Fluent Essays

Why, according to Jeremiah 7, is God angry at the people of Judah?  Drawing on the assigned secondary reading by Avioz, speculate on why it is significant that Jeremiah conveys God’s anger at the temple.  Turning to Jeremiah 27-28, why is the prophet Hananiah furious at Jeremiah and what does he (Hananiah) do as a result? I Sat Alone Jeremiah Among the Prophets MICHAEL AYIOZ T 1 6) r i s 2009 First Gorgias Press Edition, 2009 Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a re­ trieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechani­ cal, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. Published in the United States of America by Gorgias Press LLC, New Jersey ISBN: 978-1-59333-854-1 T i (j) r \ s An Imprint of GORGIAS PRESS 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ 08854 USA Library- of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Avioz, Michael, 1967- [Nevuato shel Yirmeyahu. English] I sat alone : Jeremiah among the prophets / Michael Av­ ioz. -- 1st Gorgias Press ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-59333-854-1 (alk. paper) 1. Jeremiah (Biblical prophet) 2. Bible. O.T. Jeremiah- -Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BS580.J4A9513 2009 224.206--dc22 2009001234 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standards. 4 JEREMIAHS TEMPLE SERMON Jeremiahs speech in the Temple (Jeremiah 7:1-15) is one of the most im­ pressive in the 1 Iebrew Bible. In his book, Zeev Weisman writes the follow­ ing. The canonical prophets charismatic test lay not so much in whether they succeeded in predicting the future, but in whether they possessed the proficiency and power with which to persuade their audience of the truth of their messages. In the same vein as Weisman, I will attempt to show that research written on the subject of rhetoric can make a significant contribution to understanding Jeremiahs speech in the Temple. What were the historical and societal conditions leading to Jeremiahs Temple speech? What is the message of the speech? By what means does Jeremiah transmit his message, with the aim of persuading his audience? It seems that two specific groups were of special interest in Jeremiahs speech: a. The reference to the Ten Commandments and to Shiloh implies the priests, whose job it is to teach the people how to observe the Ten Commandments (sec, for example Deut. 17:9-12; 33:10; Jer. 2:8; 18:18; Ezek. 7:26; IIos. 5:1; Mai. 2:7; 2 Chr. 15:3). Since they failed in their duties, they deserved to be censured, a task that the true prophets take upon them­ selves. According to the description in 1 Sam. 2, Elis sons, the priests, were responsible for the destruction of Shiloh. The priests abuse of their posi­ tion in Jeremiahs time likewise threatens to cause the destruction of Jerusa­ lem. Jeremiah is particularly entitled to prophecy this, as according to the first verse of the book (Jer. 1:1), he himself was from a priestly family. He knows very well how a priest is supposed to behave, and is therefore in a position to judge. b. Jeremiah appears to be addressing a second group—the false prophets—in his speech. ITiey are indicated by the expression we are saved and by use of the word falsehood. The use of slogans implies the false prophets. The fact that the prophets and the priests were Jeremiahs 21 22 I Sat Alone leading accusers in the story of his trial in chapter 26 is also an indication that they understood Jeremiahs words perfectly. If Jeremiahs speech was indeed made in 609/8 BCE, as many scholars suppose, then it goes without saying that the effect created thereby was fear. It was a particularly difficult year for the people of Judah, a year of turmoil: the death of josiah, followed by his replacement by two more kings, Jehoa- haz and jehoiakim. judah came under Egyptian rule and the people sought comfort and security in the Temple. Jeremiahs role, then, was to under­ mine the peoples sense of calm and security. This period was a fertile one for the false prophets to espouse their ideologies and to gain popularity among the masses. It is in this troubled period that Jeremiah had to stand strong and go out against these prophets. The Arrangement of the Material In contrast to Isaiah 1, wherein grave accusations are brought against the people in the introduction, Jeremiah opens the body of his speech on a positive note: Amend your ways and your doings, and let me dwell with you in this place (v. 3). This positive attitude is part of Jeremiahs ethos: He is genuinely concerned with the destinv of Israel, and he makes efforts to save them from error. Jeremiah 7 is a classic call for repentance, a change of direction. In­ deed, the Land of Israel belongs to the people of Israel according to the promise made to their