Gobbets

Now the word of the LORD came to me saying,

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,

and before you were born I consecrated you;

I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”

Then I said, “Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, I do not know how to speak, for I am only a

youth.” But the LORD said to me,

“Do not say, ‘I am only a youth’;

for to all to whom I send you you shall go,

and whatever I command you you shall speak.

Be not afraid of them,

for I am with you to deliver you, says the LORD.”

Then the LORD put forth his hand and touched my mouth …

(Jeremiah 1:4–9a)

The context is Jeremiah’s call in ch.1.

Candidates might comment on some of the following points:

• comment on the ‘word of the LORD’

• consecrated as a prophet before birth

• prophet to the nations e.g. Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Judah

• comment on the objection part of the call structure (‘I am only a youth’)

• God’s assurance that he will supply whatever is needed to back up Jeremiah’s deficiencies

• ‘touched my mouth’ – symbolic of putting the prophetic dabar/word into Jeremiah’s mouth – he is commissioned by this. In 15:19 God tells Jeremiah that if he stops uttering nonsense, he will again ‘be as my mouth’

• compare also Isaiah’s call narrative, where Isaiah laments that he is a man of unclean lips, whereupon one of the seraphim purifies his mouth with a burning coal: ‘your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven’

• the commission which follows to pluck up and break down, destroy and overthrow

• prediction of the foe from the north and Yahweh’s strengthening of Jeremiah as a fortified city, iron pillar.

The word of the LORD came to me a second time, saying, ‘What do you

see?’ And I said, ‘I see a boiling pot, facing away from the north.’ Then

the LORD said to me, ‘Out of the north evil shall break forth upon all the

inhabitants of the land. For, lo, I am calling all the tribes of the

kingdoms of the north, says the LORD; and they shall come and every

one shall set his throne at the entrance of the gates of Jerusalem,

against all its walls round about, and against all the cities of Judah.’

(Jeremiah 1:13–15)

The context is the second element of Jeremiah’s call narrative (1:4–19).

Candidates might refer to some of the following points:

• This section follows on from the scene in which God tells Jeremiah that despite his youth, he has been appointed by God as a prophet to the nations (vv.4–5), and that he is commissioned to pluck up and break down / destroy and overthrow / build and plant, which underlines the future tension of Jeremiah’s life as a prophet.

• The second word from God is the vision of a boiling pot ‘facing away from the north’. This might be taken in two ways: (1) that the pot was spilling its contents from the north to the south, so the evil to come comes from the north; (2) the draught on the fire comes from the north, so invaders come from the north as so often in the country’s history.

• The foe from the north is usually interpreted as the Scythians, a large group of nomadic peoples who specialised in a ferocious form of mounted warfare. Others assume that the reference is to the Babylonians (or to both groups).

•The foe will even attack Jerusalem.• This is part of God’s judgement on the nation for abandoning him in favour of other gods / idols.

• Nevertheless God will back Jeremiah a fortified city / and iron pillar against whom everybody will fight unsuccessfully.

The word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord: “Stand in the gate of the LORD’s

house, and proclaim there this word, and say, Hear the word of the LORD, all you men

of Judah who enter these gates to worship the LORD. Thus says the LORD of hosts, the

God of Israel, Amend your ways and your doings, and I will let you dwell in this place.

Do not trust in these deceptive words: ‘This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of

the LORD, the temple of the LORD.’ ”

(Jeremiah 7:1–4)

The context is Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon (7:1–15), which has the following structure and background:

• the mere presence of the temple was interpreted as necessarily assuring God’s protection against attack by enemies

• this could be seen by the senseless repetition of mantras such as the three-fold ‘temple of the LORD’, which provided no basis for trust whatsoever

• genuine change and repentance would be the only guarantor of being allowed to live safely in the land

• but the result of continued immorality would be destruction

• the destruction would be like that visited upon Shiloh – complete

• the name ‘Yahweh of Hosts’ – God as leader of the heavenly armies – an epithet applied also to Baal

• Jeremiah standing in the gate – justice was traditionally conducted in the town gate, so Jeremiah speaking from there emphasises the legal nature of his words, which recall the covenant lawsuit form.

