taking place at or around the same time as the events portrayed in chapters 27–29. The chapters provide YHWH’s instructions via Jeremiah as to how Judeans and surrounding peoples can preserve their lives during the seventy years of decreed Babylonian hegemony. Two things are striking about the introduction. One is that, on the MT reading, Jeremiah is portrayed acting on his own authority and not in response to a command from YHWH. As noted, the LXX has a command from the ‘Lord’ and this avoids the impression that Jer- emiah acted without, or assumed godlike, authority.66 Nevertheless, one may retain the MT by noting another key passage where Jeremiah takes the initiative in giving commands, namely 36:5 and 8 in relation to the first scroll. These are of course given in light of YHWH’s initial command in 36:1. In the case of 51:59 the initial command from YHWH may be identified in 50:1. In writing the scroll and instructing Seraiah, Jeremiah is acting in the same way as he did in the case of the earlier scroll. The second striking feature is that 51:59–64 portrays the public proclamation of Babylon’s doom taking place at or around the same time as YHWH’s declarations in 27–29 that Babylon had been granted dominion by YHWH over the ANE for a decreed period. The implication is that Babylon’s ultimate demise is as integral a part of YHWH’s sovereign plan as its initial rise. Verse 60 reports that Jeremiah wrote on a scroll all the disaster (MT ‘evil’) that would come upon Babylon. As with the command in v 59, YHWH is not mentioned here but the clear presumption is that the ‘evil’ that is to come upon Babylon is expressed in the oracles of YHWH that Jeremiah delivered and are recorded in chapters 50–51.67 That this is so is made clear for the reader in the following phrase ‘all the words that are written concerning Babylon’.68 The instructions to

65. The MT has’et (‘with’) which indicates that Seraiah accompanied Zedekiah. However, LXX has ‘from’ (Hebrew me’et) which indicates he was sent as a delegate by Zedekiah. Lundbom favors the MT reading (Jeremiah 37–52, 507), as does McKane (Jeremiah 2, 1350), while Keown–Scalise–Smothers (Jeremiah 26–52, 372) follows the LXX. 66. Noted by Fischer, Jeremia 2, 626. 67. Cf Fischer, Jeremia 2, 628; Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 373. Boadt thinks the scroll was short and therefore contained only some of the oracles in 50–51 (Jeremiah 26–52, 149). 68. The phrase is regarded as a secondary addition by McKane Jeremiah( 2, 1353), who notes that its deletion has been recommended by a number of scholars. A similar though somewhat shorter phrase occurs in 25:24.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 291 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM 292 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Seraiah in vv 61–64a are in two parts, vv 61–62 and 63–64a. In the first Seraiah is instructed—like Baruch in chapter 36—that when he comes to Babylon the first thing he is to do is read the scroll (v 61). He is then to state publicly that the words written and read are the words of YHWH.69 As Judah and Babylon are judged and punished for their deceit and arrogance, so Seraiah is instructed to place himself under the same judgement if his declaration is false. What is also significant about his declaration is that it acknowledges what both Judah, Baby- lon, and the nations—as portrayed in the preceding chapters of the book—ignored or refused to acknowledge, namely that YHWH alone is Sovereign over place and time. YHWH’s universal sovereignty will, in this case, be manifest in the destruction of Babylon (‘this place’) so that it shall become uninhabitable ‘forever’. According to the second part of Jeremiah’s instructions, when Seraiah finishes reading the scroll he is to tie a stone to it and throw it into the Euphrates river and pronounce a second word in relation to this. This second word desig- nates this as a symbolic action. In accord with the words written and read aloud, Babylon will sink to rise no more, just as the scroll will sink in the river.70 And all the disaster/evil that is to strike Babylon and cause her to sink forever will be, as Seraiah’s final words claim, YHWH’s doing, the one universal Sovereign of place and time. Mark Leuchter sees a connection between Seraiah’s action of sinking the scroll in the Euphrates and an ANE ritual whereby a deity’s sovereignty over a temple or other location was marked by embed- ding an inscription there. In his view ‘the public reading of the scroll and its deposition in the Euphrates marks that river and Mesopota- mia as YHWH’s territory’.71 Via this ritual, Mesopotamia serves as

69. Fretheim (Jeremiah, 645–46) reads it as a prayer to YHWH to fulfill what has been proclaimed in the scroll. However, this would not seem to be the appropriate faith response to a divine decree. The Hebrew of v 62 is somewhat complex and a literal translation reads: ‘and you shall say, “YHWH you spoke/ decreed concerning this place to cut it off, so as not to be anyone dwelling in it from human to animal, for it shall be (become) a desolation forever’”. 70. MT has the third-person plural vav–consecutive form of the verb ya‘aph (‘to be weary, exhausted’) which is deleted in the NRSV, following the LXX. The same verb occurs at the end of v 58 and this, plus its awkward location at the end of v 64a, suggests vv 59–64a were a later addition or insertion, and this caused the duplication (cf Keown–Scalise–Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 373; McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1357). 71. Leuchter, ‘Sacred Space and Communal Legitimacy in Exile’, 91.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 292 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM Jeremiah 50:1–51:64 293

a temporary ‘place’ wherein the people can have communion with YHWH. Such a view could well lie behind the authoritative claims of Ezekiel’s oracles delivered from within Babylonian land. Leuchter further argues that by being incorporated into the book of Jeremiah, which tells of the work of other scribal disciples of the prophet, the notion of sacred space was expanded beyond the geospecific to cover all communities of Israelites and Judeans, in whatever locations. He concludes that, ironically ‘it was the destruction of Jerusalem as a sacred space that finally brought to fruition YHWH’s ancient promise to Jacob that his progeny would spread far and wide and be blessed wherever they settled’ via the texts transmitted and taught by scribes.72 The notion of the book of Jeremiah as a kind of sacred ‘space’ or sanctuary within which one has access and communion with YHWH is signaled by the final statement in 51:64b, ‘Thus far the words of Jeremiah’. This statement forms an inclusio with 1:1, which is followed by the assertion that Jeremiah was the one ‘to whom the word of YHWH came’. In reading and listening to the words of Jer- emiah, one hears the word of YHWH. Another feature of 51:59–64a is, as I pointed out in the initial Out- line, the way it parallels the account of the scroll in chapter 36. Both scrolls contain the words of Jeremiah that are read aloud by a disciple, after which both serve as an enduring sign that their words will be realised. The scroll in chapter 36 becomes an enduring sign in that another copy is produced after the first is burnt by king Jehoiakim. The scroll in 51:59–64a becomes an enduring sign by having a stone tied to it and being sunk in the Euphrates river. Like the scroll, the superpower Babylon will ‘sink’, never to rise again. Even though there is no record of the rewriting of the scroll that Seraiah casts into the Euphra- tes, the reader is meant to presume it took place because he/she reads its contents in chapters 50–51. As also noted in the initial Outline, there is a third important scroll and it is the one Jeremiah is instructed to write in 30:2 and which contains the prophecies of return and restoration in chapters 30–31 (the oft–termed ‘book of consolation’). Each of these scrolls is identified with a key component of the book, and their relationship may be summarised as follows. What I have called the ‘earliest’ or ‘first scroll’ in chapter 36 contains the prophecies of Jeremiah that condemn the Judeans for disobedience and decree

72. Leuchter, ‘Sacred Space and Communal Legitimacy in Exile’, 98–99.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 293 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM 294 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

that Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon has been summoned to bring to an end their time in the land and city (place). The nations surrounding Judah and Israel will suffer the same fate. According to 36:32b ‘many similar words’ were added to this scroll when it was rewritten after its burning by king Jehoiakim. Neither the content of these ‘similar words’ nor the amount of time spent making such additions is spelt out. This may have been a deliberate ploy by those who put the book together to allow for flexibility, given that Jeremiah’s prophecies of judgement cover both the conquest by Babylon as well as the seventy– year period of servitude to Babylon. Within the context of the book, these prophecies are presented as realised and therefore validated in the account of the siege and conquest of Judah and Jerusalem in chapters 37–39, in the account of death and disorder in the aftermath of this conquest in chapters 40–44, as well as in the oracles on the nations in chapters 46–49. These texts verify the prophecies in chapters 27–29 that survivors of the conquest—whether from Judah or the surrounding nations—can only live by obeying YHWH’s decree and submitting to Babylonian hegemony for the designated period. What I have called the ‘second scroll’ contains the oracles on Bab- ylon in 50–51. Like the first, this scroll also serves as a sign that the words of Jeremiah will be realised. There is no matching account in the book that records this and, given that the book was most likely finalised in the post–exilic period, there was of course no need to do so. The very context—the Persian empire—in which one read the book would confirm the truth of the oracles on Babylon.73 The con-

73. Some commentators see a contradiction between Jeremiah’s instructions to Seraiah and the content of the oracles on Babylon, and his positive view of Babylon in texts such as the letter of chapter 29. One or the other must therefore be a later addition (cf for example McKane, ᾽Jeremiah’s Instructions to Seraiah [Jeremiah 51:59–64]’, in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, edited by David P Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995], 697–706. Christensen rejects this, stating that ᾽The assurance that the Divine Warrior would one day humble even mighty Babylon is a theme that is altogether consonant with what we know of the prophet to the nations’ (Prophecy and War in Ancient Israel, 263). Moreover. the Bible contains portrayals of other individuals and groups who are called and commissioned by YHWH, but are subsequently exposed as disobedient and deserving of punishment. A parallel to Babylon occurs in the book of Isaiah where YHWH summons Assyria in 5:26–30 to punish wayward Judah, but then condemns Assyria and its king in 10:5–19 for arrogance and boasting.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 294 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM Jeremiah 50:1–51:64 295

tent of the third scroll, chapters 30–31, also does not have an account that confirms its contents, although there is the enduring sign of the deed of the land that Jeremiah is instructed to purchase in 32:6–15. There is also YHWH’s response in 32:26–33:26 to Jeremiah’s prayer in 32:16–25, a response that reaffirms the thrust of chapters 30–31 and thereby enhances their authority. A reader in the post–exilic period and beyond is challenged to believe that what the so–called ‘book of consolation’ proclaims will also come true. A new order will be built and planted but only after the existing disorder has been plucked up and pulled down, destroyed and overthrown. He/she is encouraged to believe this will be the case by the way the accounts in chapters 37–49 verify the contents of the first scroll, and by the Persian conquest of Babylon that verifies the contents of the second scroll. An added inducement was also no doubt the return of exiles from Baby- lon and elsewhere during the Persian period.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 295 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 296 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM Chapter Ten Jeremiah 52:1-34 (Postscript)

This chapter is generally regarded as derived from 2 Kings 24:18– 25:30, and therefore a further indication that the book of Jeremiah was compiled by the same circle of redactors responsible for compil- ing the Deuteronomistic History (DH). The DH hypothesis is either identified with the present text of Deuteronomy–Joshua–Judges–1 & 2 Samuel—1 & 2 Kings or an earlier version of it. However, because it is placed after 51:64b, which states ‘Thus far are the words of Jeremiah’, a key issue in analysing the chapter has been its relationship with the preceding ones. Does it relate to or add to the theological thrust of the preceding chapters of the book, or is it simply an independent postscript that provides the reader with some useful information about the conquest and exile of Judah.1 In my judgement the text does have a relationship with the preceding material and a key aspect of it is to reinforce the validity of the prophet’s word by showing how it aligns with or is confirmed by what is presented as an independent source.2 In light of 51:64b the reader is meant to understand that what follows in chapter 52 is not from Jeremiah who is not mentioned. There are a number of differences between the chapter and the parallel version

1. In the LXX it is located after the promise to Jeremiah’s loyal scribe Baruch (45 in the MT, 51:31-35 in LXX). 2. Carroll observes that the appending of ‘this epilogue’ to the book of Jeremiah ‘may reflect the wish to underline the fate of king, people and city which did not listen to those words’ (Jeremiah, 861). Lundbom describes it as a ‘colophon’, which is a scribal addition commonly found at the end of a work (cf. ‘Baruch, Seraiah, and Expanded Colophons in the Book of Jeremiah’, JSOT 36 [1986]: 89-114. See also Keown-Scalise-Smothers, Jeremiah 26–52, 378; Fischer, Jeremia 2, 638, and ‘Jeremia 52—ein Schlüssel zum Jeremiabuch’, in Biblica 79 (1998): 333-359; also pages 42-63 of Der Prophet wie Mose: Studien zum Jeremiabuch.