forefathers, yet their dwelling therein is conditional: In every generation, the people have to prove that they are worthy of the Land, and should therefore take care that the Temple does not become a source of illusion, or a stumbling block for Israel. Later on, Jeremiah states that society has a moral obligation toward its members, and is therefore required to make improvements. From a rhetorical point of view, Jeremiah begins by moving from the general to the particular, and then returns to the general in his speechs conclusion. When Jeremiah sees no positive response from the audience, he ratch­ ets up his tone. He abandons all pretenses and expresses the full severity of his words. While he begins his speech in a positive tone, when this tack re­ ceives no response, he moves on to a description of his peoples terrifying position. Evidence for this can be found in his speech (v. 13): When I spoke to you persistently, you did not listen. Jeremiah is now wearing the hat of the prosecution in court. He pre­ sents the charges to the people followed by the consequences should they be found guilty. Jeremiah pleads that the peoples negative behavior consti- 4 Jeremiahs Temple Sermon 23 tutes a violation of the binding legal document that lays down the terms of the relationship between the people of Israel and God: the Ten Com­ mandments. The Ten Commandments are defined as a covenant, a contract between Israel and God on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19-20), which obligates both sides. If the people break their part of the agreement, then God will commensuratelv break His. Jeremiah refers to the Ten Commandments in a different order from diat in the Hebrew Bible. In Exodus 20, die religious commandments come first, and the social commandments come afterwards. Jeremiah, however, starts by presenting the social commandments. Martin Buber explains the significance of this: the sins against religion come at the end (as in v. 6), because the prophet has to proclaim just this, that God seeks something other than religion. Out of a human community He wills to make his king­ dom; communitv there must be in order that 1 lis kingdom shall come; therefore here, where he blames a people for not having become a commu­ nity, mans claim upon man takes precedence of Gods claim. According to Buber, the moral commandments occupy a more impor­ tant position within the prophets value system. I lowever, Bubcrs opinion seems not to fit the Book of Jeremiah, which names idolatry as the main cause of the destruction of the Temple. Thus reads Jer. 9:12-14, for exam­ ple: Who is wise enough to understand this? To whom has the mouth of the LORD spoken, so that they may declare it? Why is the land mined and laid waste like a wilderness, so that no one passes through? And the LORD says: Because they have forsaken My law that I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice, or walked in accordance with it, but have stubbornly followed their own hearts and have gone after the Baals, as their ancestors taught them (see also Jer. 5:10-11, 16, 18). What is special about Jeremiahs words is that he raises the position of social ethics to the level of an additional basic condition for the existence of the nation in its land, in contrast to the viewpoint that sees the Temple sac­ rifices as the essence. Apart from that, the distinction between mans claim and Gods claim is a problem. The Hebrew Bible makes a connec­ tion between sins against man and sins against God. Thou shalt not com­ mit adulter} is not only a sin against man, but also a sin against God. The same is the case with Thou shalt not murder. We see from here that pro­ gression is incorporated within Jeremiahs words. In v. 3-5, we follow Jeremiahs move from the general to the particu­ lar. Now we see the progression from the (relatively) light to the serious. 24 I Sat Alone Jeremiah wishes to tell his audience: Not only have you sinned in a moral context, but you have also dared to commit the greatest sin of all—idolatry. Citations and Refutation Jeremiah quotes his antagonists, the false prophets: The Temple of the LORD, The Temple of the LORD, The Temple of the LORD, (v. 4) and again, we are saved (v. 10). Presendng the false prophets words as mere slogans enables Jeremiahs audience to discern the untruths, as they ask themselves, What is the basis for this persons statements? Moreover, one definition of falsehood is: words spoken with the inten­ tion of creating an erroneous belief or understanding among the audience, by using half-truths and/or delivering partial information. From the words •3*7 pi^Cto vour own harm, v. 6), it can be understood that Jeremiah believes that words are being spoken by the false prophets, who are aware of their being partially