Book Reviews - Old Testament

Review of Biblical Literature has published its latest edition of review of books in the area of biblical studies. Review of Biblical Literature is a publication of the Society of Biblical Literature.

The following reviews are of interest to students of the Old Testament:

Jim W. Adams
The Performative Nature and Function of Isaiah 40-55
Reviewed by Ulrich Berges

Description: Among linguistic philosophers, speech act theory has illuminated the fact that uttering a sentence does not merely convey information; it may also involve the performing of an action. The concept of communicative action provides additional tools to the exegetical process as it points the interpreter beyond the assumption that the use of language is merely for descriptive purposes. Language can also have performative and self-involving dimensions. Despite their clear hermeneutical importance, the notions expressed within speech act theory have been generally neglected by biblical interpreters. The few who have applied speech act theory to the OT typically subsume the discipline into an eclectic type of literary/rhetorical criticism. Such an approach, though, tends to discount the distinctive notions expressed by theoreticians. This dissertation presents the basic philosophical concepts of speech act theory in order to accurately implement them alongside other interpretive tools. The above analysis leads to applying these concepts to Isaiah 41:21-29, 49:1-6, 50:4-10, and 52:13-53:12. These four sections intricately function within the overall prophetic strategy of chapters 40-55: the call to return or turn to Yahweh. The way these chapters describe the nature of this return is for the reader to forsake sin, acknowledge and confess Yahweh as God alone. The first passage represents the basic concerns of chapters 40-48 and specifically Jacob-Israel's deliverance from Babylon through Yahweh's Cyrus illocutionary act. The final three passages represent the servant leitmotif running throughout the chapters and implore the reader through self-involvement to embrace the role of Yahweh's servant.

Philip Cary
Jonah
Reviewed by Jacek Stefanski

Description: Pastors and leaders of the classical church--such as Augustine, Calvin, Luther, and Wesley--interpreted the Bible theologically, believing Scripture as a whole witnessed to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Modern interpreters of the Bible questioned this premise. But in recent decades, a critical mass of theologians and biblical scholars has begun to reassert the priority of a theological reading of Scripture. The Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible enlists leading theologians to read and interpret Scripture for the twenty-first century, just as the church fathers, the Reformers, and other orthodox Christians did for their times and places. In the sixth volume in the series, Phillip Cary presents a theological exegesis of Jonah.

Deborah L. Ellens
Women in the Sex Texts of Leviticus and Deuteronomy: A Comparative Conceptual Analysis
Reviewed by Carolyn Pressler

Description: The writers of the bibilical laws, like the writers of other legal corpora throughout history, considered the regulation of sex to be of some importance. A study and comparison of the two groups of sex laws in the Bible, those in Leviticus and Deuteronomy, reveal that factors even more narrowly focused than the general desire to control social behavior shape the texts. These factors, as reflected in the text, are responsible for the differing conceptual matrices within Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Whereas the interest of the Leviticus sex texts is ontology, that is, the classification or oder of kinds and their relationships, the interest of the Deuteronomy sex texts is property, that is, the man's ownership of the woman's sexuality and its protection. Ellens shows how these differing interests influence subtle corresponding differences in the conceptualization of women in the two groups of texts.

Tremper Longman III
Jeremiah, Lamentations
Reviewed by Francis Dalrymple-Hamilton

Description: The New International Biblical Commentary (NIBC) offers the best of contemporary scholarship in a format useful both for general readers and serious students. Based on the widely used New International Version translation, the NIBC presents careful section-by-section exposition with key terms and phrases highlighted and all Hebrew transliterated. A separate section of notes at the close of each chapter provides additional textual and technical comments. Each commentary also includes a selected bibliography as well as Scripture and subject indexes.

Paul Wilkinson
Archaeology: What It Is, Where It Is, and How to Do It
Reviewed by Aren Maeir

Description: This book has been written to be used by newcomers to archaeology in the field, and explains the techniques and methods that will help them understand and record the past.


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Archaeology, Deuteronomy, Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jonah, Leviticus, Pentateuch, Old Testament, Prophetic Literature

The Babylonian Exile

The fall of Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple, and the deportation of the people of Judah to exile in Babylon did not come suddenly, without a warning. Prophets like Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others had been warning the people of Judah that unless they repented and turned to God, the curses of the covenant would be invoked upon the nation and the people would be removed from the land which they had received as their inheritance.

The exile of Judah began when Nebuchadnezzar and his army arrived in Jerusalem. In 598 B.C. Babylon advanced against Judah. Egypt’s promised military help did not materialize because they were unable to circumvent the mighty Babylonian army: “And the king of Egypt did not come again out of his land, for the king of Babylon had taken all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Brook of Egypt to the river Euphrates” (2 Kings 24:7).

Nebuchadnezzar’s army came up to Jerusalem and besieged the city. During the siege Jehoiakim, king of Judah died. Jeremiah 22:18-19 and 36:30 suggest that Jehoiakim was probably assassinated. Jehoiachin (his name appears as Jeconiah in 1 Chronicles 3:16 and Coniah in Jeremiah 22:24), the son of Jehoiakim, was installed as king of Judah at the age of 18 (2 Kings 24:8).

According to the Biblical text, Nebuchadnezzar himself came to Jerusalem while his servants were besieging the city (2 Kings 24:11). According to the Babylonian Chronicle, Nebuchadnezzar entered Jerusalem on March 16, 597 B.C. Jehoiachin, along with his mother and members of the royal family, his officers, advisors, and other government leaders surrendered to the king of Babylon.

At that time, the first deportation of Judah took place. According to 2 Kings 24:12-16, 10,000 people were taken into exile, including the royal family, their servants, and the palace officials. In addition, another 8,000 professional people were also taken to Babylon. However, according to Jeremiah 52:58, only 3023 people were taken captive in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar (597 B.C.).

The second deportation of Judah took place in 587 B.C. during the reign of Zedekiah, the last King of Judah. Zedekiah was a weak ruler who was unable to stand up against the anti-Babylonian forces in Judah and who was afraid of popular opinion. Probably incited by the prophets who were taken to Babylon and by the nobles who formed part of the anti-Babylonian forces in Judah, Zedekiah rebelled against Babylon.

In 588 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar invaded Judah and Jerusalem was blockaded: “In the ninth year of his [Zedekiah’s] reign, in the tenth month, on the tenth day of the month, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came with all his army against Jerusalem and laid siege to it. And they built siegeworks all around it. So the city was besieged till the eleventh year of King Zedekiah” (2 Kings 25:1-2).

In 587 B.C. Jerusalem was captured and Zedekiah fled from the city, but was he captured, blinded, and deported to Babylon (2 Kings 25:5-7).

After the deportation of Zedekiah, Nebuzaradan, an army official of the Babylonian king, burned down the Temple, the royal palace, all the great houses of Jerusalem, and all the important buildings in the city. He also took into exile the people who remained in the city, including the people who had earlier deserted to the king of Babylon.

The exile of Judah brought drastic changes to the fabric of Judahite society. As a result of the exile, the history of Israel took a different turn. The political and religious structures that existed in Judah prior to the exile were no more and the lives of those who went to Babylon changed radically. Life in exile changed the people so much that they would never be quite the same again.

From a human perspective, the transformation of the political and religious life of Judah could have been considered the end of the political and religious existence of Judah. And yet, the vitality of Israel’s faith and the presence of God with his oppressed people give evidence that the history of Judah did not come to an end with the destruction of the temple and the burning of Jerusalem, nor with the murder of men, women, and children, and not even with the removal of the people from their ancestral land.

Instead, the exile can be seen as the dawn of a new beginning for Israel. Although the exile caused the end of the monarchy and the cessation of religious life in the Temple, the exile also became a time of purification, a time when Israel paid “double for all her sins” (Isaiah 40:2). But the exile was also a time when Israel would once again recognize Yahweh’s faithfulness to his people and experience the great deliverance Yahweh would again reveal to Israel.

The exile had a broad impact on the religious and social life of Israel. It was during Israel’s exile in Babylon that the nation’s vitality was supremely tested. The people of Judah were rooted out of their homeland, separated from their cultural values, dispossessed of their religious moorings, taken into captivity and yet, they were able to maintain their religious and ethnic identity.

However, the transition was not easy. At the beginning of their exile, there was a re-evaluation of the nation’s identity. The destruction of the temple and the deportation of the people forced the nation to look again at their relationship with Yahweh. There was a crisis of credibility in Israel’s God. Many people questioned Yahweh’s commitment to his people and his power to deliver the nation from the hands of Babylon.

This feeling of desperation and anguish is reflected in the words of the Psalmist:

By the waters of Babylon, there we sat down and wept, when we remembered Zion. On the willows there we hung up our lyres. For there our captors required of us songs, and our tormentors, mirth, saying, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!" How shall we sing the LORD's song in a foreign land? If I forget you, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget its skill! Let my tongue stick to the roof of my mouth, if I do not remember you, if I do not set Jerusalem above my highest joy! (Psalm 137:1-6).

