JEREMIAH 1:

COMMISSION AND ASSURANCE

A study of the form, compilation, and some theological
implications of Jeremiah 1.
WALLACE EUGENE MARCH

Associate Professor of Old Testament

I
Of the prophets, Jeremiah is one of the most read and appreciated. The sermonic style of many sections of the book, the
striking simplicity of some of the acted parables, the fullness
of biographical detail supplied by long narrative sections
all of these factors work to help a modern reader "get into"
the Book of Jeremiah. But even more significami for many is
the personalistic tone of certain portions of Jeremiah. There
is a certain mood in the so-called "confessions of Jeremiah"1
which prompts a sympathetic response from modern readers:
"Jeremiah is our kind of man with our kind of problems!"
The opening chapter of the Book of Jeremiah is one of those
passages which engages a modern reader. There are certainly
aspects of this account which seem strange to usthe visions,
the notion of a direct conversation with Godbut nonetheless,
Jeremiah's vigorous questioning and personal struggle to understand God's will hit us "where we are." This mood we
understand! As Isaiah's, "Here am I, send me," has served as
the text for many a Foreign Mission sermon, Jeremiah's, "I
do not know how to speak for I am but a youth," seems highly
appropriate as the text for Seminary Sunday! What's more, as
the initial chapter of a long book, Jeremiah 1 gives us a preview of what is to come, and thereby further demands our close
attention.
Because Jeremiah is "popular" today, and because the first
chapter does receive much attention and frequent use, our
study will concentrate on Jeremiah's "call." By examining
closely the style and form of Jeremiah 1 we will seek to deterC5]

mine the theological intention of the writer or writers. What

can we know about the "message" from the manner in which
it is articulated to us?
One further word of introduction must be included. There
are two distinctly different presuppositions which lie behind
most recent approaches to interpreting Jeremiah. On the one
hand, there are those who emphasize the psychological aspects
of the prophet's account. One writer says:
Jeremiah's own personality constitutes one of his most
important contributions to the history of Hebrew religion.
He was the most subjective of the prophets; his personal
experience and inmost feelings are more vividly reflected
in his words than is the case with any other prophet.2
Another comments:
Jeremiah's uniqueness lies in the consciousness of his own
human existence and value. It is this that leads him again
and again into a controversy with God. There is within
Jeremiah a continual tension between Jeremiah the man
and Jeremiah the prophet, and this tension, which had
its inception with the call, continued during his entire life.3
This approach to the Book of Jeremiah may lead in different
directions. Binns is led to say of Jeremiah at one point, "His
timid spirit and the extremity of suffering which he had to
undergo drove him almost to madness; hence his strange boldness towards God."4 Simon, in another instance, begins from
this point in an attempt to establish Jeremiah as a genuine
mystic. For Simon the problem is posed as a choice between
two equally possible views of the prophet:
Was he the non-mystic and primarily this-worldly in the
best sense of the word, without an expectation of life after
death, or was he the creator and formulator, unconsciously
perhaps, of a mystical tradition which is sui generis and
whose far-reaching consequences may still be traced in
Hebrew spirituality?6
Quotations could be cited almost endlessly documenting the
extensive influence this "psychologizing" approach has had.0 In
each instance the same basic criticism must be made: Does not
this manner of interpreting Jeremiah assume uncritically the
historical veracity of the present account and the "first-hand,"
autobiographical, reflective character of the more crucial passages? Gerstenberger rightly objects:
63

The basic fallacy of this viewpoint is the presupposition

that the 'facts and figures' in Jer are identical with 'historical events,' or, that they, at least, permit easy access to
that which 'really happened' during Jeremiah's lifetime. . . .7
On the other hand, there are those who approach the material preserved in Jeremiah from a much different angle.
Rather than concentrating upon those features which are
assumed to point to the inner-working of the prophet's mind
and are believed to offer clues to understanding the personality
of the prophet, the second approach emphasizes the typical
elements, the points this material has in common with other
Old Testament and ancient Near Eastern texts. The uniqueness
of a text is not disregarded, but there is an assumption from
the beginning that the social context behind any particular
text, in so far as it can be uncovered, is of far more importance
for a proper understanding of a text than the peculiar shape
of the writer's personality. T o quote Gerstenberger once again:
The fundamental insight of form-critical research, moreover, must not be forgotten: Any given text in the O T
more likely than not has been cast into the mold of some
conventional form of speech. Consequently it does not
primarily reflect unique historical events but social and
cultic habits and institutions. 8
It is only fair that the reader should know at the outset that
my personal sympathies are with the form-critical approach.
However, it seems possible to steer between two extremes. I
would question seriously whether Jeremiah 1 actually gives us
much of a "glimpse into the working of Jeremiah's mind," 9
but I do not see that to admit the existence of some biographical or autobiographical detail automatically sets one off on a
fruitless "quest for the historical Jeremiah." The literary style,
the form employed, any "personal" notes that may be discovered,
all must be taken into consideration in a careful study of this
passage. T o be fair to the intention of the writer or writers,
we must listen as carefully as possible before we allow this
passage to function in our "theologizing." After listening, we
must faithfully seek to appropriate what we have heard.
II
As we turn to a consideration of Jeremiah 1, our first task
is to analyze the material as it comes to us in the final form
[73

of the Book of Jeremiah. Two questions can immediately be

raised. What are the limits of the passage? And, is it prose or
poetry? It would seem that answers would be readily available
for such simple questions, but a quick comparison of some of
the most-used English translations of the Bible reveals a degree
of complexity perhaps unsuspected. The King James Version,
of course, makes no effort at arranging the text in poetic patterns, so we cannot tell what portion of the chapter, if any,
might have been considered poetry. Paragraph indications are
included, however, and these indicate that verses 1-6, 7-10, 11-16,
17-19, are to be considered sub-units of the whole. When we
turn to the Revised Standard Version, we find that the chapter
is divided into three main sections: 1-3, 4-10, and 11-19. The
first and the third units are presented as prose. The second
unit is arranged as a dialogue with alternating prose and poetic
sections. The pattern is as follows (the verses in poetry are
underlined): 4, 5, 6-7a, 7b-8, 9a, 9b-10. The Jerusalem Bible
allows for two major sections in the chapter: the title, 1-3;
and the "call of Jeremiah," 4-19. The prose-poetry division
in the "call" section is as follows (the verses in poetry are underlined): 4, ^ 6, 7-8, 9a, 9b-10, ll-14a, 14b-19. From this brief
survey it becomes apparent that while there may be some agreement, there are many particulars yet open to discussion.
Despite the diversity indicated above, two decisions can be
made with regard to Jeremiah which have wide support. No
commentator to my knowledge has serious doubt that Jeremiah
1:19 concludes the material that can appropriately be considered part of Jeremiah's "call." Jeremiah 2:1 clearly begins
a new unit with a different set of concerns.10 Likewise, most
students of Jeremiah agree that 1:1-3 should be set apart as
an introductory superscription added at the final editing of
the Book of Jeremiah or be understood, at least, as a separate
paragraph not immediately connected with the material that
follows in 1:4-19."
There has been some attempt to claim part of the introduction, particularly v. 2, as originally belonging with w . 4ff.12
The primary motive for this seems to be the desire to claim
a specific date for the inauguration of Jeremiah's worka date
found in v. 2and to attach this to the initial pericope of
the book.13 While this is possible and would not alter the
basic analysis of the chapter in any significant way, it has not
81

been demonstrated to the satisfaction of most critics. And in

deed, the character of v. 4 seems to indicate clearly that
the final editors of the book, at least, wanted w . 4ff. to be
14
set off as a separate unit. Thus, 1:1-3, 4-19, constitute the
two basic sections with which we must deal, and our primary
attention will center on w . 4-19.
As the text now stands, there is good reason to define 1:4-10,
11-16, and 17-19, as three, independent sections gathered in
this chapter. Most commentators have adopted this defini
15
tion of the limits of the various units. Certainly w . 4-10
now comprise the "call" of the prophet. At v. 11 the same
formula encountered in v. 4 marks the beginning of a new
section. Further, there is a switch from emphasis on the audi
tory to the visionary mode of divine revelation. Twicev. 11
and v. 13the prophet is asked what he "sees" (ro'eh), and
twice the prophet is commended and informed concerning
his "vision" by Godv. 12 and vv. 14-16. While it has been
argued that these visions are not out of harmony with the ma
terial preserved in 1:4-10,1 most agree that the change in
literary style, the use of different imagery, and the occurrence
of the term shnth in v. 13,17 most likely indicate that these
two "vision" reports had a separate history, together or singly,
before they were attached to the account preserved in w . 4-10.
Finally, vv. 17-19 are left, and these verses have usually been
explained as a separate poem added here, or constructed by a
later editor, as a conclusion to the whole chapter in its final
form.18
If one approaches the delineation of the chapter as we have
done, w . 17-19 cause the greatest difficulty. At best they seem
"out of place" with their continuation of themes begun in
4-10.19 Later we will return to this point, for it is exactly here
that we may well have a clue to an earlier stage of the tradition. For the present, we will acknowledge the units defined
above. Bright is certainly correct when he describes Jeremiah 1
as a "thematic unit describing those experiences through which
Jeremiah received his call to the prophetic office and had that
confirmed and further clarified."20 He is also correct in the
judgment that "in spite of its unity of theme, the chapter is
not an original unit."21 But the process bv which the chanter
reached its present form is yet to be sketched and will require
C9J

