I

T H E F A L S E C O N C E P T I O N O F S E C U R I T Y

THE study which follows may be described as an essay on thetheology of the Jeremiah tradition, centring on the use in thattradition of the term Seqer, commonly translated ‘lie, falsehood,deception’. While this noun is fairly frequent within the OldTestament as a whole (I I I occurrences), there is such a suddenburst of occurrences in the book of Jeremiah that one immediatelysuspects that the concept of falsehood had a special significance inthe message of that prophet. This is in fact the case, and our studyundertakes to show the way in which the prophet took up thisconcept, extended its connotations, and adopted it as one of themore important terms of his theological vocabulary.

In the book of Jeremiah we encounter the notion of ‘falsehoodin connection with three main objects of the prophet’s concern:the false sense of security which was preventing the people fromresponding to Yahweh’s call to repentance, the propheticopponents of Jeremiah (‘false prophets’), and the falsehood ofidolatry. The first two stand in an especially close relationship toeach other, and will be the primary objects of our concern. It isclear that many Judeans of Jeremiah’s day were confident thatYahweh would assure the continued existence of their nation inthe face of all approaching danger. The presence of the temple intheir midst seems to have symbolized for them a guaranteednational security. We may therefore begin our study with anexamination of the basis of this confidence and the prophet’sreaction to it.

In order to discover Jeremiah’s convictions about the people’sfalse sense of security it will be useful to direct our attention to his‘Temple Sermon’, for in it the prophet gives a vivid indication ofthe underlying causes of and factors involved in this attitude.Besides providing us with general information about the con-ditions under which the message was delivered, Jeremiah 7.1-1 j

V

SEQERIN THETHEOLOGY O F JEREMIAH

THE main emphasis of this study has been on Jeremiah’s use ofthe notion ‘falsehood’ to describe the sense of security which hefelt was preventing the people of Judah from responding toYahweh’s call to repentance and the prophetic opponents, whowere active purveyors of this message of ‘peace’. For the sake ofcompleteness, brief reference must be made to another area inwhich the prophet’s notion of falsehood found expression,namely his polemic against idolatry.

I have elsewhere discussed this topic in detail, concentrating myattention on an analysis of the structure and content of Jeremiah10.1-16 viewed in the context of the shape of the polemic againstidolatry found in the remainder of the book.1 It is unnecessary torepeat the details of that study here, although some of its generalconclusions should be cited as relevant to the present investiga-tion. It was argued that Jer. 10.1-16 displayed a definite structuralpattern, in which hymn-like praises addressed to or spoken aboutYahweh alternate with statements critical of idols. The function ofthis pattern is to press home the contrast between Yahweh and thegods whose symbols the idols are. This scheme was seen to recurin the utterances of Jeremiah in passages like 28-13, 26-28; 3.1-j,23; j.20-25, - 14.22; and 16.19-20. The question of why the pro-phet felt moved to brand these gods and their cultic practices‘false’ (3.23; 10.14; 16.19) seems best answered in terms of hisperception of their basic ineffectiveness.

It is interesting that the prophet compares Yahweh with thegods in terms of their own special functions, and not by playingoff his capability of historical action against their bondage to

1 ‘The Falsehood of Idolatry: An Interpretation of Jer. x. I-16’, JTS, NS16 (1965), pp. 1-12. In my view the methodological implications of this studyare inseparable from and at least as important as the conclusions it reachedabout the specific interpretation of Jer. 10.1-16.

.feqer in the Theology of Jeremiah 87

nature, as if the latter in itself made them inferior. In the broadersense it is true that Jeremiah conceived of Yahweh as pre-eminently a God of history, yet in terms of this one concreteaspect of his polemic the prophet is conceiving of him as thecreator and ruler of nature. By comparison with him the gods ofthe nations are ‘vain’ (hebhel), powerless even to accomplish thosefunctions for which they are specialists. Consequently, the cultusconnected with such gods is also ineffective. Only in Yahweh isthe ‘salvation’ of Israel to be found (3.23).2

Our task is now to attempt to understand the meaning andfunction of the term feqer in the theological vocabulary of theprophet Jeremiah. But in order to put his use of the term in aproper perspective, some remarks are in order about its use out-side the book of Jeremiah.3 While the noun Seqer is found 36 timesin Jeremiah, it also occurs frequently in the Pentateuch, Psalms,and Proverbs, and it will be convenient to limit the followingbrief remarks to those three blocks of material.4

Seven of the eight occurrences of i’eqer in the Pentateuch are inwhat we might call a ‘legal’ context. That is to say, the topic underdiscussion in each of them is false witness, swearing falsely, or

s Because of his conviction that the term Seqer refers basically to a breachof relationship, often of the covenant relationship which exists between thepeople and Yahweh, Martin A. Klopfenstein argues that the intention of Jer.3.23 is not to say that idol worship is .feqer, but that it Zeads to Seqer (i.e., breachof the covenant). Onlv in passages like Jer. 16.19; 10.14, and Isa. 44.20 doesI IJeqer cease to describe personal behaviour and come to refer to the ‘ineffective-ness’ of the idols themselves. The latter constitutes a decided ‘fadinrr’ of the---a -- ----original connotation. See Die Ltige nach dem Alten Testament, pp. 83ff. At leastin the case of Jeremiah, one wonders if such a distinction is necessarv. In hispolemic the ineffectiveness of the people’s false sense of security for copingwith the contemporary political situation seems functionally equivalent tothat ascribed to the gods : neither were capable of altering the course of eventswhich Yahweh has willed.

3 While _Feqer is but one of the Hebrew roots which convey the basic notionof ‘falsehood’, it is the only one that has been systematically used by Jeremiahin his prophetic utterances. Klopfenstein has done an exhaustive study of allthe roots, and his conclusions about the sphere in which each was originallyat home are of interest: Sqr is basically a term from the sphere of treaty law,,4r@ from that of criminal law, Saw’ from that of primitive magic, and k$from dailv life. Op. cit., pp. 32If.

4 The verb is infrequent in the Old Testament. Klopfenstein maintains thatits basic meaning relates to the breaking of an agreement rather than to somekind of ‘lying’ speech(Gen. 21.23 ; Pss. 89.34; 44.18), and cites eighth-centuryAramaic treaties of state in which the root Sqr functions as a technical term forthe breaking of a treaty’ (op. cit., pp. Sff.).

88 The Threat of Falsehood

speaking falsely, and all of these are viewed as a perversion ofjustice. Probably the most familiar example of this usage comesfrom the Decalogue itself: ‘You shall not bear false witness (‘edSiqer) against your neighbour’ (Ex. 20.16; cf. 23.7; Lev. j.22, 24;19.12; Deut. 19.18, where the term occurs twice). The basicmeaning here is non-correspondence to ‘fact’. What the ‘falsewitness’ does is accuse someone of doing a thing which hein fact did not do (cf. Deut. 19.1 j-19). He tells a ‘lie’ in oureveryday sense of that term. An actual example of this kind oflying is found in II Kings 9.12. After being privately anointed byElisha, Jehu emerges into the presence of his servants but seeksto deceive them by implying that nothing took place betweenthe prophet and himself. In the face of this rather suspiciousassertion the men reply, ‘It is a lie! Tell us now (what reallyhappened) !’