297

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 297 13-May-20 5:26:12 PM 298 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

in Kings that I will argue are designed to enhance the chapter’s claim that it provides independent validation of the prophecies of Jeremiah. The chapter can be divided into seven distinct sections. The first is vv 1-11 that focuses on the fate of Zedekiah who ‘did what was evil in the sight of the Lord’. The second is vv 12-13 that tells of the destruction of Jerusalem, the temple, the king’s palace and all the houses of the city, as well as its walls. The third in vv 14-16 reports the exile by Nebuzaradan (the captain of the guard) of a number of the people. The fourth is vv 17-23 that describes the dismantling and removal to Babylon of the temple fittings and treasures. The fifth in vv 24-27 tells of the selection and execution of a number of the people by Nebu- chadrezzar. The sixth in vv 28-30 reports three exiles of Judeans to Babylon and within the context these presumably took place after the one reported in vv 1-16. The seventh and final part of the chapter in vv 31-34 is about the favour that a new Babylonian king, Evil- Merodach (Amel-Marduk) bestowed on the exiled king Jehoiachin of Judah. There is no parallel in Jeremiah 52 to the account of the assassination of Gedaliah in 2 Kings 25:22-26 and this may be due to the fuller account of this episode in Jeremiah 40:7–41:18. Nor is there any parallel in the Kings’ account to the report of the three groups of exiles in 52:28-30. The proposed reason for this and other smaller variations will be pointed on in the comment on each section. Verses 1-3a provide an introduction and historical setting for the account of the conquest and exile that follows, as well as the key reason for it; namely that because of the evil of Judah and its kings, YHWH expelled them from the divine presence. The two kings who feature prominently in the book in relation to the conquest and exile are named—Jehoiakim and Zedekiah. The dtr judgement that Zedekiah did evil and that Judah angered YHWH aligns neatly with the verdict on them in 37:1-2. Although Jeremiah is not mentioned in the chapter the judgements on Zedekiah and the people in 52:2-3a that lead an angry YHWH to expel them from the divine presence catch the core thrust of Jeremiah’s preaching. On reflection, the absence of any mention of the prophet is probably designed to prompt readers and listeners to correlate the distinct sections of chapter 52 with his preaching. The fact that the chapter commences with reference to Jehoiakim and Zedekiah also links it to the opening verses of the book which state that the word of YHWH came to Jeremiah not just in the days of Josiah but also in the days of these two subsequent

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 298 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM Jeremiah 52:1-34 (Postscript) 299

kings until the eleventh year of Zedekiah, the year of Judah’s demise (52:5). The statement in v 3a that YHWH expelled Judah ‘from his presence’ reflects the assertion in the book that YHWH is Sovereign over the sacred place of Jerusalem and the land of Judah, and is the one who initiated the expulsion. There are three small additions in the following vv 3b-11 about the fate of Zedekiah during the siege and conquest that are not in the Kings account. The first is the statement in 52:7a ‘though the Chal- deans were all around the city’. The Hebrew word for ‘around/surrounded’ (sabib) occurs in a number of prophecies in the book and 52:7a serves to confirm them. The first is in 1:15, with subsequent references to being surrounded by the enemy in 4:17; 6:3, 25; 12:9; 21:14. The second is that v 10b claims that not only were Zedekiah’s sons killed by the king of Babylon at Riblah but also ‘all the officers of Judah’. This is not in the Kings’ version and may have been added to the Jeremiah text to bring it into line with 39:6.3 The third is the statement in v 11b that the captured and blinded Zedekiah was taken to Babylon and put in prison ‘until the day of his death’. This can be read as an addition to the Kings’ text that takes up the two prophecies about the fate of Zedekiah in 32:5 and 34:5 in a way that validates them both. According to 34:5 Jeremiah informs Zedekiah that though he will be taken prisoner by the Babylonians he will not die violently—by the sword—but in peace. This however does not neces- sarily mean he will be freed from prison beforehand. According to 32:5, Zedekiah is told that he will remain in Babylon, presumably as a prisoner, ‘until I attend to him’. The verb translated in the NRSV as ‘attend’ is paqad which, depending on context, can carry the sense of ‘punish’. One may read 32:5 therefore as YHWH enacting the final stage of prisoner Zedekiah’s punishment by bringing his life to an end, just as YHWH brings about the end of Judah and Jerusalem’s time in accord with the prophecies of punishment for evils committed. The same phrase ‘until the day of his death’ occurs also in 52:34 in relation to Jehoiachin but there is has a positive sense. As well as these additions it should be noted that 52:9a states that Nebuchadrezzar ‘spoke judgements against him (Zedekiah)’ (NRSV has ‘sentence’’),

3. The MT of 39:6 has the termkhar (‘noble’) whereas 52:10b has sar which generally refers to a broader range of leadership, such as ‘commander’, ‘leader’, ‘noble’, ‘prince’.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 299 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM 300 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

whereas the parallel in 2 Kings 25:6b has the singular. As Fischer notes, the plural use of the term is exclusive to Jeremiah and occurs in the parallel text in 39:5, as well as in 1:16 (with first person singular suffix in reference to YHWH); 4:12 and 12:1.4 There are no additions or other variations from the Kings text in the next section, 52:12-16, but two features of it are significant in relation to the preceding chapters of Jeremiah. The first is the statement in v 13 that Nebuzaradan, the captain of the guard, burnt down the temple as well as the king’s palace and other buildings. This follows 2 Kings 25:9 but the destruction of the temple is not reported in Jer- emiah 39:8. A plausible reason for its inclusion in ch. 52 is that it provides confirmation of YHWH’s prophecy in 7:14 and 26:6 that the temple would suffer the same fate as Shiloh.5 The second is that 52:15 adds a group ‘from among the poorest of the people’ to those listed as exiled in 2 Kings 25:11 and Jeremiah 39:9.6 It is difficult to discern why this group is listed but one reason may be that 52:16 states Nebu- zaradan left ‘some of the poorest people of the land’ to work the land. This can raise a question about the fate of the rest of the poorest of the people, granted that only ‘some’ were left to care for the land. Verse 15 answers by asserting that they were taken as exiles to Babylon along with other groups. Thus, every group in the land, from the wealthiest and most powerful to the poorest, was included in YHWH’s plans. Another important feature of vv 12-16 is the switch from the chronology of the Judean king Zedekiah in v 1 to that of Nebuchadrezzar in v 12.7 In line with a key theme in the book of Jeremiah, this marks the end of Judah’s time in the designated places of Judah and Jerusa- lem. These are now occupied and ruled by the Babylonians and the first act of the representative of king Nebuchadrezzar, Nebuzaradan, is to burn the temple, palace and houses of Jerusalem—a clear sign of the end of Judah’s time in this place. The fourth section in vv 17-23 is essentially the same as the parallel passage in 2 Kings 25:13-17, except for a more detailed description of the two pillars of the temple in vv 21-23. It describes the fate of the

4. Fischer, ‘Jeremiah 52—ein Schüssel zum Jeremiabuch’, 356. 5. In agreement with Fischer, ‘Jeremiah 52—ein Schüssel zum Jeremiabuch’, 354-56. 6. 52:15 also has ‘the rest of the artisans’ but the Hebrew word translated as ‘the artisans’ (ha’amon) may be a corruption or variation of hahamon (‘the population’) in 2 Kings 25:11. 7. As noted by Brueggemann, Commentary on Jeremiah, 490.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 300 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM Jeremiah 52:1-34 (Postscript) 301

pillars of bronze in the temple, along with other liturgical furnishings and treasures, and concludes with the description of the two pillars. This ransacking of the interior of the temple presumably took place before it was burned, as reported in v 13. The passage can be linked to a number of preceding texts. An initial one is that the complete break up of the pillars of bronze that is described in such detail in vv 20-23 provides a powerful and even painful sign of the validation of 1:10, that Jeremiah was commissioned to ‘pluck up and pull down, to destroy and to overthrow’. A second link is that the report of Babylonians taking the furnishings and other treasures of the temple to Babylon validates Jere- miah’s prophecy in 27:16-22.8 The false prophets declared that the temple treasures looted at the time of the first exile would soon be returned, whereas Jeremiah countered this by prophesying that the pillars and the vessels left at the time of the first exile would all, in due course, be taken to Babylon and remain there until YHWH decrees the time has come ‘to bring them up and restore them to this place’ (27:22b).9 There is only a small variation between the sixth section in 52:24- 26 and the parallel in 2 Kings 25:18-21, with the former listing ‘seven men of the king’s council’ against ‘five’ in the Kings’ version. The inclusion of this section of the Kings’ text may be related to the addition in 52:10b commented on above, namely that not only were Zedekiah’s sons executed at Riblah, but also ‘all the officers of Judah’. The list provided in vv 24-26 testifies, in accord with Jeremiah’s prophecies, that the wrath of YHWH fell not just on the royal family of Zedekiah but on all those who were part of the power structure of Judah and Jeru- salem, and who sought to maintain it at all costs.10 As noted, chapter 52 does not have any text corresponding to the passage on the assassination of Gedaliah in 2 Kings 25:22-26, and this is presumably because of the more extensive account in Jeremiah 40:7–41:18. The passage in 2 Kings would add nothing to it.

8. Cf Fischer, ‘Jeremiah 52—ein Schüssel zum Jeremiabuch,’ 356. McKane states that the function of 52:17-23 is ‘to emphasise with factual detail the fulfillment of the prediction in 27.18-22’, (Jeremiah 2, 371); cf also Carroll’s comment on the theological significance of the section Jeremiah( , 866). 9. Fischer makes the interesting point that the report in chapter 52 of the complete ransacking and burning of the temple may indicate a post-exilic view that the temple cult does not provide the only path to holiness. This would form a contrast with Ezekiel and Haggai (Jeremia 2, 638). 10. The reader is reminded of Jeremiah’s decrees in texts such as 24:8–10; 34:21-22; 36:30–31, and the hostile reaction to him, particularly in chapter 38.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 301 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM 302 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Instead Jeremiah 52 contains a piece that is not in either the MT or LXX versions of the Kings account, and this is the sixth section of the chapter in vv 28-30. It reports three deportations of Judeans to Bab- ylon by king Nebuchadrezzar in his seventh year, in his eighteenth year, and finally in his twenty-third year. The numbers of deportees are given in each case. Because these numbers are not given in any other text of the HB/OT, scholars have sought their source in ANE texts. There is also debate over the dates of these deportations. Much of it revolves around the perennial question of whether we are dealing with a historical report in such texts or something constructed to promote an agenda.11 Given my preceding observations and comments, I would judge that a likely aim of this section is to claim validation of the prophecy of a long exile in 25:11b and chapters 27–29. The three deportations over an extended period and the matter-of-fact information about dates and the number of those taken into exile validate the prophecies that YHWH had granted Babylon full hegemony over Judah and its fortunes for the decreed period following the conquest. Chapter 52 ends, as does 2 Kings, with a final (seventh) section on the favour shown the exiled Judean king Jehoiachin by the new Babylonian king Evil-merodach (Awel-marduk or ‘son of Marduk’). When read within the context of chapter 52, two features of vv 31-34 stand out. One is the sharp contrast between the favour shown Jehoi- achin and the harsh judgement meted out to Zedekiah in vv 9-11.12 The second is that both accounts conclude with the same phrase ‘until the day of his death’.13 Neither of these phrases occurs in the parallel versions in 2 Kings 25. This suggests that Jeremiah 52:31-34 is meant to be read in conjunction with, or in relation to, 52:9-11. When one then looks for a connection with the preceding chapters of Jeremiah, the most likely one is the passage on the baskets of figs in ch. 24. In this chapter, Zedekiah is identified as one of the bad figs who will become a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth (24:8-10). Neither Jehoiachin nor anyone else is named in 24:4-7 among the good figs but the preceding verses name him among those taken to Babylon by Nebuchadrezzar in the first exile. This raises the question whether

11. For a discussion of the historical questions arising from this text, see Fischer, Jeremia 2, 652-54; Holladay, Jeremiah 2, 443; Keown-Scalise-Smother, Jeremiah 26–52, 382-82; Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, 532-33; McKane, Jeremiah 2, 1381-85. 12. For comments on this contrast see Carroll, Jeremiah, 861, 871. 13. The phase in v 34 is followed by ‘all the days of his life’, which is not in the LXX.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 302 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM Jeremiah 52:1-34 (Postscript) 303

he, along with all the others listed in v 1, are among the good figs that YHWH is sending into exile via the hand of Nebuchadrezzar. In my first volume, I argued that the reader should not presume Jehoiachin was among the good figs because, according to v 5, YHWH alone knows who are the good figs.14 Moreover, there is the prophecy in 22:24-30 that Jehoiachin and his mother would be hurled into another country, that he would die there and that none of his offspring would succeed him on the throne of David. There is also the judgement in 2 Kings 24:9 that he did evil, as his father Jehoiakim had done. However, when one reads Jeremiah 24:1-7 in the context of 52:9-11 and 31-34 it would seem the latter is implicitly including Jehoiachin among the good figs. In support of this is the report in 2 Kings 24:12 that Jehoiachin surrendered to the king of Babylon, an action that is in accord with Jeremiah’s instructions in 21:9 about how king and people should respond to the Babylonian invasion. Granted the common view that chapter 52 is a version of the Kings text, then whoever added it to the book of Jeremiah would have known the account of Jehoiachin’s reign in 2 Kings 24:8-17. The report in the Kings text that he did the right thing in surrendering to Babylon allows Jeremiah 52:31-34 to indirectly claim validation of the prophecy on the good figs. It also allows it to claim validation of Jeremiah’s promise in his letter to the exiles in Babylon in chapter 29. He assures them that in seeking the welfare of Babylon they will find their own welfare (29:7). Jehoiachin can be held up as a sign of what is in store for the Babylonian exiles if they follow suit. Furthermore, granted the passage also expresses hope in the future of the Davidic Dynasty, it is appropriate that the model exile is one who is described in 52:31 as ‘king Jehoiachin’, a title that is not used in the account of Zedekiah in vv 9-11.15

14. Cf. Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 1–25, 212-12, 232-33. 15. The view that the favour shown king Jehoiachin expresses hope in the future of the Davidic Dynasty is on firmer ground in the book of Jeremiah than in the DH. In Jer 23:5 YHWH promises to raise up a ‘righteous branch’ for David, a promise that is reaffirmed in 33:14-17, 22b (cf. also 30:9). There are no such corresponding promises in the books of Kings. One may also note that, granted that the hypothesis of a pro-Babylonian redaction or ‘voice’ in the book of Jeremiah has traction, it is reasonable to see vv 31-34 as part of it. For a discussion see Barstad ‘Empire! “. . . and gave him a Seat above the Seats of the other Kings Who with him in Babylon”. Jeremiah 52:31-34: Fact or Fiction?’, in Open-mindedness in the Bible and Beyond. A Volume of Studies in Honour of Bob Becking, ed. Marjo C. A. Korpel and Lester L. Grabbe (London/New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 11-23.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 303 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 304 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM Concluding Remarks

There is no need to summarise the Dynamics of the book of Jere- miah here since this has already been made available in the Outline at the beginning of this volume. My concluding remarks will therefore focus on a number of features that were adumbrated in the Outline but merit further comment in light of my analysis in the preceding chapters. An initial one is about the three scrolls that the book/ scroll (sepher) of Jeremiah contains. In the order in which the reader encounters them, the first is the scroll Jeremiah is instructed to write in 30:2 and which contains the prophecies of restoration in chapters 30–31, a section often referred to as the ‘little book/scroll of consolation’. The second is the one that Jeremiah is instructed to write in chapter 36 and for which the text states he engaged the scribal services of a certain Baruch, son of Neriah. According to 36:2, this scroll initially contained all the words that YHWH had spoken to Jeremiah about Judah and all the nations, from the days of Josiah to the day in the fourth year of king Jehoiakim when Jeremiah was instructed to write the scroll. According to v. 9 Baruch initially read the scroll in the fifth year of Jehoiakim. When the king himself heard it he burnt the scroll, whereupon YHWH instructed Jeremiah to produce another. According to v 32, ‘many similar words’ were added to this second scroll. The text does not specify just what these additions were nor when they were made, and this may well have been a deliberate ploy by those who assembled the book. It allows or invites the reader to include Jeremiah’s preaching after the time of Jehoiakim, as well as the account of the fall of Jerusalem in chapters 37–39. One may add to this ‘second edition’ the account of strife in the Babylo- nian province of Judah in chapters 40–44 caused by the people and their leaders rejecting YHWH’s assurance that if they accepted the

