Exam Questions

• Answers are perhaps likely to begin by showing that Jeremiah’s life did indeed contain an excess of unmerited suffering. In the call narrative at the beginning of the book, Jeremiah is called to pluck up / break down / destroy and overthrow. He is also told that God will make him into an iron pillar / a fortified city, meaning that he will need to have the strength and courage to deal with opposition and enmity from the royal court, the priesthood, false prophets and ordinary people who thought he was a traitor.

• One indication that these injustices did weaken him is the ‘confessional’ material in the book, for example in 11:18–12:6, where he complains that unwittingly, he is the object of a plot to assassinate him. He goes on to ask why the wicked prosper and thrive; to all of which God answers that what he experiences now is but a preparation for an even more difficult time to come. The language of the other laments is equally mournful, and gives the impression that Jeremiah is failing under the burden, e.g. in Jeremiah 15:10, where he wishes he had not been born.

• On the other hand, it seems clear that the various threats against his life do not stop him from carrying out what he sees as his life’s work. In Chapter 11, God threatens those who threaten Jeremiah, so Jeremiah was strengthened by God’s support.

• Some might argue that God chose Jeremiah to be a prophet because of his qualities of self-reliance. For example, his withdrawal from family life meant that he had to be self-reliant.

• Moreover, Jeremiah does not suffer in silence: when Pashhur has him beaten and put into the stocks, Jeremiah without hesitation predicts that Pashhur will be a terror to himself and his friends.

• If we look at Jeremiah’s involvement at court, it is clear that he was able to stand up to the various kings of the time: e.g. when Jehoiakim cut up the scroll dictated to Baruch, Jeremiah dictated another, and told Jehoiakim that the Babylonians would destroy Judah (Chapter 36) so that there would be no king left to sit on David’s throne.

Credit all attempts at analysis, not least because there is no obvious answer to the question.

Assessment of this issue hinges on how candidates interpret particular aspects of Jeremiah’s life in connection with his strength as a prophet. Responses might refer to some of the following:

• the details of Jeremiah’s call show that most of it concerned suffering in some form, ‘to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow’. Moreover in 1:18–19, God tells Jeremiah that he will be made into a fortified city/an iron pillar, meaning that he will need to be tough enough to tolerate the kings, princes, priests and people of Judah fighting against him. That God will fortify him makes him a stronger prophet as he has God on his side

• his ‘confessions’ show the unhappiness he suffered. During one of them he curses the day on which he was born (15:10), after which God tells him to be sorry for what he has said, and he will make him ‘a wall to these people, a fortified wall of bronze’ (v.29)

• the various threats against his life do not deter him, for example in ch.11, where God says that he will punish those who threaten Jeremiah

• his withdrawal from family life and friends meant that he had to be self-reliant

• when Pashhur has him beaten and put in the stocks, Jeremiah gives him a terrifying prediction that Pashhur will become a terror to himself and all his friends

• Jeremiah was able to stand up to the various kings of the time. For example, when Jehoiakim cut up the scroll dictated to Baruch, Jeremiah dictated another and told Jehoiakim that the Babylonians would destroy Judah so that there would be no king left to sit on David’s throne (ch.36).

The question might be said to arise from Jeremiah’s call, where doom and hope are signified by the balancing of ‘building and planting’ with ‘plucking up and breaking down’.

Doom was suggested by the reference to the ‘foe from the North’, which is identified usually as the Scythians or the Babylonians. Hope might be seen in either case by Jeremiah being described by God as a fortified city / an iron pillar who could not be broken down.

Doom might be seen in many aspects of his life and prophecy, e.g. his ‘confessions’; the Temple Sermon; his dealings with false prophets such as Hananiah; his unfortunate family / personal circumstances; and the extent of the doom oracles in his writings.

Hope might be seen in his parable of the good (and bad) figs; his ‘Booklet of Consolation’, giving assurance to those in exile; his hope for the future by buying land in Judah; and his hope for a new covenant.