The one exception to this ‘legal’ usage of the term is Ex. 5.9,which is part of the narrative describing Pharaoh’s reaction toMoses’ initial demand that the people of Israel be allowed to makea pilgrimage into the wilderness to worship Yahweh. Angered bythis request, he ordered the foremen to withhold straw from thecaptive labourers but not to reduce the number of bricks requiredof them, so that they would have no time or inclination to ‘regardlying words’. That is, Pharaoh was in effect saying the same thingabout Yahweh’s promise of deliverance (Ex. 3.7-10; 5 .I-3) thatwe found Jeremiah saying about the gods, viz. he is ineffective,unable to carry out the promise made.

The term kqer occurs 22 times in the Psalter in a total ofI4 Psalms: 7,273 31, 33, 31, 3% >2, 63, 69, 101, 109, ‘19 (eighttimes), I 20, 144 (twice). According to Gunke’s classification, mostof these are to be viewed as individual laments (the exceptions are :27.1-6, a song of trust; 33, a choir-hymn; IOI, an enthronementproclamation: 144, a royal lament; and I I 9, an alphabetical psalmof mixed form).5

Beginning with those Seqer-psalms which may be classified aslaments (of whatever sort), we may note that almost withoutexception the term kqer is used as descriptive of the actions of theenemies. As one would expect, it occurs for the most part in two

5 H. Gunkel and J. Begrich, Einleitzrng in die Psalmen (Gottingen: Vanden-hoeck und Ruprecht, 1929 and 1933). H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen, arrives at sub-stantially the same classification.

feqer in the Theolog of Jeremiah 89

elements of these psalms: the laments and the prayer.7 27.12 isespecially instructive, for the enemies are here described as ‘falsewitnesses’ (‘Cd& Seqer), and this appears to be the burden of theiroffence against the suppliant. Throughout these psalms, in fact,the plotting of the enemies is predominantly oral in nature (cf.31.19; 35.1, II, 2of., 25; 52.4-6; 120.2; etc.). Thus two-thirds ofthe occurrences of Seqer in the Psalter come in laments, in whichthe term performs the function of referring to the enemies’actions. This action may be generally characterized as the bearingof false witness and involvement in plots against the suppliant.The major emphasis, then, is on the use of the term ‘lie’ in thesense of untruth or non-correspondence to fact. The connotationof the term in these psalms is heavily legal, as it is also in severalpsalms outside the lament group.8 In only two passages (3 3.17;I I 9. I I 8, where the connotation ‘ineffectiveness’ seems to be calledfor) do we find clear indications that something other than a legalcontext is to be thought of where the term occurs.

Our understanding of these occurrences of ieqer will dependsomewhat on how we conceive of the individual psalms of lamen-tation. For Gunkel this group formed the backbone of the Psalter,and represented the prayers of real, private individuals.9 S.Mowinckel, on the other hand, suggests that these are in factroyal psalms, or national laments in the ‘I-form’.10 H. Birkelandconcurs in this judgment, arguing that the enemies of the indi-viduals here represented are identical with those of the nation.11He cites, for example, the fact that numerous psalms contain warimagery and speak of ‘falsity’ or ‘false witness’ (27, 3 I, 3 1,69, etc.),and refers to the Amarna letters as providing us with the most

6 27.12; 52.5 ; 63.12; 69.5; 109.2. In 7.13 the term appears in a narrativesection, which is perhaps most akin to the lament.

7 31.19; 35.19; 120.2; 144.8, II.s Ps. IOI is in effect the king’s promise (doubtless uttered in connection

with his enthronement) to maintain justice in the land, so the reference to‘those who utter lies’ (d6bhre” ?q&m, v. 7) probably refers to persons who inmore strictly legal terminology would be designated ‘Zdhe^ Seqer. In severalpassages in Ps. I 19 walking in Seqer (etc.) is specifically rejected in favour ofYahweh’s to^r& (vv. 29, 163) or piqqzidhfm (vv. 104, 128). The other occur-rences of Seqer in this psalm are within lament contexts (vv. 69, 78, 86).

s Op. cit., paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 30.1s The Psalms in Israel’s Worship.11 The Evildoers in the Book of Pialms (Oslo : Dybwad, I y j 5 ), p. 9. This book

is a restatement of the argument of his earlier work. Die Feinde des Individuumsin der Israelitiscbe Psalmeheratare (Oslo : Grondahl; I 9 3 3).

..-

The Threat of Falsehood

plausible background for understanding this phenomenon : Israelis under foreign domination, and ‘false witnesses’ appear accusingthe vassal king before his overlord. Falsity thus has a legal con-notation (untrue accusation) and belongs ‘to the patterniaedqualities of the enemies’.12

It would thus seem that the term leqer in the psalms retains thesame basic connotation which we found it representing in thelegal material of the Pentateuch, centring on the notion of ‘lie’ as‘non-correspondence to fact’.13

Finally, some comments are in order regarding the 20 occur-rences of the noun in Proverbs. It is widely recognized that thisbook is not a literary unity, but is rather ‘the outcome of a processof thought and work that continued for centuries, and in whichwriting was a by-product of oral teaching’.14 Several collections(often displaying independent headings ; cf. IO. I ; 2 5. I) are evidentwithin the book, the oldest of which is probably the ‘Proverbs ofSolomon’ (IO.I-22.16), 1s although the process of development ofeven this section may have extended into the exilic period orbeyond.16 The bulk of the occurrences of ieqer (I 3) are within thissection of the book.

Again, it is the ‘legal’ sense of the term which predominates. Inseveral instances the condemnation of ‘false witness’ is explicit, as,for example, the couplet:

He who speaks the truth gives honest evidence,but a false witness utters deceit (I 2.17).17

Other couplets characterize the lips or tongue which conceal thetrue feelings, intent, or actions of their owners as kqer,l* and the

12 Evildoers . . .., p. 32.13 Klopfenstem agrees that the use of Jeqer in the Psalms corresponds to

that of the passages which speak of false testimony and oaths. He takes painsto point out that whoever is guiltv of such neriurv is in breach of the covenantwith Yahweh (op. cit., pp. 4gf., 78f.). A ’ ’

14 J. Coert Rylaarsdam, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon (Richmond:John Knox Press; London: SCM Press, 1964), p. y.

15 Cf. J. Coert Rylaarsdam, ‘The Proverbs’. Peak’s Commentary, ed. M.Black and H. H. Rowley (2nd ed. rev.; London: Thomas Nelson, i962).

