Set against the backdrop of the Babylonian Invasion and Exile, the Book of Jeremiah represents a variety of different perspectives on how to survive imperial domination. This article explores three competing visions that can be described in terms of the tension that exists between the pro-golah group that propagated life in Babylon, the anti-golah group that saw the hope for the future back home and the group of refugees who in the aftermath of the Mizpah massacre found themselves fleeing to Egypt. In the current context of global migration, this article considers theological and ethical perspectives generated by the engagement with Jeremiah on home and homecoming in a context where there is no good option.
Going home
Without my sorrow
Going home
Sometime tomorrow
Going home
To where it’s better
Than before. (Cohen
In Leonard Cohen’s haunting song ‘Going home’, the refrain expresses the yearning of returning home, to a place where there is no sorrow; to a place where one can lay down one’s burden; to a place where it is better than before. This song thus powerfully captures the deep longing for homecoming, for safety, security and belonging – all essential human needs.
In yet another poem with the title ‘Home’, Somalian poet Warsan Shire compellingly shows how this desire for home is untenable for many people in the world today. She exposes the frightful reality of countless migrants who, under treacherous and often even deadly circumstances, seek to find a new home for themselves and their children because their home is no longer a place of safety, security and belonging, but rather a place of danger that threatens their well-being and life. As Shire writes: ‘no one leaves home unless home is the mouth of a shark’. And further on in this poem, she implores her readers:
And you have to understand,
no one puts their children in a boat
unless the water is safer than the land.
Forbiddingly depicting the hardships experienced by refugees, the violence and the dangers enroute to a new place they can call home, Shire ends her poem with these words:
i want to go home,
but home is the mouth of a shark
home is the barrel of the gun
and no one would leave home
unless home chased you to the shore
unless home tells you to
leave what you could not behind,
even if it was human.
no one leaves home until home
is a damp voice in your ear saying
leave, run now, i don’t know what
i’ve become. (Warsan Shire, ‘Home’
Read together, these two poems reflect the very human desire for homecoming, that is, a place to belong and to live unfettered lives. Yet Shire’s poem, which shows how home for many people today has become a place of danger and life-denying circumstances, captures something of the difficulty when it comes to speaking of home and homecoming for many immigrants and refugees today. Home for many indeed has become an untenable goal. Nevertheless, the yearning for ‘going home’ serves as the driving force for many migrants to get on a bus, on a boat, on a plane to journey home. A home that is often very far away from home.
This contradiction by no means is new to our time. In the book of Jeremiah, one finds some fascinating perspectives regarding the yearning for home and homecoming, whilst depicting the complexity of living life in the aftermath of the Babylonian invasion and exile that saw many individuals evicted from their homes. In this article, I will show how this ancient book contains some dramatically divergent views of how to survive amidst imperial domination that stand next to one another without having the tensions between these competing visions resolved.
In the next section, I will outline three such viewpoints that are found in the second half of the book of Jeremiah. Subsequently, I will offer some suggestions regarding a number of theological and ethical perspectives that emerge from the engagement with these ancient traditions as we, in our current context, are grappling with how to deal with the complexities of migration, both forced as well as seemingly voluntary.
In the context of the terrible events associated with the mighty Babylonian empire sweeping through the land, destroying property and human lives, and forcefully removing a significant portion of the population into exile, one finds evidence of a number of divergent voices that exist during this time as to how to survive imperial domination. This is no more evident than in the vivid illustration used by the prophet of two baskets of figs in Jeremiah 24. The first basket is said to contain luscious figs, ready to be enjoyed, whilst the other basket contains inedible, very bad figs. Jeremiah holds up the very good figs as symbol for those exiles who inevitably find themselves in Babylon (Jr 24:5), the leaders of the people, who according to 2 Kings 24:14 is said to be ‘all the officials, all the warriors … all the artisans and the smiths’. Conversely, the basket of the very bad figs that Jeremiah saw in his vision in Jeremiah 24 represents those members of society who were left behind in the land, in addition to those who chose to flee to Egypt in order to find a safe haven (Jr 24:8).