further attention later in this essay. For now, we will turn to

the style and form of 1:4-10.
Ill
One of the most striking things about Jeremiah 1:4-10 is
the "dialogue style" in which the material has been preserved.
A translation will help at this point:
(4) Then Yahweh's word for me came:22
(5)
"Before I shaped you I claimed you;23
before you were born I set you apart:
a prophet for the nations I appointed you."
(6) And I said:
"Alas,2* Lord God! Look, I don't know how to
speak like a prophet 25 for I am still an apprentice." 26
(7) Then Yahweh said to me:
"Stop saying, T m an apprentice,'
for against all whom I send you, you shall go,
and all which I command, you shall speak.
(8)
Stop being afraid of them,
for I am with you to deliver you." ne'umJHWH
(9) Then Yahweh stretched out his hand and touched my
mouth. And Yahweh said to me:
"Look, I have put my words in your mouth.
(10)
See, I have this day iven you authority over the
nations and the kingdoms to pluck up and to pull
down, to destroy and overthrow, to build and to
plant."
This report is extremely interesting both in terms of content
and the manner in which this "word" is articulated. It is clear
that the framework of the pericope is narrative prose: "Then
Yahweh's word came"; "And I said"; "Then Yahweh stretched
out his hand." The response (presumably of the prophet) in
v. 6 also seems more like prose than poetry.27 The poetic portions of this passage are reserved for the words ascribed to
Yahweh. With regard to vv. 5, 7-8, there seems to be no question
that poetry is employed. This is not so clear with the last words
of Yahweh in 9b-10, but we will return to this particular problem later. What seems certain is that this passage was carefully
shaped with obvious emphasis on God's address.
The dialogue reported in 1:4-10 is certainly not out of keeping with Biblical style. There are numerous accounts of God
and man speaking. What's more, from the stories about Abrado}

ham, Isaac, and Jacob, down to Job's debate with God, the
Biblical narrative does not shy away from portraying God and
man even in heated discussion. In the Book of Jeremiah one
immediately thinks of those passages noted at the outset of
this essay, the so-called "confessions of Jeremiah/' 28 for in them
the prophet and God are also in dialogue. It is an easy step in
fact, to move from Jeremiah 1 to the complaints of Jeremiah
and the answering speeches of God.29
T o the degree that a relationship is claimed between Jeremiah's "call" and his "confessions," however, something is said
about the type of literature with which we are dealing, and
consequently the manner in which this is to be understood. Let
me illustrate. There is a debate as to the background of the
"confessions of Jeremiah." A number of years ago Baumgartner
pointed out the numerous similarities between the Jeremiah
passages and the psalms of lamentation found in the Psalter.30
The parallels are frequent and intriguing. But where do you
go from there? Bentzen suggests that the words ascribed to God
in Jeremiah 11:21-23, 12:5-6, and 15:19-20 are to be understood
as the divine answer to the prophetic complaint and represent
a conscious imitation by the prophet of the cultic pattern of
lamentation. 31 Mihelic, on the other hand, starting from the
same point, suggests that the confessions may have formed part
of a "personal diary" recording Jeremiah's religious struggles.32
If with Bentzen we stress the "public" character of the form,
we will interpret along one line, but if these are "private"
musings, as Mihelic believes, we will be led in another direction.
There is a second widely-held position concerning the background of the "confessions." Blank has pointed out the relationship between the language of Jeremiah's "prayers" and the
language of the law courts. As he says:
Now the terms which are employed in passages which reflect the concept of God as judge do not differ from the
terms employed in references to ordinary human courts.
Accordingly it is argued that the language which a man
used when, in prayer, he appealed to God as judge, corresponded to the language of a man defending himself
before a human court, and that this is particularly evident
in the prayers of Jeremiah. 33
Thus, Blank concludes that, "Directly or ultimately the form
of the confessions goes back to the law courts."34
Ul}

Gemser has pressed farther in this direction, and has sought

to draw the implications more explicitly. Because the language35
and style of the confessions are so clearly related to the courts
of law,36 in his view, interpretation should reflect this. Thus,
Gemser says:
Both the personalistic and the judicial conceptions of the
relations in life and the universe bring about the dramatic
view of the history of the world as well as the nation and
individual. A drama is enacted with all its tension, its
depths and heights of action and emotion, its possibilities
of failure and victory, its final unravelling and resolution.
Nothing is neutral, indifferent, nothing undecided at the
end. One is wrong or is right, comes out justified or
doomed.37
Holladay, operating from this same conviction, is led to comment concerning Jeremiah's case before God:
But Jeremiah was ambivalent toward Yahweh from the
very time of his call. Therefore the relationship between
Yahweh and Jeremiah craved definition, definition in terms
of legal obligation. The material of the book of Jeremiah
constantly makes clear the terms of mutual responsibility
which Jeremiah's vocation implies: if Jeremiah speaks the
word of Yahweh, Yahweh will protect Jeremiah. These
terms are set forth in his call (1:7-8) and even more clearly
in one of the "confessions" which obviously reflects a crisis
in Jeremiah's relationship with God (15:19-20).38
Thus, it should be evident, that if one begins by assuming
a juridical background for this material, the interpretation will
be somewhat different than if a cultic situation is presupposed.
While Jeremiah 1:4-10 is not the direct concern of the authors
mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the issues at stake may
be of great importance for our study.
While the relationship of Jeremiah 1 with the "confessions
of Jeremiah" is most intriguing, there are other passages which
seem even more closely related to our pericope. In Genesis
(15:Iff.), Exodus (3:Iff.), Judges (6:Uff.), 1 Kings (19:9ff.),
Isaiah (6:Iff.), Ezekiel (l:4ff.) and elsewhere (particularly the
Psalter and Second Isaiah),30 material is preserved which shares
much in language and form with Jeremiah 1:4-10. When these
parallel passages are explored, it seems clear that they share a
common background and intention with the finished form of
Jeremiah's "call."
12)

In the first place, each of these passages reports, or involves,

a theophany. Kuntz, in a recent study, has given close attention
to some of the numerous theophanies mentioned in the Old
Testament. A basic pattern can be outlined, according to Kuntz,
on the basis of Genesis 26:23-25:
These formal elements within the theophanic Gattung as
they are illustrated by this Genesis passage may be heightened through the following form-critical outline:
1. Introductory

description:

2. Divine self-asseveration:
3. Quelling of human fear:
4. Assertion of gracious
divine presence:
5. "Hieros logos":
6. Concluding description:

23 From there he went up to

Beersheba. 24 And Yahweh appeared to him the same night
and said,
"I am the God of Abraham your
father;
Fear not,
For I am with you,
And I will bless you, and
multiply your descendants for
my servant Abraham's sake."
25 And he built an altar there
and called upon the name of
40
Yahweh

While this Gattung is far from rigid, the basic constituents appear repeatedly. 41
When the theophanic passages related to particular prophets
are considered, a differentiation emerges between types of
theophanic reports. Westermann correctly comments:
There are two groups of theophanies that may be distinguished from each other. In addition to the Sinai theophany
there are later appearances of God to a prophet: I Kings
19; Isa. 6; Ezek. 1, 2. T h e significance of the divine appearance in these passages is to give a commission to the prophet
(I Kings 19:15) or to issue a call to prophetic service
(Isa. 6; Ezek. 1, 2). They have the following points in
common with the Sinai theophany:
I. God appears to one individual.
II. He appears in order to say something.
They are different in that the goal of God's appearing is
in the latter cases the giving of a commission to a prophet
(or the calling of a prophet). . . .42
But can anything more explicit be said? Reventlow thinks
yes. In a very careful study of a number of passages in Jeremiah
13]

he gives considerable attention to Jeremiah 1. T o interpret

Jeremiah l:4f. it is necessary to recognize the form used in
the peculiar type of prophetic theophany already noted. A
comparison of such passages reveals a basic nine-point outline:
a. Yah weh's epiphany
b. A lament or complaint
c. Introduction to an Oracle of Salvation
d. The Oracle of Salvation, with "fear not" and signs of
God's gracious presence
e. The sending, with characteristic use of shalach
f. Response stating unworthiness of prophet
g. Restatement of call by Yahweh
h. A "sign" accompanying call
i. A word explaining the "sign"43
When Jeremiah 1:4-10 is measured by this form, the basic conformity is obvious. Items "a" and " b " are not explicitly mentioned, but the other points are there. In so far as Jeremiah's
"call" does differ from others, it is mainly less detailed.44
The implication of the above is that the material in Jeremiah
1:4-10 has been shaped in a very well-defined pattern for a
particular purpose. This is not just the work of an isolated individual musing about his relation to God. Whatever one may
argue about the genesis of this material, in the form it comes
to us, the "private" character has given way to a mode of reporting drawn from and well-known in the public sphere. This
is the way one describes a prophetic theophany. And the very
use of a prescribed, traditional form for the recounting of such
an event warns us that this is not, first of all, personalistic in
emphasis, but is intended to be heard by the community.
The immediate question that follows is, "How?" How is the
community to hear this pericope? Should it be understood
against a secular or a cultic backdrop? Our decision can greatly
influence our notion of what this passage is all about. Reventlow
is convinced that the cultus supplies the proper setting for our
pericope.45 Certainly it seems that passages like Isaiah 6 and
Ezekiel 1-2 are closely related to the regular worship conducted
by the community.46 Jeremiah 1:4-10, though not as explicitly
related to a worship situation, shares the same basic pattern and
should be interpreted in light of the parallel passages. The
oracle from God, the emphasis upon God's appointment of the
prophet, 47 the symbolic entrusting and reception of God's word
{14}