15 Cf. 0. Eissfeldt. The Old Testament: An Introduction. trans. P. R. Ackrovd(Oxford: Blackwell, ‘and New York: Harper and Row, 196y), pp. 473f.;R. B. Y. Scott, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes (The Anchor Bible, Garden City: Double-day, 1963)~ PP. r7f.

l7 Cf. also 6.19; 14.3; 19.5, y; 23.18.l8 6.17; 10.18; 12.19; 26.28.

feqer in the Theology of Jeremiah 91

general notion is that only the unrighteous or wicked man engagesin such activity (described in 12.22 as ‘an abomination to Yah-weh’).la Several times the term is used in general axioms.20 Thisconcrete and practical use of the term is what one would expect inthe earliest Israelite collection of wisdom material, for the purposeof this movement itself ‘was initially a very practical one: toeducate the nobility for cultural and political leadership’.21

One additional comment can be made. G. von Rad has arguedthat from the beginning Israel’s empirical wisdom was involved inan attempt to perceive the truth about human existence, to discernthe ‘kindly’ order which lay ‘at the bottom of things’. It was,therefore, ‘an attempt to safeguard life and to master it on thebroad basis of experience’.22 If such a description is accurate, thenone might say that the type of activity referred to by the termSeqer represents not so much a simply neutral entity in the schemeof things as an actual threat to the continued harmonious existenceof this ‘kindly’ order of life.

To sum up, in the blocks of Old Testament material just dis-cussed the legal usage of the term jeqer predominates, althoughsome extension of that meaning is already present in such passagesas Ex. 1.9 and Pss. 33.17; 119.118.

We might expect that in the process of employing the nounleqer as one of the important concepts in his theological vocabu-lary, Jeremiah would not lose sight of the predominant legalsense in which the term was usually employed, but would ratherbuild upon and enlarge it. This is in fact the case, and there areseveral occasions in the later narrative chapters of the book inwhich the term leqer is employed in the common, everyday senseof our word ‘lie’. Once, during a temporary lifting of the siege ofJerusalem, the prophet attempted to leave the city on familybusiness. When stopped at the gate by a sentry, who accused himof wanting to desert to the Chaldeans, he replied, ‘It is a lie! I amnot deserting to the Chaldeans’ (zvayy_y6’merjirme_yZbzf2 Seqer ‘hem2nFpbZl ‘al-bakkasdh, 37.14; cf. 40.16 and 43.2).

1s 11.18; 13.5; 17.4; 20.17; 21.6.25 29.12 (‘If a ruler listens to jeqer/ all his officials will be wicked’), 3 I ,30

(‘Charm is .?eqer and beauty hebheZ/ but a woman who fears Yahweh is to bepraised’); also 17.7 and 25 .I4.

21 Rylaarsdam, Proverbs. . ., p. 9.22 Theology I, pp. 418-21, 428, 432.

92 The Threat of Falsehood

Yet we have seen that for the most part Jeremiah’s own view ofthose things which could be characterized as Seqer (the misconcep-tion of the nature of the security afforded by Yahweh’s election ofthe nation, the words of his prophetic opponents, confidence inother gods) was that they were ineffective, powerless to changethe real situation confronting the people. They served only togloss over the trouble spots and prevent any amelioration of thesituation, for they counselled a course of action diametricallyopposed to that which would have been necessary to avoid thecoming destruction of the city, temple, and land. To use a concreteexample, they encouraged the people to think that Nebuchad-nezzar’s rule of Palestine would be of short duration, and the out-come of this encouragement was revolt and destruction ratherthan the continued existence of the nation in its land which mighthave followed acknowledging the Babylonian king’s presence asan act of punishment ordained by Yahweh (ch. 27).

Simply to cite such an example is to emphasize the fact that anydiscussion of the activity of either Jeremiah or his opponents hasto make sense within the context of the concrete historical situa-tion of the last days of the Judean kingdom. We have even to seethese prophets as belonging to opposing political parties or per-suasions: Jeremiah and some of the princes (notably the family ofShaphan) were pro-Babylonian in their sentiments, while kingJehoiakim, a large number of princes, and (presumably) prophetslike Hananiah maintained a pro-Egyptian stance.

Now it was the job of a prophet to interpret current events onthe basis of a certain set of theological insights or assumptions,and we need to remember that Jeremiah and the other classicalprophets were not the only ones engaged in this interpretativeactivity. His opponents also had their views concerning the mean-ing and outcome of the events of their day, and these were oftenquite different from the notions espoused by Jeremiah (e.g., theconflict over the length of the exile). Both were performing thesame function, and the crucial questions are why they differed andthe basis upon which one is able to decide between the two.

Put in this way, the problem is seen as one which directly affectsonly Jeremiah’s contemporaries. From the standpoint of a laterday it is a simple matter to vindicate Jeremiah, for the judgmentof which he spoke came to pass with striking finality in the secondconquest of Jerusalem. But for individuals who found themselves

Seqer in the Theology of Jeremiah

standing in the actual complicated historical situation of, say,Judah between the two deportations, the matter would not havebeen so simple. Confronted by men of such diverse opinions asHananiah and Jeremiah, they would have found themselves facedwith the necessity of making an important religious and politicalchoice. This was not merely a choice between men, but a choicebetween alternative courses of action in pursuit of the goal ofnational security and survival. Nor could the decision be put off.Events were rolling towards a climax, and if the decision was tohave any effect upon their outcome, it would have to be reachedbefore the climax arrived. In a deeper sense, the fall of Jerusalemin 5 8 6 was less a vindication of Jeremiah than a clear indication ofhis failure to get his message across persuasively enough for thepeople to take the proper steps to avert the disaster.

The Hananiah episode makes it abundantly clear that the actualauditors of the prophet’s message did not have available to themany ‘objective’ criterion like that of the ‘fulfilment of prophecy’ interms of which they could judge between rival claims. Whatevervalidity is to be attributed to the words which Jeremiah deliveredto his people during the course of four decades resides less in anyfulfilment which they might subsequently have attained than inthe assumption on which they were based, namely, that Yahwehwas in control of the events of history and in the exercise of thiscontrol was free to confront his people in new and sometimesdestructive ways in any period of their existence.

Of course, to put the matter this way is simply to restate, andnot solve, the problem. Jeremiah’s opponents also knew thatYahweh was in control of history. This is clearly the case withHananiah, who expects that ‘within two years’ Yahweh will bringthe captives and temple vessels back from Babylon to Jerusalem(28.2-4). In Hananiah and Jeremiah, then, we are confronted bytwo differing interpretations of the way in which Yahweh wasacting in current history.