This psalm contains the words of an individual whose faith in God was affected by the events of the exile. With the destruction of Jerusalem, their holy city, the people of Judah were wondering about their future, whether their God had been defeated by the Babylonian god, or whether the mighty saving acts of God in the past had become irrelevant in the present.

Thus, the words of Psalm 137 is a genuine expression of what the people were thinking and feeling. These words express the confusion and despair of a people who believed that their sins had alienated them from God, so much so that some people believed that they had been summarily rejected by God.

In upcoming posts, I will continue to study the impact of the exile on the life of Israel.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Deportation, Exile, Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar, Zedekiah

The Sin of Plagiarism

The Rev. W. H. Bennet, in his exposition of Jeremiah published in An Exposition of the Bible has an interesting exposition of Jeremiah 23:30 and the sin of plagiarism.

“Therefore I am against the prophets, is the utterance of Jehovah, who steal My word from one another” (Jeremiah 23:30).

The sin of plagiarism is impossible to the true prophet, partly because there are no rights of private property in the word of Jehovah. The Old Testament writers make free use of the works of their predecessors. For instance, Isaiah ii. 2-4 is almost identical with Micah iv. 1-3; yet neither author acknowledges his indebtedness to the other or to any third prophet.

Uriah ben Shemaiah prophesied according to all the words of Jeremiah, who himself owes much to Hosea, whom he never mentions. Yet he was not conscious of stealing from his predecessor, and he would have brought no such charge against Isaiah or Micah or Uriah.

In the New Testament 2 Peter and Jude have so much in common that one must have used the other without acknowledgment. Yet the Church has not, on that ground, excluded either Epistle from the Canon.

In the goodly fellowship of the prophets and the glorious company of the apostles no man says that the things which he utters are his own. But the mere hireling has no part in the spiritual communism wherein each may possess all things because he claims nothing. When a prophet ceases to be the messenger of God, and sinks into the mercenary purveyor of his own clever sayings and brilliant fancies, then he is tempted to become a clerical Autolycus, “a snapper-up of unconsidered trifles.”

Modern ideas furnish a curious parallel to Jeremiah’s indifference to the borrowings of the true prophet, and his scorn of the literary pilferings of the false. We hear only too often of stolen sermons, but no one complains of plagiarism in prayers. Doubtless among these false prophets charges of plagiarism were bandied to and fro with much personal acrimony. But it is interesting to notice that Jeremiah is not denouncing an injury done to himself; he does not accuse them of thieving from him, but from one another.

Probably assurance and lust of praise and power would have overcome any awe they felt for Jeremiah. He was only free from their depredations, because—from their point of view—his words were not worth stealing. There was nothing to be gained by repeating his stern denunciations, and even his promises were not exactly suited to the popular taste.

These are words that preachers today need to hear.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, Old Testament, Plagiarism

Braking Iron and Bronze: Jeremiah's Second Lament

The six laments of Jeremiah, also known as “The Confessions of Jeremiah” (11:18-12:6; 15:10-21; 17:14-28; 18:18-23; 20:7-13; 20:14-18), provide an intimate look at the personal life of the prophet. Jeremiah’s complaints and his dialogues with God reflect the frustrations of Jeremiah in the discharge of his prophetic ministry and his unhappiness with the mission he received from God.

These laments reveal the inner struggle of the prophet as the result of the opposition he encountered from the people and from the religious and political leaders of Judah. They also reflect Jeremiah’s response to his family rejection of his work, the threats of violence against him, and the many plots against his life.

The historical situation that gave rise to these laments is debated by scholars. Many scholars believe that the laments were written during the reign of Jehoiakim, the king of Judah who opposed Jeremiah.

Jeremiah’s second lament is found in 15:10-21. In this lament Jeremiah wished that his mother had not given birth to him (Jeremiah 15:10), an indirect denunciation of his prophetic ministry, since Jeremiah believed he was called from birth to be a prophet (Jeremiah 1:5).

The date for this lament is debated. The lament comes just after Jeremiah was commanded by Yahweh not to pray for the people of Judah (Jeremiah 14:11), since the judgment againt the nation was inevitable. The lament may also reflect Jeremiah’s confrontation with the false prophets of Judah who were proclaiming a message that sought to discredit Jeremiah’s own message:

“The LORD said to me: ‘Do not pray for the welfare of this people. Although they fast, I do not hear their cry, and although they offer burnt offering and grain offering, I do not accept them; but by the sword, by famine, and by pestilence I consume them.’ Then I said: ‘Ah, Lord GOD! Here are the prophets saying to them, You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you true peace in this place.’ And the LORD said to me: ‘The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds’” (Jeremiah 14:11-14).

In light of Jeremiah’s dialogue with Yahweh in 14:11-14, it is possible to determine the occasion for the second lament. A clue for the occasion is found in the lament itself, that is, in Jeremiah 15:12.

Jeremiah 15:12 has been interpreted in different ways by scholars and this disagreement about the meaning of the text is reflected in the translations of the book of Jeremiah. Below is a small sample of the ways Jeremiah 15:12 has been translated:

“Shall iron be allied with the iron from the north, and the brass?” (DRA).

“Can one break iron, iron from the north, and bronze?” (ESV).

“Can iron break iron from the north and brass?” (JPS).

“Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?” (KJV).

“Will iron be known? whereas thy strength is a brazen covering” (LXX).

“Can a man break iron-- iron from the north-- or bronze?” (NIV).

“Can a man break a bar of iron from the north, or a bar of bronze?” (NLT).

“Can iron and bronze break iron from the north?” (NRSV).

“Can iron break iron and bronze?” (TNK).

All these translations tend to make the subject of the verb “to breake” impersonal. In Hebrew the verb “break” (רעע) is third masculine singular with the interrogative particle. A literal translation of the verse in English would be as follow:

“Can he break iron, iron from the north, and bronze?”

This translation provides an important clue for the historical background of the second lament. The occasion for the lament was Jeremiah’s struggle with Hananiah.

The occasion for the confrontation between the two prophets was a conspiracy against Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. At the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah, several nations sent envoys to Zedekiah to invite him to join forces in their struggle against Babylon. At that time, Yahweh told Jeremiah to make a wooden yoke and put it on his neck as a sign that Judah should submit to the Babylonian yoke (Jeremiah 27:1-11).

When Jeremiah met Hananiah in the temple, Hananiah announced that Yahweh would break the yoke of the king of Babylon within two years (Jeremiah 28:2). To prove his point, Hananiah took the yoke off Jeremiah’s neck and broke it in the presence of those in attendance to affirm that his message was true (Jeremiah 28:10-11).

Rejected by the people and by the religious authorities, Jeremiah left the temple without saying a word. Some time later, Yahweh appeared again to Jeremiah and told him to make a yoke of iron:

“Go, tell Hananiah, ‘Thus says the LORD: You have broken wooden bars, but I will make in their place bars of iron’” (Jeremiah 28:13 RSV).

Hananiah could breake a wooden yoke, but could he break a yoke of iron? It is here that the words of God in Jeremiah’s lament make sense: “Can he break iron, iron from the north, and bronze? The proper understanding of God’s words in Jeremiah 15:12 require the identification of the three different components of the question.

“Can he break iron?”: This is a reference to Hananiah after he broke the wooden yoke from Jeremiah’s neck. Hananiah would not be able to break the yoke of iron God put on Jeremiah’s neck.

“[Can he break] iron from the north”: The iron from the north was Babylon. God had delivered the nations to Nebuchadnezzar and no one would be able to resist him. This is what Yahweh told Jeremiah: “I have put upon the neck of all these nations an iron yoke of servitude to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and they shall serve him” (Jeremiah 28:14).

“[Can he break] bronze”: The bronze is Jeremiah himself. Several times God promised Jeremiah that he would make him a “wall of bronze”:

“I have made you today a . . . bronze wall, against the whole land -- against the kings of Judah, its princes, its priests, and the people of the land. They will fight against you; but they shall not prevail against you, for I am with you” (Jeremiah 1:18-19).

“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. I will deliver you out of the hand of the wicked, and redeem you from the grasp of the ruthless” (Jeremiah 15:20-21).

So, the second lament may indeed reflect Jeremiah’s struggle with Hananiah. Hananiah had broken the wooden yoke that God had placed on Jeremiah’s neck, but as a result of his action, he had forged in its place a yoke of iron which he would be unable to break

The yoke of iron that Yahweh imposed upon Judah was an invocation of the curse of the covenant because of Israel’s unwillingness to obey the demands of the covenant:

“Because you did not serve the LORD your God joyfully and with gladness of heart for the abundance of everything, therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the LORD will send against you, in hunger and thirst, in nakedness and lack of everything. He will put an iron yoke on your neck until he has destroyed you” (Deuteronomy 28:47-48).