by the prophet, these things, which appear customarily when

prophets are commissioned, are indications that some fixed,
well-known service of "ordination and installation" is behind
our text.48 As Fohrer puts it:
These reports share a common root with the report of the
call of Moses in the Yahwist's account and with the patriarchal narratives of Genesis that report a theophany and
positive oracle followed by a cultic act: they represent the
the experience of the call, endowment, and commissioning
of a charismatic.49
Reventlow would add one more important note to this discussion in that he emphasizes that the cultic, customs behind
our text were of a general sort that could be adapted to serve
different situations. Different officials in Israel were commissioned in basically the same manner, the peculiarities of the
office requiring slight variations in the form.50 This keeps us
from making too much or too little of some particular feature
of a given text or from failing to recognize the existence of the
form because variations exist.
Thus, if we are correct, the final editing of Jeremiah 1:4-10
has cast the material in the form of a service of prophetic commissioning. Whether this form is "originar' to Jeremiah or is
the result of a later editor's "theologizing" we will consider in
the next section, but it seems clear enough that we are intended
to receive this material as the report of the prophet's authentification by God as celebrated and acted out in the traditional,
cultic pattern known in Israel. This is no "private" or "free"
or primarily "autobiographical" report. It is more nearly "public" and "fixed" and primarily "traditional." This is the way you
talk about a person being "made" a prophet in Israel. The recognition of the "formal" character of this pericope should influence our interpretation of the passage.51
IV
Let us now turn to vv. 17-19.52 We have already noted above53
that these verses have been a crux in the interpretation of
Jeremiah 1. What do you do with these verses? How do they
fit in? Why have they been included in their present context?
If they have been added, as many believe, why here? If 17-19
do not represent an intrusion, how can their relationship with
{15}

the preceding verses be explained? These are questions which

must receive answer if we are to attempt an interpretation of
these verses.
Let us begin by assuming that 1:17-19 is the work of a late
editor of our text. Gerstenberger registers his opinion that, "It
seems probable that Jer. 1:17-19 is a late composition drawn
in part from Jer. 1:7-8, in part from 15:19-21."" Hyatt, while
considering v. 17 to be "original," judges w . 18-19 as "borrowed
or imitated from 15:20."" The reasons for proposing a relationship between 1:7-8, 15:19-21, and 1:17-19 are obvious when
the passages are compared. Much of the same vocabulary and
phraseology is employed in each of these passages. Consider first
the particularly striking parallel between 15:20 and 1:17-19.
The question is: If there is a relationship, which text is primary? Hyatt draws attention to 1:18c, which he sees as an expansion, and concludes:
. . . the editor has expanded the figure in his characteristic
style, and the enumeration of the various classes against
which Jeremiah was to be arrayed is typical of his writing.
. . . It emphasizes the fact that Jeremiah aroused the
opposition of all classes of the people, but stood finii
against them in his faith in God and in his own call to be
God's prophet.66
This point is certainly well-taken with regard to 1:18c, but
will it hold valid for the whole of 17-19? I do not believe so.
It seems far more reasonable to assume 15:20 dependent upon
1:17-19 than the reverse. In the first place, an image used in
1:18 seems altered and "interpreted" in 15:20. In 1:18 the phrase
le'r mivtsar le'ammd barzel lechomth nechosheth 'al hol
ha'arets, used to describe the prophet, evokes the image of a
city standing fortified against the surrounding countryside. In
15:20 the phrase is "interpreted" to imply that God sets the
prophet la'am hazzeh lechmath nechosheth bHsurah, "against
this people like a fortified wall of bronze." The theme is then
carried on ih 15:21 where the prophet is promised deliverance
from his enemies. In 1:18 the image is one of protective care,
but in 15:20 the mood is much more aggressive. It is possible
to understand how a later editor emphasizing a particular conception of a prophet in 15:20 could use 1:18 in this manner,57
but it is not as easy to understand how an editor could move
the other direction and create 1:18 from 15:20.
{16}

A second point concerns the use of the phrase wenilcham

'leka welo' yM lak k 'itteka >ani in 15:20 and 1:19. In
15:20 this phrase is the preface for the concluding and climactic
promise to deliver the prophet from his enemies. In 1:19 this
phrase itself receives primary emphasis and brings the poem to
a dramatic close. We will return to the function this phrase
serves in 1:17-19 in a moment, but at this point it again seems
easier to explain 15:20 as "borrowing" from 1:19 than the
reverse.
Finally, Gerstenberger based his opinion largely, it seems, on
the occurrence of the unique phrase in 15:20b. hi 'itteka 'ani
lehsh'aka lehatstsleka. As he comments:
The basic formula, "I am with you" . . . is expanded by
a double verbal modification, both in the infinitive construct. The full phrase which emerges as a result is unique
to Jer. . . . Because it has persistently the same stereotyped
form in these different passages one feels compelled to
attribute it to some editorial hand. T h e promise to 'save
and deliver' would in itself point to an exilic setting.58
I would basically agree with Gerstenberger's position as it bears
on the use of the phrase in 15:20 and 42:11. Even 30:11 seems
more in line with Gerstenberger's suggestion. But 1:19 uses but
one infinitive and does not necessarily suggest an exilic notion
of salvation. Certainly it is possible to see 1:19 as a shortened
form of 15:20, but it makes just as much sense, it would seem,
to understand 15:20 as an expanded, more theologically refined,
version of 1:19. T h e correctness of this judgment is supported
by the fact that 15:19-21 moves consistently toward the announcement that the prophet will have success in his mission
if he turns to God, while 1:17-19 uniformly declares that the
prophet is simply not to be silenced by his fear of his adversaries because God will deliver him. If one passage includes a
quotation from the other, it seems more likely that the less
defined "word of promise" in 1:19 would be made more definite
by an exilic editor than the reverse.
As noted above, it has also been suggested that 1:17-19 has
drawn upon l:7-8.BO T h e key refrain found in 1:19b is met
also in 1:8b, both at the conclusion of poetic units. It is also
interesting that in the LXX, which tends to delete rather than
add material in Jeremiah, the same phrase is included at the
end of 1:17 as well.60 Other points of contact between vv. 17-19
17}

and vv. 7-8 include the repetition of the phrase we'eth kol
'asher 'Hsawweka in 7 and 17,1 the call to speak, the alternation
between the second singular and third plural pronouns, and the
basic unity of subject.62 It does indeed seem difficult to deny
that there is a relationship between w . 7-8 and 17-19. But the
question is: Does 17-19 necessarily represent the work of a later
editor drawing upon 1:7-8? This conclusion by no means fol
lows. It is just as easy, as I will attempt to demonstrate below,
to see vv. 7-8 and 17-19 as parts of one poem which has come
to us with its original stylistic and thematic continuity disturbed.
Let us suppose, then, that vv. 17-19 are not the work of a
later editor but had an original connection with w . 7-8. How
can their present position at the end of the chapter be ex
plained? T h e first step in answering this question is to consider
vv. 11-16. Contained in these verses is the report of two "visions"
which came to Jeremiah. In neither instance is there anything
peculiar about what is "seen." What is significant is the word
of interpretation which accompanies, indeed which makes, the
occasions revelatory. The first vision (1:11-12) underlines Yahweh's faithfulness to his word. T h e second (1:13-14) emphasizes
the imminence of God's judgment. T h e second vision seems to
have been expanded from the short, pithy style which can still
be clearly observed in vv. 11-12, 13-14. T h e description of the
attack on Jerusalem and Judah (v. 15), and the charges laid
against the people (v. 16) sound strongly Deuteronomic. 6 3 The
form of the reports reminds one of Amos' visions (Amos 7:1-9,
8:1-3), but this same style is also found elsewhere in Jeremiah.
In Jeremiah's visit to the potter's house in Jeremiah 18 and in
his vision of the baskets of fruit in Jeremiah 24, the same style
is met. It is interesting that both of these chapters, as well,
64
appear strongly influenced by the Deuteronomic editors.
If, however, it is granted that the two visions reported in w .
11-16 might have been circulated independently before being
brought into their present context, it is still necessary to ask,
"Why here?" T h e answer to that question seems to lie in 1:9-10.
T h e first vision in vv. 11-12 testifies to Yahweh's never-ceasing
watch over his word. In v. 9 Yahweh puts his word into the
mouth of his messenger. T h e connection is striking. What is
more natural than to follow the giving of the word with an
assurance that the word will be accomplished? The second
vision would be brought into the context because of its associa18}