It ought to be fairly clear that in matters of this sort definiteproof is seldom if ever available. Even if the opponents hadpointed explicitly to the optimistic traditions of the great cove-nants, this ‘evidence’ would have been unconvincing to Jeremiah.Likewise, Jeremiah’s designation of their activity as Seqer wasmerely his own assessment of the situation. Both interpretationsare ultimately based upon an evaluation of current events in the

94 The Threat of Falsehood

light of certain theological traditions. And how can we dis-tinguish between the two modes of appropriating the traditionsof the past? In attempting to answer this question it seems usefulto me to suggest that Jeremiah’s interpretations rest upon anaffirmation of Yahweh’s radical freedom to deal with his people inways appropriate to their present situation, while those of hisopponents are characterized by a tendency to accept the tradi-tional patterns of the faith as normative for all of Yahweh’s action,past and future. Both are attempts to remain faithful to the valuedtraditions of the past, yet in the conflict between them we have astriking example of the age-old tension between more or less rigidinstitutional expressions of the ‘faith’ and continuing attemptsdynamically to appropriate this faith in terms relevant to thecomplexities of a contemporary historical situation.

It is important that we do not make the mistake of viewingthese two tendencies as mutually exclusive. It would be moreaccurate to see them as opposing points on a continuum. BothJeremiah and his opponents are to be placed at appropriate spotson a relative scale between them. Neither, for example, thought ofYahweh as absolutely free with regard to his dealings with Judah.It was inconceivable to Hananiah that Yahweh would ever com-pletely abandon the nation, and so for him the capitulation of j 97must have seemed like punishment enough against the people.Surely Yahweh would now restore their fortunes. One could thuswith good conscience even counsel revolt against Nebuchad-nezzar, feeling no incongruity between this action and Yahweh’swill. Jeremiah, as we know, felt differently. Yet although it waswithin his capabilities to see and understand a complete destruc-tion of the nation at Yahweh’s hands, he could not conceive ofthis as being the last word in the matter. And it is precisely in hisenvisioning of a ‘new covenant’ between Yahweh and his people(3 1.3 1-34) that his own deep-rooted sympathies with his oppo-nents come clearly to light (cf. 28.6). The difference between himand his opponents is one of degree, not kind.

The political and social situation of the mid-twentieth centuryhas a way of presenting itself to us as a highly (often a bewilder-ingly) complex set of phenomena. I would suspect that the peopleof ancient Israel, especially those living in times of major crisis,had a similar feeling about the political and religious forces atwork in their day. Not all situations were the same, nor would

feqer in the Tbeo.logy of Jeremiah 91there necessarily be agreement among interpreters of a singlesituation. As a case in point, the contrast between the views of twogreat prophets, Isaiah and Jeremiah, with regard to the fate ofZion shows clearly that a prophet could view a coming period ofdisaster in any one of several ways. Isaiah said that Zion would besaved,23 while Jeremiah insisted that it would perish. What doesthis difference of opinion reflect?

It is improbable that the difference resides simply in the factthat, after a close political analysis, Isaiah found the position of thenation in his day to be less vulnerable than Jeremiah did in his. Itis questionable to assume that, from a realistic point of view,military defeat looked any less imminent to Isaiah than it did toJeremiah. For Isaiah’s contemporary, Micah, it seemed clear thatthe city would fall (3. IZ), and the seriousness of the situation isfurther demonstrated by Sennacherib’s own account of the Pales-tinian campaign in which he tells how he captured forty-sixJudean cities and made Heeekiah himself ‘a prisoner in Jerusalem,his royal residence, like a bird in a cage’.24

However, the religious situation in Judah does seem to havelooked better to Isaiah than to Jeremiah. For the former, althoughthe people had been sinful and must be punished, a remnant wouldreturn and be established in the land (cf. 7.3; 4.2ff.; 10.20-22;11.10-16; 28.jf.; 37.32). Jeremiah, however, had arrived at a newestimate of the situation of the people, one which saw themincapable of any change which would be sufficient to preserve theold means of relationship to Yahweh (2.20-22; 13.22f.).ss

It is interesting to note that from the earliest days of his minis-try Jeremiah announced the coming of destruction from theNorth. We have seen that this theme is strong in chs. 4-6 and 8-9.Only at a later date (after the battle of Carchemish) is this foeexplicitly identified with the Babylonians (2j.9). It would there-fore appear that the prophet was announcing punishment againsta sinful people even before the concrete political threat of suchpunishment was imminent. As a matter of fact, the historical

23 See the passages cited above, p. 40. n.30.24 AiVET, p. 288.25 While this description of Isaiah’s attitude toward Zion seems essentially

correct, passages like 29.2, 4 reveal a certain ‘theological ambivalence’ in hisview concerning Yahweh’s judgment against the people. Cf. von Rad,Theo& II, pp. 164ff., 174f., and B. S. Childs, Isaiah and the Assyrian Crisis(SBT, Second Series, 3, 1967), pp. 20-68.

96 The Threat of Falsehood

situation at the time of these oracles must have made the prophet’smessage seem quite strange. It seems probable that Palestine wasnot threatened by an invasion of Scythians during this period.Furthermore, Judah under Josiah was again beginning to assertherself politically by taking advantage of the increasing weaknessof the Assyrian empire to recoup for herself portions of theDavidic kingdom which she had not controlled for centuries.Thus Jeremiah was predicting doom for the people when littlewas yet in sight, another indication that his message must be seenas a complicated mixture of theological assumptions and politicalastuteness.26

26 These statements presuppose a date of 627/26 for the prophet’s call,based on the evidence of I. r f. and 21.3. This traditional date has, however,been challenged, in recent times most persistently by H. P. Hyatt, whooriginally argued that the prophet’s call should be dated in the period 614-612but later came to view 609 as a preferable date. Cf. ‘The Peril from the Northin Jeremiah’, JBL 5 y (I 940). pp. 499-j I 3 ; ‘Jeremiah and Deuteronomy’,TNES I (1042). DD. 1~6-71: ‘Teremiah: Introduction and Exegesis’, IB V{19~6); ar;d”‘Ti;e~8egi;ming~oi Jeremiah’s Prophecy’, ZA W 78-(1966), pp.204-14. In the latter article he is debating C. F. Whitley’s view that the calloccurred in 601; cf. Whitley’s ‘The Date of Jeremiah’s Call’, v/T 14 (1964),pp. 467-83, and his rejoinder to Hyatt, ‘Carchemish and Jeremiah’, ZA W 80(I 968), pp. 3 8-49. Although this is not the place for a detailed critique of sucharguments, some brief objections to Hyatt’s reconstruction seem warranted.First of all, it is worth noting that this reconstruction flies in the face of theonly explicit evidence we have regarding the date of the prophet’s call (1.2;21.3). Secondly, although he is historically correct in pointing to the im-probability of a Scythian invasion of Palestine, Hyatt is guilty of makingcertain rather problematic assumptions about the whole notion of an enemyfrom the North. He assumes, for instance, that this foe must be actuallynamed and concretely real, but in his treatment of the early oracles Rudolphhas convincingly pointed out that no concrete designation of an enemycompletely co&&ponds to the prophet’s description &rd that, furthermore,the focus of attention is rather unon Yahweh’s nunishment of a sinful oeooleand not on the identification and description of the foe. That the eailyoracles eventually find their fulfilment (at least as far as the prophet himself isconcerned) in the rise to power of the Neo-Babylonian state, cannot be denied(Cf. 21.9, and see op. cit., pp. 47-49. Cf. also A. S. Kapelrud’s treatment of ‘thenortherner’ in JoelStudies, Uppsala: Almquist and Wiksells, I 948, pp. 93-108.)Thirdly, both Hyatt and Whitley seem to be motivated by the assumptionthat it is necessary to ‘save’ a great prophet like Jeremiah from the embarrass-ment and discredit involved in being wrong about the imminence of thecoming destruction. Thus Hyatt : ‘This date removes the difficulty of suppos-ing that Jeremiah once supported the Deuteronomic reforms and later turnedagainst them; and also of supposing that the prophet was discredited byprediction of a peril from the north which did not materialize and then wentinto retirement in disgrace, only to emerge after Josiah’s death’ (1940, p.513). And Whitley: ‘To suppose that Jeremiah was mistaken in his firstutterances and was compelled to modify them in accordance with later