Candidates might also refer to some of the following points:

• the ‘sermon’ was followed by Jeremiah’s arrest

• the list of sins that Jeremiah refers to (stealing, murder, adultery, etc.) is primarily a reminder of the 10 commandments. ‘Burning incense to Baal’ is tantamount to flouting the commandment to have no other God but Yahweh

• the relationship between the name and the temple

• the ‘den of robbers’, which was quoted by Jesus when cleansing the temple

Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Amend your ways and

your doings, and I will let you dwell in this place. Do not trust in these

deceptive words: “This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the

LORD, the temple of the LORD.”

(Jeremiah 7:3–4)

The context is Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon (7:1–15).

Candidates might comment on some of the following:

• A tradition had grown up, possibly because of the Davidic associations of the Temple, that the Jerusalem Temple was invulnerable to attack, and so long as the Temple stood, Judah would never be destroyed.

• It was assumed that because the Temple was dedicated to Yahweh, God would protect it.

• The three-fold repetition of the phrase, ‘This is the temple of the LORD’ is stylistic – it represents meaningless babble or repetition of a phrase, with the ridiculous belief that merely saying it would make Jerusalem invulnerable.

• Jeremiah insisted that a complete moral change was needed to save anything.

• God insists that the Temple has become a den of robbers, and that people should go to Shiloh (the earlier central shrine) to see the destruction that happened there.

• In verses 5–6, the kind of actions required to stave off disaster are given: execute justice with each other; do not oppress aliens, the fatherless or widows; do not shed innocent blood; do not go after other gods.

• The result of disobedience will be destruction and exile.

The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: “Hear the words of this covenant, and

speak to the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem. You shall say to them,

Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: Cursed be the man who does not heed the

words of this covenant which I commanded your fathers when I brought them out of

the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace …”

(Jeremiah 11:1–4a)

The general context is the narrative concerning Jeremiah and the covenant.

Candidates might refer also to some of the following points:

• Jeremiah was presumably a strong supporter of Josiah’s attempts to eradicate foreign worship (2 Kings 22–23)

• included in this support was a desire to return to the stipulations of the Mosaic covenant (‘this covenant’; also in God’s words, ‘my covenant’ in verse 10)

• prophetic preaching was based on this covenant

• some assume that the discovery of the law-book in 2 Kings 22 was the discovery (or the writing) of Deuteronomy, and that Josiah caused it to be found as a ‘pious fraud’ in order to use Deuteronomy as the basis for his reforms (627 BCE)

• ‘command’ is typical of Deuteronomic language for the covenant (Deut. 4:13 etc.)

• ‘cursed be the man’ – this phraseology is also typical of the Deuteronomic pattern of blessings and curses for those who keep or break the covenant

• verse 4 is also typical Deuteronomic phraseology: cf. Deut. 4:20: ‘But the Lord has taken you, and brought you forth out of the iron furnace, out of Egypt …’

• the furnace metaphor reflects the sweat and pain of the Hebrews’ treatment in Egypt

• candidates might refer to the prophet’s proclamation of the ‘new covenant’, in Jer. 31:31

Righteous art thou, O LORD, when I complain to thee;

yet I would plead my case before thee.

Why does the way of the wicked prosper?

Why do all who are treacherous thrive?

Thou plantest them, and they take root;

they grow and bring forth fruit;

thou art near in their mouth

and far from their heart.

(Jeremiah 12:1–2)

The context is Jeremiah’s first ‘Confession’, or ‘Lament’ (11:18–12:6).

Candidates might comment on some of the following:

• ‘When I complain to thee’ indicates that this is a common pattern of lament in the Book of Jeremiah, which is the case. There are six such laments.

• Jeremiah is using legal language, e.g. that he will plead a case before God.

• The accusation against God is that he allows wicked people to prosper, and treacherous people to thrive.

• God appears to nourish such people in so far as they grow and bring forth fruit; yet although God is near in their mouth (that is, they commonly sing God’s praises), God is really far from their heart: their praises are nothing more than lip-service.

• Jeremiah’s language is hard hitting – he asks God to pull them out like sheep for the slaughter.

•The answer that Jeremiah gets is that things will get worse in the future.• According to some scholars, Jeremiah’s lamentations take place in a cultic context, in which a response is expected from God. The response appears to come in verses 5 to 6, which is basically: ‘If you are this upset in a safe environment, what will you be like when things get worse?’

Righteous art thou, O LORD, when I complain to thee; yet I would plead my case

before thee. Why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all who are treacherous

thrive? Thou plantest them, and they take root; they grow and bring forth fruit; thou

art near in their mouth and far from their heart. But thou, O LORD, knowest me; thou

seest me, and triest my mind toward thee. Pull them out like sheep for the slaughter,

and set them apart for the day of slaughter.