305

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 305 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM 306 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

decreed period of Babylonian rule things would go well for them. Another section that may be included is the oracles on the nations around Judah in 46:3–49:33. As I have argued in this study, the superscriptions in 46:2 and 49:28a that effectively form a frame around the oracles in between, inform the reader that they were realised in the reign of Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon. Hence 46:3–49:33 performs the same function within the book as 37–39 and 40–44. They reveal how the prophecies on Judah and the surrounding nations of conquest by Babylon and a decreed period of servitude were realised.1 The third scroll is the one that Jeremiah is reported writing and giving to another son of Neraiah, Seraiah, to take to Babylon, read it aloud and then throw it in the Euphrates as a sign of the fate of the city (cf 51:59-64a). The content of this scroll is the oracles on Babylon in 50:1–51:58. While the superscription to these oracles on Babylon in 50:1 does not present them as fulfilled, as is case with the ones in 46:3–49:33, nevertheless a reader in the post-exilic period could confirm they were indeed fulfilled in the Persian conquest of Babylon. In my view, these three scrolls deal with three key components of YHWH’s plan for Judah and the nations, as conveyed by the words and actions of Jeremiah. The first is the conquest by, and decreed period of subjugation to, Babylon as punishment for the refusal to heed the preaching of Jeremiah and all the prophets. This is the content of the scroll of chapter 36. The second is the punishment of Babylon itself that will bring the decreed period of subjugation to an end (cf 25:12-14; 27:7, 22; 29:10). This is the content of the scroll in 51:59-64a. The third is the promised restoration of Judah and Israel that will presumably follow the demise of Babylon in YHWH’s good time. This is the content of the scroll of 30:2 and its significance is underscored by two other shorter written pieces/scrolls that relate to it. The first precedes it and is the letter/scroll that Jeremiah is reported in chapter 29 to have sent to the exiles in Babylon, assuring them that YHWH will ‘restore your fortunes’ after the decreed period of exile. The second follows the ‘little book of consolation’ and is the account in 32:6-15 of Jeremiah purchasing a field on YHWH’s instructions and the careful preservation of the deed of purchase. The Hebrew word translated as ‘deed’ in the NRSV is sepher, the same word used

1. The oracle on Elam in 49:34-39 lies outside the superscription frame and I offered some reasons for this in my analysis of chapters 46–49.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 306 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM Concluding Remarks 307

for the other scrolls/books. This deed or scroll serves as a sure sign that the people’s ownership and occupation of the land/place will be restored after the end of the exile. Each of these three scrolls functions within the larger scroll or book of Jeremiah to challenge and hopefully deepen the faith of readers/listeners. Thus, whereas the contents of the scroll of chapter 36 condemn those addressed in it for refusing to heed the word of YHWH, the aim of the scroll within the book is to challenge the reader to acknowledge the truth of what it contains and to accept the punishment it decrees.2 The fact that the text contains what a reader could hardly deny happened (conquest and period of exile) and is what Jeremiah proclaimed as the word of YHWH, lends weight to this challenge. The second scroll that contains the oracles on Babylon in 50–51 invites the reader not just to accept the book’s claim that the prophecies of conquest and exile have been verified by events, but to become an advocate of the book by declaring that the oracles on Babylon had also been realised in the Persian conquest. By doing so a reader would not only acknowledge the prophetic authority or veracity of the book but participate in the prophetic ministry of Jeremiah by proclaiming the truth of its message. The demise of Babylon would also have bolstered this scroll and the larger book’s claim that YHWH is Sovereign of all nations, not just Judah. This leads in turn to the contents of the third scroll, the so-called ‘little book of consolation’ in chapters 30–31. Given that the content of the preceding two scrolls had been verified by events, and that the reader accepted this, the one authentic response he or she should make to the prophecies in the ‘little book of consolation’ would be to wait patiently in faith and hope for their realisation. How is one meant to live in this period of waiting and expectation? Is there a word of YHWH for such readers? Surely it is what the book reports Jeremiah urging the people to do and warning them not to do. Proph- ecy functions as torah or instruction, and torah or instruction in turn functions as prophecy. The blessing or curse that YHWH bestows or unleashes on subsequent readers will depend on their response to the written word as it also did for the preceding generations, but it

2. As noted in the analysis a key accusation in Jeremiah’s preaching is the refusal of the people to ‘heed’ or ‘obey’ the word of YHWH. The Hebrew verb isshama’ and it has nuances of meaning depending on the context.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 307 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM 308 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

will be in accord with what Jeremiah is recorded proclaiming to his addressees.3 Prophecy and torah in the book are thus closely related or interrelated, with the written form of Jeremiah’s prophecies in the scrolls having the same status and authority as their oral form—what Jeremiah is reported proclaiming. On the basis of these remarks I would propose that the three scrolls spell out the meaning of the three components or stages of Jeremiah’s prophetic commission in 1:10; namely ‘to pluck up and to pull down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant’. As was argued in this study, Jeremiah’s commission to pluck up and pull down refers to the conquest of Judah and the surrounding nations, and their period of subjugation to Babylon, and is the principal focus of the scroll of chapter 36. How his commission ‘to destroy and to overthrow’ is to unfold is indicated in the scroll of the oracles on Babylon, because the verbs ‘overthrow’ and ‘destroy’ occur towards the beginning and end of these oracles (cf 50:15; 51:55). The only other occurrence of these verbs in the OAN is in the oracle on Elam (49:38), which declares YHWH’s resolve to ‘destroy their king and officials’. This specific- tar get is quite different to the almost universal sweep of the verbs in the oracles on Babylon. How the third stage of Jeremiah’s commission, ‘to build and to plant’, is to come about is revealed in the scroll of 30:2, which contains the prophecies about the restoration of Judah and Israel, the contents of the ‘little book of consolation’. A key faith claim behind the prophecies in the book is that YHWH is the one universal Sovereign over all nations, the one who has the knowledge, authority and power to judge them and determine their fate. The book advances this claim within the two arenas in which human beings live their lives—place and time. Israel believed that YHWH had brought them out of an oppressive place, the ‘prison’ of Egypt, where their time was determined by the Egyptian overlords, and established them in the promised land as their designated ‘place’. As a mark of their liberation from slave time in which there was no rest, YHWH established the Sabbath day rest. Two particular places were established within the land/place to celebrate their liberation and to assure them that their Liberator was always with them. One

3. The interrelationship of torah and prophecy is also evident in the portrait of Moses in the Torah; the one who is Israel’s primary lawgiver or teacher is also its greatest prophet, as Deut 34:10 asserts.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 308 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM Concluding Remarks 309

was the city of Jerusalem, the place from which the Davidic king ruled the land and its people, the other was the holy place of the temple, the earthly dwelling of the divine Sovereign. As long as the people followed (obeyed) the words (instructions) that YHWH persistently sent them via the prophets (cf 25:4-6), their time in this place was assured. Jeremiah and the prophets who preceded him warned them that failure to do so would result in their Sovereign summoning an agent to terminate their time in the land and city, and expel them from both. An integral component of Israel’s faith was the claim that YHWH was not only Sovereign over them and their destiny but all the nations as well. As is well recognised, this claim was not unique to Israel; a common feature of ANE religions was the conviction that their god or gods had power over other national gods. A clear sign of this was victory in war over a neighbouring nation or nations; and if the nation in question was defeated in war this was interpreted as retribution by their god or gods for disobedience, or for failure to give them due honour. Thus, as was pointed out in the preceding analysis, the book of Jeremiah declares that YHWH summoned Babylon to punish wayward Judah and the surrounding nations, but then summoned the Medes/Persians to punish Babylon for its arrogance. One should add that, for the book of Jeremiah, YHWH’s expulsion of Judah from its designated places into the hands of the Babylonians did not mean that YHWH had abandoned the people. YHWH remains completely in charge of the ‘prisons’ to which the people have been sentenced in the wake of the conquest—namely the Babylonian province of Judah and the cities of exile—and their time there. This claim is made clear by the way Jeremiah provides YHWH’s instructions about how those in occupied Judah and in the city of Babylon (cf chapters 27 and 29) are to live, and the decreed time they are to be in ‘prison’ in these locations (the seventy-year or three generations period of exile in 25:11; 27:7; 29:10). Their universal Sover- eign is as much present to them and ruling them in these places for the designated period of time as before the conquest and exile. But it is in a different manner—through the agency of ‘my servant’ Nebu- chadrezzar of Babylon—and for a different purpose—as punishment for their evil deeds. Another way of expressing the ongoing relationship of YHWH with the people—and one that occurs in the book of Jeremiah—is that YHWH brought to an end a particular form of the

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 309 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM 310 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

relationship—the covenant—via conquest and exile, but not the relationship as such. Once YHWH has purged people and places of the evil and disorder that necessitated termination of the existing cov- enantal form of the relationship, 31:31-34 of the ‘little book of consolation’ proclaims that YHWH will establish a ‘new covenant’ with the house of Israel and Judah, one that will ensure the people obey the (same) torah/law because it will be written on their hearts.4 My analysis has shown that a key factor in the way the book presents its theology of prophecy is the way it portrays the prophet Jere- miah. In relation to this it is significant that Jeremiah’s commission in 1:10 is preceded and followed by passages that warn Jeremiah he will get a hostile reception but that, as long as he stays loyal to his commission, YHWH will be with him to deliver him and ensure he completes it (cf v. 9 and vv 17-19). As the first part of the book unfolds the hostile reaction of audiences initially triggers a crisis for Jeremiah over his commission. The major expressions of this crisis are contained in the so-called ‘confessions’ or ‘complaints’ of Jeremiah in chapters 11–20. Why does YHWH allow the wicked to reject his preaching and continue their evil, corrupting ways, instead of separating them out like sheep for the slaughter in order to protect the remainder of the flock cf( 12:1-4)? YHWH’s response is to assure Jeremiah that the message he is commissioned to proclaim shows YHWH is fully aware of the situation and completely in charge of how events unfold. YHWH knows the appropriate time to punish offenders and the most appropriate way to do so. As pointed out in my previous study, the book then portrays YHWH conducting a series of lessons for Jeremiah in chapters 13–15. The sign of the soiled and good-for-nothing loincloth in 13 shows just how corrupt the people are. The texts on drought and war

4. Dalit Rom-Shiloni argues that the book of Jeremiah employs two main covenant ‘metaphors’ to describe the relationship between YHWH and the people; namely the ‘political’ and the ‘family’ metaphors of marriage and adoption. The ‘political’ is the more common one with YHWH portrayed as Sovereign and the people as YHWH’s subjects. The new-covenant in 31:31-34 operates with this metaphor. The preferred ‘family’ metaphor is that of marriage, with YHWH as husband and the people as bride, and this is explored mainly in chapters 2–3 (cf ‘The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Employment of Family and Political Metaphors’, in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles, edited by Richard K. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015], 153-74)

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 310 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM Concluding Remarks 311

in 14–15 reveal the manner of their corruption and their duplicity; they tick what they think are all the right boxes but this is done to trump any challenge to change. But YHWH is of course fully aware of this and is alone the one who can respond to it, punish the guilty and restore order and right relationships. Jeremiah is challenged to accept this and remain loyal to his prophetic commission. One may note there is an important difference in the way the book presents Jer- emiah’s response to YHWH’s words in his confessions or complaints, and the way it presents the response of the people. Whereas Jeremiah admits the genuine difficulty he has proclaiming YHWH’s words to the people and appeals to YHWH for help, the people seek to nullify the message by feigning repentance, or to silence the messenger. Although Jeremiah is portrayed in the second half of the book (chapters 25–52) suffering rejection and hostility, even to the point of being threatened with death, the text does not report him making any further complaints. The once conflicted prophet becomes the unfail- ingly loyal prophet no matter how bad and threatening his situation. Despite being beaten and imprisoned he continues to preach the same message. According to the book’s portrayal of him, this reveals two things. One is that the consistency of his preaching lends weight to the claim that it is YHWH’s word and not his own making. The other is that being able to continue his ministry despite persecution and imprisonment is a sure sign that he is under YHWH’s protection, in keeping with the promise in 1:9, 17-19 and 15:20-21. Another sign of divine loyalty to the loyal prophet is that a small number of disciples are reported gathering around Jeremiah in the course of the book. One could say that these are ‘commissioned’ by YHWH to learn from the prophet in order to continue his work after he is gone. A key disciple is his loyal scribe Baruch who is entrusted with the documents of the purchase of land in 32:6-15 and the scroll of chapter 36, and who accompanies him to Egypt where Jeremiah delivers his final sermon (chapter 44). Even though the voice of Jer- emiah falls silent, his prophetic words live on in the scroll that is in the safe hands of Baruch. There is a parallel between Jeremiah and Baruch in that chapter 45 describes the latter experiencing a crisis of vocation similar to that of the prophet. Like Jeremiah, he is challenged by YHWH to remain committed and is assured of divine protection if he does so. The report that he accompanied Jeremiah to Egypt provides confirmation that, like Jeremiah, he heeded and

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 311 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM 312 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

obeyed YHWH’s word and that, again like Jeremiah, he was protected by YHWH from death at the hands of his enemies. A second loyal figure is the Cushite Ebed-melech who, according to 38:7-13, acknowledges that Jeremiah is ‘the prophet’ and rescues him from a death-dealing pit to which his enemies had consigned him. For this he is assured of divine protection during and after the conquest of Jerusalem. A third figure is Seraiah, brother of Baruch, who is entrusted with the public reading and symbolic disposal of the scroll of oracles on Babylon in 51:59-64a. The fact that there is no report of him carrying out this instruction, but that we have the contents of the scroll in the book, implies that he acted as instructed. There is a small number of other figures, both named and unnamed, who are described supporting Jeremiah against his adversaries at strategic points in the book. These have been identified and commented on in the analysis of the respective texts. The implication is that each of these, as well as others in subsequent generations, served as part of YHWH’s purpose not only to protect Jeremiah but also, and more importantly, to ensure that his preaching was preserved in the three scrolls that eventually became integral parts of the book of Jeremiah and available to any reader.5 One can see in the attention that the book of Jeremiah gives to the production and preservation of the spoken word in a scroll a special understanding of the word of YHWH and indeed of the presence of YHWH. Just when Israel started to develop a scribal culture is debated but there is little doubt that the exile and diaspora led to a greater appreciation of the work of the scribes and reflection on the status of scrolls or books. Whereas in the pre-exilic period one encountered YHWH by entering the sacred space of the temple sanctuary and listening to the words of the priest and/or prophet, there

5. A number of scholars, partly on the basis of Moses’ prophecy in Deut 18:10 that YHWH would raise up ‘a prophet like me’ and the similarity between 18:18 and Jer 1:9, have proposed that the importance of the book of Jeremiah is underscored by the way he is portrayed as another Moses or the prophet most ‘like’ Moses. In his 1989 study, Seitz extended this to propose that Jeremiah’s loyal disciples Baruch and Ebed-melech parallel Joshua and Caleb. However, in a 2018 essay Fischer comes to the conclusion that the parallels have been overdrawn and that Moses and Jeremiah ‘differ in many respects, including that of being a “prophet”’, (64 of ‘Jeremiah—‘The Prophet like Moses’? inThe Book of Jeremiah: Composition, Reception, Interpretation, 45-66).