or completely incorrect. Although it is quite likely that Jeremiah is referring to beliefs regarding Jerusalems immunity, which developed during Sennacheribs campaign to Judah (2 Kings 18-20 / Isaiah 36-39), Jeremiah only hints at this belief by using 1 Iebrew words with the roots TOU (trust) and (save; rescue). An explicit mention of the story of Jerusalems deliverance is likely to con­ ceal Jeremiahs intenuon of presenting Jerusalem as vulnerable to the en­ emy. The use of first person plural (We are delivered, JPS; We are safe, NRSV) is also deliberate. Jeremiah does not say, God has saved us, but rather, we are delivered. In other words, he disconnects God from the slogans created by his antagonists. The word was apparently a slogan regularly used by the false prophets. Various scholars who have dealt with the subject of falsehood have noted that the aspiration to popularity must be included in the motives for lying. Belief in falsehood stems from the false prophets authority in the eyes of the people, and from the comfort the latter derive from the optimis­ tic message. In chapter 7, Jeremiah speaks out against such beliefs, and in doing so must contend with prophecies that were particularly popular. Such prophe­ cies were given by prophets claiming to be Gods messengers, representing the Zion Tradition. This ideology seeks to highlight Gods unconditional commitment to Jerusalem and to the Temple, thus releasing the people from their commitment to God. According to Jeremiah, there is no guaran- 4 Jeremiahs Temple Sermon 25 tee that the Temple will be saved, as it is not independent of earlier prom­ ises, but rather conditioned on the behavior of the people. Will Jeremiah succeed in achieving the impossible and persuading the people that his cause is just? Jeremiah needs to persuade those gathered at die Temple that it is indeed an important place, and before coming to pray diere, or to offer sacrifices, they must make sure that their hands are clean and must mend their ways. Otherwise, they have no business there, and no sacrifice will serve as insurance against enemies who try to conquer the city. It appears that Jeremiah did not intend to speak against the legitimacy of the Temple as such; rather, his intention was to shock the people and spur them into action. Other prophets worked in a similar way. Neither did they speak out against the Temple or religious rituals as such, but radier against the peoples flouting of the covenant between them and their God. The Rhetorical Questions Jeremiah presents die violation of the Ten Commandments as a rhetorical question: Will you steal, murder, commit adulter}...? (v. 9). This is a con­ firmed rhetorical medium, i.e., the rhetorical question forces an answer on the part of the listener, and in this case, it is negative. Jeremiah uses rhetori­ cal questions to speak out against accepted opinions, or to rephrase the an­ swers to his questions. His rhetorical questions are designed to cause the audience to utter such responses as, What are you talking about? Of course we wont violate all Ten Commandments and then come to the Temple to pray. Jeremiah continues with a more forceful rhetorical question: Has this house, which is called by My name, become a den of robbers? (v. 11 ). This is very strong language, and there is no doubt that it outraged his audi­ ence. Its significance is that the Temple has become a hiding place for criminals, thieves, and murderers, a city of refuge for those who are not entided to flee thereto. Jeremiahs audience would consider such a pro­ nouncement to be a desecration of holiness. Jeremiah is playing on the emotions here, and his words befit the pa­ thos of Aristodes rhetoric. The purpose of playing on the emotions in a speech is to influence the audiences judgment, to cause it to identify with the orators content. 26 I Sat Alone Analogies Like even, successful rhetorician, Jeremiah has to back up his words. It is not enough to reject widespread conceptions. He must prove his arguments with examples from history. Jeremiah needs to suggest opposing precedents to those presented by the false prophets. I Ie therefore notes two such his­ torical precedents. The first example is the destruction of Shiloh (v. 12-14). Before Jeremiah reaches the description of the Jerusalem Temples fate, he uses a series of relative clauses instead of stating directly that the Temple will be destroyed. The Temple, indicating Jerusalem, is placed at the beginning of the sentence, and Shiloh, which constitutes the negative precedent, is placed at the end. Between them are placed the descriptions of the Temple in Jerusalem: therefore I will do to the house that is called by My name, in which you trust, and to the place that I gave to you and to your