(Jeremiah 12:1-3)

General context is Jeremiah’s first personal lament: 11:18-12:6.

Candidates will comment on some of the following:

• lament suggests a plot against Jeremiah’s life (11:18,19; 12:6; 11:20; 12:3b are often transposed in that order to reconstruct the complaint)

• first of 6 laments / complaints / confessions

• complaint put into the form of a rib – a ‘covenant lawsuit’ brought by the prophet against Yahweh

• some suggest a cultic background – that Jeremiah is acting as a cultic prophet, and is voicing the complaint of an individual who has paid for his professional services in this respect: the worshipper expects a reply from God through the medium of the prophet. The reply is perhaps seen in 12:5-6

• on the other hand, the language seems more personal than professional

• the complaint in the immediate context is the widespread one concerning evil. Theology at the time assumed that the wicked always suffer and the righteous always prosper, but common experience suggests that this is false: the wicked, who present a righteous face (‘near in the mouth, far from the heart’), always prosper (compare Job 21)

• imagery of thriving plant

• Jeremiah asserts his own integrity (again, like Job. See also Psalm 139:23-24)

• Jeremiah’s request that the wicked should be pulled out and set apart like sheep for the slaughter reflects the beginning of his complaint, in 11:19, where he pictures himself as “a gentle lamb led to the slaughter” – the proverbial description of innocence

• Yahweh’s reply is formulated in two proverbial sayings (12:5): the present situation is a preparation for something far worse in the future: ‘If you fall down in a safe land, how will you fare in the jungle of the Jordan’? – the latter being a reference to the thickets of the gorge of the Jordan (49:19) that are the abode of dangerous wild animals.

Thus says the LORD to me, “Go and buy a linen waistcloth, and put it

on your loins, and do not dip it in water.” So I bought a waistcloth

according to the word of the LORD, and put it on my loins.

(Jeremiah 13:1-2)

The context is the story of the waistcloth.

Answers might refer to some of the following points:

• Jeremiah’s writings contain a high proportion of symbolic acts. There might, therefore, be discussion of the importance and nature of symbolic acts as visible signs by which the prophet illustrated his message.

• Symbolic acts were intended to be both visual and auditory clarification of the point being made. Their effectiveness depended on the clarity of the symbol.

• Garments such as the linen waistcloth were seen as important in connection with appropriate/holy garments (e.g. Leviticus 16).

• After close proximity to Jeremiah’s body, he is then instructed to bury it in a cleft of rock in the Euphrates. Some time later, on digging it out of the mud of the river bank, it was clear that the cloth was spoiled and good for nothing.

• Answers might comment on the distance from Judah to the Euphrates – something like 400 miles, so perhaps the journey was not literal. For this reason, some interpret it as a vision or a parable. Some authorities do see the journey as literal, as being indicative of the lengths to which prophets would go in order to make a point (e.g. Isaiah 20).

• The point of the action is to emphasise the corrupting effects of Jehoiakim’s pro-Babylonian foreign policy. God will in the same way spoil the pride of Judah and Jerusalem (v.9). All those who follow Jehoiakim’s policy will be as spoiled as the waistcloth and will be ‘good for nothing’ (v.10).

• The analogy is completed in v.11, where God reflects on the faithlessness of Judah and Israel. Just as a waistcloth clings to a man’s loins, Judah and Israel were fashioned by Yahweh to cling to him, but they would not listen.

I did not sit in the company of merrymakers,

nor did I rejoice;

I sat alone, because thy hand was upon me,

for thou hadst filled me with indignation.

Why is my pain unceasing,

my wound incurable,

refusing to be healed?

Wilt thou be to me like a deceitful brook,

like waters that fail?

(Jeremiah 15:17–18)

The context is Jeremiah’s second lament (the laments are sometimes called ‘confessions’), in 15:10–21.

Answers might refer to some of the following points:

• The lament begins with Jeremiah (like Job) crying woe for the fact that he had even been born, since he had become ‘a man of strife and contention to the whole land.’

• Jeremiah complains to God that he has been ostracised by his own people. He has pleaded with them for their own good, but he might as well have tried to break iron (vv.11–12).

• He then asks for vengeance on his persecutors because it is for God’s sake that he bears their reproaches.