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 312 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM Concluding Remarks 313

is good reason to believe that in the exilic and post-exilic diasporas the scroll came to function as a kind of surrogate sanctuary. Readers and hearers of the three scrolls and the overall scroll or book of Jer- emiah could, and presumably did, believe they were in the presence of YHWH speaking to them, like the addressees in the book who are portrayed hearing YHWH speak through the prophet Jeremiah.6

6. These comments are drawn from the recent study by Leuchter, ‘The Pen of the Scribes: Writing, Textuality, and the Book of Jeremiah’, in The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, Interpretation, 3-25. See also Maier, ‘Jeremia am Ende: Prophetie als Schriftgelehrsamkeit,’ Evangelische Theologie 77 (2017): 43-56. Other studies on the relationship between the book, the prophet Jeremiah, and the word of YHWH are Josep Dubbink, ‘Getting Closer to Jeremiah: The Word of YHWH and the Literary-theological Person of a Prophet’, in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence, ed. Martin Kessler (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004), 25-40; and Shead, A Mouth Full of Fire.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 313 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 314 13-May-20 5:26:13 PM Bibliography of Works Cited

Abrego, José M. Jeremías y el Final del Reino: Lectura sincroníca de Jer 36–45. Valencia: Institución san Jerónimo, 1983. Ackroyd, Peter R. Exile and Restoration: A Study of Hebrew Thought in the Sixth Century B. C. London: SCM Press, 1961. Aitken, K. T. ‘The Oracles against Babylon in Jeremiah 50–51: Struc- tures and Perspectives.’ Tyndale Bulletin 35 (1984): 25–63. Allen, Leslie C. Jeremiah: A Commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Amit, Yairah. Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001. Applegate, J. ‘The Fate of Zedekiah: Redactional Debate in the Book of Jeremiah.’ VT 48/2 (1998): 139–60.’ ______. ‘The Fate of Zedekiah: Redactional Debate in the Book of Jeremiah, Part II. VT 48/3 (1998): 301–8 Barstad, Hans M. The Myth of the Empty Land: Study of the History and Archaeology of Judah During the Exilic Period. Oslo: Asche- houg, 1996. ______. ‘Empire! “. . . and gave him a Seat above the Seats of the other Kings Who were with him in Babylon”. Jeremiah 52:31– 34: Fact or Fiction?’ Pages 11–23 in Open-mindedness in the Bible and Beyond. A Volume of Studies in Honour of Bob Becking. Edited by Marjo C. A. Korpel and Lester L. Grabbe. London/New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Becking, Bob. Between Fear and Freedom. Essays on the Interpretation of Jeremiah 30–31. Oudtestamentische Studiën/Old Testament Studies. Brill: Leiden/Boston, 2004.

315

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 315 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM 316 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Bellis, Alice Ogden. The Structure and Composition of Jeremiah 50:2– 51:58. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen Press, 1995. ______. ‘Poetic Structure and Intertextual Logic in Jeremiah 50.’ Pages 179–99 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Dia- mond, Kathleen M. O’Connor and Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. ______. ‘Jeremiah 31:22b: An Intentionally Ambiguous Mul- tivalent Riddle-Text.’ Pages 5–13 in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen. Edited by John Goldingay. Library of Biblical Studies, 459. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Ben Zvi, Ehud, and Christoph Levin. The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts. BZAW 404. Berlin; de Gruyter, 2010. Boadt, Lawrence. Jeremiah 26–52, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Nahum. OTM 10. Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1982. Bodner, Keith. After the Invasion: a Reading of Jeremiah 40–44. Oxford: OUP, 2015. Bourguet, Daniel. Des Metaphores de Jéremie. Études Bibliques, Nou- velle série 9. Paris: Gabalda, 1987. Boyle, Brian. ‘Narrative as Ideology: Synchronic (Narrative Critical) and Diachronic Readings of Jeremiah 37–38.’ Pacifica12 (October 1998): 293–312. Bozak, Barbara. Life ‘Anew’. A Literary-Theological Study of Jer. 30–31. Analecta Biblica 122. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991. Bright, John Jeremiah: A New Translation with Introduction and Com- mentary. AB 21. New York: Doubleday, 1965. Brueggemann, Walter. A Commentary on Jeremiah. Exile and Home- coming. Grand Rapids MI. W. B. Eerdmans, 1998. ______. ‘The “Baruch Connection”: Reflections on Jer 43:1–7.’ JBL 113 (1994): 405–20. Bryan, Steven M. ‘The End of Exile: The Reception of Jeremiah’s Pre- diction of a Seventy-Year Exile.’ JBL 137 (2018): 107–26. Callaway, Mary Chilton. ‘Telling the Truth and Telling Stories: An Analysis of Jeremiah 37–38.’ Union Seminary Quarterly Review 44 (1991): 253–65.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 316 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM Bibliography of Works Cited 317

______‘Black Fire on White Fire: Historical Context and Liter- ary Subtext in Jeremiah 37–38.’ Pages 171–78 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor and Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah. OTL. London: SCM, 1986. ______‘Halfway through a dark wood: Reflections on Jer- emiah 25.’ Pages 73–86 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Christensen, Duane L. Transformations of the War Oracle in Old Tes- tament Prophecy. Studies in the Oracles against the Nations. HDR 3. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1971. ______. Prophecy and War in Ancient Israel. Studies in the Oracles Against the Nations in Old Testament Prophecy. Bibal Monograph Series 3. Berkeley, CA: Bibal Press, 1975. Clements, R. E. Jeremiah. Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1988. Clements, Ronald E. ‘Prophecy Interpreted: Intertextuality and Theo- dicy—A Case Study of Jeremiah 26:16–24.’ Pages 32–44 in Uproot- ing and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen. Edited by John Goldingay. Library of Biblical Studies 459. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Couturier, Guy P. ‘Jeremiah.’ Pages 301–36 in The Jerome Biblical Commentary. Edited by Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy. Volume I, The Old Testament. London: Prentice-Hall International, Inc., 1968. Dalglish, Edward R. ‘Chimham’ in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. vol. 1. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. De Jong, Matthijs J. ‘Rewriting the Past in the Light of the Present: The Stories of the Prophet Jeremiah.’ Pages 124–40 in Prophecy and Prophets in Stories: Papers Read at the Fifth Meeting of the Edinburgh Prophecy Network. Edited by Bob Becking and Hans M. Barstad. Oudestamentische Studiën, 65. Utrecht, October 2013/ Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2015. De Roche, Michael. ‘YHWH’s rib against Israel: A Reassessment of the So-called ‘Prophetic Lawsuit’ in the Pre-Exilic Prophets.’ JBL 102 [1983]: 563–74.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 317 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM 318 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Di Pede, Elena, ‘Le refus et l’espoir: L’intrigue de Jr 32–45.’ ETL 80/4 (2004): 373–401. ______. Au-delà du refus: l’espoir. Recherches sur la coherence narrative de Jr 32–45 (TM). BZAW 357. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2005. ______. ‘Un oracle pour les Récabites (Jr 35,18–19 TM) ou à leur propos (42,18–19 LXX)?’ SJOT 20 (2006): 90–102. ______. ‘Quando Geremia fa il falso profeta: la tentazione dei recabiti (Ger 35) come reflessione sulla vera e la falsa profezia.’ Rivista Biblica 53 (2015): 307–26. ______. ‘Lorsque Jérémie joue les faux prophètes: la tentation des Récabites (Jr 35) comme réflexion sur la vraie et la fausse prophétie.’ Etudes Théologiques et Religieuses 92/3 (2017): 537–55. Dubbink, Joep. ‘Getting Closer to Jeremiah: The Word of YHWH and the Literary-theological Person of a Prophet.’ Pages 25–40 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Epp-Tiessen, Daniel. Concerning the Prophets: True and False Proph- ecy in Jeremiah 23:9–29:32. Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012. Ferry, Joëlle. ‘Je restaurerai Juda et Israël (Jr 33, 7.9.26): L’écriture de Jérémie 33.’ Transeuphratène 15 (1998): 69–82. ______. Illusions et salut dans la predication prophétique de Jérémie. BZAW 269. Berlin/New York: de Bruyter, 1999. ______. ‘Yhwh Cree du nouveau: Restauration et Nouveaute dans le livre de Jeremie (lecture de Jr 30–31).’ Estudios Biblicos 60 (2002): 381–404. ______. ‘“Le livre dans le livre”. Lecture de Jérémie 36.’ Pages 283–306 in Le recuèils prophétiques de la Bible. Origenes, milieu, et context proche-oriental. Edited by Jean-Daniel Macchi, Chris- tophe Nihan, Thomas Römer et Jan Rückl. Le Monde de la Bible, 64. Paris: Labor et Fides, 2012. Fischer, Georg. ‘Jeremia 52—ein Schlüssel zum Jeremiabuch.’ Biblica 79 (1998): 33–359. ______. Jeremia übersetzt und ausgelegt. Volume 2; 26–52. HThKAT. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2005. ______. Jeremiah. Der Stand der Theologischen Diskussion. Darmstadt; Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (WBG), 2007.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 318 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM Bibliography of Works Cited 319

______. Der Prophet wie Mose: Studien zum Jeremiabuch. BZABR 15. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2011. ______. ‘Jeremiah—”The Prophet like Moses”?’ Pages 45–66 in The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, Interpretation. Edited by Jack R. Lundbom, Craig A. Evans, and Bradford A. Anderson. VTSup 178. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018. Fretheim, Terence E. Jeremiah. SHBC 15. Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002. Gosse, Bernard. ‘Jérémie XLV et la place du recueil d’oracles contre les nations dans le livre de Jeremie.’ VT 99/2 (1990): 145–5. Green, Barbara. ‘Sunk in the Mud: Literary Correlation and Collabo- ration between King and Prophet in the Book of Jeremiah.’ Pages 34–48 in Jeremiah Invented: Constructions and Deconstructions of Jeremiah. Edited by Else K. Holt and Carolyn J. Sharp. LHBOTS 595. London: Bloomsbury, 2015. Harding, James E. ‘The Silent Goddess and the Gendering of Divine Speech in Jeremiah 44.’ Pages 189–207 in Prophecy and Power: Jer- emiah in Feminist and Postcolonial Perspective. Edited by Christl M. Maier and Carolyn J. Sharp. LHBOTS 577. New York: Blooms- bury; T & T Clark, 2013. Hayyim, Angel. ‘Jeremiah’s Trial as a False Prophet (Chapter 26): A Window into the Complex Religious State of the People.’ JBQ 45 (2017): 13–20. Hill, John. Friend or Foe? The Figure of Babylon in the Book of Jer- emiah MT. Biblical Interpretation Series 40. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ______. ‘The Construction of Time in Jeremiah 25 (MT).’ Pages 146–60 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Dia- mond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. ______. ‘Your Exile Will be Long. The Book of Jeremiah and the Unended Exile.’ Pages 149–61 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. ______. ‘Jeremiah 40:1–6: An Appreciation.’ Pages 130–41 in Seeing Signals, Reading Signs: The Art of Exegesis: Essays in Hon- our of Antony F. Campbell SJ on his Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Mark A. O’Brien and Howard M. Wallace. JSOTSup. 415. London: T & T Clark International, 2004.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 319 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM 320 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Holladay, William L. Jeremiah 2. A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: For- tress Press, 1989. Holt, Else K. ‘The Meaning of an Inclusio: A Theological Interpreta- tion of the Book of Jeremiah MT.’ SJOT 17/2 (2003): 183–205. Huffmon, Herbert B. ‘The Rechabites in the Book of Jeremiah and Their Historical Roots in Israel.’ Pages 191–210 inThe Book of Jer- emiah. Composition, Reception, Interpretation. Edited by Jack R. Lundbom, Craig A. Evans, and Bradford A. Anderson. VTSup 178. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018. Huwyler, Beat. Jeremia und die Völker. Untersuchungen zu den Völk- ersprüchen in Jeremia 46–49. FAT 20. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. Jacobson, Rolf A. ‘A Freedom that is no Freedom: Jeremiah 34 and the Sabbatical Principle.’ Word and World 22/4 (2002): 396–405. Joo, Samantha. Provocation and Punishment: The Anger of God in the Book of Jeremiah and Deuteronomistic Theology. BZAW 361. Ber- lin: de Gruyter, 2006. Kalmanofsky, Amy. ‘“As She Did, Do to Her!”: Jeremiah’s OAN as Revenge Fantasies.’ Pages 110–27 in Concerning the Nations: Essays on the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Edited by Else K. Holt, Hyun Chul Paul Kim, and Andrew Mein. HB/OTS 612. London/New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015. Kartveit, Magnar. ‘Reconsidering the “New Covenant” in Jeremiah 31:31–34.’ Pages 149–69 in The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, Interpretation. Edited by Jack R. Lundbom, Craig A. Evans, and Bradford A. Anderson. VTSup 178. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018. Keown, Gerald L., Pamela J. Scalise and Thomas G. Smothers, Jer- emiah 26–52. WBC 27. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1995. Kessler, Martin, ‘Jeremiah 26–45 Reconsidered.’ JNES 27/2 (1968): 81–88. ______. ‘The Function of chapter 25 and 50–51 in the Book of Jeremiah.’ Pages 64–72 in Troubling Jeremiah. Edited by A. R. Pete Diamond, Kathleen M. O’Connor, and Louis Stulman. JSOTSup 260. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 320 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM Bibliography of Works Cited 321