Other Studies on Jeremiah and Hananiah:

1. Jeremiah and Hananiah

2. Jeremiah and Hananiah: The Historical Context

3. Jeremiah and Hananiah: Jeremiah’s Ministry

4. Jeremiah and Hananiah: The Confrontation in the Temple

5. Jeremiah and Hananiah: True and False Prophecy in Israel


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Babylon, Confessions of Jeremiah, Hananiah, Jeremiah, Nabuchadnezzar

The Balm of Gilead

“Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is there no healing for the wound of my people?” (Jeremiah 8:22).

This verse in the book of the prophet Jeremiah is well known to readers of the Bible. It has been popularized in scores of titles of books, sermons, and in a well-known African-American spiritual hymn, “There Is a Balm in Gilead”:

There is a balm in Gilead
To make the wounded whole;
There is a balm in Gilead
To heal the sin sicksoul.

This hymn interprets Jeremiah’s words Christologically because the words of the hymn assume that Christ is the Balm of Gilead that can “heal the sin sicksoul.”

Although the text is well known, many of the interpretations of the words of the prophet (or maybe the words of Yahweh) do not reflect the true intent of Jeremiah’s message to the people of Judah. For instance, in a book by T. C. Horton and Charles E. Hurlburt, The Wonderful Names of Our Wonderful Lord (Uhrichsville, OH: Barbour and Company, Inc., 1996), the authors call Jesus “The Balm of Gilead.” However, I do not think this is what Jeremiah meant when he spoke about the balm of Gilead.

Another problem scholars have is giving the right answer to Jeremiah’s question. Is the answer to Jeremiah’s question “No, there is no balm in Gilead and no, there are no physicians there?” Or is the answer “Yes, there is balm in Gilead and yes, there are physicians there?”

C. F. Keil, in his commentary The Prophecies of Jeremiah (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1950), vol. 1, p. 182 wrote: “To these questions a negative answer is given: if there were balm in Gilead and a physician there, then a plaister would have been laid on the daughter of my people, which is not the case.”

In his book Not Ashamed of the Gospel: Sermons from Paul's Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2007), p. 352, Fleming Rutledge wrote: “When Jeremiah spoke those words, he had every reason to believe that the answer was no. If we don’t understand that there really might not have been any, we will never understand the magnitude of God’s saving work.”

Terence Fretheim, in his commentary on Jeremiah (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), p. 154 believes that the answer is positive. He wrote: “The first two questions are rhetorical: Yes, there is balm in Gilead; yes, there are physicians there; but, it is implied, they are powerless to restore health to a patient with this kind of illness.”

Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard, Jr., in their commentary Jeremiah 1-25 (Dallas: Word Books, Publishers, 1991), p. 140, take an ambivalent position. They wrote: “The natural answer to these questions would have to be yes but the reality of the situation demands that Jeremiah answer no.”

The purpose of my post is to provide an alternative reading to Jeremiah’s words, a reading that I believe, reflects the true intent of what Jeremiah was trying to communicate to his audience.

The balm of Gilead was an ointment made from the resin of a tree that was used as a healing ointment. The identity of this tree is unknown although many solutions have been proposed. According to the Old Testament, the balm of Gilead was used for medicine, perfume, and body ointment.

According to Genesis 37:25, an Ishmaelite caravan traveled from Gilead carrying spices, balm and myrrh to sell their merchandise in Egypt. Jeremiah tells the Egyptians to go to Gilead and use its balm because they had used many medicines without finding healing for their sickness (Jeremiah 46:11).

Before a proper identification of the balm of Gilead and the physicians there can be made, it is necessary to identify the illness that caused the incurable wound mentioned by Jeremiah. In order to do this, it is necessary to look at the call of another prophet.

When Yahweh called Isaiah to the prophetic ministry, he gave Isaiah a near impossible mission. Yahweh told Isaiah: “Go, and say to this people: ‘Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive.’ Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed” (Isaiah 6:9-10).

Yahweh told Isaiah that his preaching would harden the hearts of the people and they would not listen. The people’s unbelief, their stubborn heart, and their resistence to the prophet’s words were caused by their rebellion against Yahweh.

According to the word of Yahweh to Isaiah, if the people would hear the message the prophet was to proclaim, if they would turn or repent, then they would be healed (v. 10). Thus, it is Yahweh who compares the rebellion of the people with spiritual illness. The rebellion of the people was worse than physical illness and only the message preached by Isaiah could bring the people to repentance and to the healing of its wound.

Thus, the balm of Gilead is a metaphor used by Jeremiah to explain how the people could find a cure for their spiritual illness. The balm that Jeremiah was talking about was not repentance, even though repentance was the first step toward the healing of their wound.

Several times in the Old Testament, the prophets speak about Judah’s rebellion as an incurable wound. Hosea said: “When Ephraim saw his sickness, and Judah his wound, then Ephraim went to Assyria, and sent to the great king. But he is not able to cure you or heal your wound” (Hosea 5:13).

Isaiah said: “Why will you still be smitten, that you continue to rebel? The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the sole of the foot even to the head, there is no soundness in it, but bruises and sores and bleeding wounds; they are not pressed out, or bound up, or softened with oil” (Isaiah 1:5-6).

In the book of Jeremiah, Yahweh spoke of Judah’s illness and its incurable wound. Of Jerusalem, Yahweh said:

“Her sickness and wounds are ever before me” (Jeremiah 6:7).

“For the wound of the daughter of my people is my heart wounded” (Jeremiah 8:21).

Why was not the wound of God’s people healed? Because the preaching of the false prophets did not provide the healing the people needed. Yahweh himself accused the prophets of not providing healing to the people. Yahweh spoke these words about the prophets:

“For from the least to the greatest of them, every one is greedy for unjust gain; and from prophet to priest, every one deals falsely. They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, `Peace, peace,' when there is no peace” (Jeremiah 6:13-14). The same words are repeated again in Jeremiah 8:10-11. Yahweh is saying that the prophets have healed the wound of the people only lightly because they were preaching the wrong message.

“Is there no balm in Gilead? Is there no physician there? Why then is there no healing for the wound of my people?” (Jeremiah 8:22). Jeremiah is proclaiming that Judah is like a person who is sick or wounded. He is also proclaiming that the balm of Gilead is the word of God in the mouth of the prophets and that the prophets are the physicians sent by God to bring the medicine that could heal the people.

Thus, in Jeremiah 8:22, the prophet is saying that there were plenty of physicians in Gilead who could heal the spiritual sickness of the people of Judah, for the physicians were the prophets. There was plenty of balm in Gilead, for the balm of Giled in the mouth of Jeremiah is a metaphor for the word of God being preached by the prophets to a rebellious people. But there was no healing because the prophets were preaching a message that did not bring healing.

Yahweh is the great healer of Israel: “I am the LORD, your healer” (Exodus 15:26). But healing would only come when the prophet faithfully proclaimed the word of God to the people.

The words of Jeremiah have a message for those who preach God’s words. We preach through the power of the Holy Spirit that people’s attitude may be altered, lives may change, and transformation may occur. Those who preach are heralds of God’s truth, proclaiming a message of hope to hungry souls and lonely hearts. Everyone who preaches must remember the words of the prophet Micah: “But I am full of the courage that the LORD's Spirit gives, and have a strong commitment to justice. This enables me to confront Jacob with its rebellion, and Israel with its sin” (Micah 3:8).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Balm, Gilead, Jeremiah, False Prophets

Jeremiah and Hananiah: True and False Prophecy in Israel

The encounter between Jeremiah and Hananiah, two prominent prophets with different views of Yahweh’s work, must have divided the people listening to them. Who spoke the words of Yahweh? Both prophets used the prophetic formula “Thus says the Lord” to proclaim their message. Both prophets employed their knowledge and understanding of the prophetic tradition. This confrontation between Jeremiah and Hananiah raised a problem which must have perplexed their audience profoundly: how could one tell which prophet was speaking a message from Yahweh? When two prophets speak in the name of Yahweh and present contradictory messages, the audience must decide which message is the true message from God.

Both prophets presented true aspects of God’s work in the history of Israel. While Jeremiah spoke of Yahweh’s coming judgment upon Judah, Hananiah spoke of God’s faithfulness in delivering the nation. However, only one of them was delivering the right message, a message that was directly related to the historical situation in which they lived.

An analysis of the background of this prophetic encounter in the temple helps us understand the theological presuppositions each prophet brought to the situation.

It is evident that both Jeremiah and Hananiah were well versed in Israel’s ancient religious traditions and were familiar with the many stories of Yahweh’s mighty deeds done in the history of the nation. Out of their understanding of these ancient traditions came each prophet’s view of reality.

Prophecy can be defined as the prophet’s self-understanding of what Yahweh was doing in accomplishing his purpose in the history of Israel. For this reason, in formulating the right relationship between faith and history, the prophets addressed themselves to foreign and domestic policies, applying their understanding of the faith of Israel to current events. This application of faith to historical and political events generally was manifested by the prophets’ affirmation of Yahweh as creator, redeemer, and judge, and in their perception that Yahweh was involved in current events.