• God’s word was a delight, not least because his (Jeremiah’s) name means, ‘May Yahweh be exalted’.

• Nevertheless, he did not sit in the company of those who made merry, because God’s plan for him, shown at his call, was too strong to be avoided, with the result that Jeremiah now complains that he is full of indignation, with unceasing and unhealable pain.

• Jeremiah then addresses God in a way that no other prophets do: a direct complaint asking whether God will be to him like a deceitful brook, like waters that fail. This kind of language illustrates the depth of Jeremiah’s misery. Answers may also comment on other examples of Jeremiah’s isolation, despair and complaint.

• Some scholars see the following passage (verses 19–21) as Yahweh’s reply to Jeremiah, perhaps in a cultic context, that if he ceases to speak worthless words to God, then Yahweh will support him against any persecution.

Therefore thus says the LORD: “If you return, I will restore you, and you shall stand

before me. If you utter what is precious, and not what is worthless, you shall be as my

mouth. They shall turn to you, but you shall not turn to them. And I will make you to

this people a fortified wall of bronze; they will fight against you, but they shall not

prevail over you, for I am with you to save you and deliver you,” says the LORD.

(Jeremiah 15:19-20)

General context is Jeremiah’s second lament (15:10-21).

Candidates will comment on some of the following:

• credit detail on lament / confessional material (credit only once if candidate does both Jeremiah gobbets)

• does not appear to show Jeremiah acting as a cultic prophet: language is too personal (“Woe is me, my mother, that you bore me, a man of strife and contention to the whole land” does not sound like the structured lament of a professional)

• detail of this lament: Jeremiah’s innocence; request for vengeance on his persecutors; God’s words as a joy in his heart; Jeremiah’s isolation; the unceasing pain / incurable wound of rejection; accusation: “Wilt thou be to me like a deceitful brook, like waters that fail?” – i.e. the drying-up of Yahweh’s approval and care

• immediate context is Yahweh’s reply: God applies Jeremiah’s own message to himself; there is no promise of respite from isolation and opposition, but there is a promise of constant support

• verse 19 uses a technical phrase often used of restoration from exile: “return … restore” – implying that Jeremiah’s language, addressed to God, is based on ignorance. God says much the same thing to Job, who in fact repents of his intemperate complaints to God, and who therefore receives a double restoration (Job 42)

• Jeremiah is told to utter what is precious, not what is worthless, then he will once more be God’s prophet (“mouth”) who will be protected by God. Jeremiah’s treatment by his opponents is an inevitable aspect of his vocation

• repetition of assurances of protection: “save … deliver … deliver … redeem”.

The word of the LORD came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall

you have sons or daughters in this place. For thus says the LORD

concerning the sons and daughters who are born in this place, and

concerning the mothers who bore them and the fathers who begot

them in this land: They shall die of deadly diseases.’

(Jeremiah 16:1–4a)

This section follows Jeremiah’s second personal lamentation (15:10–21), which sets the scene for the complete isolation from normal life implied by his call narrative.

Candidates might comment on some of the following:

• The symbolic nature of Jeremiah’s isolation echoes the symbolic nature of the lives of other prophets such as Hosea and Isaiah.

• These verses illustrate Jeremiah’s lamentation in 15:17 that he sat alone, because God’s hand was upon him. In the ancient world, to live without children would be to have no future, because one’s future was assured by the continuation of children.

• Jeremiah’s isolation is a living symbol of the impending destruction of Judah by Babylon. Jeremiah gives up any hope of having a wife and family, as a symbol of doom and destruction on the nation as a whole.

• The reason for such punishment is that Israel’s rejection of the covenant obligation has meant that Yahweh has also been free to reject the covenant.

• Disease, death and famine are symbols of invasion and destruction, and these are about to overtake Judah. Jeremiah goes on to say that all the rituals of mourning are useless, because even the voice of the bridegroom and the bride will be silenced in the scale of the destruction.

• Even in the midst of this statement of complete destruction, 16:14–15 goes on to describe the return of Israel to its land, as a new Exodus accomplished by God.

Be not a terror to me;

thou art my refuge in the day of evil.

Let those be put to shame who persecute me,

but let me not be put to shame;

let them be dismayed,

but let me not be dismayed;

bring upon them the day of evil;

destroy them with double destruction!

(Jeremiah 17:17–18)

The context is Jeremiah’s third personal lament (17:14–18).