feqer in the Theology of Jeremiah 97

Here it may be relevant to recall that form criticism of theprophetic oracle has taught us that the normal utterance of aprophet consisted of two parts: an exhortation or diatribe,followed by a word from Yahweh. The latter element is normallydistinguished from the former by the intervening ‘messengerformula’, ‘Thus says Yahweh. . . .’ It is commonly thought that thediatribe (‘Begrz%dzazg’) is the prophet’s own analysis of the situationinto which he speaks his message, while the word itself (‘Gericbts-ank:t?ndigBg’) constitutes the message received from Yahweh.27This means that the individual prophet possessed a large degree offreedom in developing an analysis of the situation which he couldpreface to Yahweh’s word, as well as in choosing an appropriateform in which to express this analysis and even an appropriateaudience to hear it.28 Perhaps this is why Jeremiah was brieflystumped by Hananiah’s announcement of imminent restoration.It may be that he had to retire precisely to rethink this analysis ofthe political situation and the condition of the people. But hisassumptions about Yahweh’s freedom and the people’s conditionremained constant, and thus the result of his re-evaluation was thesame as his original message.

It is evident that there was more than one view of Yahweh’sactivity current in Jeremiah’s day. The prophet himself picturedhim as acting through Nebuchadnezzar in judgment upon a sinfulpeople. Hananiah, on the other hand, saw him as about to initiate

developments likewise overlooks the efficacy of the divine word’(1968, p. 48).Both seem to overlook the fact that the prophet himself felt discredited-duringmuch of the earlv Dart of his career (cf. 2o.7f.1. Unlike them. I do not findthe possibility that’Jeremiah gradually sharpened his perception of the ‘foefrom the North’ to be beyond comprehension: cf. my ‘King Nebuchadnezzarin the Jeremiah Tradition’, CBQ 30 (1968), pp. 3 y-48. I do not want to assertthat the nroblem of the date of Teremiah’s call and related matters (such as the

I

supposed absence of oracles datable in Josiah’s reign and his connection, orlack of it, with the Deuteronomic reform) are simply solved, but only that tothis point I remain unconvinced by evidence cited against the traditional date.On the other hand, two articles may be mentioned as having implicationswhich seem to strengthen the position of supporters of the traditional date:R. Davidson, ‘Orthodoxy and the Prophetic Word’, I/T 14 (I 9 64). pp. 407-16,and W. Johnstone, ‘The Setting of Jeremiah’s Prophetic Activity’, Trans-actions of the GZasgow University Oriental Society 21 (I 96>-66), pp. 47-5 5.

27 G. von Rad, Theology II, pp. 36-39; C. Westermann, Basic Forms ofProphetic Speech, trans. H. C. White (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967). pp.169ff.

2s G. von Rad, TbeoZw II, pp. 7off.

98 The Threat of Falsehood

on behalf of his people a great act of restoration. But there wereothers whose views were different again:

He will do nothing;no evil will come upon us,

nor will we see sword and famine.The prophets will become wind,

the word is not in them. (Jer. 1. I 2f.)Yahweh will not do good,

nor will he do evil. (Zeph. I. I 2)

Von Rad has commented that these statements are not those of‘atheists’, but rather of men who ‘no longer reckoned with divineaction in the present day’. The present political crisis left the‘question of Yahweh’s relationship to his people completelyuncertain’. His ‘purpose’ could no longer be discerned behind theevents of history.2a

Why was this so ? Presumably, part of the reason would be thatthe Yahweh faith was simply not shared by all the people ofJudah in Jeremiah’s day or in any other. We too often forget thatthe Old Testament is the product of a religious movement, whoseassumptions it reflects and defends. It is &cult to envision thetime when the entire Israelite community actively embraced itsbrand of religious ‘orthodoxy’ (exclusive worship of Yahweh,etc.).30 Yet it is evident that even many ‘religious’ people ofJeremiah’s day had adopted a rather static view of Yahweh and hisability and inclination to act in their history. That is to say, theirtheological outlook was characterized by a tendency whichthreatens all institutions, a tendency to absolutize certain portionsof their heritage. They formed guidelines within which Yahwehwas thought to act. In this they were probably no different fromtheir fathers before them, though such a recognition could nothave justified in Jeremiah’s eyes a course of action which heviewed as particularly disastrous.31

29 Ibid., II, p. 263.30 Cf. ibid., II, 341, and especially Th. G. Vriezen, An Outline of Old

Testament Theology, ch. 2, where a distinction is made between three separatebut interrelated phenomena; ‘the ancient oriental religious world, the religionof Israel, and the Old Testament’ (p. 14).

31 Klopfenstein makes a similar point, noting that when Jeqer is used todescribe the utterances of the prophetic opponents it points to the fact thatthey do not give sufficient room to the ‘freedom of divine action,’ (op. cit.,P. 119).

.!?eqer ia the Theology of Jeremiah 99

This study began with an examination of Jeremiah’s TempleSermon, which revealed the promise of the covenant (or election)traditions as the source of the people’s false feeling of security.More sharply than many of his contemporaries, the prophet sawthat the maintenance of the relationship to Yahweh celebrated inthose traditions depended upon the people’s fulfilling of twobroad conditions: the preserving of a just social order and of acult dedicated to Yahweh alone. Although they were aware ofthese conditions, their inclination to centre their thought on thepositive side of the traditions dulled their sensitivity to their mis-deeds in the social and religious spheres and the threat of thepolitical situation.

The discussion of Jeremiah’s encounters with the propheticopponents has indicated how these men took up this misconcep-tion and fostered it. For it has been seen again and again that whatmade these prophets ‘false’ was the content of the message whichthey proclaimed: ‘peace’. As Jeremiah interpreted the situation,they were making this proclamation without sufficient regard foreither the condition of the people or the current political threat.