In the case of Jeremiah, while Hananiah and the religious and political leaders of Judah saw Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion and the deportation of the people to Babylon as a national tragedy, Jeremiah saw the invasion as Yahweh’s exercise of divine sovereignty in judging his people. While Jeremiah saw Nebuchadnezzar as Yahweh’s servant, doing Yahweh’s will, Hananiah saw the Babylonian invasion as a gross injustice which Yahweh would reverse by punishing Nebuchadnezzar. While Jeremiah saw Yahweh as a sovereign God over the nations, free to use whomever he desired to accomplish his purpose, Hananiah saw God as the guarantor of his promise to protect Judah notwithstanding her behavior. Jeremiah saw Yahweh as a God who in his righteousness would judge the nation but who in his great mercy would forgive the wayward nation and restore her by establishing a new covenant which would motivate the nation once again to know him and call on his name alone.

Jeremiah understood that if Judah was to be restored, she had to recognize and confess her violation of the covenantal relationship with Yahweh. Israel’s relationship with Yahweh was based on the covenant, not on natural or ancestral kinship. This concept was unique to Israel’s self-understanding and it was a major theme of Jeremiah’s preaching.

During the confrontation between Jeremiah and Hananiah, the people present in the temple were unable to make a clear decision on who was proclaiming a true message from Yahweh because it was impossible to tell the true from the false prophet. The fulfillment of the prophet’s words proved that the prophet’s oracle was true (Deuteronomy 18:22). In fact, apart from fact that the people knew that God revealed his will to the prophets, the people had no immediate objective criterion by which the claim of a prophet could be proved. The claim of who was proclaiming the true word of Yahweh, of who was right and who was wrong was subjective and only the fulfillment of the prophet’s words could prove the validity of a prophetic claim.

There was no firm set of criteria for distinguishing a true prophet from a false one. Ultimately, only the prophet himself could judge another prophet’s message to be false and then only on the basis of a fresh revelation from God. This is what happened in the confrontation between Jeremiah and Hananiah.

While Jeremiah appeared confident that he was proclaiming God’s will to the people, the strength of Hananiah’s conviction about Yahweh’s plan to restore Jehoiachin and the sacred vessels temporarily caused Jeremiah to hesitate in view of the possibility that maybe Yahweh had changed his mind about the Babylonians and their role in the domination of Judah.

As mentioned above, there are no clear set of criteria to distinguish true prophecies from false ones, primarily at the time the prophecy is uttered. There are several reasons for this problem. First, one cannot necessarily evaluate a prophecy by the theology presented in an oracle because a false prophet can often use good theology and apply it at the wrong time, as Hananiah did. Rather, it is in the fulfillment of the prophetic words, often many years later, that true prophecy can be distinguished from false prophecy.

Second, one cannot tell when a prophet is mistakenly identifying the voice of his own heart for the voice of God. Third, one cannot tell whether the right prophetic tradition is being applied to interpret a specific event or situation.

False prophets prophesy about “wine and beer” (Micah 2:11), they fill the people with false hopes, they speak visions from their own minds (Jeremiah 23:16), they commit adultery and live a lie, they strengthen the hands of evildoers, and their message does not turn the people from their wickedness (Jeremiah 23:14).

The true prophet, the one called and sent by God is filled with divine power, with justice and might to speak by the Spirit of the LORD and declare to people their transgression and rebuke them for their sins (Micah 3:8).

The people at the temple, however, could draw on past prophetic traditions to find help in deciding who was speaking the true word of God. First, true prophets proclaimed that Yahweh was sovereign over the nations and the redeemer of Israel while false prophets recognized Yahweh only as the redeemer of Israel. False prophets were exclusivists: they believed that Yahweh would protect Israel from her enemies but they could not accept Yahweh’s freedom to choose a foreign nation to serve as a rod of punishment for the sins of Israel.

Second, false prophets preached a message of peace, giving the people false hope when there was none (Jeremiah 23:16). According to Jeremiah, the true prophet of Yahweh preached about God’s judgment through war, destruction, and famine (Jeremiah 28:9). Third, true prophets challenged the status quo and made the people feel uncomfortable while false prophets supported the status quo and made the people feel secure. For these reasons true prophets and their messages were rejected by the people and as a result, most true prophets were loners and alienated from the community.

There is much to learn about true and false prophets from the encounter between Jeremiah and Hananiah. In the twenty-first century the church is being challenged by people who claim to speak a message from God but who preach a message that does not reflect the teachings of the New Testament. Christians must be aware that even today there are people who speak on behalf of God but who were not sent by God (Jeremiah 23:21).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary


Tags: False Prophet, Hananiah, Jeremiah, Prophet

Jeremiah and Hananiah: The Confrontation in the Temple

Little is known about the prophet Hananiah except what is told about him in the book of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 28:1-17). Hananiah appears to have been one of the nationalistic prophets who proclaimed a message of salvation and deliverance. Hananiah apparently was well known in Judah and respected by the people and the religious and political authorities. Hananiah was the son of Azzur and a prophet from Gibeon (Jeremiah 28:1). Gibeon is the modern el-Jib, a village five miles northwest of Jerusalem.

Hananiah was an optimistic prophet who proclaimed a message of hope for Judah. Optimistic prophets promoted the welfare of their communities by proclaiming Yahweh’s legitimation for the existing social order and by providing divine sanctions for long-held religious, political, and social views. Hananiah declared that in two years Yahweh would bring back to the temple all the vessels of the LORD’s house which Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, had taken away and carried to Babylon (Jeremiah 28:3).

Optimistic prophets also supported the ruling dynasty and defended royal theology. However, while Hananiah likely was welcomed in the royal court because of his favorable message, he probably was not a court prophet in the same way the prophets employed by Ahab were (1 Kings 22:1-28). These court prophets were generally categorized in the Old Testament as false prophets because they proclaimed a message of prosperity and guaranteed military success unconditionally and without repentance.

Hananiah probably was not a court prophet nor a cultic prophet. Rather, he appeared to have a legitimacy as a prophet that was not derived from the court nor from the temple. Thus, it is in his role as a prophet of Yahweh that he challenged Jeremiah. Jeremiah and Hananiah appear in the temple as two legitimate but opposing prophets, confronting each others over what Yahweh was doing with the deportation of Judah and with the future of the nation.

The encounter between Jeremiah and Hananiah occurred in the fifth month of the fourth year of the reign of Zedekiah, King of Judah (Jeremiah 28:1), after the first deportation of Judah, which had occurred in 597 B.C. Jeremiah had been preaching disaster for Judah for some time before his meetings with Hananiah. According to Jeremiah, this disaster had come because Judah had tried to live a life independently of God, had engaged in unnatural sexual practices common in the worship of Baal, had ignored the covenant relationship, and did not heed the warnings of the prophets sent by Yahweh.

The first meeting between Jeremiah and Hananiah took place in the temple in the presence of the priests and all of the people (28:1). Jeremiah was well known as a prophet of Yahweh. Because he often was accused of stirring up trouble in the city, Jeremiah was disliked by many because of the message of doom he proclaimed.

On the other hand, Hananiah, seems to have been well liked by the people and the religious officials because of his optimistic message. His message was said to have come from Yahweh and he claimed to have the same authority Jeremiah had.

The issue confronting Judah and which was the focus of the confrontation between Jeremiah and Hananiah was whether Yahweh was going to deliver the nation from the oppressive yoke imposed on Judah by Nebuchadnezzar, thereby allowing the royal family and the deported people to return to Judah with the vessels of the temple or whether the people of Judah should submit to Babylon as Jeremiah had been preaching. If Hananiah was right, Babylon would be defeated within two years, King Jehoiachin would be restored to the throne in Jerusalem, and the vessels of the temple would be brought back with him. If Jeremiah was right, Judah would continue as a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar and face seventy years of vassalage under Babylon (Jeremiah 25:11-12).

In 594 B. C., ambassadors from Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon gathered in Jerusalem to establish a treaty with Judah and plan a coordinated effort against Nebuchadnezzar. Yahweh told Jeremiah to make a yoke and put it on his neck and declare that he had given all the lands the ambassadors represented into the hands of his servant Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon (Jeremiah 27:6).

Jeremiah pleaded with Zedekiah not to revolt against Babylon. Rather, he urged submission to Nebuchadnezzar whom he insisted Yahweh had chosen to subjugate the land. Hananiah, on the other hand, probably was among those optimistic prophets who urged Zedekiah not to submit to the king of Babylon. These prophets were recommending the ratification of the treaty and open rebellion against Babylon because they believed Yahweh would favor Judah against Babylon (Jeremiah 27:14).

When Jeremiah confronted Hananiah in the temple, Jeremiah came wearing the wooden yoke on his neck. The yoke symbolized the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar which the king of Babylon would impose upon Judah and the other lands in the Ancient Near East (Jeremiah 27:8).