tion with the first, but it then is amplified in the light of v. 10

to make clear that Yahweh is God of all the kingdoms (hammamlakoth) and directs them to fulfill his will. Thus, by relat
ing vv. 11-14 to vv. 9-10 and by expanding the second vision
with vv. 15-16, an interesting change in emphasis is achieved.
The two visions, which were originally short and somewhat
vague,65 now receive definition. The words to be accomplished
are those placed in the prophet's mouth, and the evil that is
poured out from the north is the destruction of Jerusalem and
Judah. It would seem, then, that the introduction of vv. 11-16
into chapter 1 was worked by someone who found them par
ticularly appropriate as amplification of the material presented
in w . 9-10.
Our original concern is now partially answered. Jeremiah
1:17-19 has been pushed to the end of the chapter by the ex
pansion of 4-10 with the addition of 11-16. T h e real problem
is in what way are vv. 17-19 to be related to 4-10. Bright recog
nized this when he said:
Verses 17-19, on the contrary, in which Jeremiah is told to
take up his calling without fear, reach back to the account
of the call and carry forward its thought. One wonders
though one cannot be sureif these verses did not original
ly continue and conclude vss. 4-10, only to be separated in
the present arrangement of the material*'*
However, in view of the well-defined form we described above,
w . 17-19 cannot be understood as either an appendix or an
afterthought. If these verses are not to be interpreted as a
separate unit with an independent literary history, 68 then in
what way can they be understood as integral to 4-10?
The key to the problem is twofold. In the first place, we
have already suggested that there are clear relationships existing
between vv. 7-8 and 17-19. When these verses are placed to
gether, a very well-developed poem emerges. We will consider
this poem explicitly below. In the second place, reference has
been made to the traces of Deuteronomic editing to be found
throughout the book of Jeremiah. Deuteronomic theology
had several important thrusts, but among the more crucial were
the place of God's word and God's prophet and the realization
of God's judgment on his people. Deuteronomy 18 records the
promise of God's intention one day to raise a prophet like
[19}

Moses. It is particularly interesting that in Deuteronomy 18:18

the promise includes God's placing his words in the mouth of
his prophet! One cannot read Jeremiah 1:9 without thinking
about Deuteronomy 18!00 By the interest shown in Jeremiah by
the Deuteronomic editors, it seems likely that they recognized,
after the fall of Jerusalem, the fulfillment of God's word in
the person of Jeremiah, and they set out to try to make clear
their understanding of God's working through this prophet for
the judgment and deliverance of his people.
On the basis of the above suggestion it would be possible to
sketch the following process by which Jeremiah 1 came to its
present form. First, the final editors of the book of Jeremiah
received 1:4-19 to which they prefaced the title found in 1:1-3.
Preceding this final edition, however, the basic materials had
received a definite shape by the Deuteronomic editors. Into
their hands had come the nucleus of 1:4-19, namely l:7-8,70
17-19. It is probable that 1:4-6 was already joined with the passage, but however the case, the Deuteronomic editors cast this
material into the form of a prophetic commissioning. Though
the narrative structure is typical of this form, as we noted above,
this in itself would not be overly significant since the same style
can be used in other types of material as well.71 But at vv.
9-10 a crucial change is worked: the intended form is made
specific. By describing this act whereby God places his words in
the mouth of the prophet, a prophetic commissioning is pictured.
Up until this point in the pericope, one might not have understood unquestionably what was at stake, but vv. 9-10 leave no
doubt. As Lindblom comments:
Then follows a concrete feature of a more markedly visionary character without which the ecstatic nature of Jeremiah's call might have been in doubt. Jeremiah had a
vision of Yahweh's hand being stretched out to him and
touching his mouth. . . ."
With this touch the Deuteronomic editors have produced a
"call" for Jeremiah. They have brought into the record a report
of the commissioning of the prophet which was so necessary
for the prophet's authority to be established.
It is necessary to pause briefly and enumerate some of the
reasons why it is likely that the Deuteronomic editors should
be credited with "creating" the pericope as it comes to us. In
20}

the first place, as we have already noted, the parallel between

our passage and Deuteronomy 18 is most suggestive. There are
other places where a spokesmen is directed to speak as commanded (cf. Ex. 7:2), but the language used in Jeremiah 1:9
is rather unusual. As in Deuteronomy 18:18, it is stated that
God will put his words in the mouth of the prophet. Further,
the verb ng', "to touch," is used only this one time in the Hif'l
in Jeremiah, and it seems highly likely that this represents an
attempt at imitating Isaiah 6:7. That the Deuteronomic "prophecy" reflects the belief that Moses, the prototype of the prophet
to come, was specially endowed and directed by God (cf. Ex.
4:12, 15), seems likely. But whether or not, this same notion of
God's placing his words in Jeremiah's mouth is not to be found
elsewhere in the Book of Jeremiah. 73 Secondly, the style of 1:9-10
is somewhat different from 7-8. We noted above that the poetic
quality of 9-10 is questionable at best. Certainly these verses
do have a type of parallel structure typical of some poetry, but
the lines are longer and less balanced than in 7-8, and they
sound more like the prose which follows in 11-14. When this
change of style is connected with points of contact between 9-10
and other passages generally identified with the Deuteronomic
editors,74 it takes on some importance. Further, the appearance
of the term re'h in 1:10 supports our contention. This term
used in a hortatory manner occurs only twice in Jeremiah (1:10,
40:4). But it is employed a number of times in Deuteronomy
(1:8, 21; 2:24, 31; 4:5; 11:26; 30:5) and material composing the
Deuteronomic history (Josh. 6:2; 8:1; 2 S 15:3). Finally, the
theology reflected in 9-10 fits in perfectly with the interests
of the Deuteronomic school as we have already noted above.
Thus, it seems most likely that the Deuteronomic editors are
responsible for the form in which this material has come to us.
The purpose behind the Deuteronomic editing was not subversive or dishonest. T h e test of the trustworthiness of a prophet
according to Deuteronomy 18:22 was whether his words came
to pass. Jeremiah had announced the coming destruction of
Judah. Thus, as the Deuteronomic editors surveyed the ruins
of their country and its capital, they could reach no other conclusion than that Jeremiah had indeed spoken as God's prophet.
It was important therefore, that the record make clear the
nature of this man and the authenticity of his work. T o accomplish this worthy goal, the Deuteronomic editors added a few
{21}

touches to material believed to be from Jeremiah, creating a

clearly recognizable form and clarifying the content of the
prophet's "call" by including two visions also believed to belong
to him. That 17-19 were separated somewhat from their original
position did not matter greatly since they were still included
and since the primary concern was no longer how Jeremiah
might approach his mission but the imperative to establish his
authority as the prophet of God's word.
The force of our suggestion is felt all the more when vv. 7-8
and 17-19 are arranged as one poetic unit:
(7) Then Yahweh said to me:
"Stop saving, 'I'm an apprentice,'
for against all whom I send you, you shall go,
and all which I command, you shall speak.
(8)
Stop being afraid of them,
for I am with you to deliver you. ne'um YHWH
(17)

(18)
(19)

You get ready75

and cet up and say to them
all which I command you;
Stop being downcast because of them
lest I cast you down before them,76
for I am with you to deliver you.77
n*'um YHWH
As for me, look, I make78 you today
like a fortified city and an iron pillar,70
or as walls of bronze over the whole land.80
And they will war against you,
but they will not prevail over you,
for I am with youn e 'um YHWH81to deliver
you.

What we find, when we read 7-8, 17-19 as one, is a remarkably

well-developed poem. The first stanza establishes the basic
themes: go and fear not! The second stanza develops the same
themes, emphasizing that it is God who has commanded and
whom the prophet should seek to heed. The last stanza underlines the assurance offered in the two previous stanzas (particularly the first) and promises that the prophet will not be overwhelmed by those who come against him.
The thematic development is aided dramatically by several
favorite devices of Hebrew poetry. The use of personal pronouns is interesting, for instance. The tension between " I " and
"you" is maintained throughout: "I send," "you go"; "I command," "you speak"; "you get ready," "I make you." "They"
22}

are the adversary: "they" prompt fear or dismay; "they" wai

against the prophet. But "you" will prevail. There is also repetition of language. The negative 'al is used in verses 7, 8, and 17.
The term mippenehem occurs in the fourth line of the first two
stanzas, and in the third stanza at the fourth line "they" again
become the concern. In the first two stanzas, lines two and
three are variations on the same theme: the word which the
prophet is to speak in behalf of Yahweh. A third type ol poetic
device involves a play on words. In the fourth and fifth lines
of the second stanza is a perfect example: 'al tchath . . . pen
'achtteka. The term chtt can mean basically: "to be dismayed,"
or "to shatter," thereby causing dismay. Hebrew poetry is filled
with examples of this type of word-play. In the fourth place, the
language used throughout reflects a military backdrop which
is particularly appropriate for a word of assurance. From the
command not to fear in the first stanza, the order to make
preparation to go in the second, and the assurance that God will
insure the defences in the third, the language employed carries
forth the theme of battle and conflict. Finally, and probably
the most obvious feature of all, each stanza of this poem ends
with the same refrain: k 'itteka 'an lehatstsleka ne,um YHWH.
This heightens the effect of the poem and makes absolutely
clear the assurance extended to God's spokesman.
This poem, with its particular style and structure, is similar
to a type of address related to Israel's cultic life called a priesterliche Heilsorakel, that positive word promising divine intervention, spoken by the officiating priest as God's representative
in response to a worshiper's cry for help.82 Generally the type
is marked by an opening promise of divine intervention, a
statement of the consequences of that intervention, and an explanation concerning God's purpose in granting the petition.
As in most cases, however, there is variety and flexibility in the
employment of this form so that divergence at any particular
point is not necessarily crucial. The similarity between the poem
preserved in Jeremiah 1:7-8, 17-19, and more definite examples
of the priesterliche Heilsorakel is such that we can assume, at
least, a close relationship.
Reventlow expresses the opinion that such an "oracle of salvation" was a regular part of the liturgical ritual which lies
behind the prophetic commissioning form.83 A slightly different
{23}