One of the organizing insights in von Rad’s treatment of OldTestament theology is that with the advent of prophecy some-thing radically new was being said to the Israelite people abouttheir relationship with Yahweh:

However overpoweringly diverse (the prophetic movement) may be, itnevertheless has its starting point in the conviction that Israel’sprevious history with Yahweh has come to an end, and that he willstart something new with her. The prophets seek to convince theircontemporaries that for them the hitherto existing saving ordinanceshave lost their worth, and that, if Israel is to be saved, she must movein faith into a new saving activity of Yahweh, one which is only tocome in the future. But this conviction of theirs, that what has existedtill now is broken off, places them basically outside the saving historyas it had been understood up to then by Israel. The prophets’ messagehad its centre and its bewildering dynamic effect in the fact that itsmashed in pieces Israel’s existence with God up to the present, andrang up the curtain of history for a new action on his part with her.32

The prophetic message was based upon a continuing dynamicperception of the ways in which Yahweh was presently actingwith his people. Because he viewed reality in this way, Jeremiah

32 Theology I, p. 128.

100 The Threat of Falsehood

could announce the destruction of the nation and affirm the con-tinuing lordship of Nebuchadnezzar over the nations. He could,in other words, see the sure result of the habitual course of reli-gious, social, and political action of the people and their leaders.But because of his stronger orientation to the essentially positiveaspects of the tradition, a prophet such as Hananiah was not soradically free in his conception of Yahweh’s activity. The breakbetween him and Judah was seen to be less complete, and itsgrounds less serious. Punishment had already come. Could res-toration be far behind? To put it another way, the flexibility of histheological outlook allowed Jeremiah to be much more open tothe fact of Babylon’s overwhelming political power and appre-ciative of the inevitable consequences of that fact for Judah’snational existence. By contrast the relative rigidity of Hananiah’stheology enabled him more easily to ignore (or at least take a lessrealistic attitude towards) the press of historical events.33

There is, we discover, no easy answer to the listener’s dilemma.There is no simple formula by which a contemporary could deter-mine whether Jeremiah or his opponents were ‘false’. We do notknow how many threw in their lot with Jeremiah, although thefact that Judah rose in a final, disastrous revolt against Nebuchad-nezzar at least implies that many of the influential persons of thegovernment did not. Some of the princes did support him, how-ever (cf. 26.24; 36.9-26), notably the members of the house ofShaphan, and the fact that he received such strong support fromthe latter family may yield an important clue with regard to the‘listener’s dilemma’. Shaphan ben Azaliah was a high official underJosiah (stTpb&-, II K’ gm s 22.3) and was from the beginning in onthe discovery of the law-book and the reform of the cultus. He andthe members of his family would thus be especially sensitive toboth aspects of the election traditions: promise and obligation.In this respect it is interesting to contrast the reaction of Josiah(and presumably Shaphan) to the finding of the law-book (IIKings 22.1 I, 19) and that of Micaiah and Gemariah (along withsome other princes) to the reading of Baruch’s roll (Jer. 3 6.16, 2 r)with the reaction of Jehoiakim and his supporters to that roll (Jer.36.22-24). Jeremiah’s message would for the most part have been

33 For a discussion of Jeremiah’s response to the collapse of Judah cf.P. R. Ackroyd, Exile and Restoration (London: SCM Press, and Philadelphia:Westminster, 1968), pp. 3 0-61.

$eqer in the Theology of Jeremiah 101

understood and accepted only by those who had (or in whomcould be aroused) some sensitivity to the full range and complexityof the nation’s theological heritage. Both understanding andacceptance would certainly be hindered if the listener were astaunch member of the pro-Egyptian camp.

The message of Jeremiah is dominated by the notion of ‘false-hood’. It could have been otherwise. The prophet might con-ceivably have emphasized a number of other concepts and still gothis message across. Is it possible to decide why the term Seqer fitshis needs so well? The key to this question would seem to residein an observation that we have made several times in passing: theterm .?eqer implies the operation of a destructive power, and is thuspeculiarly applicable to the social, political, and religious situationin which the prophet worked.3 J. Pedersen’s views on theIsraelite conception of society are very suggestive in this regard.

For a man to be isolated from his fellows was, in the Old Testa-ment view of things, an unnatural condition. Man exists in acommunity, which is (or ought to be) characterized by a commonwill and a common sense of responsibility. At its base, this com-munity rests upon a covenant which manifests itself in the ‘peace’or ‘wholeness’ (ialbrn) of mutual confidence between humanbeings.35 The reality ‘covenant’ is thus conceived in a very broadsense :

All life is common life, and so peace and covenant are really denornina-tions of life itself. One is born of a covenant and into a covenant, andwherever one moves in life, one makes a covenant or acts on the basisof the already existing covenant. If everything that comes under theterm of covenant were dissolved, existence would fall to pieces, becauseno soul can live an isolated life. . . it is in direct conflict with its essenceto be something apart.36

Such important qualities of existence as justice and truth(‘emetb) presuppose a covenant relationship. The individual canlive and act only in unity with others. He is but a link in a largertotality which ‘creates a centre of will. To be just and true meansto subject the whole contents of one’s soul to this centre of will,

34 On numerous occasions Klopfenstein makes reference to the destructivepower of Jeqer within the community. See, for example, pp. 23, 32, 94, 98f.,106, royf., 129, 131, 161ff.

35 J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture I-II, pp. 263ff.3s Ibid., p. 308.

102 The Threat of Falsehood

to identify one’s will with that of the totality’. Man is thus anorganic part of a whole system of expectations. And because thisis so, justice is for him both ‘a privilege and a claim’. He is boundto respond to both its benefits and its requirements.37

feqer enters this discussion as the correlative of ‘emetb. AsPedersen describes it, a sinful act is one which is split off from the‘firm centre of action’ provided by a covenant. ‘Falsehood’ ischaracteristic of the split soul of the man who acts in this way. Byvirtue of its grounding in the common will and responsibility ofthe community, truth has the strength to maintain itself. But false-hood is without basis in this totality. It is ‘hollow and rootless’.Since ‘it is not filled with the substance of a soul’, it is ‘inefficient(and) powerless’ (cf. Ps. 3 3.17). Sin and falsehood act outside thelaws of the covenant which upholds life.38

In applying these insights to the material of the present study,we must begin with the recognition that both Jeremiah and hisopponents were members of the same broad social, religious, andpolitical community, and both were ultimately interested in thewelfare of that group. Certainly Jeremiah was concerned in theyears after j97 to prevent actions on the part of the people whichwould lead to further destruction (cf. 28.6). In this sense he toowas a prophet of peace. And yet the perceptions which each hadof the prevailing situation of the nation were quite different. Forthe opponents it seemed beyond question that at its core thecovenant basis of the community remained healthy. Because ofthis they could cry out to the people in Yahweh’s name, ‘You willnot see the sword, and you will not have famine, for you will have1alSm ‘emetb in this place’ (14. I 3).