In that encounter, Hananiah was confident that he was bringing a message from Yahweh, a message that reflected his views that Babylon would soon be defeated. He predicted that within two years Jehoiachin would return from exile bringing with him the temple vessels taken by the Babylonians. So sure was Hananiah that he was speaking for Yahweh that he removed the wooden yoke from Jeremiah’s neck and broke it as a symbol that Yahweh would soon break the yoke Nebuchadnezzar had imposed on Judah. He said: “Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon” (Jeremiah 28:2).

In the past Jeremiah had been very critical of other prophets because of their false message. However, Jeremiah does not criticize Hananiah for his optimistic oracle. It is possible that Jeremiah recognized God’s freedom to change his mind or that God had a different purpose which he now was revealing through Hananiah.

Jeremiah’s reticence may be due to the fact that he probably believed Hananiah to be a true prophet, one capable of speaking a genuine message from Yahweh or maybe because he genuinely wished that Hananiah’s message was correct, for he disliked his own. In response to Hananiah’s oracle, Jeremiah said: “Amen! May the LORD do so; may the LORD fulfill the words that you have prophesied, and bring back to this place from Babylon the vessels of the house of the LORD, and all the exiles” (Jeremiah 28:6).


Jeremiah did not challenge Hananiah and his optimistic message. Rather, he left the temple quietly, without saying a word. The reason for Jeremiah’s silence was because he had no word from Yahweh at that juncture. For Jeremiah, to speak when Yahweh had not spoken, was to place himself among those who had been identified as false prophets.

Shortly after Jeremiah left the temple, Yahweh spoke to him and reaffirmed that his message was the true interpretation of what he was doing to Judah through the king of Babylon. Yahweh ordered Jeremiah to make an iron yoke, put it on his neck, and then confront Hananiah again. The LORD told Jeremiah: “Go, tell Hananiah, ‘Thus says the LORD: You have broken wooden bars, but I will make in their place bars of iron. For thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel: I have put upon the neck of all these nations an iron yoke of servitude to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, and they shall serve him’” (Jeremiah 28:13-14).

After receiving this fresh revelation from Yahweh, Jeremiah returned to confront Hananiah again, confident that his message was the right message from Yahweh. Jeremiah rebuked Hananiah for prophesying falsely in Yahweh’s name. Jeremiah told Hananiah he would die that same year. Hananiah’s death would show that he was a false prophet, that his punishment was just punishment because to prophesy falsely was a capital offense punishable by death. (Deuteronomy 13:1-5; 18:20).

The severe sentence was meant to protect the people from the problem of false predictions of impending disaster or false hope of deliverance. As Jeremiah had predicted, in the seventh month of that same year, Hananiah the prophet died (Jeremiah 28:17). The death of Hananiah vindicated Jeremiah and his prophetic ministry.

Previous posts in this series:


Jeremiah and Hananiah

Jeremiah and Hananiah: The Historical Context

Jeremiah and Hananiah: Jeremiah's Ministry


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: False Prophet, Hananiah, Jeremiah, Prophet

Jeremiah and Hananiah: Jeremiah’s Ministry

Jeremiah carried out his ministry during a very difficult time in the history of Judah. The latter part of the seventh century and the beginning of the sixth century was a period of constant political uncertainty in Jerusalem and the rest of the nation. Jeremiah had supported the reforms of Josiah, but during the reign of Jehoiakim, Josiah’s son, Jeremiah saw that the people were reverting to the old religious practices that existed prior to the reforms.

The deportation of part of the population of Judah to Babylon caused great anxiety among the people, a situation that resulted in a profound division among the political and religious leaders of Judah concerning the future of the nation. Judah enjoyed a brief time of independence under Josiah, time enough for the nation to believe that Assyria’s decline would lead to long term prosperity and stability for Judah. Although there is some debate among scholars whether Jeremiah began his ministry in the thirteenth year of Josiah, internal evidence seems to indicate that Jeremiah was an early supporter of the religious reforms that occurred under Josiah.

Jeremiah was the son of Hilkiah. He was born in Anathoth, a village in Benjamin, about three miles northeast of Jerusalem. His father was probably a descendant of Abiathar, the priest from Anathoth banished by Solomon because of his support of Adonijah in his bid for David’s throne. Thus, it is probable that Jeremiah and his family were descendants of a very influential family of exiled priests.

Jeremiah probably was born around 742 B.C. and was called to the prophetic ministry in the thirteenth year of Josiah’s reign (627 B.C.). He was a young man when King Josiah began his reforms in 622 B.C. According to 2 Chronicles 35:25, Jeremiah composed a song of lament at the occasion of Josiah’s death.

Although Jeremiah supported Josiah and the goals of Josiah’s reforms, he realized that the results of the reforms were superficial and inadequate to produce real changes in the religion of Judah. For this reason Jeremiah condemned the superficial commitment of the people and their lack of true repentance.

Jeremiah was shocked at the apostasy of the people. His oracles warned the nation about Yahweh’s displeasure with the religious behavior of the people. Jeremiah proclaimed that God’s punishment upon the nation for her apostasy would come from the north: Judah was under God’s judgment.

Jeremiah’s ministry occurred mostly in Jerusalem, where he remained even after the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. until after the death of Gedaliah, the governor of Judah, in 582 B.C., when he was taken by force to Egypt, where he died.

Jeremiah’s relationship with some of the Judean kings was turbulent. Jeremiah was opposed to the policies of Jehoiakim, the son of Josiah to the point of open hostility. Jehoiakim had abandoned the religious reforms of his father and reinstituted some of the pagan practices Josiah had eliminated. Jehoiakim also abandoned the covenantal commitment the nations had made to serve Yahweh alone. Jeremiah believed Judean servitude to Babylonia was the judgment brought by Yahweh as punishment for the people’s rebellion and for their violation of the demands of the covenant. For this reason, Jeremiah criticized Jehoiakim’s repudiation of his fealty treaty with Nebuchadnezzar, emphasizing that his violation of the treaty was as a sign of his disloyalty to Yahweh. Jeremiah also criticized Jehoiakim for his oppression of the people. Jeremiah’s relationship with Jehoiachin and Zedekiah was no better.

Jeremiah, like the great prophets before him, was distressed by the infidelity of the royal house and the people against God. The people had no sense of guilt for their sins; they had no feelings of shame for their actions. The people of Judah said: “I am innocent” but the LORD said: “'Behold, I will bring you to judgment for saying, ‘I have not sinned’” (Jeremiah 2:35).

Jeremiah heard Yahweh’s voice calling him to proclaim to a rebellious people what he was about to do. God’s action was intended to bring Judah back to the traditions of the covenant. Jeremiah urged the people to submit to Nebuchadnezzar whom he saw as the Lord’s servant who came to exact retribution on behalf of Yahweh. Jeremiah proclaimed: “If, however, any nation or kingdom will not serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon or bow its neck under his yoke, I will punish that nation with the sword, famine and plague, declares the LORD, until I destroy it by his hand” ( Jeremiah 27:8).

For Jeremiah, complete submission to Nebuchadnezzar was the will of Yahweh for Judah. Submission to the Babylonian yoke was the prelude that would motivate Judah to return to the demands of the covenant which required the nation to recognize Yahweh as the only God of Israel and which required obedience to his words: “If you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples” (Exodus 19:5).

A major role of prophets of the Old Testament was to serve as intermediaries between Yahweh and the people. The prophets’ words impacted themselves and their societies in two ways. First, when the prophets spoke, they spoke as Yahweh’s representatives. Their message was Yahweh’s message. They augmented their authority as messengers by following the tradition of the prophets who preceded them. Secondly, their message sought to have a positive effect on their society by bringing about religious reforms and social change.

Like many of the prophets who preceded him, Jeremiah was considered an outcast in Judah. Jeremiah was on the fringe of society, disliked by many, including some members of his own family, and he became a source of great irritation to the ruling class in Judah. Prophets like Jeremiah, generally operated on the edges of society, usually preaching a message of doom. They spoke of Yahweh’s anger, his judgment, and his freedom to act as he wills. They also proclaimed that Yahweh was a gracious God and the Redeemer of Israel. Any prophet who proclaimed a message of doom provoked the hostility and outrage of prophets who preached an optimistic message. Jeremiah was no exception in being the recipient of much hostility because of his message of submission to Babylon.

While Jeremiah was proclaiming the coming judgment and submission to Nebuchadnezzar, other prophets in Judah were soothing the people’s consciences by proclaiming a message of salvation and declaring that Yahweh was their faithful protector. One such prophet was Hananiah.

To be continued.

Previous posts in this series:

Jeremiah and Hananiah

Jeremiah and Hananiah: The Historical Context

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: False Prophets, Hananiah, Jeremiah, Prophets

Jeremiah and Hananiah: The Historical Context

In my first post on the confrontation between Jeremiah and Hananiah, I wrote about some of the issues that differentiated Jeremiah from Hananiah. Both individuals were prophets and both were accepted by the people as legitimate representatives of Yahweh. However, their messages were different and their understanding of what Yahweh was doing in the history of Judah was not the same.