______. ‘The Scaffolding of the Book of Jeremiah.’ Pages 57–66 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Kozlova, Ekaterina E. ‘Grave Marking and Wailing: Ritual Responses to the Babylonian Crisis in Jeremiah’s Poetry.’ SJOT 31 (2017): 92–117. Kremers, H. ‘Leidensgemeinschaft mit Gott im Alten Testament: Eine Untersuchung der ‘biographischen’ Berichte im Jeremiabuch.’ EvT 13 (1953): 122–40. Kruger, Paul A. ‘A Woman will “Encompass” a Man: On Gender Reversal in Jer 31,22b.’ Biblica 89 (2008): 380–88. Leuchter, Mark. ‘The Manumission Laws in Leviticus and Deuteron- omy: The Jeremiah Connection.’JBL 127/4 (2008): 635–53. ______. The Polemics of Exile in Jeremiah 26–45. Cambridge: CUP, 2008. ______. ‘Personal Missive and National History: The Rela- tionship between Jeremiah 29 and 36.’ Pages 275–93 in Prophets, Prophecy, and Ancient Israelite Historiography. Edited by Mark J. Boda and Lissa M. Wray Beal. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. ______. ‘Sacred Space and Communal Legitimacy in Exile: The Contribution of Seraiah’s Colophon (Jer 51:59–64A).’ Pages 77–99 in The Prophets Speak on Forced Migration. Edited by Mark J. Boda, Frank Ritchel Ames, John Ahn, and Mark Leuchter. Ancient Israel and Its Literature 21. Atlanta: SBL, 2015. ______. ‘The Pen of the Scribes: Writing, Textuality, and the Book of Jeremiah.’ Pages 3–23 in The Book of Jeremiah. Composi- tion, Reception, Interpretation. Edited by Jack R. Lundbom, Craig A. Evans, and Bradford A. Anderson. VTSup 178. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018. Levine, M. H. ‘The Trial of Jeremiah.’ Dor le Dor 12 (1983): 36–38. Lipschits, Oded. The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem: Judah under Babylo- nian Rule. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005. Lundbom, Jack R. Jeremiah: A Study in Ancient Hebrew Rhetoric 91. SBLDS 18. Missoula: Scholars Press, 1975.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 321 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM 322 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

______. ‘Baruch, Seraiah, and Expanded Colophons in the Book of Jeremiah.’ JSOT 36 (1986) 89–114. ______. Jeremiah 21–36. AB 21B. New York: Doubleday, 2004. ______. Jeremiah 37–52. AB 21C. New York: Doubleday, 2004. ______. ‘Language and Rhetoric in Jeremiah’s Foreign Nation Oracles.’ Pages 211–29 in The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, Interpretation. Edited by Jack R. Lundbom, Craig A. Evans, and Bradford A. Anderson; VTSup 178. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018. Maier, Christl. Jeremia als Lehrer der Tora. Soziale Gebote des Deuter- onomiums in Fortschreibungen des Jeremiabuches. FRLANT 196. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2002. ______. ‘Jeremiah as Teacher of Torah.’ Interpretation 62 (2009): 22–32. ______. ‘Jeremiah am Ende: Prophetie als Schriftgelehrsam- keit.’ EvT 77 (2017): 43–56. Mastnjak, Nathan. ‘Jeremiah as Collection: Scrolls, Sheets and the Problem of Textual Arrangement.’ CBQ 80 (2018): 25–44. Matthews, Victor. ‘Jeremiah’s Scroll and Linked Zones of Communi- cation.’ BTB 39/3 (200): 116–24. McKane, William. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jer- emiah. Volume 2. Introduction and Commentary on Jeremiah XXVI–LII. ICE. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996 ______. ‘Jeremiah’s Instructions to Seraiah (Jeremiah 51:59– 64).’ Pages 697–706 in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish and Near Eastern Ritual, Law and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by David P. Wright, David Noel Freedman, and Avi Hurvitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Middlemas, Jill. The Troubles of Templeless Judah. OTM. Oxford: OUP, 2005. Miller, Patrick D. ‘Sin and Judgment in Jeremiah 34:17–19.’ JBL 103 (1984): 611–15. ______. ‘The Book of Jeremiah: Introduction, Commentary and Reflections.’ In The New Interpreter’s Bible. Edited by Leander E. Keck (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1994–2004), 6:553–926.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 322 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM Bibliography of Works Cited 323

Muilenberg, James. ‘Baruch the Scribe.’ Pages 215–38 in Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies. Edited by John I. Durham and J. R. Porter. Richmond, Va.: John Knox Press, 1970. Nicholson, Ernest W. Preaching to the Exiles: A Study of the Prose Tra- dition in the Book of Jeremiah. Oxford: Blackwells, 1970. O’Brien, Mark A. The Deuteronomistic History Hypothesis: A Reas- sessment. OBO 92; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989. ______. Restoring the Right Relationship. The Bible on Divine Righteousness. Adelaide: ATF Theology, 2014. ______. Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 1–25 (MT). Adelaide: ATF Press, 2017. O’Connor, Kathleen M. ‘“Do Not Trim a Word”: The Contributions of Chapter 26 to the Book of Jeremiah.’ CBQ 51 (1989): 617–30. Osuji, Anthony Chinedu, Where is the Truth? Narrative Exegesis and the Question of True and False Prophecy in Jer 26–29 (MT). BETL cciv; Leuven: Peeters, 2010. Otto, Eckhart. ‘Jeremia und die Tora: Ein nachexilisches Diskurs.’ Pages 134–62 in Tora in der Hebräischen Bibel: Studien zur Reda- ktionsgeschichte und synchroner Logik diachroner Transforma- tionen. BZABR 7. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2007. Parker, Tom. ‘Ebed-Melech as Exemplar.’ Pages 253–59 in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen. Edited by John Goldingay. Library of Biblical Studies 459. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Peels, Eric. ‘The Assassination of Gedaliah (Jer. 40:7–41:18).’ Pages 83–103 in Exile and Suffering: A Selection of Papers Read at the 50th Anniversary Meeting of the Old Testament Society of South Africa OTWSA/OTSSA, Pretoria August, 2007. Edited by Bob Becking and Dirk Human. Oudtestamentische Studiën; Leiden: Brill, 2009. Pham, X. H. T, Mourning in the Ancient Near East and the Hebrew Bible. JSOTSup 302. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Pohlmann, K.-F., Studien zum Jeremiabuch. Ein Beitrag zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Jeremiabuches. FRLANT 118. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1978.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 323 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM 324 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Raabe, Paul R. ‘What is Israel’s God Up To among the Nations? Jer- emiah 46, 48, and 49.’ Pages 230–52 in The Book of Jeremiah. Com- position, Reception, Interpretation. Edited by Jack R. Lundbom, Craig A. Evans, and Bradford A. Anderson. VTSup 178. Leiden/ Boston: Brill, 2018. Rad, Gerhard von. Old Testament Theology, II. Translated by D.M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Ramsey, G. ‘Speech-Forms in Hebrew Law and Prophetic Oracles.’ JBL 96 (1977): 43–85. Rata, Tiberius, The Covenant Motif in Jeremiah’s Book of Comfort. Tex- tual and intertextual Studies of Jeremiah 30–33. Studies in Biblical Literature, 105. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Reimer, David J. The Oracles Against Babylon in Jeremiah 50–51. A Horror Among the Nations. San Francisco: Mellen Research Uni- versity Press, 1993. ______. ‘God and Place in Jeremiah.’ Pages 476–97 in The Book of Jeremiah. Composition, Reception, Interpretation. Edited by Jack R. Lundbom, Craig A. Evans, and Bradford A. Anderson. VTSup 178. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2018. Rom-Shiloni, Dalit, ‘The Covenant in the Book of Jeremiah: On the Employment of Family and Political Metaphors.’ Pages 153–74 in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles. Edited by Richard K. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Roncace, Mark. Jeremiah, Zedekiah, and the Fall of Jerusalem. JSOT- Sup 423. New York/London: T & T Clark, 2005. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Jeremiah. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1968. Scalise, Pamela J. ‘Baruch as First Reader: Baruch’s Lament in the Structure of the Book of Jeremiah.’ Pages 291–307 in Uprooting and Planting: Essays on Jeremiah for Leslie Allen. Edited by John Goldingay. Library of Biblical Studies, 459. New York: T&T Clark, 2007. Schaper, Joachim. ‘On Writing and Reciting in Jeremiah 36.’ Pages 137–47 in Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. Edited by Hans M. Barstad and Reinhard Gregor Kratz. BZAW 388. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2009.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 324 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM Bibliography of Works Cited 325

Schenker, Adrian. Das Neue am neuen Bund und das Alte am alten. Jer 31 in der hebräischen und griechischen Bibel, von der Textge- schichte zu Theologie, Synagoge und Kirche. Göttingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht, 2005. Seitz, Christopher R. ‘The Crisis of Interpretation of the Meaning and Purpose of the Exile: A redactional Study of Jeremiah xxi–xliii.’ VT 35 (1985): 78–97. ______. ‘The Prophet Moses and the Canonical Shape of Jer- emiah.’ Z AW 101 (1989): 3–27. ______. Theology in Conflict: Reactions to Exile in the Book of Jeremiah. BZAW 176. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1989. Sharp, Carolyn (editor), The Oxford Handbook of the Prophets. Oxford: OUP, 2016. Sharp, Carolyn J. Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in the Deutero-Jeremianic Prose. Old Testament Studies. London/New York: T & T Clark, 2003. ______. ‘Embodying Moab: The Figuring of Moab in Jer- emiah 48 as Reinscription of the Judean Body.’ Pages 95–108 in Concerning the Nations: Essays on the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel. Edited by Else K. Holt, Hyun Chul Paul Kim, and Andrew Mein. HB/OTS 612. London/New York: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015. Shead, Andrew G. A Mouth Full of Fire. The Word of God in the Words of Jeremiah. New Studies in Biblical Theology 29. Downers Grove, Il: Intervarsity Press, 2012. Smelik, Klaas A. D. ‘Letters to the Exiles: Jeremiah 29 in Context.’ SJOT 10 (1996): 282–95. ______. ‘The Function of Jeremiah 50 and 51 in the Book of Jeremiah.’ Pages 87–97 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah. A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler; Winona Lake, IN: Eisen- brauns, 2004. ______. ‘A Prophet Context: Jeremiah 28 Reconsidered.’ Pages 247–59 in Open-Mindedness in the Bible. A Volume of Stud- ies in Honour of Bob Becking. LOT/HBS 616. London/New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 325 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM 326 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

______, ‘The Inner Cohesion of Jeremiah 34:8–22, on the Liberation of Slaves during the Siege of Jerusalem and its Relation to Deuteronomy 15.’ Pages 239–50 in Torah and Tradition: Papers Read at the Sixteenth Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and the Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap, Edinburgh, 2015. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2017. Sjoberg, Matthew. ‘Inner-Biblical Interpretation in the Redaction of Jeremiah 33:14–26.’ Pages 175–93 in Covenant in the Persian Period: From Genesis to Chronicles. Edited by Richard J. Bautch and Gary N. Knoppers. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. Stipp, Hermann-Josef. ‘Zedekiah in the Book of Jeremiah. On the Formation of a Biblical Character.’ CBQ 58 (1996): 627–48. ______. ‘The Concept of the Empty Land in Jeremiah 37–43.’ Pages 103–54 in The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its His- torical Contexts. Edited by Ehud Ben Zvi and Christoph Levin. BZAW 404. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2010. ______. ‘Baruchs Erben. Die Schriftprophetie im Spiegel von Jer 36.’ Pages 381–408 in Studien zum Jeremiabuch. Text und Reda- ktion. FAT 96; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. ______. ‘Gedalja und die Kolonie von Mizpa.’ Pages 409–32 in Studien zum Jeremiabuch. Text und Redaktion. FAT 96; Tübin- gen: Mohr Siebeck, 2015. Stulman, Louis. Order Amid Chaos. Jeremiah as Symbolic Tapestry. The Biblical Seminar, 57; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998. ______, Jeremiah. AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005. Sweeney, Marvin A. ‘The Reconceptualization of the Davidic Cove- nant in the Books of Jeremiah.’ Pages 167–81 in Reading Prophetic Books. FAT 89. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. Thelle, Ranfrid H. ‘Babylon in the Book of Jeremiah (MT): Negotiat- ing a Power Shift.’ Pages 187–232 in Prophecy in the Book of Jer- emiah. Edited by Hans M. Barstad and Reinhard G. Kratz. BZAW 388. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2009. Thiel, Winfried. Die deuteronomistische Redaktion von Jeremia 26–45 mit einer Gesamtbeurteilung der deuteronomistischen Redation des Buches Jeremia. WMANT 52. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1981. Thompson, J. A. ‘Israel’s Lovers.’ VT 27 (1977): 475–81.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 326 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM Bibliography of Works Cited 327

Trible, Phyllis, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia: For- tress, 1978. Varughese, Alex, and Mitchel Modine, Jeremiah 26–52. A Commen- tary in the Wesleyan Tradition. Kansas City, Mo.: Beacon Hill Press, 2010, P. Volz, Der Prophet Jeremia. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1930. Vriezen, Karel J. H. ‘Cakes and Figurines: Related Women’s Cultic Offerings in Ancient Israel?’ Pages 251–63 inOn Reading Pro- phetic Texts: Gender-specific and Related Studies in Memory of Fokkelien van Dijk-Hemmes. Edited by Bob Becking and Meindert Dijkstra. Leiden: Brill, 1996. Wal, A. J. O. van der, ‘Toward a Synchronic Analysis of the Masoretic Text of the Book of Jeremiah.’ Pages 13–23 in Reading the Book of Jeremiah: A Search for Coherence. Edited by Martin Kessler. Win- ona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Watts, James W. ‘Text and Redaction in Jeremiah’s Oracles Against the Nations.’ CBQ 54 (1992): 432–47. Weiser, Artur ‘Das Gotteswort für Baruch Jer. 45 und die sogenannte Baruchbiographie.’ Pages 321–29 in Glaube und Geschichte im Alten Testament und andere ausgewählte Schriften. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961. Weiser, Artur. Das Buch des Propheten Jeremia. ATD, 20–21. Göttin- gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1969. Westbrook, Raymond. ‘The Trial of Jeremiah.’ Pages 95–107 inRead - ing the Law: Studies in Honour of Gordon J. Wenham. Edited by J. G. McConville and Karl Möller. LHBOTS 461. London: Blooms- bury Academic & Professional, 2007. Whitcomb, Kelly. ‘The Queen of Heaven or YHWH of Hosts: Does the God of Israel Protest (In)sufficiently in Jeremiah 44?’Conver - sations with the Biblical World 33 (2013): 82–97. Widder, Wendy J. ‘Thematic Correspondences between the Zedekiah Texts of Jeremiah (Jer 21–24; 37–38).’ OTE 26/2 (2013): 491–503. Willis, Timothy, M. ‘“They Did Not Listen to the Voice of the Lord”: A Literary Analysis of Jeremiah 37–45.’ Restoration Quarterly 42 (2000): 65–74. Yates, Gary E. ‘Narrative Parallelism and the “Jehoiakim Frame”: A Reading Strategy for Jeremiah 26–45.’ JETS 48/2 (June 2005): 263–81.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 327 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM 328 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