Jeremiah could label this affirmation Ieqer (I 4.14) because of hisdifferent reading of the total situation. Over and over again in hisutterances we are aware that he looks upon the community not asa healthy whole, but as tragically broken. The ‘emetb, mi.$@, andsedaqa” characteristic of a healthy community were gone, and mustbe asserted again by a repentant people who actively return toYahweh (4.1f.). The situation which he saw was characterized by abreakdown in the harmony between man and man (9.1-7; jeqer is

37 Ibid., pp. 340-42.s* Ibid., pp. 41 I-I j. Klopfenstein concludes his study with the remark that

we can summarize the Old Testament’s basic evaluation of falsehood in thesimple assertion: ‘Falsehood is hostile to the community’ (op. cit., p. 3 5 3).

ieqer in the Theology of Jeremiah 103

displacing ‘emetb, v. 4) and man and Yahweh, and an actualheightening of the causes of this breakdown by the nationalleaders. Wholeness was gone, and could be restored only by afuture turning of God towards his people (32.36-41; 33.1-9).

Because of its brokenness, the national life can be characterizedby the term Ieqer. In this kind of context that term transcends theeveryday notion of prevarication and becomes descriptive of aninsidious destructive force at work among the people. This is truefirst of all because leqer points us to the empty centre of the com-munal life. The inner harmony was gone, and in its place was ahollowness which prepared the way for collapse. Harmony couldonly be brought back by a radical change on the part of the people:‘Amend your ways and your doings, and I will let you dwell inthis place. . .’ (7.3). Had the people responded to this call to repen-tance they might have regained a common centre of will and beenagain on the road to communal health and wholeness. But any-thing less than this radical response would be like attempting tocure a cancer with cold cream.

But beyond this pointing to the void at the centre of life, thepeople’s Seqer emerged as a force actively working against anyamelioration of the present situation. It was able to do this byobscuring the real nature and seriousness of the illness thatplagued the communal life. The lopsided confidence in Yahweh’srelationship to the nation and the spurious utterances whichstrengthened these convictions formed a pervasive web of false-hood which encouraged muddled thinking and superficial obser-vation. It led to actions which were not based on a perception ofreligious and historical reality, and could therefore do nothing toheal the sickness at the core of the community.

Again, all of this is strikingly appropriate within the historicalcontext to which Jeremiah addressed himself. The prophet stoodon the brink of a vast crisis in the history of his nation, and weought not be surprised if the internal disintegration which con-tributed so much to this crisis was viewed by bim as equally broadin scope. Everything seemed to be working against the welfare ofthe nation, and he did all that was in his power to shatter theillusions of the people and arrest the destructive tendencies whichhe saw at work among them. That the great catastrophe came,that Jeremiah fades out of sight without having accomplished hispurpose of averting it, is a tragedy for the people, the prophet,

104 The Threat of FaLsehood

and for Yahweh as well (cf. Jer. 45). But it is a tragedy whichreflects much more on the pervasive and destructive force ofsi?qer in the communal life than upon the quality of the prophet’sinsights or the diligence of his efforts.

The study which we have undertaken is now complete. It ishoped that in the process of examining in detail the central placewhich the concept leqer plays in the message of Jeremiah somelight has been shed on the concerns which motivated his activityand the way he gave them expression, as well as upon the under-lying assumptions and convictions on which his utterances werebased. It is hoped as well that in the course of the discussion somecontribution may have been made to the understanding of certainperennial problems of Old Testament study, for example, thematter of ‘false prophecy’.

INDEX OF AUTHORS

Ackroyd, P. R., 12,6~, IOOAhlstrom, G. W., 4,7, 38,83Albright, W. F., 4,32

Begrich, J., 88Birkeland, H., 89Bright, J., J, 24,29,3o, 33,12Brockelmann, G., 8Buber, M., 9,39Buhl, M. H. L., 19

Childs, B. S., 93Clements, R. E., I 2Cornill, C. H., 4, 81Cross, F. M., Jr., 24,60

Davidson, R., 1,97Dentan, R. C., 64Driver, S. R., 4Duhm, B., 4,%73,8r

Eichhorn, J. G., 4, 8Eichrodt, W., 14Eissfeldt, O., yo

Fohrer, G., 6, 8,14Frost, S. B., 6

Galling, K., I 3Giesebrecht, F., 2,4,8,14,27, ~2,69Graf, K. H., 4,14, I 8Gray, J., 17.3 3f.Greenberg, M., 9,17Grollenberg, L. H., 3 IGunkel, H., 88,89

Hammershaimb, E., 9,1qf.Hermann, J., 8Hitzig, F., 4,8,14Holm-Nielsen, S., I yHuffmon, H. B., I 3Hyatt, 5. P., I, 14, II, 26,66, 73, 74,

79f., 8rf., 96

Jacob, E., 39,42f.Janzen, J. G., 24f.Johnson, A. R., 65,66Johnstone, W., 97

Kapelrud, A. S., 13,96Kautzsch, E., 8Kingsbury, E. C., 60Klopfenstein, M., 82f., 87, 90, 98,

101,102Kraus, H.-J., 4, 13, 33f., 37, 39,4of.,

so, 62,64,88

Leslie, E. A., 3,26,29,42,5 3, 14,> 6,66,69,73,8r, 82

Lindblom, J., r2f., 14,42,43f., 5 8,63f.

Meek, T. J., I 5Mendelsohn. I.. 6~Milgrom, J.;73f. ’Miller, J. W., 14Minear, P. S., 7Mowinckel, S., 4,5, 89Myers, J. M., 82

Noth, M., 5354Notscher, F., 29

Oesterley, W. 0. E., 49Orelli, C. von, 4,8,14Osswald, E., 39,40,42Overholt, T. W., 26,86,97

Pedersen, J., 75, roof.Porteous, N. W., I 2, I 5

Quell, G., 37,38,39,43,44,77

Rad, G. von, 4, 7, 12, 4rf., 43f., 61,65,91>95,97> 98399

Reventlow, H. G., 36f.Ringgren, H., 4Robinson, H. W., 60

106 Index of Authors

Robinson, T. H., 49Rowley, H. H., 37Rudolph, W., 2, 3, 8, 14, 26, 28, 29,

Volz, P., If., 8, 14, 26Vriezen, T. C., 42,98

30,373 38,413 47,493 32, 33,14,66, Waldow, E. von, I 369,72,73.74,76,78,81,83,96 Weiscr,A., 5,8,11,14,26,29,31,38,

Rylaarsdam, J. C., 90.91 47,12,34,66,67,69,73,74,76,81,83

Scott, R. B. Y., 90Siegman, E. F., 40Smith, E. J., 14.f.Smith, G. A., 3 9

Thiele, E. R., 5 3

Vaux, R. de, I 7,82

Welch, A. C., 29Westermann, C., 97Whitley, C. F., 96Wolff, H. W., 14,~ 3,3 8Woude, A. S. van der, 77Wright, G. E., 6f., 13,14,13,6g

Zimmerli, W., I 2

Genesis‘3.1313.1517.818.16-2619.1-292020.721.2328.12

331.7374040.84141.1648.4

Exodus3.7-10j-1-35.910.2218.4-101yff.2020.320.1621.121.921.3122.If.22.2123.523.723.132J.ZIf.32.15