Candidates might argue for a balance of hope over doom, or for the reverse, or for an even distribution of hope and doom.

There are undeniably hopeful elements in Jeremiah’s prophecies, although the Book of Jeremiah has undergone such an involved process of editing that it is difficult to know which elements are due to editorial comment as opposed to Jeremiah’s own ideas. Candidates are likely to refer to:

• the parable of the good and bad figs

• his positive comments in his letter to the exiles

• the hopeful gesture of buying a field

• the hope expressed in the concept of the New Covenant.

Candidates are likely also to refer to the bulk of material signifying doom, especially Jeremiah’s own comment that no genuine prophet before him had prophesied salvation, which appears to show that salvific elements in the book are secondary additions. Reference is likely to be made also to:

• the parables/actions of the waistcloth, potter, wooden yoke, etc.

• the confessional material, which is generally seen as typical of Jeremiah’s doom & gloom attitude, although some scholars see this material as having a cultic context

• Jeremiah’s personal life – no obvious access to friends or family

• his denunciation of the cult, especially in the Temple Sermon

• the strength of his denunciation of false prophets / the death of Hananiah / predictions of disaster to Zedekiah, Passhur, et al.

• his actions during the siege – being restrained by the authorities because he was seen to be advocating pro-Babylonian policies.

Some might suggest that describing Jeremiah as a prophet of hope or as a prophet of doom is inappropriate, and that the content of the message was dictated by the situation and by Yahweh, and was not of Jeremiah’s choosing. Some might point to Jeremiah’s call narrative, where Yahweh commissions him to “pluck up and to break down …. To build and to plant”, which might suggest that Jeremiah’s prophecy would naturally contain elements of both hope and doom. On that reading, again, it would not be appropriate to describe Jeremiah as a prophet of hope or of doom: he used both styles when appropriate.

• No specific judgement is required, so judge purely by quality of argument.

• There are several indications of hope in Jeremiah, for example: the parable of the good and bad figs; his purchase of a field in order to show that at some stage there would be a point in owning and occupying land in Judah; his encouragement and support for those in exile; his idea of the New Covenant.

• Candidates are perhaps likely to find it easier to discover elements of doom, or at least lack of hope, in Jeremiah’s writings and deeds, for example: his parables and actions – the waistcloth, the allegory of the wine jar, the potter, the wooden yoke, etc. Expect some detail here: for example, with the story of the waistcloth, the concluding oracle promises that God will spoil the pride of Judah and Jerusalem – like the waistcloth they will be good for nothing.

• Jeremiah himself comments that no genuine prophet before him had prophesied salvation, which suggests that any salvation oracles in Jeremiah are likely to be additions by later editors.

• Jeremiah’s confessions illustrate the antithesis of hope, for example in 11:18–12:6, he raises a question of obvious concern to him: ‘Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive?’

• The strength of Jeremiah’s condemnation of the false prophets, and his prediction of disaster to Zedekiah and others, for example, show an approach of pessimism, not hope.

• Some might argue that hope and lack of hope are both present in Jeremiah’s prophecy, and that this follows naturally from what is said at his call.

For the doom aspect of his message, candidates might refer to some of the following:

• the doom aspect of the various symbolic actions/parables such as the waistcloth, the potter/pot, the wooden yoke, etc.

• the doom-laden content of the ‘confessional’ material

• the doom of his disastrous personal life, having no family and no friends, apart from ceremonial ritual

• his denunciation of the cult, especially the Temple sermon

• his prophecy of the destruction of the Temple

• his denunciation of false prophets, particularly on the grounds that no true prophet to date had spoken words of shalom, only of doom

• his dealings with Hananiah, and the latter’s death; the predictions of disaster to Pashhur, Zedekiah and others

• his actions during the siege of Jerusalem, where he was restrained because he was seen to be advocating pro-Babylonian policies.

For the hope aspect, e.g.