connection which such a form has with the "confessions of

Jeremiah" has already been suggested above.81 What we may
have, both in the "confessions" and in Jeremiah 1, is a reflection
of the lamentation ritual. While not many of the "divine answers" sought in the laments are preserved, a number of psalms
seem to indicate the point at which such a Hcilsorakel was
received.85 We have already noted Bentzen's suggestion that
such a pattern is preserved in chapters 11, 12, and 15 of Jeremiah.80 It is clear that the lament was deeply rooted in ancient
Israel,87 and it would be particularly appropriate on the lips
of a prophet in extreme distress. When the occasion is sought
for which a poem like that before us would be appropriate, the
lament ritual suggests itself. It is plausible to understand this
word as the divine response to the supplication of the prophet.
If this is the case, then this is not precisely the same kind of
Heiisorakel Reventlow notes as typical of the prophetic commissioning form. It is a positive word of assurance and a promise
of deliverance, but it comes in response to supplication. Thus,
the poemmost likely prefaced with vv. 4-688 was intended
originally not so much to describe Jeremiah's "call" as to record
the encouragement given to him as he faced despair. The occasion was not that time when the prophet was first publicly
"ordained," but an occasion when the prophet came before
God voicing his discouragement and seeking reassurance in the
midst of his anxiety.
In summary, then, finding vv. 4-8, 17-19, as part of the tradition ascribed to the prophet Jeremiah, the Deuteronomic editors
used this material to make clear their conviction that Jeremiah
was the prophet promised by Moses and thereby worthy of
utmost respect. By imposing some details of the commissioning
ritual on the tradition, they worked the change with little
difficulty. In the process, however, vv. 17-19, the last two stanzas
of the original poem, were separated from the first stanza, vv.
7-8. If this is, in fact, the process whereby Jeremiah 1 reached
its present shape, some of the more difficult questions have been
answered. We are now in position to reflect on some of the
theological implications of this literary analysis.
V
As we begin our "theologizing" on the basis of this text, we
must at the outset recognize and try to keep distinct in our
24}

minds the before and after of this text. T h e before has to do

with the earliest phase of the tradition, the form in which the
Deuteronomic editors received this material ascribed to Jeremiah. The after has to do with the final form of the text as it
has come to us through the hands of the Deuteronomic editors.
Immediately our "modern" prejudices go to work and we
assume that the before is certainly better than the after. The
"real" word of God is that which came to Jeremiah before the
editors got hold of it! After the word has been reshaped, it is
man's word, not God's! But the assumption behind this line of
reasoning is that we can, in fact, isolate the "real" word. Either
the interpreter is forced to "close his eyes" to any indications of
editorial work, for any alteration in the "original" form would
"hide" the true message. Or, he must launch into an endless
search for the "authentic" word with no known way of absolutely demonstrating the certainty of his judgment.
But, neither of these approaches is to be commended. Our
concern with the before and the after has nothing to do with
the authenticity or unauthenticity of this passage. It, finally,
does not make any great difference whether we can prove that
this comes directly from Jeremiah or not. Much more important
is how we are to hear what has been passed on to us. The
before and after have to do with two different intentions which
this material was meant to convey. Different situations are presupposed and different theological emphases are at stake. It is
this type of differentiation we must seek to make.
Let us begin by considering the intention of our passage
after the Deuteronomic editors have done their work. Without
trying to describe the full theological framework undergirding
the Deuteronomic editors, let us consider some points that may
be of contemporary interest. First, the fact that the material
is presented in a well-known cui tic pattern has several important
implications. It is intended that those who hear this word also
visualize a particular time, a particular setting, common in the
life of the community. When God is pictured as reaching forth
to touch the prophet's mouth, what are we to conclude? That
God acted differently then than now? I don't think so. It is
far more likely that this descriptive reference reflects some aspect
of the ritual of commissioning. As we lay hands upon the head
of one being ordained, perhaps the mouth of one commissioned
{25}

to speak was symbolically touched (cf. Isaiah 6:7). The point is

that it is only by God's grace that a word is given, but the
recognition that we are dealing with a ritual pattern should
warn us against being unduly literalistic in our interpretation.
It is not that we are likely to treat the text so mechanically
as secretly to believe that the "poor, primitive people who
wrote the text" thought in such a gross manner. Further, precisely because this is an act drawn from the sphere of public
worship, we are directed to consider this whole episode as something between not just God and his prophet, but between God,
the prophet, and the people. Our "theologizing," then, should
avoid being literalistic, and it should faithfully recognize the
fact that this is a word transmitted by, for, and among the
community of God's faithful.
The implications of this position are realized when consideration is given to the nature of the one commissioned. Rather
than giving great attention to the psychological state of the
prophet or trying to explain how the prophet received such a
word, the emphasis is on the prophetic office. T h e concern is
to demonstrate the authority of the prophetic office. Appeal
could have been made to the prophet's zeal, his rhetorical skill,
his lineage, or his own conviction of being "called." What's
more, we wish for details about hoiu revelation takes place. But
in the text as it comes to us, such concerns are pushed aside.
T h e emphasis, rather, is on God's choice of his prophet, the
effectiveness of God's word, and the extent of God's rule. The
prophet can claim no special faithfulness in his relationship
with God, for it was God who initiated and confirmed him as
prophet. Even what brief glimpse we may get of this particular
prophet's reaction to the divine claim on him is relegated to
secondary importance by the fact that it is typicala regular
part of the ritualfor the prophet to resist and protest his
inability to fulfill the assignment. The only authority enjoyed
by the prophet comes to him because God insures the effectiveness of his word. As Lindblom says: "All that a prophet has
to proclaim, based on divine revelation, is regarded by him as
something that Yahweh has spoken to him." 89 And again: "It
is impossible to understand the role played by the prophets in
Israelite society without realizing that the divine word pronounced by them in exhortation, warning, and judgment was
not only descriptive, but also effective and creative."90 The
26}

prophet's words were respected because they were understood

as God's words, but the authority of the prophet existed only
in so far as he was recognized as God's spokesman. For the
Deuteronomic editors God's authority extended over all of the
nations and thus God's prophet is understood as commissioned
to speak to all nations.
Whether Jeremiah, the man, did actually live up to this
image is not at issue. Theologically, the prophet is understood
as chosen by God, made effective by God, and representative
of God in all the world. Theologically, the office of the prophet
is far more significant than the individual that fills it. Indeed,
the individual may, at times, deny his office and be called by
God to repent if he is to continue as prophet (cf. 15: 15ff.).
But the office of prophet is not brought into question. God
directs his world by his word as delivered through the office
of the prophetthis is most important! And it is this that is
emphasized by using the formal ritual of commissioning to introduce the work of Jeremiah.
While underlining the principal role of God in the commissioning of a prophet, we must not forget the human element.
However, the primary issue is not between the individual and
God so much as between God and his people. We tend to think
in individualistic terms which emphasize the personal response
necessary in becoming a prophet. But the communal nature of
the ritual which stands behind this passage makes very clear
a distinction drawn in Israel. An individual might "feel called,"
but it is the community that commissions him. God's people
confirm the calling of a prophet. It is they who judge the validity of the message. Th community, finally, not the individual, bestows the title "prophet."
What's more, once bestowed, this title means much more
about ' an individual's relation as mediator between God and
man than about his own struggle with God. Without getting
into unnecessary debate about the concept of "corporate personality,"91 one can still affirm the correctness of Reventlow's
emphasis that the prophet, as prophet, is primarily the intermediary.02 What the prophet says in the name of God is directed
to God's people. What he says to Godeven his most bitter
complaintis said, at least partially, in the name of his people.
The prophet, from the community's standpoint, is a primary
{27}