Leviticsu5.221.2418.4

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

88888829152161414

xi8999

8 ,88IO2020

88889

19.12 8820.9 9

Numbers4.15ff. 6912.6 6596631.9-34 17351

Deuteronomy4.45 205 14

:::oIO20

7.6-11 2224210.18 912,yff. 4213.1-6 39263x8.21f. 39~ 4119.18 8820.4 4222.2If. 4624.17 926.5-y 726.17-19 1427.14-26 1428.2929.17 :;29.18 6029.22 SI

29.2530.10 ;I32.17 64

Joshua‘4.9 723.16 IO

Judges3.25 767 668.34 169.17 1620.7 4620.10 46

I Samuel1.1-7.23.149.7f.I214.4826.192828.1~28.6

II Samuel7.137.168.1513.2019.6f.23.3

I Kings1.50-5 32.32.28-34

2.129.510.911.3322

II Kings8.99.12II.1217.7-2017.1I17.31-3918-1919.2621.1621.19-2622

1yff.

I:771716

I;6~40363

77

:6767

172017639

9’942. 53.60

5;:2021f.3 I3571716~417693148

22.1 3’

108 Index of Biblical References

II Kings22.3 10022.3-1322.8 ::22.11 10022.19 10023.3 2023.19 323.26. 2023.31-36 3124.4 IO24.6 3924.18 31f.21.22 33

II Chronicles

93.3

89.28-37

94.2of.99.7

89.34

101.7101.7-11106.38109.2119120.2132.12144.8, II

s,20

7

9

:;

87

7

;;89391892089

Proverbs6.17, 1910.1-22.1610.1811.1812.1712.1912.2213.514.517.497‘9*3,920.1721.625.125.142j.1826.2829.1231.3”

9090909’90909191

;;90

;:909190909191

32 16

Ezra9.6

Job

76

20.8 6533.13 63

PsaZms7.1s10.3f.1227.1231.1933.1735.131.63S.1135.1933.2of.35.2544.185 2.4-663.1263.1368.669.3

8938838989

69.2169.227273.2078.36-6679.784.889.2-589.20

89,912 10289

&8989898789895198930~6

:;I yf.

if758

Ecclesiastes5.2,6

Isaiah1.2f.1.7f.1.101.171.24-282.2-43.94.2-66.37.38.188.229.1410.3

6s

‘3~81401538094040IS4o>9s89140124651

IO.Zc-2211.1-12.611.10-1613.113.1914.2814.32IS.116.1-519.121.11,1323.124-J24.21-2327.1028.3f.29.829.7f.30.8-1430.1931.4f.33.1-2433.17-2233.2034.835.735.8-1036-3737.2237.3244.2055.8yli.rof.65.10

JeremiahI.If.I.$.I.I>f.2.1-132.4-72-r2.82.132.20-222.26-292.322.343.1-T3.8f.3.143.163.17

954093703570

z;, 7040707070II401195406343403934040393140514016404% 95

::68TI

9637,61,66

HZ, 862, 135737732,7,44,9311,373 8667950, SI, 8630, liy19

2:

Index of Bibkical References

Jeremiab3.213.234.If.4.64.74.84.224.3 I

::fif.1.93.12f.5.2o-253.22f.3.281.293.3of.6.1

zf611;6.13-13

6.16f.

6.196.206.236.266.27-307.1-15

7.37.47.87.167.22ff.8.4-78.58.78.8f.

8.1o-I 3

8.14

8.18-238.199.1-79.If.

67Is, 86,8710219.75737281199973-II 84298

8197354,723 73f.7519747437, 72, 74-

z 79’ 80,

z 79f*, 82J3; 79f.p 84

197279I-23344,48, 3 398078,813 1036868

::, 8079,81679,74,82,8472, 74, 8%SIf., 8437, II, 72:74-77, 79:8419, 36, SY:72721910272, 82f.

9.3-19.49.79.99.1 I-I y9.16-199.189.2210.1-16IO.19IO.2111.1-811.9-1411.1011.1411.1911.2111.2312.212.j12.612.1212.1613.1013.20-2713.2313.2114.1-11.314.9-2214.1114.13-16

14.1414.1914.2215.515.11II.1916.>f.16.10-1316.1216.1716.IYf.17.1618.1218.1518.1618.1818.2019.419.819.13

82f.72>7983II> 723 6,605 7472197286f.66II14,6oII, 14IO, 14378343

if,s9835912729342, jo7.9s671910, 14, 193737. 411 5962, 76, 77-79,849 10237.67

;z59

:;s9IO606486,87376067

z:37IO73IO

20.620.7ff.

2I.Iff.21.221.11-23.821.1222.322.922.1322.1522.1722.1922.2923.3239-4023.923.1323.14f.23.1623.1723.2123.21-3223.2723.3of.24.1825.325.625.8-112>.36f.“,;;8

26.1~26.1626.17A.26.242727.927.14-1627.1828

28.628.112929.729.829.929.1129.1829.2129.3130.5

4667, 74, 83,

2;3749

;f.149993989

z7’3737373737371386737

:bIOIo173>9>,9659

2.IO3718,4o33,10024-4829261I>,623724-48, 6If.,8494,102I>,6824-48371

::Is, 625973

::59

110 Index of Biblical References

Jeremiah30.1730.2331.331.631.1231.1931.2331.31-3432~~932.36-4132.4033.1-933.633.933.1233.1533.2off.34.834.1034.1334.1534.18Il.153636.10-2537.237.337.11-I)37.1438.1-538.24-2639.1440.1-640.140.164242.242.442.2043.243.1244.444.844.1544.23

4;

19

:::1919765114.94IO‘03141031959j19141414141414IO1433.1006137329132,43,6232.4033337791433724137379159IOIOIO20104

46.19 51 Joel46.21 5’ I.1148.9 73 2.249.13 73 2.2249.17 73 3.149.18 55 4.1950.3 7350.5 x4,19lo.19 IJO.23 7350.28 1950.40 55jr.10 19$1.24 1951.29 7351.31 1991.37 7351.41 7331.43 73TI.II 76

Lamentations2.2 512.9 182.14 703.15 563.19 564.6 ~~

Ezekiel13.2214.14-20 ::16.46-49 5521.32 834.14 II

Daniel2 66

Hosea2.4 503.1 IO4.1-6 144.13f. 309.7 li110.4 5612.11 3813.1 1340.X-49.33 4 9

AmosI-2I.22.6f.3.d

3.73.144.14.115.4f.1.75.156.66.12

Jonah1.14

Micah3.If.3.5-123.113.124.116.6-87.4

Nahum1.1

Habakkuk2.2f.

Zepbaniab1.12I.152’9

Zecbariab10.2

7612

::, 66IO

70519

:0209JI2056397516

IO

97741x9,39* 91719,40I*

70

58

9852ST

6513.3 46