Before we deal with the confrontation between Jeremiah and Hananiah in the temple, it is necessary to review some of the historical events that led to this confrontation. What follows is a brief overview of major events that culminated with the deportation of Judah.

The accession of Tiglath Pileser III (745-727) to the throne of Assyria in 745 B.C. inaugurated a new era of Assyrian domination of the Ancient Near East. Those rulers who followed him, Shalmaneser V (726-722), Sargon II (721-705), Sennacherib (704-681) and Esarhaddon (680-669) became powerful overlords who extended Assyrian control ever Mesopotamia, Palestine, and even Egypt.

Manasseh (687-642), king of Judah, recognized that it was almost impossible to resist Assyria. He paid heavy tribute to Assyria during his long reign and officially recognized Assyrian gods. The introduction of Assyrian religious practices into the religion of Judah led to syncretism and to the rejection of many of the ancient religious traditions of the nation. Although Assyria did not force integration of the conquered peoples into their own culture, Manasseh willingly submitted to Assyria and became a faithful vassal as long as he lived.

During the reigns of Shalmaneser V and Sargon II the Northern Kingdom of Israel was conquered by Assyria and became an Assyrian province. Judah made an attempt at independence under Hezekiah, but Hezekiah became a vassal of Assyria and paid tribute to Sennacherib. However, Judah avoided total conquest and integration because of the policy of appeasement adopted by Manasseh. Because of his total submission to Assyria, Manasseh was able to have a long and peaceful reign. His vassalage to Assyria guaranteed that Judah would retain her identity.

During the reign of King Asshurbanapal (668-627 B.C.), Assyria’s dominance of the Ancient Near East began to wane at the same time that the Babylonians began to take steps toward independence from Assyria. Josiah, King of Judah, took advantage of Assyria’s weakness and made a bid for political freedom for Judah. After the Book of the Law was discovered in the temple in 622 B.C., Josiah promoted a major reform to free Judah from the alien religious practices introduced by Manasseh and the political control Assyria had imposed on Judah.

The reform of Josiah was based on the stipulations found in the Book of the Law, probably an early version of Deuteronomy. Josiah was committed to bring Judah back to the old religious traditions established by the covenant which God had given to Moses on Mount Sinai. The book of Deuteronomy contains a version of the law of Moses. The law was reformulated to meet the social and religious conditions of seventh century Judah.

The election of Israel to become God’s special people (Exodus 19:5) was a free act of grace, however the election of Israel as the people of God came with the expectations that the people would obey God’s voice and keep the demands of the covenant. Both Israel and Judah abandoned Yahweh to follow other gods. After the deportation of the Northern Kingdom, Judah was facing God’s judgment because it too failed to live in obedience to Yahweh.

Josiah and the people made a covenant in which they agreed to abide by the stipulations of the covenant. Josiah’s major effort at reformation was the elimination of pagan cults and the destruction of the altars dedicated to pagan deities. The most important aspect of Josiah’s reform was the centralization of the religious life of Judah in the temple of Jerusalem. However, before Josiah could get his reforms firmly established, he was killed in 609 B.C. in a battle in Megiddo against Neco II, king of Egypt.

The death of Josiah brought radical changes to Judah. With Josiah’s death, the reform movement ended. King Neco placed Jehoiakim, Josiah’s son on the throne of Judah, even though the people despised him. Jehoiakim served as a vassal of Egypt and reversed many of the religious changes his father had established.

When Babylon and Egypt met in battle at Carchemish in 605 B.C., the Babylonians defeated Egypt and became the dominant power in the Ancient Near East. At that time, Jehoiakim became a vassal of Nebuchadnezzar. The defeat of Egypt in 605 B.C. and the accession of Nebuchadnezzar to the throne of Babylon assured Jeremiah that the end of Judah was near (Jeremiah 25:1). To Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar was "the Servant of Yahweh" who would act as the instrument of God's justice (Jeremiah 25:8-11). In 601 B.C. Egypt and Babylon met again with heavy losses on both sides. Nebuchadnezzar returned home to reorganize his army. At that time Jehoiakim revolted against the Babylonians.

This act of rebellion caused Babylon to invade Judah and besiege Jerusalem in 597 B.C. Jehoiakim’s sudden death probably was the result of an assassination attempt. With the death of Jehoiakim, his son Jehoiachin became the new king of Judah. After three months on the throne, Jehoiachin surrendered to Nebuchadnezzar and was deported to Babylon, together with the members of the royal family, political and military leaders, intellectuals, and many skilled workers. After the deportation of Jehoiachin, the Babylonians made Zedekiah the new king of Judah. Zedekiah made a covenant of fealty with Nebuchadnezzar and served as a vassal of Babylon.

Zedekiah was a weak king. Encouraged by a strong anti-Babylonian factions in his court, Zedekiah plotted a revolt against Babylon. With the promise of Egyptian help, Zedekiah revolted openly against Babylon. Nebuchadnezzar’s army attacked and systematically destroyed the fortified cities of Judah. The temple, the city, and the big houses of Jerusalem were destroyed in 587 B.C. Zedekiah fled the city at night, but he was captured near Jericho. He was taken to Nebuchadnezzar at Riblah, a city in the northern part of Syria, where he was forced to see the slaughter of his sons. Then his eyes were put out. They bound him in fetters and he was sent to Babylon together with a second deportation of the population. With the deportation of Zedekiah, the monarchy of David came to an end.


In a future post, I will discuss the events that led to the confrontation between Jeremiah and Hananiah in the temple.

To be continued:

Jeremiah and Hananiah: Jeremiah’s Ministry



Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Jehoiakim, Jeremiah, Josiah, Zedekiah

Jeremiah and Hananiah

Early in Israel’s history, at the beginning of the monarchy, a group of prophets arose in Israel whose primary function was to challenge the policies of the king. The emergence of the state in Israel brought great changes to the social and religious life of the nation that greatly affected the tribal structures of Israelite society.

Within the development of the prophetic movement in Israel, there arose two types of prophets. The first type was a group of independent prophets who claimed to speak on behalf of Yahweh and who warned the people to return to the old traditions of the covenant. The second type were those prophets who were paid by the temple or the court and who proclaimed the kind of message their patrons desired to hear. The Greek Bible, the Septuagint, called them pseudo prophetes (Jeremiah 14:14 LXX), “false prophets.” These professional prophets came to be known as false prophets not because of their desire to mislead the people, but rather, because they misinterpreted Yahweh’s intentions at times when the nation was facing great dangers.

C. E. Schenk, writing in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia wrote: “In times of moral darkness the false prophets, predicting smooth things for the nation, independent of repentance, consecration and the pursuit of spiritual ideals, were honored above the true prophets who emphasized the moral greatness of Yahweh and the necessity of righteousness for the nation.”

True prophets proclaimed a message of God’s judgment against the rulers and the people because of their violation of the religious and legal traditions of the nation. On the other hand, false prophets preached a message of peace and salvation and predicted the nation’s deliverance from the hands of their enemies. In the end, true prophets were distinguished from false prophets by the outcome of their respective prophesies: “A prophet who predicts peace must carry the burden of proof. Only when his predictions come true can it be known that he is really from the Lord” (Jeremiah 28:9 NLT).

Two prophets who represent these styles of prophetic ministries were Jeremiah and Hananiah (Jeremiah 28). Jeremiah, son of Hilkiah, was a peripheral prophet who proclaimed God’s judgment against Judah and the exile in Babylon. Hananiah, on the other hand, proclaimed an optimistic message in which he declared that Jehoiachin, the exiled king of Judah, would be restored and that the vessels of the temple which were taken to Babylon, would be returned to Jerusalem within two years.

The ministries of Jeremiah and Hananiah occurred at a time of great crisis in the life of Judah. In 597 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar had come to Jerusalem, deported Jehoiachin, the royal family, political and religious leaders, and had taken many of the vessels of the temple as trophies of war to Babylon.

The confrontation between Jeremiah and Hananiah, the son of Azzur and a prophet from Gibeon, took place in the temple (Jeremiah 28:1). The confrontation was a dispute between two prophets who were guided by different understanding of what God was doing in Judah’s conflict with the Babylonians. On one side was Jeremiah, a prophet whose ministry was based on the old covenant traditions which the Lord had established with Israel at Sinai. Jeremiah was profoundly touched by what he perceived to be Judah’s lack of obedience to the demands of the covenant. Jeremiah, who had been called to preach a message of judgment (Jeremiah 1:10), urged the people to return to Yahweh and avoid the total destruction of the nation. Jeremiah saw the coming of the Babylonians and the deportation of Jehoiachin as the beginning of a long exile that would last seventy years (Jeremiah 25:11).

Jeremiah’s message to Judah was that the nation should submit to Babylonia and not oppose it, for submission to Babylon was ordained by Yahweh and that out of the humiliation of defeat and servitude, a new covenant would be established with Israel and the nation would be renewed for service in the world.