contact between God and God's people. Thus, the community

must be involved in the commissioning of the prophet.
T o be sure, at times the community may have consisted only
of members of a prophetic guild or a group of priests or some
other segment of society. And it is clear that often a prophet
was not really understood and acknowledged as prophet until
his active career was completed. But, theologically, that is beside the point. Theologically, the significant thing is that no
individual man can finally declare himself God's representative.
God's people, no matter how faithless or faithful, must confirm
the claim. Those who have not been so confirmed have passed
from the scene, utterly forgotten.
Now let us turn to the before, to the passage as it stood prior
to the edition in which it now stands. Many of the same things
we have already said hold true again. T h e cui tic background
the public character of this stagecolors deeply our hearing of
this passage. In its before shape the emphasis was more on the
individual receiving the word. But even this must be qualified,
because from the beginning this word was intended to be shared
openly. It is not the private reflection of an individual, at least
not as it comes to us. When this word was delivered, it was
not as a secret, subjective word, but as the pronouncement of
the God of Israel.
T h e word was declared in the midst of the regular worship
of God's people. It carried with it a certain degree of support
by the worshiping community. The word might rebuke or
praise, chide or sustain, but it always presupposed a wider group
among whom the supplicant stood. Thus, the prophet's hesitancy was not as important as the divine decree of election.
The security of the prophet was not finally as important as the
symbolic judgment conveyed by the prophet's presence among
his people. The point becomes not that God cares for this one
man as opposed to the others, but that God by caring for this
one man seeks to reclaim the others. The word of promise,
judgment, exhortation, or what have you, does not belong just to
the individual. It may come to him singly as one member of the
community, but insofar as he belongs to God's people, his
destiny is inextricably related with those others claimed by God.
The primary question raised before this text is shaped into
an affirmation of divine election and commission is this: What
{28}

word shall I preach? T h e prophet seems not to question his "calling." Rather, his problem is the validity of his words. After all, if
the test of true prophecy involves the fulfillment of the word,
Jeremiah preached a long time without confirmation. The
tension created is enormous. How does one live with such a
sense of uncertainty, of not knowing for sure whether the
words being spoken correspond to the word intended by God?
You can hear Jeremiah's question: Lord, you have said you
have chosen me, and I have told you I am just an amateur,
so what about it? If things are supposed to happen, when? Von
Rad writes:
It is still Jeremiah's secret how, in the face of growing
skepticism about his own office, he was yet able to give an
almost superhuman obedience to God, and, bearing the
immense strains of his calling, was yet able to follow a road
which led ultimately to abandonment. . . . Again, if God
brought the life of the most faithful of his ambassadors
into so terrible and utterly uncomprehended a night and
there to all appearances allowed him to come to utter grief,
this remains God's secret.93
Now the really important point is that it is unlikely that
Jeremiah's complaint should be heard as his own, private, secret
doubt. Jeremiah, as prophet, stands between God and God's
people, and even as he voices his own concern, it is not just
his own, God's people wonder about their role in the world.
If God's people are selected for some special mission, if God's
people speak God's word, and N O T H I N G HAPPENS, what
then? What then?
The answer that is preserved in this text is interesting in
that it does not seem to answer the question. God's response
is that his word is his word! The prophet is to speak all God
directs him to speak. T h e prophet is not to set himself as judge
to determine whether God is fulfilling his word. T h e prophet
is not to try to second-guess God. The word is God's and its
effectiveness depends upon God. The prophet is called to be
obedient to God, to go where God sends and to say what God
commands. "Trust God" is the answer which comes to Jeremiah.
At this point an excursus is necessary, for it is here that we
"moderns" get upset. What kind of answer is it to say,
"Trust God?" If we are not sure we have a word, what good
[29]

does it do to ask us to be faithful to it? This is our dilemma.

Perhaps our biggest problem is that we want certainty where
there has never been certainty. God's people have never been
certain they were being obedient before they acted. Only after
the fact is a degree of certainty possible, and this certainty in
no way insures future decision from the same dilemma. God's
people, as far as our records trace their history, have never been
without any knowledge of God's intentions, but decision is still
left to be made. God's people "go wrong," not because they make
mistakes but because they refuse to trust their God.
The problem is to learn to live with the suspense that this
attitude necessarily entails. T o keep on talking and acting on
the basis of our tradition when everything around us seems to be
falling apart, for instance, is either a mark of trust or stupidity.
Jeremiah's critics judged his action as foolish. Only sometime
after he spoke could a positive judgment be made, and to make
this judgment involved the same character of trust which is so
problematic. Nonetheless, God's people are expected to live as
ones "on the way," not as people who have "arrived."
This leads to the last theological observation evoked by our
study. God's word of assurance to his prophet is: "I am with
you to deliver you." As we reflect on what this means, it should
be clear that God's deliverance does not have anything to do
with personal "success." Jeremiah was not a "success," except
from a standpoint not shared by most men. Israel, God's people,
was not a "success." Despite this clear word, many still are deceived into thinking that they will "get something" out of being
obedient to God. With promises of prosperity, health, inner
peace, salvation, wealth, popularity, certainty, or what have you,
some still try to "bribe" men to obedience. But this is not the
word that Jeremiah heard. God promised to be with him as he
faced his enemies, but he was not told that they would be more
charitable to him. Jeremiah was promised God's deliverance,
but it was likened to the defense provided for a fortified city
under attack. For God to be with us means for him to be involved and concerned with us. But God being on our side puts
us on his side in his struggle. His deliverance means he offers us
security in our relationship with him. But being in relationship
with God places all else in jeopardy. T o be shattered by men is
finally nothing; to be shattered by God is everything.
30)

What is of utmost importance here is that we are assured of

God's concern and action. Heschel has well-understood the issue:
The prophet does not see the human situation in and by
itself. The predicament of man is a predicament of God
Who has a stake in the human situation. Sin, guilt, suffering, cannot be separated from the divine situation. The
life of sin is more than a failure of man; it is a frustration
to God. Thus, man's alienation from God is not the ultimate fact by which to measure man's situation. The divine
pathos, the fact of God's participation in the predicament
of man, is the elemental fact.04
The prophet, and God's people in so far as they, too, are addressed through God's mediator, is called again to trust in God,
in God who promises to take part in the struggle. T o quote
Heschel again:
This, then, is the ultimate category of prophetic theology:
involvement, attentiveness, concern. Prophetic religion can
be defined, not as what man does with his ultimate concern, but rather what man does with God's concern.
# # # # #
The fundamental thought in the Bible is not creation,
but God's care for His creation. The sense of wonder for
His creation is common to all men. The sense of care for
His care is the personal prerequisite for being a prophet.
All men care for the world; the prophet cares for God's
care. In the process of such redirection, he may be driven
to be careless about everything else.
Sympathy opens man to the living God. Unless we share
His concern, we know nothing about the living God.03
Rightly understood, the issue is not whether the prophet or
God's people succeed; are safe, are happy, feel good, know complete certainty, or anything of the sort. The prophet and God's
people are called to obedience and given assurance by one who
himself is committed. "I am with you to deliver you"that is
the only word thought necessary by our God.
FOOTNOTES
U l r i e ^ S ; 12:1-6; 15:10, 15-20; 17:14-18; 18:18-23; 20:7-13, 14-18. While
there is some disagreement with regard to the specific delineation of some of
the above poems, this list as found in G. Fohrer, Introduction
to the Old
Testament, trans. D. Green (New York, 1968), p. 395, is generally accepted
as a catalogue of the "confessions of Jeremiah;" cf. A. Bentzen, Introduction
to the Old Testament
(Copenhagen, 1961), sixth ed., vol. II, p. 121; O.
Eissfeldt, The Old Testament. An Introduction,
trans. P. Ackroyd (New
York, 1965), pp. 117, 351. Though these passages will not be the primary

C313

material under consideration, they are important for an understanding of

Jeremiah 1, for as W. Vischer, " T h e Vocation of the Prophet to the Nations,"
trans, by S. de Dietrich, Interpretation
(1955), vol. 9, p. 310, says, "This
beginning marks the character of Jeremiah's prophetic ministry and the first
dialogue between God and this man contains already his subsequent confessions. . . . "
2
J. P. Hyatt, " T h e Book of Jeremiah," The Interpreter's
1956), vol. 5, p. 782.

Bible

(New York,

3
Joseph L. Mihelic, "Dialogue With God. A Study of Some of Jeremiah's
Confessions," Interpretation
(1960) , vol. 14, p. 44.
4
L. Elliott Binns, The Book of the Prophet
p. xxxviii.

Jeremiah

5
Ulrich Simon, " T h e Mysticism of Jeremiah," Church
(1960), vol. 161, p. 272.

(London, 1919),
Quarterly

Review

6
It is interesting to note how easy it is to slip into this mode. Gerhard von
Rad, Old Testament Theology, trans, by D. M. G. Stalker (Edinburgh, 1965),
vol. 2, p. 205, after emphasizing the corporate character of the material,
lapses into statements like: "In his sensitiveness and vulnerability, his feeling
for the problems of religion, he was certainly at one with many of his contemporaries. . . . Thus, there was a large element of the refractory in him,
a rebellion against decrees of the divine will. . . ." Again, Eissfeldt, op. cit.,
pp. 117, 357, can, on the one hand, point out the cultic background of the
confessions, and then write, "These are unique poems too on account of
their poetical value. Here Jeremiah lays before his God his whole personal
attitude and opens up a very profound view of his inner life and of the
conflict within him between human inclination and prophetic compulsion."
7
Erhard Gerstenberger, "Jeremiah's Complaints. Observations on Jer. 15:
10-21," Journal of Biblical Literature
(1963) , vol. lxxxii, p. 393.

Hbid., pp. 393-394.

"Mihelic, op. cit., p. 43.
10
Cf. Prescott H. Williams, " T h e Fatal and Foolish Exchange: Living Water
for 'Nothings,'" Austin Seminary Bulletin (1965), vol. lxxxi, pp. 1-59.