• the parable of the good (as well as the bad) figs

• his positive comments in his letter to the exiles – the ‘Booklet of Consolation’

• his gesture of hope for the future by buying the field

• his comments about the new covenant.

Weaker responses are likely to go no further than the kind of illustrations given above. Stronger answers will address the suggestion that doom and hope are an ‘equal mixture’ in his message.

Some will point out, for example, that the call narrative at the start of the book balances doom with hope – e.g. in the juxtaposition of ‘pluck up’ and ‘build’, etc.

Some might suggest that Jeremiah was neither a prophet of doom nor of hope, but was simply a prophet of Yahweh, and as such had no option but to announce what he was told to announce.

He was a man under prophetic compulsion, and as with other prophets, notably Amos, it could well be that function influences character.

A reasonable knowledge of the call narrative is expected, either directly or shown in connection with Jeremiah’s work and message. The essence of the call contains the following:

• God’s assurance to Jeremiah that he knew him before he was born, and consecrated him to be a prophet

• Jeremiah’s objection that he did not know how to speak, being only a youth

• God’s reassurance that to whomever he is sent, and whatever he is commanded to speak, God will be with him

• God touches his mouth to emphasise that he has put his words into Jeremiah’s mouth, and has set him up ‘to pluck up and to break down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.’ (1:10)

• God sends Jeremiah vision of a pot boiling over from the North, which appears to symbolise judgement on the nation, and that Jeremiah will speak God’s judgements concerning this

• Jeremiah is commanded not to be dismayed by his enemies, because God has made him a fortified city, an iron pillar and bronze walls against the kings, princes, priests and people. They cannot prevail against Jeremiah because God is with them to deliver him.

Candidates are likely to illustrate the working out of these elements in Jeremiah’s life. Properly speaking, anything selected for illustration will be relevant, because Yahweh has chosen Jeremiah as his mouthpiece, so the whole of Jeremiah’s prophecy is a fulfilment of this call. In practice,

candidates are likely to pick out elements such as:

• Jeremiah’s isolation from companionship because of his calling

• his disastrous family life, having no family and no friends

• his denunciation of the cult, particularly at the Jerusalem Temple

• his denunciation of false prophets who offer hope when there is no hope

• his dealings with kings and priests and his predictions of disaster to Zedekiah, Pashhur and others

• his actions during the siege of Jerusalem

• in particular, actions / words that illustrate the opposite actions of overthrowing / destroying on the one hand and building / planting on the other, e.g. the ‘parable’ of the good and bad figs.

• For Isaiah: 7:1–9 – Isaiah’s delivery to Ahaz of the sign of Shear-Jashub in the SyroEphraimite war as an assurance to the king that in the worst case, a remnant shall return

from captivity / 7:10–17: the second sign, of Immanuel – God is with us / 8:1–4 – Mahershalal-hash-baz as a sign of assurance to Ahaz / 20:1–6 – Isaiah walking naked and barefoot as a warning to Egypt of approaching captivity.

• For Jeremiah: 13:1–11 – the linen belt, symbolizing the rotten state of Judah / 16:1–9 – Jeremiah forbidden to marry and have children – as an important reminder that the nation’s destruction was imminent / 18:1–12 – the potter’s house: God as the sovereign potter who works the clay of all nations and peoples / 19:1–15 – smashing the clay pot in Hinnom, symbolic of smashing Judah / 27:1–28:17 – Jeremiah and the yoke symbolizing unconditional surrender to Babylon / 32:1–15 – Jeremiah’s purchase of the field to symbolize an eventual return to normality / 43:8–13 – burying stones in the entrance to Pharaoh’s palace to symbolize the fate of the exiles in Egypt / 51:59–64 – throwing the scroll in the Euphrates, to symbolize Babylon’s destruction.

Candidates are at liberty to choose any criteria they like for establishing which set of symbolic acts are more important:

• For example some might argue that those associated with Jeremiah are more frequent in his prophecy, and are therefore more an integral part of his prophecy than those of Isaiah, where the main influence comes from his call and from the royal Davidic theology.