______. ‘Ishmael’s Assassination of Gedaliah: Echoes of the Saul-David Story in Jeremiah 40:7–41:18.’ WTJ 67 (2005): 103–12. ______. ‘New Exodus and no Exodus in Jeremiah 26–45. Promise and Warning to the Exiles in Babylon.’ Tyndale Bulletin 51 (2006): 1–22. ______. ‘Hope in the Midst of Wrath. Promises for Outsiders in Jeremiah 46–51.’ Biblioteca Sacra 175 (2018): 67–82. Zvi, E. Ben, and C. Levin, The Concept of Exile in Ancient Israel and its Historical Contexts. BZAW 404. Berlin; de Gruyter, 2010.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 328 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM Subject Index

A 194, 195, 197, 199, 201, 204, 205, 206, 207, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, Adversary, 136. 223, 229, 231, 232, 233, 235, 236, Ammon, xxxviii, xxxix, 189, 191, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 244, 245, 192, 193, 231, 233, 237, 255, 256, 246, 248, 250, 251, 252, 257, 258, 257, 259, 264. 260, 261, 262, 264, 267, 269, 270, Ammonites, xliii, 175, 185, 188, 271, 272, 274, 275, 276, 278, 280, 189, 256. 282, 283, 286, 288, 289, 290, 291, 293, 294, 295, 298, 299, 300, 301, B 302, 306, 307, 308, 309, 3012. Baruch, xxiii, xxvi, xxvii, xxxi, Babylon, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxxiv, xxxv, xxviii, xi, xli, xlviii, xxii, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxviii, xxx, xlix, 1, 7, 9, 19, 20, 75, 76, 77, 81, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvii, 106, 108, 113, 115, 116, 117, 118, xxxix, xl, xli, xliii, xlv, xlvi, xlviii, 119, 120, 121, 122, 127, 129, 130, xlix, 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 17, 19, 20, 132, 144, 167, 170, 175, 187, 203, 21, 221, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 204, 205, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 41, 44, 45, 229, 234, 267, 290, 292, 297, 305, 47, 61, 64, 67, 68, 71, 73, 75, 76, 311, 312. 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 83, 85, 94, 96, Blessing, 56, 59, 89, 123, 181, 190, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 197, 199, 202, 211, 215, 216, 223, 109, 113, 114, 115, 118, 124, 127, 234, 307. 129, 130, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, Build, xiii, xliii, xlvi, 20, 35, 36, 109. 142, 144, 145, 150, 152, 153, 154, Building and planting, xvi, xvii, 156, 159, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, xviii, xxx, xxxi, xli, xlii, 20, 35, 36, 168, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 177, 47, 57, 114, 181, 189, 199, 241, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 264, 308. 186, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193,

329

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 329 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM 330 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

C xxxix, xl, xli, xlii, xlvi, xlviii, xlix, 1, 3, 4, 8, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 38, 41, Call, xxiv, xxvi, xxxvii, 15, 39, 60, 44, 48, 59, 75, 76, 84, 90, 94, 103, 62, 110, 118, 123, 136, 139, 160, 109, 114, 127, 129, 130, 133, 154, 168, 190, 215, 237, 250, 255, 256, 155, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 170, 258, 281, 287, 288. 172, 176, 178, 179, 182, 183, 184, Cistern, xxxii, xxxiii, xlvii, 137, 143, 187, 197, 209, 210, 217, 219, 220, 145, 146, 147, 148, 150, 157, 170, 224, 229, 232, 238, 242, 244, 250, 191. 254, 256, 257, 272, 274, 274, 282, Commission, xv, xvi, xx, xxvii, xli, 288, 294, 297, 298, 299, 302, 306, xlii, xliv, xlv, xlvi, 3, 63, 77, 111, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312. 123, 140, 157, 198, 225, 226, 227, Consolation (Book of), xxi, xxiii, 274, 294, 301, 308, 310, 311. xxvi, xlii, 1, 45, 47, 52, 64, 75, 90, Comparison, xxi, xxiv, xliii, 5, 13, 94, 241, 293, 295, 306, 307, 308. 25, 50, 75, 81, 104, 120, 147, 249, Correction, xlv, 16, 17, 84. 259, 260, 269, 282. Creation, xviii, 9, 50, 72, 88, 93, 115. Captivity, xxvi, xxviii, xx, xxx, Covenant, xxiii, xxv, xliv, 7, 12, 39, xxxvi, xli, xlii, xlvi, xlvii, 20, 51, 47, 56, 57, 71, 72, 86, 87, 91, 92, 60, 151, 157, 164, 166, 192, 207, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 116, 178, 241, 254, 257. 202, 210, 212, 216, 271, 273, 310. Chaldeans, xxiii, xxxiv, 82, 84, 87, Curse/s, 30, 41, 98, 124, 166, 178, 89, 103, 133, 144, 155, 156, 169, 182, 202, 211, 214, 216, 248, 257, 184. 259, 278, 279, 286, 307. Children, xiv, 51, 54, 56, 65, 66, 85, 86, 182, 205, 237, 247. City, xiv, xv, xxiv, xxx111, xxxiv, D xxxvii, xlii, xlvi, 13, 14, 15, 16, Daughter/s, 36, 41, 192, 237, 238, 17, 27, 36, 38, 44, 52, 54, 55, 57, 240, 244, 250, 254, 256. 63, 69, 73, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89, 91, Damascus, xxxviii, xxix, 231, 233, 97, 103, 109, 112, 113, 115, 130, 255, 261, 265, 277. 134, 136, 137, 138, 141, 144, 145, David, xvi, xlvi, 24, 40, 51, 60, 87, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 155, 91, 92, 93, 111, 168, 189, 193, 156, 157, 158, 162, 163, 164, 165, 194, 195, 268, 294, 303, 309. 166, 169, 171, 172, 178, 191, 196, Day/s, xiv, xv, xix, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, 206, 218, 219, 221, 238, 243, 250, xxviii, xxix, xxx, xlvii, 6, 7, 16, 17, 256, 261, 267, 273, 278, 279, 280, 19, 28, 29, 30, 48, 51, 53, 56, 57, 284, 285, 288, 294, 297, 298, 299, 63, 70, 73, 77, 86, 91, 92, 96, 105, 306, 309. 112, 114, 118, 119, 129, 172, 175, Confession, xliv, xlv, 60, 67, 201, 191, 194, 197, 212, 236, 237, 240, 220, 225, 310, 311. 241, 243, 244, 253, 254, 255, 261, Coniah, 170. 270, 276, 277, 287, 289, 294, 298, Conquest xv, xvii, xxi, xxii, xxiv, 299, 302, 305, 308. xxv, xxvii, xxix, xxxii, xxxiv, xxvii,

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 330 13-May-20 5:26:14 PM Subject Index 331

Deceit, xxiv, xxv, xxx, 121, 191, 260, Egypt, xv, xxv, xxviii, xxxiii, xxxv, 292. xxxvi, xxxvii, xxxviii, xl, xlii, xliii, Deliver/s, xiv, xv, xvii, xxii, xxv, xxvii, xlvii, xlviii, 7, 17, 23, 71, 83, 99, xxxiii, xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxvii. Xli, 12, 102, 112, 113, 114, 127, 130, 135, 14, 50, 58, 59, 71, 79, 87, 130, 131, 136, 137, 140, 153, 155, 163, 167, 139, 140, 147, 155, 158, 161, 163, 170, 172, 173, 175, 176, 181, 188, 165, 168, 177, 197, 218, 224, 234, 192, 194, 196, 197, 198, 200, 201, 239, 274, 291, 293, 310, 311. 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, Deliverance, 19, 20, 25, 26, 51, 55, 212, 216, 220, 223, 227, 232, 236, 80, 100, 127, 133, 136, 147. 240, 242, 244, 246, 249, 261, 262, Destroy/ed, xiii, xiv, xvi, xlii, xliii, 264, 278, 308, 311. xlvi, 3, 25, 70, 89, 105, 106, 112, Elam, xxxviii, xxxix, xl1, xlii, xliii, 115, 122, 130, 153, 156, 166, 178, xlix, 34, 35, 42, 223, 231, 233, 235, 182, 198, 218, 237, 241, 243, 247, 246, 255, 263, 264, 265, 306, 308. 248, 250, 251, 256, 264, 274, 277, Enemy, xxxvii, 50, 51, 53, 54, 57, 66, 278, 280, 284, 290, 295, 301, 308. 68, 78, 179, 234, 235, 241, 245, Disorder, xviii, xxii, xxiv, xxx, xxxi, 246, 248, 254, 299. xliii, xlvi, 3, 16, 36, 59, 96, 114, Ephraim, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 67, 93. 164, 207, 226, 241, 245, 264, 294, Euphrates, xli, 206, 233, 235, 236, 295, 310. 243, 267, 278, 284, 292, 293, 306. Divine, xviii, xxx, xxxiv, 3, 12, 15, 19, Evil, xviii, xxii, xxiv, xlv, 1, 12, 14, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 38, 39, 40, 15, 18, 24, 28, 57, 70, 85, 106, 41, 54, 55, 56, 59, 61, 62, 67, 70, 111, 116, 117, 118, 119, 123, 134, 71, 75, 80, 85, 86, 89, 97, 99, 101, 145, 148, 152, 157, 161, 162, 168, 119, 120, 122, 123, 124, 152, 154, 171, 172, 176, 177, 181, 190, 193, 155, 161, 168, 171, 173, 178, 184, 207, 211, 212, 215, 217, 241, 252, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 216, 221, 258, 260, 274, 287, 291, 292, 299, 223, 226, 227, 247, 249, 250, 252, 302, 303, 309. 256, 259, 260, 261, 264, 271, 273, Exile, xvi, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, 277, 280, 292, 298, 309, 311, 312. xxviii, xxx, xxxi, xl, xliv, xlix, 5, Divinely, xxxiv, 36. 6, 7, 11, 14, 19, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, Diviners, 34, 278. 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 54, 55, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, E 68, 71, 73, 75, 78, 79, 82, 85, 87, Ebed-melech, xxxii, xxxiii, xxxvii, 90, 93, 97, 102, 203, 109, 112, xlvii, xlviii, 9, 19, 122, 129, 132, 114, 125, 130, 131, 136, 153, 154, 133, 134, 143, 147, 148, 149, 150, 165, 166, 172, 175, 177, 179, 180, 163, 169, 172, 181, 227, 312. 181, 183, 187, 188, 200, 204, 205, Edom, xxxviii, xxix, 231, 233, 255, 219, 221, 222, 223, 238, 240, 242, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 264, 249, 252, 263, 267, 271, 272, 280, 272, 278, 279. 281, 283, 287, 290, 293, 295, 297, 298, 301, 306, 309, 310, 312.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 331 13-May-20 5:26:15 PM 332 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

F Guilt, xvii, 15, 18, 53, 57, 98, 101, 114, 123, 125, 142, 149, 210, 245, 259, Faithless, xiv, xliii, 256. 272, 274, 276, 280, 281, 282, 311. Famine, xxxvi, 24, 44, 101, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 166, 182, 201, 214. H False (Prophets), xvi, xx, xxviii, Hanamel, xxi, 79, 80, 81, 144. xxix, xlvi, 5, 8, 30, 34, 37, 39, 40, Hananiah, xx, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 42, 56, 108, 109, 130, 139, 142, 31, 33, 37, 139, 189, 197. 151, 223, 301. Hazor, xxxix, xl, 231, 232, 236, 255, Field, xxii, xxiii, xxix, xxx, xxxi, 261, 262, 265. xxxviii, xlvi, 6, 7, 24, 67, 77, 80, Hezekiah, xix, xxiv, xxviii, xxx, 5, 6, 81, 82, 83, 87, 94, 103, 104, 144, 10, 14, 16, 17, 106, 221. 166, 169, 182, 183, 191, 225, 236, Hophra, xxxvi, xxxvii, 208, 215, 263, 268, 306. 217, 220, 238, 239. House/s, xxiii, xxvi, xxxiii, xlvi, G xlvii, 5, 11, 14, 36, 81, 85, 92, 101, 102, 105, 107, 108, 109, 111, 113, Gate, xiv, xv, xvi, xxxv, xxxvi, xliv xlv, 117, 120, 122, 127, 140, 142, 143, xlvi, 4, 11, 13, 52, 112, 119, 130, 145, 146, 151, 152, 157, 165, 177, 137, 140, 148, 152, 163, 164, 172, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, 208, 214, 175, 196, 206, 218, 219, 263, 284. 226, 235, 253, 260, 261, 276, 288, Gedeliah, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvii, xlviii, 298, 300, 310. 20, 167, 168, 173, 175, 176, 177, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 191, 192, 193, 194, I 195, 204, 205, 219, 298, 301. Imprisonment, xvii, xxx, xxi, xxii, God, xiv, xxv, xliii, xliv, 12, 15, 24, xxiii, xxix, xxx, xxxii, xiv, xlvi, 26, 30, 34, 37, 39, 49, 51, 57, 59, xlvii, 43, 79, 80, 93, 94, 95, 103, 61, 71, 72, 84, 86, 87, 108, 123, 104, 119, 127, 129, 133, 136, 137, 135, 154, 159, 175, 179, 195, 197, 140, 141, 142, 144, 146, 147, 148, 202, 203, 212, 216, 219, 220, 222, 162, 164, 165, 167, 205, 311. 226, 232, 233, 234, 237, 249, 252, Instruction, xvii, xx, xxiii, xxvii, 255, 258, 270, 274, 276, 278, 280, xxix, xxx, xxxi, xxxiv, xli, xliv, 282, 283. xlvi, xlvii, 4, 20, 23, 30, 31, 34, 35, Good, xvi, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxxiv, xli, 36, 72, 81, 82, 83, 84, 103, 107, xlviii, 8, 10, 12, 19, 35, 41, 43, 47, 108, 109, 113, 117, 118, 143, 149, 55, 57, 60, 86, 87, 96, 113, 115, 150, 151, 158, 159, 160, 161, 165, 116, 134, 141, 161, 166, 172, 176, 167, 177, 179, 184, 185, 194, 195, 179, 184, 185, 196, 197, 211, 212, 197, 206, 208, 217, 219, 224, 240, 214, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 248, 259, 280, 290, 291, 292, 294, 222, 232, 242, 249, 264, 268, 302, 303, 306, 307, 309, 312. 303, 306, 310, 313.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 332 13-May-20 5:26:15 PM Subject Index 333