Candidates might refer to some of the following points:

• There are a series of lamentations by the prophet, beginning with that in 11:18–12:6, which relates to a plot against Jeremiah’s life.

• In 17:17–18, Jeremiah complains that he is being persecuted, and he asks God that those who shame and dismay him shall themselves be shamed and dismayed.

• At the beginning of the lament, the prophet asks to be healed and saved, although the context is not clear.

• The lamentation contains a complaint that Jeremiah has not pressed God to send evil (v.16), and he does not wish to see God’s day of judgement.

• The language, as elsewhere in the laments, is quite powerful, and is reminiscent of Job’s complaints that God has abandoned him when he must know that Job is innocent.

• The theme of a double destruction is also symptomatic of Job, who receives a double restoration of what he has lost because of his devotion to God.

•No specific answer is given to Jeremiah.• Some scholars think that this is part of a cultic ritual where Jeremiah acts as a priest listening to the complaint of someone who is sick, ill, or accused of a crime.

The word that came to Jeremiah from the LORD: “Arise, and go down to the potter’s

house, and there I will let you hear my words.” So I went down to the potter’s house,

and there he was working at his wheel. And the vessel he was making of clay was

spoiled in the potter’s hand, and he reworked it into another vessel, as it seemed good

to the potter to do.

(Jeremiah 18:1–4)

The context is Jeremiah’s allegory of the potter, 18:1–12.

Candidates might refer also to some of the following points:

• the narrative begins with a simple instruction to the prophet, who obeys, and who then receives a divine oracle

• Jeremiah’s observation of the spoiled and remoulded pot then leads to the oracle in verses 6–12

• the basic point is that God can do to Israel whatever he likes, just as the potter can do whatever he likes with the clay: Israel is not independent from God: the relationship of sovereign and vassal is unavoidable

• hence Yahweh says that if he so desires, he can bring evil, and if he so desires, he can restore

• candidates might refer to 19:1ff., which continues the pottery metaphor with the purchase and destruction of the potter’s earthen flask

Thus said the LORD, “Go, buy a potter’s earthen flask, and take some of the elders of

the people and some of the senior priests, and go out to the valley of the son of

Hinnom at the entry of the Potsherd Gate, and proclaim there the words that I tell you.

You shall say, ‘Hear the word of the LORD, O kings of Judah and inhabitants of

Jerusalem. Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Behold, I am bringing such

evil upon this place that the ears of every one who hears of it will tingle.’ ”

(Jeremiah 19:1–3)

This follows on from the allegory of the potter in 18:1–12, and candidates could comment on the similarity of imagery.

The purchase of the potter’s flask forms part of a narrative about the public persecution of Jeremiah. Candidates might comment on some of the following:

• the ‘Potsherd Gate’ was later called the ‘Dung Gate’ (Nehemiah 2:13)

• the reference to ‘some of the elders / some of the senior priests’ suggests that these were sympathetic followers

• the valley of the son of Hinnom is one of the two principal valleys surrounding the Old City of Jerusalem. The site was where some Israelites / Baal worshippers / devotees of Molech sacrificed their children to the god by fire. The place came to be designated as Gehenna, as a destination of the wicked, and gave rise to the notion of hell as a place of fire. According to 2 Chronicles 28:3, Ahaz sacrificed his sons there, as did his grandson Manasseh (33:6). Topheth (Jer. 19:6) is the burning platform. The process was expressly forbidden in Lev. 18:21, and Jeremiah 7:30–34 calls for / predicts its destruction. 2 Kings 23:10 records that Josiah (perhaps in relation to Jeremiah’s demand) destroyed the Molech shrine on Topheth.

• the extract here is followed by Jeremiah’s condemnation of kings and people for abandoning Yahweh and worshiping idols, and for the sacrifice of children to Baal

• the place will soon no longer be called Topheth or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter, since the people of Judah / Jerusalem will be destroyed by their enemies

• Jeremiah uses a Hebrew word-play on the words for ‘flask’ and ‘make void’ (v.7), and announces that the destruction will be so great that it will lead to cannibalism

• verses 10–15, Jeremiah smashes the flask, as a symbolic act that the city, like the flask, will be irreparably smashed: the place will become like Topheth

• Pashhur, a priest from the Temple police, flogged Jeremiah and put him in the stocks to forestall a repetition of Jeremiah’s threats. Jeremiah told him that he and his family would suffer the fate he had just announced (20:1–6)

• some might comment on the title ‘LORD of hosts’.