On the other side of the confrontation was Hananiah, a well-known and popular prophet in Judah. Like Jeremiah, Hananiah probably knew the history of Yahweh’s mighty acts of salvation on behalf of Israel. Hananiah was probably a firm believer in the so-called Zion theology, a view that proclaimed the inviolability of Jerusalem. On the basis of this belief, Hananiah proclaimed that God would not allow the Babylonians to destroy the people of Judah.

These conflicting theological traditions became the reason for the confrontation between the two prophets. The narrative of their encounter in the temple is the story of two men striving to hear God’s voice and interpret contemporary events in terms of divine will.

The encounter between Jeremiah and Hananiah is a classic example of a dispute between a true and a false prophet and how they interpreted God’s will for the people and for the nation. Further, the confrontation between Jeremiah and Hananiah provides a window into the problem of discerning a true prophet.

In their effort to interpret what God was doing through the coming of the Babylonians, Jeremiah used a legitimate hermeneutic in the right situation and Hananiah used a legitimate hermeneutic in the wrong context. When the people were confronted with two different understandings of what God was doing, how was the audience in the temple to recognize what God was doing in the midst of the anguish caused by the Babylonian invasion? Faced with two contradictory views of God’s work, which one should the people accept as the legitimate interpretation of God’s will? Which prophet was applying prophetic tradition properly to determine what God was doing in the current situation?

In future posts I will study the confrontation between Jeremiah and Hananiah and will introduce the historical background of the confrontation between the two prophets, the theological perspectives each brought to the confrontation, some biblical characteristics of true prophets, and the outcome of the confrontation.

To be continued.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: False Prophets, Hananiah, Jeremiah, Prophets

Enkidu, Jeremiah, and the Mother of Seven

A few days ago I wrote a post on “The Mother of Seven,” a study of Jeremiah 15:9. Now, Duane Smith at Abnormal Interest has written a post, “Enkidu, Jeremiah and the Mother of Seven” in which he links the harlot in Gilgamesh with the passage in Jeremiah.

Duane’s argument is provocative and deserves further study. I recommend that you visit Duane’s post and evaluate his proposal.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Enkidu, Harlot, Jeremiah

Shaphan and His Family

In an earlier post on “The Fast of Gedaliah,” I mentioned the important role Gedaliah and the family of Shaphan played in the ministry of Jeremiah. I have always been interested in the role the Shaphanites played in the life and ministry of Jeremiah.

Because of my interest in the Shapanites, one of my students, Cesar Melgar, wrote his M.A. thesis on the role of the Shaphanites in helping Jeremiah accomplish his mission. Melgar’s thesis, “The Shaphanites: Political Allies to a Revolutionary Prophet,” studies the function of the scribe in ancient Israel and the influence of the Shaphanites in the political life of Judah.

Shaphan was a royal scribe who served under Josiah, king of Judah. Shaphan and his sons provided political support to the prophet Jeremiah and protected Jeremiah from those who opposed him, including the king, the king’s officials, the false prophets, and other officials who opposed the message and ministry of Jeremiah.

In response my post on Gedaliah, Peter Kirk commented on Shaphan’s father. Peter wrote:

Shaphan's father Azaliah (2 Kings 22:3), however, does not seem to have been a faithful Yahwist, given that he did not give his son a traditional Yahwistic name but instead named him after an animal (hyrax or rock badger). This was probably early in the long reign of Manasseh when Yahwistic names were out of fashion. At least by the time Shaphan named his son Gemariah (Jeremiah 36:10) he had become a convert to Yahwism.

I agree with Peter’s view about Azaliah. Naming children after animals was not common in Israel and was generally practiced by those who were not Israelites. Azaliah probably was one of those Israelites who had abandoned their faith during the reign of Manasseh. Even though Azaliah was not a fervent Yahwist, his son Shaphan and his children were faithful followers of Yahweh, with the exception of Jaazaniah.

James Pate wrote in his comment that Shaphan’s son Jaazaniah was not a strict Yahwist since the prophet Ezekiel criticized Jaazaniah for engaging in idolatry. Ezekiel wrote: “Before them [the idols of the house of Israel] stood seventy of the elders of the house of Israel, with Jaazaniah son of Shaphan standing among them. Each had his censer in his hand, and the fragrant cloud of incense was ascending” (Ezekiel 8:11). I will come back to Jaazaniah later.

The family of Shaphan was very influential in the political life in the last days of the monarchy in Judah. Shaphan’s son Ahikam (2 Kings 22:12) was a high government official during the reign of Josiah. He was sent to the prophetess Huldah with his father as a member of the official delegation in order to ascertain the message of the book of the law.

Gemariah, the son of Shaphan (Jeremiah 36:10) was part of Jehoiakim’s court. Jehoiakim was king of Judah and son of Josiah. When Baruch read the words of Jeremiah in the house of the Lord from the scroll which he had written at the dictation of Jeremiah, Baruch read it in the chamber of Gemariah which was in the upper court, at the entry of the New Gate of the Lord’s house (Jeremiah 36:10). Gemariah was one of the palace officials who was present when Jeremiah’s scroll was read before the king.

Elasah, the son of Shaphan, served in the government during the reign of Zedekiah, king of Judah. Elasah was sent to Babylon on a diplomatic mission by Zedekiah after Zedekiah and a group of vassal nations failed in their attempt to rebel against Babylon. At the time of his journey to Babylon, Elasah carried Jeremiah’s letter to the people who were captives in Babylon (Jeremiah 29:1-3).

Shaphan had two grandsons: Micaiah and Gedaliah. Micaiah was the son of Gemariah. Micaiah was one of the royal officials who heard Baruch read the scroll of Jeremiah in the temple. And Micaiah was the one who told the king’s officers about the message Baruch was reading to the people (Jeremiah 36:13).

Gedaliah, the grandson of Shaphan, was the son of Ahikam. Gedaliah became the governor of Judah after the destruction of Babylon in 587 B.C. Gedaliah was a friend of Jeremiah and he tried to become an intermediary between the Babylonians and the people of Judah. However, because of some opposition by members of the royal family, Gedaliah was killed by Ishmael, forcing the Babylonians to deport more people to Babylon.

The only enigma in Shaphan’s family is Jaazaniah. From Ezekiel’s passage, it seems that Jaazaniah held an important position among the elders of Judah because out of the seventy elders only he is mentioned by name as one of the leader of the elders of Judah.

Shaphan, his sons, and grandsons were prominent leaders in the reform movement sponsored by Josiah; they were friends of Jeremiah, and served with distinction as royal officials with the exception of Jaazaniah. Jaazaniah probably served under Jehoiakim and Zedekiah and this may explain his uncharacteristic behavior. The fact that one of Shaphan’s sons was the leader of a group of idolatrous people must have been very painful to Ezekiel, so much so that it forced him to recognize Jaazaniah by name.

Shaphan played an important role in the reforms of Josiah. In the eighteenth year of Josiah’s reign, the king commanded Shaphan to go to Hilkiah and collect the money the people had donated for the repairs of the temple. After Shaphan arrived in the Temple, Hilkiah, the High Priest, told Shaphan that he had found the book of the Law of God in the temple.

Shaphan read the book and took it to Josiah and read it to the king. Josiah’s reaction to the message of the book was profound. Josiah tore his garments and ordered Shaphan and his son Ahikam, together with Hilkiah and two other officials, to inquire of the Lord and ascertain his will about the book.

The delegation sent by Josiah went to Huldah, the prophetess. The reason the king’s official selected Huldah to provide an evaluation of the book is unknown. However the fact that the High Priest and the Royal Scribe went to a prophet of Yahweh to seek God’s will, reveals the importance of the prophetic word in the religious life of Israel.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Huldah, Jeremiah, Josiah, Shaphan

The Fast of Gedaliah

Yesterday, Sunday, the Jewish people celebrated the Fast of Gedaliah. The actual day was on Saturday, the 3rd day of the Hebrew month of Tishrei, but because of the Sabbath celebration, the fast day was celebrated on Sunday.

The Fast of Gedaliah, known in Hebrew as Tzom Gedaliah, is an annual fast set aside to remember the assassination of Gedaliah, the governor of Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple. The death of Gedaliah was the culmination of a series of events that began with the deportation of Jehoiachin in 597 B.C. and ended with the deportation of what remained of the population of Judah to Babylon in 582 B.C.

The Fast of Gedaliah is observed annually on the day immediately following Rosh Hashanah, on the third day of Tishrei. In Jewish Writings the fast is called “The Fast of the Seventh” (see Zechariah 8:19) in allusion to Tishrei, the seventh month in the Hebrew calendar.

Gedaliah was the son of Ahikam and the grandson of Shaphan, the secretary of king Josiah. Shaphan and the members of his family were great supporters of Jeremiah. As a result of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple in 587 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, killed most of the leadership of Judah and deported the royal officials and the members of the royal family to Babylon.

Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah governor of the province of Judea to rule over what remained of Judah under the protection of the Babylonian army (Jeremiah 40:5). Gedaliah established the seat of his government at Mizpah, since Jerusalem was in ruins. Gedaliah ruled over the province as a tributary of the king of Babylon.

The Babylonians put Gedaliah in charge of the men, women, and children who had not been carried into exile in Babylon. According to Jeremiah 52:16, only the poorest people of the land were left behind to work the vineyards and the fields. Jeremiah was allowed to make a choice. Nebuzaradan, the commander of the Babylonian army, said to Jeremiah:

“Today I am freeing you from the chains on your wrists. Come with me to Babylon, if you like, and I will look after you; but if you do not want to, then don’t come. Look, the whole country lies before you; go wherever you please.” However, before Jeremiah answered, Nebuzaradan added, “Go back to Gedaliah son of Ahikam, the son of Shaphan, whom the king of Babylon has appointed over the towns of Judah, and live with him among the people, or go anywhere else you please” (Jeremiah 40:4-5).

After Jeremiah made his decision, the commander of the Babylonian army gave him provisions and a present and let him go. Jeremiah went to Gedaliah, the son of Ahikam, at Mizpah and stayed with him and with the people who were left behind in the land.

Gedaliah’s father, Ahikam, was one of the four persons sent by King Josiah to inquire of the prophetess Huldah concerning the book of the law found in the temple by Hilkiah, the high priest. Ahikam also protected the prophet Jeremiah from the wrath of Jehoiakim, king of Judah (Jeremiah 26:24).

After Gedaliah was appointed governor of Judah, he selected Mizpah, a city in the tribe of Benjamin, as the seat of his government. Gedaliah adopted a policy of reconciliation and counseled the people to submit to the Babylonians. Jeremiah joined Gedaliah at Mizpah and the city became a refuge for many people who had fled before the coming of the Babylonian army (Jeremiah 40:11-12).

However, Gedaliah’s policy of conciliation and submission did not meet with universal approval. Ishmael, a member of the royal family of Judah, planned to assassinate Gedaliah and probably take control of the government. Ishmael was encouraged by Baalis, king of Ammon, where Ishmael had fled during the war with the Babylonians.

Johanan, the son of Kareah, warned Gedaliah of the plot against his life: “Don't you know that Baalis king of the Ammonites has sent Ishmael son of Nethaniah to take your life?” (Jeremiah 40:14). However, Gedaliah did not believe that Ishmael would kill him. What follows demonstrates the character of Gedaliah:

“Then Johanan son of Kareah said privately to Gedaliah in Mizpah: ‘Let me go and kill Ishmael son of Nethaniah, and no one will know it. Why should he take your life and cause all the Jews who are gathered around you to be scattered and the remnant of Judah to perish?’”

“But Gedaliah son of Ahikam said to Johanan son of Kareah, ‘Don't do such a thing! What you are saying about Ishmael is not true’” (Jeremiah 40:15-16). But it was true.

The assassination of Gedaliah is described in 2 Kings 25:25-26:

“In the seventh month, however, Ishmael son of Nethaniah, the son of Elishama, who was of royal blood, came with ten men and assassinated Gedaliah and also the men of Judah and the Babylonians who were with him at Mizpah. At this, all the people from the least to the greatest, together with the army officers, fled to Egypt for fear of the Babylonians.”

The Israelites who remained in Mizpah, in anticipation of the reprisal by the king of Babylon, fled to Egypt, forcing Jeremiah to accompany them. As a result of Gedaliah’s death, a third deportation of the people of Judah took place in 582 B.C. (Jeremiah 52:30). In addition, the province of Judah was eliminated and what remained of the territory of Judah was incorporated into the province of Samaria.

The Fast of Gedaliah is commemorated by Jewish people as a day of national calamity. The death of Gedaliah was an event “which left Judah devoid of any Jews and Jewish rule, and made the destruction of the first Temple complete.”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Gedaliah, Jeremiah

Jeremiah 39:3 and the Nebo-Sarsekim Tablet

In his post on Nebo-Sarsekim, “ The mystery of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin,” Chris Heard makes several important points which I want to address briefly in this post.

First, Chris asks: which version is correct, the NIV or the NRSV and the NJPSV? As I mentioned in my first post, all versions struggle with the Babylonian names, so, it is doubtful that the NRSV is better than the NIV in this case. Chris asks:

would it be appropriate to use the tablet to "correct" translations like the NRSV and NJPSV that read "Samgar-nebo, Sarsekim" rather than "Samgar, Nebo-sarsekim"?

Why not, if in this case the NRSV is wrong? In the past I have taken the NRSV against the NIV, but in this case I take the NIV against the NRSV. Even Chris leans “toward the NIV against the NRSV and NJPSV on the translation of the list of officials’ names.”

Second, Chris is puzzled with the presence of two Nergal-sharezers in Jeremiah 39:3. Since these two Nergal-sharezers have different titles, they probably were two different people working for the king of Babylon.

Third, Chris warns us that maybe the Nebo-Sarsekim of the clay tablet may not be the same Nebo-Sarsekim of Jeremiah 39:3. This is a fair assumption because if there were two Nergal-sharezers in Babylon, it is also possible that there was more than one Nebo-Sarsekim.

Many of the other issues raised by Chris have been addressed by Jack R. Lundbom in his commentary, Jeremiah 37-52 (The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 2004), 84-85.

Below I quote Lundbom’s comments in full. All the emphases are his; the abbreviations from works cited are quoted as they appear in the commentary. Those who want to read the works cited by Lundbom should consult his commentary. Lindbom wrote:

Nergalsharerer the Samgar, Nebusanechim the Rab-saris, Nergalsharezer the Rab-mag. Difficulty in rendering these Babylonian names shows up already in the Versions, which betray uncertainty about components and a general unawareness that names are followed by titles. What we have are three names with titles (Bogaert 1990: 317), the same number–but not all the same persons–as in v 13. If one were to read MT's hyphenated samgar-nebu as a separate name, which is possible (= Akk Sinmagir-Nabu), the names and individuals would then be four: Nergal-sharezer, Samgar-nebu, Sarsechim the Rab-saris, and Nergal-sharezer the Rab-mag (compare RSV, NJV, and NJB). But a contemporary cuneiform text suggests that samgar is a title for Nergal-sharezer (see below), leaving nebu a component of the following name. The samgar-nebu of MT is then incorrect.

Nergalsharezer the Samgar. Nergalsharezer is a Hebraicized form of Akk Nergal-sar-usur (Neriglissar). This individual, or else Nergalsharezer the Rab- mag cited here and in v 13, is likely the one who later seized the throne from Nebuchadrezzar's successor, Amelmarduk, and reigned from 560 to 556 B.C. (Bright 1965: 243; 1981: 352-53). Hebrew samgar (=Akk simmagir [sin-magir]) is the title of a high official, or else a place-name (CAD 15: 272-73; AHw 2: 1045). The consensus now is that samgar belongs with the prior name, which in Akk yields either Nergal-sar-user, the Sin-magir (high official), or Nergal- sar-user from Sin-magir (Bewer 1925-26). An individual so designated has come to light in "The Court of Nebuchadnezzar” document (ANET 308), where also the Nebuzaradan mentioned in vv. 9-14 is listed. Some commentators (Giesebrecht; Rudolph; Bright; Holladay; Jones; McKane) suggest that the two Nergalsharezers are only one person, but that view is to be rejected. These are two individuals with the same name (Kimhi), cited here with different titles in order to distinguish one from the other.

Nebusarsechim the Rab-saris. The now-expanded name of Nebusarsechim has support in LXX's Nabousachar. The component in MT is "Nebu" (as in Nebuchadrezzar), not "Nebo," as appears in Isa 46:l. Both are equivalent to Akk Nabu (= god). The Rab-saris ("chief of the eunuchs") is another title for a high state official.

Nergalsharezer the Rab-mag. The term rab-mag is a Hebraicized form of Akk rab mugi, the title of a high military official (mugu in CAD 10/2:171; Ahw 2:667; KB [3rd ed.]; its meaning, at least here, is not “chief astrologer/sootsayer” (pace BDB, 550; NJB). The term has turned up in an economic memoradum from the Sippar temple records (BM 49656:3), where the Nabopolassar’s accession reference is made to “the accountant of the rab magu” (Wiseman 1956:94).

The Nebo-Sarsekim Tablet was found among financial records unearthed in the ancient city of Sippar. It is not a coincidence that, according to Lundbom, the title of Nergalsharezer the Rab-mag and the name of Nebuzaradan also appear in documents found in the temple at Sippar.

Chris has a point: the Nebo-Sarsekim of the tablet may not be the same Nebo-Sarsekim of Jeremiah 39:3. But one thing is sure: the name Nebo-Sarsekim is not a name invented by some post-exilic theologian writing an invented history of Israel.

Previous posts on this topic::

The Book of Jeremiah and A New Archaeological Discovery

The Nebo-Sarsekim Tablet

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Babylon, Jeremiah, Nebo-Sarsekim, Michael Jursa