Ishmael, xxxv, xlviii, 173, 175, 182, 114, 118, 119, 125, 127, 129, 130, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 132, 134, 139, 140, 140, 147, 153, 192, 193, 194, 195, 204, 271. 154, 155, 156, 162, 163, 164, 166, Israel, xiii, xiv, xxv, xxxvi, xlii, xliii, 167, 172, 176, 177, 178, 179, 183, xliv, 7, 15, 34, 37, 47, 48, 49, 51, 52, 190, 191, 192, 194, 199, 201, 206, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 207, 209, 210, 212, 217, 218, 219, 66, 68, 71, 73, 75, 76, 83, 84, 85, 220, 224, 225, 238, 240, 251, 252, 87, 92, 93, 98, 100, 105, 108, 111, 271, 285, 286, 288, 293, 294, 298, 112, 118, 125, 134, 140, 148, 152, 299, 3000, 305, 309, 312, 321. 155, 161, 167, 171, 172, 190, 191, Johanan, 175, 182, 185, 186, 187, 193, 195, 197, 198, 205, 211, 212, 188, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 214, 216, 218, 221, 231, 233, 234, 203, 204, 205, 209, 223. 237, 241, 244, 249, 251, 253, 255, Jonadab, xxv, 6, 105, 106, 107, 110, 256, 257, 258, 262, 263, 267, 269, 111, 221. 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 276, 277, Judah, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 288, 290, xix, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxvi, xxx, 293, 294, 306, 308, 309, 310, 312. xxxi, xxxiv, xxxvii, xxxix xli, xlii, xliii, xliv, xlv, xlvi, xlvii, xlix, 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11, 16, 20, 21, 24, 25, J 26, 29, 30, 36, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, Jacob, xlii, 50, 51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 60, 49, 53, 54, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 61, 62, 65, 66, 69, 93, 98, 101, 80, 84, 85, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 99, 233, 241, 293, 294. 101, 103, 107, 109, 110, 111, 113, Jeconiah, 29, 77, 170. 114, 115, 117, 118, 124, 125, 127, Jehoiachin, xx, xxi, xlix, 19, 26, 27, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135, 139, 140, 29, 33, 40, 41, 77, 124, 153, 170, 142, 147, 153, 154, 158, 162, 164, 298, 299, 302, 303. 166, 167, 170, 171, 172, 175, 176, Jehoiakim, xix, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, 1777, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, xxviii, xxix, xxx, xxxvii, xxxviii, 184, 185, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, xxxix, xl, xlvii, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 192, 195, 196, 1999, 200, 201, 11, 17, 18, 20, 22, 33, 75, 77, 96, 204, 206, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 104, 105, 106, 113, 114, 115, 116, 217, 218, 220, 223, 226, 227, 229, 117, 119, 122, 123, 124, 125, 134, 232, 233, 234, 235, 238, 240, 241, 139, 143, 154, 204, 221, 223, 224, 242, 248, 249, 251, 252, 257, 258, 234, 242, 293, 294, 298, 303, 305. 259, 262, 263, 264, 265, 269, 270, Jerusalem, xiv, xvi, xix, xxi, xxii, 271, 274, 277, 280, 287, 292, 294, xxiv, xxv, xxviii, xxx, xxxi, xxxii, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 305, xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxvii, xlv, 307, 309, 310. xlvi, xlvii, xlvix, 8, 9, 19, 20, 21, Judgement, xix, xxiii, xxiv, xxvi, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 33, 39, 40, 42, xxxi, xxxviii, xlvii, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 43, 44, 47, 48, 53, 77, 79, 88, 89, 25, 26, 41, 54, 55, 56, 64, 72, 82, 90, 91, 94, 95, 96, 99, 100, 101, 83, 93, 101, 110, 111, 118, 123, 103, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 112, 124, 133, 134, 135, 139, 141, 146,

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 333 13-May-20 5:26:15 PM 334 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

148, 156, 157, 158, 165, 168, 170, 281, 282, 284, 288, 293, 294, 295, 172, 183, 187, 188, 196, 199, 202, 299, 300, 307, 308, 309, 311. 212, 214, 218, 226, 227, 235, 239, Lesson/s, xiv, xv, xxxv, xliv, xlv, 15, 245, 251, 252, 255, 264, 269, 270, 93, 105, 110, 131, 146, 213, 226, 285, 292, 297, 298, 299, 302, 303. 310. Justice, xvi, 26, 64, 91, 92, 148, 154, Levites, 92. 190, 199, 212, 252, 281, 286. Lies, xxx, xxxii, xlviii, 25, 43, 133, 158, 159, 161, 203, 204. Listen/s/listeners, xxvi, xxxii, xxxvi, K 7, 8, 12, 16, 25, 26, 29, 34, 40, 83, Kedar, xxxviii, xxxix, xl, 231, 232, 84, 109, 110, 111, 114, 116, 120, 233, 235, 246, 255, 261, 262, 263, 123, 125, 134, 135, 136, 137, 139, 265. 143, 150, 151, 154, 157, 168, 178, Kill, xxiv, xxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv, xlvii, 179, 196, 209, 210, 213, 218, 220, 18, 65, 104, 146, 150, 151, 152, 258, 293, 297, 298, 307, 312. 158, 161, 164, 188m 189, 190, Lover/s, 52, 53, 94. 204, 237, 276, 299. Kingdom, xiii, xiv, xviii, xxii, xl, 36, M 54, 57, 59, 96, 171, 191, 193, 198, 256, 272, 276, 283, 284. Mercy, 67, 72, 93, 119, 177, 199. Kingship, xxii, 78. Micah, xix, xxiv, xxviii, xxix, xxx, xlvi, 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 19, 106. L Moab, xxxviii, xxxix, xliii, 231, 233, Lament, xiv, xv, xvi, xxxvii. Xliv, xlv, 237, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 58, 64, 65, 80, 89, 116, 118, 147, 251, 252, 253, 24, 255, 257, 259, 157, 191, 220, 253, 254, 257, 261, 263, 264. 286, 287. Mourning, 11, 63, 67, 191, 238, 243, Land, xiv, xv, xvi, xviii, xix, xx, xxiii, 250, 252, 254, 256. xxv, xxxvii, xxx, xxxiv, 3, 4, 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, 24, 25, 35, 36, N 38, 49, 51, 52, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, Nations, xiii, xv, xvi, xviii, xix, xx, 75, 76, 78, 79, 81, 82, 84, 87, 89, xxv, xxvii, xxviii, xxxi, xxxvii, 90, 92, 94, 98, 100, 101, 103, 112, xxxviii, xxxix, xl, xli, xlii, xliii, xlv, 113, 122, 130, 134, 137, 138, 153, xlvi, 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 20, 22, 23, 24, 154, 162, 166, 167, 169, 172, 180, 25, 26, 27, 31, 36, 38, 40, 51, 53, 181, 182, 184, 187, 188, 194, 196, 57, 60, 61, 62, 73, 76, 90, 93, 102, 197, 199, 200, 205, 207, 208, 212, 108, 112, 114, 130, 153, 154, 166, 215, 218, 219, 223, 225, 226, 237, 176, 178, 182, 183, 184, 185, 189, 238, 239, 241, 243, 244, 248, 251, 190, 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 206, 253, 256, 265, 267, 273, 274, 280, 224, 225, 226, 227, 229, 231, 232,

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 334 13-May-20 5:26:15 PM Subject Index 335

234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 241, 244, Order/disorder, xiii, xiv, xvi, xvii, 245, 247, 249, 250, 251, 255, 258, xxiv, xxx, xxxi, xxxiii, xxxviii, xlii, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, xliii, xlv, xlvi, 3, 6, 15, 16, 20, 21, 268, 269, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 30, 31, 36, 29, 30, 31, 36, 39, 40, 54, 279, 281, 282, 283, 285, 286, 287, 59, 60, 63, 70, 72, 76, 78, 81, 82, 85, 290, 292, 294, 305, 307, 308, 309. 86, 91, 94, 96, 97, 108, 110, 112, Nebuchadrezzar, xxii, xxiv, xxvii, 114, 115, 118, 119, 122, 123, 143, xxxii, xxxiii, xxxv, xxxvii, xxxviii, 144, 149, 155, 156, 159, 160, 164, 3, 5, 19, 22, 77, 79, 93, 95, 96, 168, 180, 181, 186, 188, 192, 193, 104, 106, 113, 114, 134, 135, 147, 196, 197, 205, 207, 210, 213, 214, 153, 155, 164, 165, 167, 168, 170, 216, 226, 236, 237, 238, 241, 243, 175, 176, 179, 181, 183, 206, 207, 244, 245, 246, 249, 252, 260, 264, 215, 217, 219, 235, 238, 240, 243, 268, 276, 294, 295, 305, 310, 311. 246, 262, 263, 271, 273, 274, 280, Overthrow, xiii, xxxi, xlii, xliii, xlvi, 285, 286, 287, 294, 299, 300, 302, 3, 69, 73, 198, 241, 259, 264, 295, 303, 306. 301, 308. Nebuzaradan, 166, 167, 168, 171, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, P 201, 205, 212, 298, 300. People, xiv, xv, xvii, xix, xx, xxi, O xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxviii, xxix, xxx, xxxii, xxxvi, xxxvii, xl, xliv, Obey/s/disobey, xv, xvi, xx, xxvi, xlv, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, xxvii, xxviii, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiii, 6, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 8, 16, 19, 25, 35, 36, 41, 42, 44, 67, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43, 44, 45, 51, 53, 68, 78, 79, 109, 110, 114, 116, 118, 56, 57, 59, 61, 63, 68, 69, 70, 72, 130, 142, 143, 144, 151, 154, 155, 75, 76, 77, 79, 82, 84, 86, 89, 90, 156, 157, 159, 160, 163, 167, 178, 91, 92, 93, 95, 96, 100, 101, 102, 180, 184, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 103, 105, 106, 107, 109, 110, 111, 202, 204, 213, 215, 218, 220, 221, 112, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 222, 223, 2235, 240, 252, 272, 121, 122, 123, 125, 129, 130, 133, 287, 288, 294, 307, 309, 310, 312. 134, 135, 137, 139, 141, 142, 143, Oracles (on the nations), xxi, xxvii, 144, 145, 146, 150, 152, 153, 154, xxxi, xxxvii, xxxviii, xxxix, xl, xli, 155, 162, 163, 165, 166, 169, 170, xlii, xliii, xlix, 5, 9, 19, 35, 50, 51, 171, 175, 177, 178, 181, 182, 183, 97, 130, 97, 130, 199, 203, 224, 184, 185, 188, 192, 194, 197, 198, 225, 226, 229, 231, 232, 234, 235, 199, 200, 201, 202, 207, 209, 210, 236, 237, 240, 241, 244, 245, 246, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 253, 255, 259, 261, 262, 264, 265, 223, 225, 234, 243, 244, 245, 251, 267, 268, 269, 270, 273, 275, 281, 256, 258, 262, 263, 271, 272, 274, 284, 288, 289, 290, 293, 294, 306, 278, 280, 288, 290, 291, 293, 297, 307, 308, 312. 298, 300, 303, 205, 307, 309, 310.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 335 13-May-20 5:26:15 PM 336 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Persian, xlii, 91, 168, 178, 206, 232, Plant/ing, xiii, xvi, xvii, xviii, xxiv, 278, 282, 294, 295, 306, 307, 309, xxx, xxxiv, xliii, xlvi, 8, 16, 19, 20, 310, 324. 35, 36, 47, 57, 59, 60, 69, 81, 96, Pharaoh, xxviii, xxxv, xxxvi, xxxviii, 114, 116, 148, 181, 188, 198, 199, xl, 23, 113, 123, 161, 175, 178, 241, 264, 295. 180, 206, 208, 215, 217, 220, 233, Pluck (up), xiii, xvi, xxiv, xxx, xxxi, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, xxxiv, xlii, xliii, xlvi, 3, 4, 20, 36, 278. 57, 70, 96, 114, 181, 198, 225, Philistia, xxxviii, xxxix, xl, xli, 231, 226, 241, 264, 295, 301, 308. 233, 242, 243, 244, 246, 249, 264. Prisoner/s, xv, xvii, xxii, xxii, xxiii, Pit, xxii, xxxiii, xlvii, 129, 143, 147, xxix, xxx, xxxi, xxxii, xxxiv. Xlvi, 149, 158, 254, 263, 312. xlviii, 7, 9, 79, 80, 94, 95, 96, 103, Place, xiv, xv, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxv, 104, 122, 138, 140, 141, 164, 165, xxvi, xxvii, xxix, xxx, xxxi, xxxiv, 170, 175, 177, 219, 227, 235, 254, xxxviii, xl, xliii, xliv, 3, 4, 8, 11, 272, 299. 17, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, Priest, xv, xix, xxii, xxvi, 11, 12, 13, 34, 35, 38, 40, 42, 44, 49, 51, 56, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 27, 28, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 68, 70, 73, 77, 31, 34, 42, 43, 56, 79, 88, 91, 92, 85, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 96, 98, 103, 101, 102, 111, 117, 118, 140, 148, 105, 106, 108, 111, 112, 113, 115, 153, 154, 163, 190, 223, 235, 312. 117, 119, 121, 124, 125, 129, 130, Prize, xxxiv, xxxvii, 19, 145, 164, 131, 135, 137, 138, 140, 141, 143, 169, 171, 227. 147, 148, 152, 157, 160, 162, 163, Prophet/s/prophetic, xiv, xvi, xvii, 164, 166, 167, 168, 169, 172, 173, xx, xxi, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, xxix, 177, 178, 182, 183, 184, 188, 189, xxxiii, xxiv, xxxv, xxxvi, xl, xliii, 190, 191, 194, 195, 196, 197, 200, xliv, xlviii, 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 201, 202, 203, 204, 208, 209, 212, 13, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 214, 217, 218, 219, 222, 225, 226, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 37, 39, 40, 227, 232, 234, 235, 236, 238, 239, 41, 42, 44, 47, 49, 51, 56, 58, 61, 241, 243, 244, 246, 247, 248, 249, 68, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 91, 93, 95, 251, 252, 253, 254, 256, 258, 262, 96. 100, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 263, 264, 271, 273, 277, 282, 287, 110, 111, 113, 115, 116, 119, 122, 288, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 297, 123, 124, 125, 127, 130, 131, 134, 298, 299, 300, 301, 307, 308, 309, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140, 143, 145, 310. 148, 150, 151, 154, 155, 157, 158, Plan, xvii, xviii, xx, xxi, xxix, xxx, 160, 162, 164, 165, 169, 170, 171, xxxvi, xli, xlii, xlviii, 1, 3, 38, 44, 172, 178, 180, 181, 186, 187, 188, 45, 55, 94, 151, 161, 164, 171, 189, 190, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 176, 187, 189, 190, 191, 192, 196, 200, 203, 204, 208, 212, 213, 218, 202, 217, 234, 239, 240, 242, 243, 223, 224, 225, 226, 233, 234, 237, 247, 250, 251, 258, 259, 260, 262, 239, 244, 245, 257, 258, 267, 273, 275, 282, 291, 300, 306. 290, 293, 294, 297, 298, 301, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310, 312, 313.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 336 13-May-20 5:26:15 PM Subject Index 337