" F o r instance see John Bright, The Anchor Bible: Jeremiah

(Garden
City, N. Y., 1965), p. 6; Hyatt, op. cit., p. 798; Artur Weiser, Das Buch Jerema (Gttingen, 1966), p. 2.
12
Hans Bardtke, "Jerema der Fremdvlkerprophet," Zeitschrift fr die
alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft (1935), vol. 53, p. 212; K. Budde, "ber das
erste Kapitel des Buches Jerema," Journal of Biblical Literature
(1921) ,
vol. xl, p. 27.
13
Debate continues concerning the terminus a quo of Jeremiah's prophetic
career. Along with the commentaries already cited, see: Elmer A. Leslie,
Jeremiah (New York, 1954) ; C. von Orelli, The Prophecies of Jeremiah,
trans, by J. S. Banks (Edinburgh, 1889) ; Wilhelm Rudolph, Jerema
(Tbingen, 1958) ; John Skinner, Prophecy and Religion. Studies in the Life
of Jeremiah (Cambridge, 1922) ; G. A. Smith, Jeremiah (New York, 1929) ,
fourth edition; A. C. Welch, Jeremiah. His Time and His Work (Oxford,
1955) ; C. Westermann, Jerema (Stuttgart, 1967). For articles dealing particularly with the question of the dating of Jeremiah, see: F. Horst, "Die
Anfnge des Propheten Jerema," Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft (1923), vol. 41, pp. 94-153; J. P. Hyatt, " T h e Beginning of Jeremiah's Prophecy," Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft (1966),
vol. 78, pp. 204-214; C. F. Whitley, " T h e Date of Jeremiah's Call," Vtus
Testamentum
(1964) , vol. 14, pp. 467-483.

32}

14
V. 4 reads: wayeh devar YHWH 'elay le'mor. This phrase is used six
times in the Book of Jeremiah (1:4, 11; 2:1; 13:8; 16:1; 24:4). A close
variant sees the inclusion of a specific name in place of the pronominal suffix:
29:30; 32:26; 33:19, 23; 35:12; 36:27; 42:7. In all but one instance (32:26)
the editors of the Masoretic Text have placed a paragraph division mark
preceding the appearance of this phrase, and in the one exception a break
in the text is left before the phrase. This clearly indicates that this phrase
was understood as regularly introducing a new pericope or, at least, a
separate unit within a longer passage. It is also interesting to note that the
phrase is almost exclusively limited to prose sections. Its appearance in
1:4 in connection with clearly poetic material could possibly be the result
of later editing.
15
Cf. for example Bright, op. cit., p. 6; Hyatt, "The Book of Jeremiah,"
op. cit., pp. 798 ff.; Weiser, op. cit., p. 2.
ie

Budde, op. cit., pp. 30-31.

17

shenth, "a second time," seems to indicate that the vision in v. 11 is

the "first" and that in v. 13 is the "second." It would seem that if vv. 11-16
had originally stood in relation to vv. 4-10, the vision in vv. 13-16 would be
considered the "third."
18
For instance Bright, op. cit., p. 8; Gerstenberger, op. cit., p. 399; Hyatt,
"The Book of Jeremiah," op. cit., p. 809; Rudolph, op. cit., p. 10; H. G.
Reventlow, Liturgie und prophetisches Ich bei Jerema -(Gtersloh, 1963).
. 62. The writers cited above differ widely in their particular interpretations,
but they do share somewhat the same opinion concerning these closing verses.

" B . Stade, "Streiflichter auf die Entstehung der jetzigen Gestalt der alttestamentlichen Prophetenschriften," Zeitschrift
fr die
alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft (1903), vol. 23, pp. 155-156, noted this difficulty, but he did not
fully develop the implication. More recently, Reventlow, op. cit., p. 60, also
recognized the problem posed by these verses while himself tending to agree
with the current consensus among scholars.
"Bright, op. cit., p. 6.
21

Ibid.

"Literally this phrase could be translated: "Then the word of Yahweh

happened to me."
"Literally the phrase reads: "Before I shaped you in the belly, I knew
you." T o omit the term "in the belly" should cause no problem since it is
rather redundant in view of the next line of the verse. But the phrase "I
claimed you" may seem unjustified when compared with the more traditional
"I knew you." However, the Hebrew verb yada* with its variety of connotations can be so translated. T o "know" someone is to enter into a relationship
with that person. To "know" a wife is both to have intercourse with her and
to claim her as one's own.
24
The Hebrew term 'ahah is interesting because it occurs in only a limited
number of passages, only one of which is poetic. In Josh. 7:7, Judg. 6:22,
11:35, 2 3:10, Ez. 4:14, 9:8, 11:13, 21:5, Jer. 4:10, 14:13, 32:17, the term
is used in prose. In Joel 1:15 the term occurs in poetry. The principal type
of literature in which this term is used is that of lamentation.

"Literally the phrase reads: "I do not know how to speak." But the term
dahber is a verbal form of the root used to speak of a "word" (davar) of
Yahweh. Thus, what seems to be at stake is the inability of the one pro
testing to "speak Yahweh's words," that is, to be able to function as a
prophet and articulate or "shape" Yahweh's words in the oracular form
used by prophets.
33}

"Literally the phrase could be translated: "For I am still a youth." The

choice of the term "apprentice" is prompted by a particular set of passages
in which the Hebrew term na'ar appears. In 1 Sam. 17:33 David is called
ii na'ar in comparison with the seasoned soldier Goliath. In 1 3:7 the
newly crowned Solomon refers to himself as but a na'ar. And finally, in 2
8:4 Elisha the prophet has an attendant termed a na'ar. In each of these
instances some term like "novice" or "apprentice" seems appropriate. With
regard to Jeremiah being considered an apprentice, the tradition which links
him to the priestly circles in Anathoth (Jer. 1:1) may have some bearing.
27

It is possible that v. 6 might be classed as "short verse" which, according

to Fohrer, op. cit., p. 47, occurs occasionally in narrative poetry like that
used "for the handing down of prophetic calls (Jer. 1:4-10)." "In contrast
to the long verse," Fohrer explains, "the short verse is not the basic poetic
and stylistic unit; it is a dependent and auxiliary member of the serial
strophe, which generally consists of an odd number of short verses (with a
preference for five or seven) and contains a single idea or complex of ideas."
While Fohrer's distinction between long and short verse is not universally
accepted, the suggestion is interesting.
28

See above: footnote 1.

2e

Mihelic, op. cit., p.

30

44, for instance, notes this fact.

Walter Baumgartner, Die Klagedichte

31

Bentzen, op. cit., vol. I, p. 158.

32

Mihelic, op. cit., p. 43.

des Jerema

(Giessen, 1917) .

33

Sheldon H. Blank, "The Confessions of Teremiah and the Meaning of

Prayer," Hebrew Union College Annual (1948) , vol. xxi, pp. 335-336.
Ibid., p. 337.
35

B. Gemser, "The RB- or Controversy- Pattern in Hebrew Mentality,"

Supplements to Vetus Tes'tamentum
(1955) , vol. Ill, pp. 122-125.
Ibid., p. 134.
37

Ibid., p. 136.

38

William H. Holladay, "Jeremiah's Lawsuit With God,"

(1963), vol. 17, p. 284.

Interpretation

39
J. Lindblom, Prophecy in Ancient Israel (Philadelphia, 1962), p. 191.
suggests particularly: "Two of the Servant Songs in Deutero-Isaiah must be
classed as narratives of how a prophet was called, namely xlix. 1-6 and 1. 4-9."
40

J. Kenneth Kuntz, The Self-Revelation

"Ibid.,

of God (Philadelphia, 1967), p. 59.

p . 60.

42
C. Westermann, The Praise of God in the Psalms, trans. K. Crim (Richmond, 1965), pp. 99-100.
43

Reventlow, op. cit., pp. 70-75.

44

Lindblom, op. cit., p. 189, says: "The account of the call of Jeremiah is
less detailed than that of the call of Isaiah. Without doubt Jeremiah's
experience was also ecstatic and visionary. But the vision itself is simple and
restrained, with few descriptive details. . . ."
45

Reventlow, op. cit., p. 68.

4e

Westermann, The Praise of God in the Psalms, op. cit., pp. 99-100, discusses the cultic background for the theophany. The report in Exodus 19,
[34}

according to Westermann, is characterized by "the basic features of a cultic

occurrence:
the locality: a specific place (the sacred boundary) . . .
the time: a specified day . . .
the personnel: Moses as the mediator of God's activity toward the
people."
Westermann continues in his discussion to deny that Isaiah 6 is basically
cultic while he does admit with respect to Ezekiel 1-2 that "there are features which are unmistakably cultic." However, in Basic Forms of Prophetic
Speech, trans, by H. C. White (Philadelphia, 1967), pp. 118-119, Westermann
compares Isaiah's account with one of the Mari texts. His point concerning
the striking difference is well-taken, but apart from suggesting that Engnell
may not be correct in his interpretation, Westermann does not "prove" that
Isaiah's call reflects some sphere other than that of the cultus. In fact, he
seems rather to think that this text from Mari sheds significant light on
the "way the prophetic vocation emerged out of cult prophecy."
47
The traditional character of the material reported in v. 5 becomes obvious when similar reports are found in the literature of other ancient
peoples. Binns, op. cit., p. 4, points out that "Nabonidus made a similar
claim; in one of his inscriptions he says that while he was yet 'in the bowels
of his mother' Sin and Nergal gave to him 'the lot of sovereignty.' " M. Gilula,
"An Egyptian Parallel to Jeremiah I 4-5," Vetus Testamentum
(1967), vol.
17, p. 114, quotes the following text dating to ca. 740 B.C.: "Pianchi (11:1-6) :
(speech of Amun) 'It was in the belly of your mother that I said concerning
you that you were to be ruler of Egypt,* it was as seed and while you were in
the egg, that I knew you, that (I knew) you were to be Lord.' " Hyatt,
"The Book of Jeremiah," op. cit., p. 800, mentions an ancient Sumerian
royal hymn that begins, "A king am I; from the womb I have been a
hero. . . ."
48
A. H. J. Gunneweg, "Ordinationsformular oder Berufungsbericht in
Jerema 1," Glaube, Geist, Geschichte. Festschrift Ernst Benz (Leiden, 1967),
pp. 91-98, has entitled his contribution to this volume in such a way as to
indicate his concern with our problem. Unfortunately, I was not able to
secure this book to discover Gunneweg's postion on the matter.