Thus says the LORD of hosts: “Do not listen to the words of the prophets who

prophesy to you, filling you with vain hopes; they speak visions of their own minds,

not from the mouth of the LORD. They say continually to those who despise the word

of the LORD, ‘It shall be well with you’; and to every one who stubbornly follows his

own heart, they say, ‘No evil shall come upon you.’ ”

For who among them has stood in

the council of the LORD

to perceive and to hear his word,

or who has given heed to his word and listened?

(Jeremiah 23:16–18)

The general context is Jeremiah’s oracles concerning the prophets (23:9–40). He condemns the supposed spiritual leaders, both priests and prophets, for moral degeneracy. In the immediately preceding verses, Jeremiah complains that the words of the prophets of Jerusalem are worse than those of Baal in Samaria, and their deeds are worse than the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. Accordingly God will destroy them all.

Candidates might comment on some of the following:

• talking specifically about the message of these prophets, in 16–18, Jeremiah tells the people not to listen to it, because their assurances of shalom (well-being) are contrary to reality, which will be destruction

• such ‘prophets’ are false, since they have not stood in the divine council

• the council of Yahweh is the heavenly council where Yahweh, surrounded by the heavenly court (his attendant gods / elohim) gives judgement on the fates of nations and individuals. Candidates might refer, for example, to 1 Kings 22 (Micaiah ben Imlah); also Isaiah 6:1–7; 40:1–2)

• the council is also the source of the divine prophetic word (dabar), and the concept here is that by virtue of his call and commission, the true prophet of Yahweh stands in God’s council by virtue of being in an ecstatic state to receive the dabar

• this actually gives a point of difficulty, since 1 Kings 22 suggests that false prophecy itself comes from Yahweh, as in the case where Yahweh sends a member of the council to be a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab’s prophets in order to “entice” the king, who as a result dies in battle. If Yahweh controls false prophecy, why then does Jeremiah insist that prophets “speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD”?

• moreover in verse 22, God complains: “I did not send the prophets, yet they ran; I did not speak to them, yet they prophesied. But if they had stood in my council, then they would have proclaimed my words to my people, and they would have turned them from their evil way ..”.

• Jeremiah’s general invective against the false prophets is intense. Candidates might refer to his dealings with Hananiah, for example.

After Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon had taken into exile from Jerusalem Jeconiah

the son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah, together with the princes of Judah, the

craftsmen, and the smiths, and had brought them to Babylon, the LORD showed me

this vision: Behold, two baskets of figs placed before the temple of the LORD. One

basket had very good figs, like first-ripe figs, but the other basket had very bad figs,

so bad that they could not be eaten.

(Jeremiah 24:1–2)

The context is Jeremiah’s vision of the good and bad figs.

Candidates might refer to some of the following points:

• Jeconiah was the son of Jehoiakim, who died in 598 during the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem. The city fell about 3 months later in 597. Jeconiah and all his craftsmen were deported to Babylon, and Jehoiakim’s brother Zedekiah, a weak and vacillating king, was put on the throne by Babylon as a vassal;

• despite the opposition of Jeremiah and others, Zedekiah revolted against Babylon, and a second siege and destruction followed, so that by 586 much of Judah was devastated.

This essentially marked the end of Judah as an independent kingdom;

• those who remained in Palestine and Egypt after the 597 deportation were the ‘bad figs’, since they appropriated the property of those who were deported to Babylon (the ‘good figs’), a theme which is continued in 29:15ff.

• Jeremiah predicted that the exiles would return and become a nation faithful to God;

• Babylon was understood by Jeremiah to be the instrument of God’s punishment of Judah, and the exile would last 70 years, so just about no-one alive would see the return.

• candidates might comment on Jeremiah’s use of symbolic language in general.

Do not listen to the words of the prophets who are saying to you, “You shall not serve

the king of Babylon,” for it is a lie which they are prophesying to you. I have not sent

them, says the LORD, but they are prophesying falsely in my name, with the result that

I will drive you out and you will perish, you and the prophets who are prophesying to

you.

(Jeremiah 27:14–15)

The context is Jeremiah’s warnings about the yoke of the king of Babylon (27:1–28:17).