Pull (down), xiii, xvi, xxiv, xxx, xxxi, Return/ed, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxx, xxxiv, xliii, xliii, xlvi, 3, 20, 36, 57, xl, xliii, xliv, xlvii, 15, 27, 28, 114, 198, 225, 226, 241, 264, 295, 29, 30, 34, 36, 38, 40, 44, 45, 49, 301, 308. 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, Punishment, xvii, xviii, xix, xxvi, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 76, xxxi, xliii, xlvi, 3, 7, 12, 17, 18, 81, 82, 85, 86, 89, 100, 102, 103, 19, 20, 25, 26, 30, 31, 40, 43, 49, 105, 112, 129, 138, 140, 142, 155, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 70, 73, 75, 84, 165, 167, 180, 182, 188, 190, 192, 89, 93, 94, 98, 100, 101, 107, 109, 198, 200, 202, 205, 213, 217, 218, 110, 112, 114, 124, 125, 147, 148, 223, 237, 239, 241, 244, 252, 271, 149, 150, 152, 154, 158, 176, 199, 274m 281, 293, 295, 301. 201, 207, 210, 211, 212, 213, 215, Righteous/Righteousness, xvi, xxv, 218, 219, 233, 237, 238, 241, 254, xxvi, xlvi, 12, 69, 70, 91, 92, 93, 257, 259, 271, 272, 274, 275, 276, 134, 161, 168, 252, 281, 303. 283, 287, 294, 299, 306, 307, 309. S Q Sabbath, xv, xx, xxxvi, xlv. 1, 98, Queen (of heaven), xxvi, xlviii, 173, 100, 112, 130, 196, 218, 308. 176, 200, 208, 210, 213, 214, 215, Seraiah, xli, xlii, 182, 229, 267, 290, 217, 220, 221, 227, 249, 250. 291, 292, 293, 294, 297, 306, 312. Sermon, xiv, xv, xix, xx, xxvi, xxxvi, xliv, xlv, xlviii, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 12, R 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 52, 85, 107, Rachel, 39, 58, 64, 65, 66. 111, 112, 113, 117, 119, 120, 123, Rechabites, xxiv, xxv, xxviii, xxx, 124, 130, 145, 154, 163, 183, 196, xlvii, 1, 6, 7, 9, 19, 105, 106, 107, 210, 211, 214, 218, 221, 234, 239, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 221. 246, 288, 311. Release/d, xx, xxiii, xxx, xxxiii, 1, Serve/d, xvii, xxi, xxv, xxviii, xxix, 23, 36, 62, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, xxxiv, xli, xlvi, 8, 17, 18, 20, 32, 112, 135, 137, 141, 143, 148, 155, 35, 40, 41, 68, 91, 94, 95, 100, 169, 176, 177. 111, 114, 119, 124, 130, 140, 144, Repent/ed, xxxixix, xxiv, xxviii, 147, 148, 151, 158, 160, 165, 167, xxix, xliv. Xlvi, 5, 5, 6, 12, 17, 18, 172, 178, 179, 182, 183, 185, 187, 26, 35, 49, 118, 121, 136, 142, 191, 198, 199, 200, 203, 204, 212, 199, 210. 214, 215, 216, 219, 223, 233, 261, Repentance, xliv, 5, 12, 15, 61, 66, 292, 293, 294, 299, 307, 312. 103, 105, 110, 116, 117, 121, 123, Servant, xxxii, xxiv, 3, 12, 19, 24, 124, 136, 190, 191, 211, 249, 311. 26, 36, 40, 62, 78, 92, 93, 97, 102, Repentant, 271. 110, 114, 123, 124, 130, 133, 134, Retribution, xxix, 27, 39, 40, 89, 136, 141, 147, 153, 167, 168, 170, 201, 212, 237, 257, 273, 277, 289, 171, 178, 179, 181, 185, 201, 203, 309. 206, 207, 219, 238, 259, 271, 274, 280, 285, 309.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 337 13-May-20 5:26:15 PM 338 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Seventy (years), xvii, xviii, xix, xx, Temple, xiv, xv, xix, xx, xxiv, xxvi, xxi, xxx, xxxi, xxxix, xl, xli, 1, 3, xxxiv, xliv, xlv, 3, 10, 11, 12, 13, 4, 6, 8, 20, 24, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 14, 15, 17, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 43, 36, 38, 43, 44, 47, 59, 68, 73, 95, 44, 52, 61, 69, 77, 85, 92, 102, 108. 112, 114, 130, 167, 200, 218, 219, Tear (down), 59, 96, 116. 221, 235, 238, 274, 291, 294, 309. Terror, 50, 51, 235, 236, 254, 257, Servitude, xvii, xix, xx, xxi, xxiv, xxix, 259, 262, 263. xxxi, xxxii, xxxv, xxxix, xlix, 1, 9, Time, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xix, xx, 23, 27, 28, 30, 33, 42, 51, 73, 93, xxi, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, 100, 102, 127, 129, 130, 154, 155, xxviii, xxx, xxxiv, xxxvi, xxxvii, 172, 175, 183, 184, 185, 294, 306. xl, xli, xliii, xlv, xlviii, 3, 4, 5, 8, Shemaiah, 34, 35, 42, 43, 223. 9. 11, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26, Shepherd/s, xvi, xviii, 62, 63, 90, 28, 30, 31, 32, 36, 38, 40, 41, 42, 207, 260, 262, 272. 43, 45, 48, 51, 55, 57, 58, 66, 75, Shiloh, xiv, xix, xliv, 13, 14, 112, 81, 82, 88, 87, 88, 91, 96, 98, 102, 130, 190, 300. 103, 104, 106, 111, 112, 113, 115, Sin, xv, xxxi, 12, 15, 30, 38, 41, 49, 124, 130, 140, 142, 149, 153, 154, 52, 53, 57, 66, 70, 72, 73, 84, 86, 158, 161, 163, 165, 167, 168, 172, 89, 98, 117, 118, 123, 154, 171, 173, 176, 182, 183, 185, 187, 188, 196, 219, 252, 257, 274, 277. 189, 190, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, Sovereign, xiv, xv, xvii, xviii, xxv, xxiv, 201, 202, 203, 208, 209, 211, 214, xxvi, xxxvii, xl, xli, xlv, xlviii, 23, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 222, 24, 25, 27, 38, 49, 84, 96, 103, 114, 224, 225, 227, 232, 234, 235, 237, 123, 124, 139, 154, 172, 181, 196, 239, 240, 243, 246, 247, 249, 254, 206, 210, 217, 227, 235, 236, 237, 255, 258, 261, 263, 264, 269, 270, 238, 241, 243, 244, 246, 247, 249, 273, 275, 276, 278, 289, 291, 292, 256, 261, 263, 264, 270, 280, 282, 294, 302, 305, 308, 310. 291, 292, 299, 307, 308, 309, 310. Topheth, 73. Steadfast (love), 12, 27, 53, 59, 83, 90. Torah, 16, 71, 72, 84, 99, 103, 108, Subjugation, xviii, xxviii, xxxi, 116, 122, 144, 161, 172, 307, 308, xxxiv, xxxv, xl, xli, xlvi, xlviii, 3, 310. 4, 7, 8, 9, 21, 23, 24, 94, 183, 232, Trial, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 235, 249, 264, 274, 306, 308. 124, 139, 145, 157, 187, 211, 258. Superscription, xxxi, xxxviii, xxxix, xl, xli, xlix, 225, 232, 235, 236, U 238, 242, 246, 264, 270, 306. Understand/ing, xiii, xxi, xxiii, T xxxviii, 10, 12, 54, 56, 71, 76, 78, 83, 107, 108, 113, 114, 120, 124, Tahpanhes, xxxv, 202. 135, 137, 139, 144, 165, 180, 184, Teacher, 85, 161, 308, 322. 189, 236, 243, 267, 269, 272, 297, Teaching, xlv, 66, 172, 213, 227, 317. 312.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 338 13-May-20 5:26:15 PM Subject Index 339

Universal, xviii, xxv, xxx, xxxiv, xl, Y xli, xliii, 24, 25, 72, 81, 87, 96, Year, 103, 213, 227, 240, 263, 264, 270, Yoke, xx, xxiii, 5, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 279, 283, 289, 292, 308, 309. 29, 31, 32, 51, 77, 79, 102, 153, 154, 155. V Violence, 52, 147, 195. Z Verify, xxxix, 31, 121, 208, 294, 295. Zedekiah, xv, xvi, xix, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxix, xxx, xxxii, xxxiii, xxxiv, W xxxvii, xlvi, xlviii, 1, 7, 11, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31, 33, 34, 40, 42, War, xiv, xxxiv, xxxvii, 20, 30, 36, 47, 48, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 84, 94, 44, 69, 101, 145. 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, Wine, xvii, xxiv, xxxviii, 3, 8, 21, 23, 104, 105, 106, 124, 129, 131, 132, 107, 108, 109, 110, 232, 248, 251, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 259, 262, 281, 287. 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, Wrath, xvii, xviii, xix, xxxi, xxxviii, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, xliv, 3, 8, 21, 23, 57, 85, 87, 119, 158, 159, 160, 162, 164, 165, 166, 190, 198, 201, 232, 237, 251, 252, 167, 168, 170, 192, 196, 208, 217, 257, 259, 262, 273, 281, 287, 289, 219, 225, 263, 290, 291, 298, 299, 301. 300, 301, 302, 303.

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 339 13-May-20 5:26:15 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 340 13-May-20 5:26:15 PM Author Index

A D Abrego, José M, Dalglish, Edward R, Ackroyd, Peter R, De Jong, Matthijs J, Aitken, KT, De Roche, Michael, Allen, Leslie C, Di Pede, Elena, Amit, Yairah, Dubbink, Joep, Applegate, J, E B Epp-Tiessen, Daniel, Barstad, Hans M, Bellis, Alice Ogden, F Ben Zvi, Ehud, Boadt, Lawrence, Ferry, Joëlle, Bodner, Keith, Fischer, Georg, Bourguet, Daniel, Fretheim, Terence E, Boyle, Brian, Bozak, Barbara, Bright, John, G Brueggemann, Walter, Gosse, Bernard, Bryan, Steven M, Green, Barbara,

C H Callaway, Mary Chilton, Harding, James E, Carroll, Robert P, Hayyim, Angel, Christensen, Duane L, Hill, John, Clements, RE, Holladay, William L, Couturier, Guy P,

341

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 341 13-May-20 5:26:15 PM 342 Discerning the Dynamics of Jeremiah 25–52 (MT)

Holt, Else K, O Huffmon, Herbert B, O’Brien, Mark A, Huwyler, Beat, O’Connor, Kathleen M, Osuji, Anthony Chinedu, J Otto, Eckhart, Jacobson, Rolf A, Joo, Samantha, P Parker, Tom, K Peels, Eric, Pham, XHT, Kalmanofsky, Amy, Pohlmann, K-F, Kartveit, Magnar, Keown, Gerald L, Kessler, Martin, R Kozlova, Ekaterina E, Raabe, Paul R, Kremers, H, Rad, Gerhard von, Kruger, Paul A, Ramsey, G, Rata, Tiberius, L Reimer, David J, Rom-Shiloni, Dalit, Leuchter, Mark, Roncace, Mark, Levine, MH, Rudolph, Wilhelm, Lipschits, Oded, Lundbom, Jack R, S M Scalise, Pamela J, Schaper, Joachim, Maier, Christl, Schenker, Adrian, Mastnjak, Nathan, Seitz, Christopher R, Matthews, Victor, Sharp, Carolyn, McKane, William, Shead, Andrew G, Middlemas, Jill, Smelik, Klaas AD, Miller, Patrick D, Sjoberg, Matthew, Muilenberg, James, Stipp, Hermann-Josef, Stulman, Louis, N Sweeney, Marvin A, Nicholson, Ernest W,

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 342 13-May-20 5:26:15 PM Author Index 343

T Weiser, Artur, Weiser, Artur, Thelle, Ranfrid H, Westbrook, Raymond, Thiel, Winfried, Whitcomb, Kelly, Thompson, JA, Widder, Wendy J, Trible, Phyllis, Willis, Timothy, M,

V Y Varughese, Alex, Yates, Gary E, Volz, P, von Rad, Gerhard. Vriezen, Karel JH, Z Zvi, E Ben, W Wal, AJO van der, Watts, James W,

Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 343 13-May-20 5:26:15 PM Discerning the Dynamics of Jermiah 25-52.indd 344 13-May-20 5:26:15 PM