• Some might argue that there are no real grounds for viewing one set of symbolic acts as more important than another, since they are all part of God’s message.

• Some might argue that those acts associated with national destruction and restoration are more important than any others, and perhaps again reach the conclusion that both Isaiah and Jeremiah had much to say of equal importance.

There are a variety of themes that candidates might draw attention to in order to answer this question, e.g.

• at his call, Jeremiah displayed hesitation, dismay and modesty. These might be seen as part of the stylistic form of the call narrative; but equally they might be seen as a reflection of what Jeremiah was really like

• his family had a priestly background. There are several details in the book which suggest that Jeremiah inherited this part of the family duties, e.g. his Temple Sermon, so his knowledge of the cult is first hand

• he had a marked tendency to perform symbolic acts in unusual ways (candidates are likely to give examples) – ways which appear to have led him into conflict with some of those who saw and listened to the symbolized message

• he was a magnificent poet, not least in the ‘confessional’ material, and the poetry is presumably of his own composition

• some scholars think that the ‘I’ of his ‘confessions’ is cultic, and that he is thereby operating as a cultic prophet – a paid functionary who gave professional responses to a lament offered in a cultic context, but in the 6th lament (20:14–18) for example, Jeremiah curses the day on which he was born, which sounds more like a personal complaint than something cultic

• Jeremiah’s first lament is apparently in the context of a plot against his life, concerning Anathoth, and Jeremiah’s condemnatory message to them is given in characteristic phraseology (11:21–23)

• he appears to have had a morbid side to his nature, suggested both by the ‘confessions’ and by the general details of his life, such as his withdrawal from family and social life

• events in his life such as his reaction to being put in the stocks by Pashhur the priest, are personal anecdotes, following which Jeremiah tells Pashhur that ‘Terror’ will be his name and his fate

• he had a deeply personal relationship with Yahweh, illustrated by the words he addresses to God

• he was heavily involved with the history and politics of his time, e.g. perhaps with Josiah’s reform; the Temple sermon; involvement with royalty; the Babylonian crisis / deportations; his removal to Egypt

• his international concerns, seen for example in his oracle against foreign nations

• the charge that he was a traitor / the insistence that he was really a patriot.

Credit these and other suggestions to show Jeremiah’s personality. The question refers to ‘any other prophet’, which invites comparison with the lives of other prophets: e.g. events in their lives which might appear to have a similarly personal level, such as Elijah after the experience at Carmel, Amos at Bethel, Isaiah walking naked, and so on.

Candidates are likely to treat this question in terms of the different things that Jeremiah did, as illustrative of the different sides to his character. They might mention some of the following points:

• at his call, Jeremiah displayed hesitation, dismay and modesty

• his family had a priestly background. There are several details in the book which suggest that Jeremiah inherited this part of the family duties, e.g. his Temple Sermon.

• he appears to have had ecstatic visions / experiences, for example his call narrative

• he was a visionary in general (e.g. the basket of figs, 24:1-10)

• he had a marked tendency to perform symbolic acts

• he was a magnificent poet, not least in the ‘confessional’ material

• some scholars think that the ‘I’ of his ‘confessions’ is cultic, and that he is thereby operating as a cultic prophet – a paid functionary who gave professional responses to a lament offered in a cultic context

• he appears to have had a morbid side to his nature, suggested both by the ‘confessions’ and by the general details of his life, such as his withdrawal from family and social life

• he had a deeply personal relationship with Yahweh, illustrated by the words he addresses to God

• he was heavily involved with the history and politics of his time, e.g. perhaps with Josiah’s reform; the Temple sermon; involvement with royalty; the Babylonian crisis / deportations; his removal to Egypt

• his international concerns, seen for example in his oracle against foreign nations

• the charge that he was a traitor / the insistence that he was really a patriot.

Credit these and other suggestions to show character diversity. Credit also attempts to show unity of personality. Some candidates might relate diversity to editorial activity, although this would be an exceptionally high level of a comment.