Candidates might refer to some of the following points:

• Jeremiah’s main point is that the yoke of Babylon is imposed by God upon Judah and her neighbours, so their plans to rebel against Nebuchadrezzar are in fact against God’s will;

• being warned for rebelling against an enemy might sound bizarre, but Jeremiah is probably being pragmatic – Judea has no chance against the power of Babylon, so rebellion is futile and will lead to complete destruction (which was eventually the case in 586).

• the reason for the Judean conspiracy was the revolt in Nebuchadrezzar’s army (595– 594) and the accession of an active Pharaoh in Egypt (Psammetichus II) in 594;

• it was perhaps in response to Jeremiah’s warnings that Zedekiah did not carry out the rebellion, and so was spared Nebuchadrezzar’s reprisals;

• in 27:13 Jeremiah is warning Zedekiah that any nation that does not serve the Babylonian king will die by famine, sword and pestilence;

• hence in this gobbet, Jeremiah repeats a previous warning that since God did not send those prophets who said that Judah would not serve the king of Babylon, they are prophesying lies, with the net result that the nation will perish;

• the Temple vessels had been taken to Babylon in the first deportations of 597, and the lying prophets were claiming that those vessels would shortly be returned, which was ludicrously unlikely;

• hence Jeremiah’s advice is (v.17) – Do not listen to them / serve the king of Babylon and stay alive / why should the city become a desolation?

• this extract is followed by Jeremiah’s dealings with one specific false prophet – Hananiah, whose message was the exact opposite. At the end of it, the text notes simply that according to Jeremiah’s prediction, Hananiah died;

• comment might be made on the political situation generally / on the theme of the inviolability of God’s Temple / on the problem Jeremiah had constantly with false prophets.

Thus says the LORD:

“A voice is heard in Ramah,

lamentation and bitter weeping.

Rachel is weeping for her children;

she refuses to be comforted for her children,

because they are not.”

Thus says the LORD:

“Keep your voice from weeping,

and your eyes from tears;

for your work shall be rewarded, says the LORD,

and they shall come back from the land of the enemy.

There is hope for you future, says the LORD …”

(Jeremiah 31:15–17a)

The context is the ‘Booklet of Consolation’ (30:1–31:40) and Rachel’s lament for the exile of the northern tribes.

Candidates might comment on some of the following points:

• oracular formulae

• 30:8 has referred to ‘that day’, so presumably Jeremiah is talking about the reversal of the doom oracles connected with the Day of the LORD in Amos, seen also in the editorial comments at the end of Amos, so restoration is promised in 31:16ff.

• Rachel was the mother of Joseph and Benjamin (Gen. 30:22; 35:16–20)

• she laments the children of the northern tribes as they are her descendants, exiled to Assyria after the invasion and defeat of 721

• Ramah, burial place of Samuel, north of Jerusalem. It was used as a transit point for deportees after the Babylonian invasion of Judah (Jer. 40:1)

• the first half of the extract is quoted in Matthew 2:18 in connection with Herod’s killing of the first-born at the time of the birth of Jesus

• the second part is presumably addressed to the exiles – there will be restoration after the ‘work’ of staying intact during exile so ‘there is hope for the future’

• the hope is for Ephraim as well as Judah (v.20 – ‘my heart still yearns for him’).

Jeremiah said, “The word of the LORD came to me: Behold, Hanamel the son of

Shallum your uncle will come to you and say, ‘Buy my field which is at Anathoth, for

the right of redemption by purchase is yours.’ ”

(Jeremiah 32:6–7)

The general context is Jeremiah’s purchase of land in Anathoth.

Candidates might comment on some of the following:

• Jeremiah’s cousin, Hanamel, offered to sell his land to Jeremiah in order to prevent the loss of family property – an important issue in Israel (e.g. the land-inheritance issue concerning Naboth’s vineyard in the story of Ahab and Naboth). Jeremiah’s purchase is the most detailed account of a business transaction in the Bible (compare Abraham’s purchase of a family burial place, in Genesis 23)

• the field is purchased for seventeen shekels of silver (weight, not coins) / the deed was written on papyrus, rolled up and sealed / there was an open copy for easy reference / the deed is stored in an earthenware vessel: several such vessels were dug up at Elephantine in Egypt / Baruch acts as Jeremiah’s secretary and receives the deed of purchase

• the function of the earthenware pot in the Jeremiah narrative is symbolic – sealing the deed in the pot is to make it last for a long time (v.14), to show that “houses and fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this land”. Jeremiah thus seals the deed as a symbol of faith in the eventual return from exile and restoration to the land.