ancestors, just what I did to Shiloh (v. 14). Jeremiah combines past, present, and future in one sentence, i.e., the Temple belongs to God: He gave it to the people and to their forefathers. The people currently trust in Him. God will do to the Temple what He has already done to another temple, Shiloh. This negative slant contradicts Jeremiahs demands in the first part of the speech, i.e., if you truly act justly ( v. 5 ), yet it is apparent from verses 10 and 13 that the peoples actions arc mainly negative. What is the significance of the analogy to Shiloh? Jeremiah is saying that just as the Ark of the Coyenant was to no avail in the days of Samuel and Eli because the priests had greatly sinned, so the Temple in Jerusalem will be to no avail and will not protect the people, because they have not seen the error of their ways. Linking Shiloh and Jerusalem also appears in Psalm 78, although Jeremiah presents an opposing viewpoint to that of the psalm. Instead of presenting the difference between Jerusalem, which was chosen bv God, and Shiloh, which was rejected by Him, Jeremiah presents a parallel between the two towns: The citizens of both have sinned, and therefore a similar fate will befall them. Jeremiahs words are considered to be innovative compared to those of other prophets. Isaiah, for example, never once mentioned the possibility of the Temples destruction. He spoke about exile, but not about the de­ struction of the Temple. The second precedent, with which Jeremiah ends his speech (v. 15), relates to the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, when the ten tribes were exiled. Why? Because they committed the sins against which the 4 Jeremiahs Temple Sermon 27 prophet warned, and did not pay heed to their contemporary prophets ad­ vice (see 2 Kings 17:13-14). 1hat being the case, the people have no insur­ ance—no Temple, and no Divine promise—that they will dwell in the Land of Israel to eternity. Jeremiah concludes his speech in a severe tone, i.e., threat of the de­ struction of the Temple and exile. Throughout all of Israels history, ex­ ile—the loss of property and independence, and life in a foreign land—was a substantive threat. In the eyes of the people, the destruction of the Temple meant losing their intimate connection with God, and living in an impure land. What Was Not Mentioned in the Speech? A comparison of the speech in Jeremiah 7 with other speeches reveals that the prophet omitted an important element in his speech: the kings of the House of David. While Jeremiah discusses the question of Jerusalems pro­ tection of her citizens, he does not specifically mention the kings of the House of David. This omission is despite the fact that the treatment of the orphaned, the poor, and the widowed is the kings responsibility (see for example Ezek. 22:6-7; cf. 25, 29; Ps. 72:4; Prov. 23:10-11). Two possible reasons can be suggested for why Jeremiah did not men­ tion the kings of the House of David in his prophecy: First, because they are referred to in various prophecies, (particularly in Jer. 21-24). Secondly, specific mention of the kings of the House of David would have been likely to shift the focus from the discussion of the Temple and its functions, to the fate of the promise made to the House of David that it will be an ever­ lasting kingdom. The promise could have been used by the false prophets, claiming that not only is the Temple protected, but so is Jerusalem, not only because of the Divine presence therein, but also because of the promise made to David in 2 Samuel 7. By excluding specific mention of the kings of the House of David, Jeremiah can extend the legal demand for protection of the weak to society as a whole, as is done in the Pentateuch. litis is also the apparent reason for why Jeremiah deviates from the line presented in Psalm 78: Instead of ending with the choice of David for the monarchy, he concludes with threats about the destruction of the Temple and the exile of the people from their land. The prosecution has now finished its argument. The ball is now in the hands of the people and their leaders, who must decide whether to embrace Jeremiah or to throttle him, whether to stone him or to applaud him. It is important to emphasize that in the days of Jeremiah, a means that had ex- 28 I Sat Alone isted in the days of the prophets who preceded him no longer existed, i.e., performing miracles in order to prove ones message. This is how it had been in the days of Elijah on Mount Carmel when he brought down fire from the skies (1 Kings 18). In contrast, the only power that could be used in Jeremiahs days was the power of speech. What was the peoples reaction to Jeremiahs harsh words? The answer is presented in chapter 26 of Jeremiah, the focus of the next chapter.