"Fohrer, op. cit., p. 356.

50

Reventlow, op. cit., pp. 69-70.

51

For an attempt at taking seriously the interrelationship between form

and theology in Jeremiah, see P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., "Literary Considerations Relating to the Theology of Jeremiah," McCormick Quarterly 970
7 V
;
vol. 23, pp. 130-141.
^
52
For the present we will not consider 1:11-16, but comment will be made
concerning the place of the verses below.
53

See above, footnotes 18-19.

54

Gerstenberger, op. cit., p. 399, n. 23.

55
5e

Hyatt, "The Book of Jeremiah," op. cit., p. 809.

Ibid., pp. 809-810.

"Gerstenberger, op. cit., pp. 398-399, 406-407, makes a very good case for
something like this happening with respect to parts of Jeremiah 15.
58
M

Ibid., p. 399.

See footnote 54.

00

The fact that the phrase is found three times in the LXX makes the
[35}

divergence between 15:20 and 1:8, 19, even more significant. It is also inter
esting that the LXX differs slightly in its text of 15:20 or chooses not to
repeat the verb "deliver" which is used twice in the MT.
"Quite typically of Hebrew poetry, the phrase is not exactly the same in
7 and 17. This play on terms is one of the primary devices used in the
rhetoric of Hebrew poetry.
e2

Rudolph, op. cit., p. 10, recognized this same unity of theme but inter
preted it only as evidence of the careful editing of the final work.
e3

Cf. Fohrer, op. cit., pp. 166ff., 392ff.

"Hyatt, "The Book of Jeremiah," op. cit., pp. 960, 998.

e5

In their original form there is nothing to make clear the nature either of
God's words or the precise character of the threat from the north.
ee

It is interesting to note a parallel between 1:10-12 and 31:28. In the

latter passage the term shqd, which is at the heart of the word-play in
1:11-12, is linked with the series of verbs used in 1:10 (these verbs are also
found in 18:7, 9 ) . All of these passages seem to bear marks of Deuteronomic editing; cf. Hyatt, "The Book of Jeremiah," op. cit., p. 1036.
e7

Bright, op. cit., p. 8; italics are mine.

e8

This is the position most frequently taken; cf. above, footnotes 18-19.

. E. Broughton, "The Call of Jeremiah," Atptralian

(1958), vol. 6, p. 41, correctly notes this parallel.

Biblical

Review,

70
Stade, op. cit., pp. 155-156, recognized the relationship that exists, but
he considered 1:9 to belong with 7-8 as well.
71
A narrative form with alternating speeches by God and the prophet is
found in a number of different places in the Book of Jeremiah. We have
already mentioned some of these passages in other connections (particularly
Jeremiah 18 and 24). But see also footnote 24 above.
72

Lindblom, op. cit., p. 189.

73

The closest parallels to the notion expressed are found in the "confes
sions of Jeremiah" interestingly enough. In 15:16 the prophet tells of find
ing and eating God's words, and in 20:9 he recounts how, when he desires to
remain silent, it is as if there is fire in his heart. There is also a somewhat
related imag used in 5:14, where God says he will make his words like fire
in the prophet's mouth. While the last mentioned reference is fairly close,
none of these passages really pictures, in the manner of 1:9, God's delivery
of his word.
74

See above, footnotes 63, 64, 66.

"Literally the phrase is: "You will gird up your loins." The imperative
tone is suggested by the preceding and following context. The term "get
ready" is a more contemporary idiom expressing the intent of the original.
7e
A more literal translation would be: "Stop being dismayed by them
lest I shatter you before them." But since the same verbal root is used in
both clauses in the Hebrew, I have attempted to catch the word-play with
"downcast" and "cast down."
77
This last line is missing in the MT of 1:17, but it is present in 1:8 and
19. It is possible to understand how the line might have dropped out of the
MT, since the first two words of the preceding line look enough like the
first two words of this last line to permit the eye to skip a line. Since the

{36}

phrase does occur in the other two stanzas and because it is found in the
LXX which would not be expected to add material (since in Jeremiah
generally a shorter text is presented), the phrase is here restored to the text.
"Literally the phrase reads: "And I, behold, I set you today." The verb
ntn has a wide variety of meaning, but the context indicates that some idea
such as "make," "establish," "prepare," etc., is intended. Further, the emphasis on the first person personal pronoun and the contrast this presents
with the preceding stanza justifies "As for me."
79
This line literally begins "to a fortified city" or "for a fortified city."
But the clear intention is to suggest that the prophet is to be defended from
his attackers. He is to be as inviolable as a fortress.
80
The MT includes one further line in 1:18. It reads: "to the kings of
Judah, to her officers, to her priests, and to the people of the land." This
line sounds like an expansion trying to explain the preceding term "over
the whole land." It might well be the work of the same hand that developed
vv. 15-16 as an explanation of "all the inhabitants of the land" in 1:14. At
any rate, the line in question breaks a very clear pattern, is stylistically
different from its context, and is problematic at various points in a number
of other textual traditions. Thus, it is deleted here as a marginal gloss or
editorial expansion not originally part of the poem.
81
Rolf Rendtorff, "Zum Gebrauch der Formel ne'um Jahwe im Jeremiabuch," Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft (1954), vol. 66,
pp. 27-37, discusses the way this phrase (a very frequent one in Jeremiah!)
is used. He concludes by sketching three basic patterns of usage for this
term: as a concluding notation, as part of an introduction when joined with
an introductory formula, and as a link between two parallel structures.
(p. 30) Rendtorff designates Jeremiah 1:8 as an example of the first type,
seeing here a place where ne'um YHWH concluded a short "word" ascribed
to Yahweh. (p. 28) Rendtorff defends the authenticity of the occurrence of
the term in 1:19 as well, though this is sometimes disputed, (p. 31) If anything is "wrong" here, he suggests, it is the term "to deliver you." (p. 31)
Rendtorff has done a very good and very helpful study, but I must challenge his conclusions somewhat. It was natural to assume that 1:8 concluded
a unit since that is certainly the way it has come to us. But if this term
can be used to connect parallel sections of a verse or verses, it seems likely
that it could be used at several key points in a longer construction. I see
no reason to deny that the term appeared in this poem three times for the
sake of emphasis. Further, it seems effective to have the normal order
altered as is done in 1:19. This "wrinkle" adds to the seriousness and the
forcefulness of the poem.
82
Fohrer, op. cit., pp. 354-355; cf. also J. Begrich, "Das priesterliche Heilsorakel," Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche
Wissenschaft (1934), vol. 52,
pp. 81-92.
83
84

Reventlow, op., cit., p. 68.

See above, footnotes 28-30.

85

C. Westermann, The Praise of God in the Psalms, op. cit., pp. 65ff.

8e

Bentzen, op. cit., vol. I, p. 158; cf. also Eissfeldt, op. cit., p. 117.

87

See C. Westermann, "Struktur und Geschichte der Klage im Alten Testament," Forschung am Alten Testament (Mnchen, 1964), pp. 266-305.
88
While it cannot be demonstrated conclusively, the evidence favors the
conclusion that vv. 4-6 were connected with 7-8, 17-19, when the D editors
began their work. The occurrence of the term na'ar in vv. 6 and 7, the narrative structure typical of lament passages as already noted, and the sense

[37J

of "election" found elsewhere in the "confessions" (cf. particularly chapter

20), point in this direction. This would indicate that 1:5 was probably
understood as a divine word of assurance as well. The "answer" to the
fearing supplicant was, "Before I shaped you, I claimed you. . . ." T o this
word of assurance might then have been added the more developed poem
preserved in 7-8, 17-19. Thus, 1:5 might be the earliest "word" around which
our tradition developed.
89

Lindblom, op. cit., p. 108.

"Ibid., p. 114.
91
Fohrer, op. cit., p. 395 denies the relevance of the concept of "corporate
personality" and insists on the importance of personal, autobiographical
details.
92

Reventlow, op. cit., p. 259.

93

von Rad, op. cit., p. 206.

*Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets

9B

Ibid., p. 484.

{38}

(New York, 1962), p. 226.

^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.