At first glance, the image of the good figs and the bad figs seems to be clear. Jeremiah clearly appears to be on the side of the exiles whom he regards as God’s chosen ones, hence offering some harsh criticism of those who are staying behind in the land, when he calls them rotten figs. However, closer inspection of this image shows not only the variety of the impossible choices facing the victims of imperial invasion but also the complexities associated with each scenario. These different realities that are represented in the latter part of the Book of Jeremiah are as follows:
In the first instance, concerning the good figs of Jeremiah 24, scholars have suggested that this chapter seemingly has been written from what has been called a pro-golah perspective that characterises those who have gone into exile in Babylon as good figs (Sharp
On the one hand, in terms of a pragmatic solution that accepts the inevitable, Jeremiah’s letter to the exiles could be considered therapeutic in nature. It offers good advice, namely, that after a severe tragedy has struck, one should try and resume everyday activities again as soon as one is able to as a sure sign of reconnecting to life (Claassens
Alternatively, Jeremiah’s letter could also be read as imperialistic propaganda since, as in earlier chapters (Jr 24, 27), Jeremiah 29 centres on the principle to submit to imperial rule and to seek the welfare of the Empire’s capital city. This principle is closely aligned with the people’s own survival as individuals and a people as a whole and hence could be viewed as the best pragmatic solution in an impossible situation.
Jeremiah’s call to the Babylonian exiles to be model immigrants in Jeremiah 29 calls to mind something of the ongoing quest of many immigrants to make a home in their adopted countries: to seek the welfare of the city; to do what you can to fit in, and under no circumstances to make any trouble. However, many immigrants today will tell you just how difficult this task proves to be, and how, despite one’s best attempts to fit in, many immigrants still find themselves ostracised.
When considering the reality of those who were forced to go, one also should take into consideration the matter of class. We know from history that it is the educated elite, the skilled workers, who ended up going into exile. Some of these exiles, we know, became very rich in their adopted countries, likely using their skills and education to not only survive but also thrive. One of the central questions facing not only these exiles but also many immigrants since is whether one is able to maintain one’s identity far away from home, whether one still may be able to remember the songs of Zion whilst sitting next to the waters of Babylon (Psalm 137).
Finally, the sharp distinction that is drawn between those who are forced to go and those who cannot help but stay is shown to be not so clear-cut. For instance, as will be evident in the next section, the prophet Jeremiah himself who is propagating the good figs versus the bad figs scenario eventually ended up staying in the land, despite vigorously propagating the leave option (O’Connor
In terms of the Jeremiah 24 analogy, the second option open to the survivors of the imperial invasion concerns what the prophet deemed to be inedible, bad figs, that is, those individuals, the poorest of the poor, who had no choice but to stay behind after the Babylonian army, to devastating effect, moved through the country. In the aftermath of the enemy’s scorched earth policy that was responsible for large-scale food scarcity, these most vulnerable groups sought to rebuild a life amidst the rubble (O’Connor
For instance, in the aftermath of the wide-scale destruction brought about by the invading Babylonian army, the appointed leader Gedaliah in Jeremiah 40:10–12 gathers the people of the land together and commands them to go on living again amidst the destruction and to rebuild their lives after the calamity. The first thing they are called upon to do is to make sure that they have enough food for the winter. They are to gather and store wine, summer fruits and oil (Jr 40:10).
This account expresses the amazing propensity for resilience amongst the survivors of the calamity, reflected in the resumption of agricultural activities, which expresses not only the basic human need to secure food for oneself and one’s family but on a deeper level also the yearning for restoration and normalcy associated with homecoming. It is significant that in Jeremiah 40:12 it is said that the survivors have wine and summer fruit in great abundance. To once more have luscious fruit to eat and wine to drink is a striking symbol of survival and an indication of the return of festivity after the terrifying events they had lived through, which seems to be the hallmark of being able to make a home (Brueggeman
However, this fragile recovery is soon to be shattered when violence erupts once more. The newly appointed leader Gedaliah is assassinated by the renegade Ishmael during the so-called Mizpah massacre that saw the brutal killing of 70 of the 80 survivors from the Babylonian invasion who came to seek sanctuary at Mizpah, as well as the subsequent forced removal of the people of Mizpah to the Ammonites (Stulman
Within the conflicted story of the people who are bound to stay behind in the land, the figure of Jeremiah offers an interesting way to consider the plight of this group of survivors. We find Jeremiah in Jeremiah 40 in chains, ready to be taken into exile by the Babylonian soldiers. Then suddenly, in a dramatic turn of events, the captain of the guard releases the prophet and gives Jeremiah a choice as to whether to stay in Jerusalem or go to Babylon.
The fact that Jeremiah stayed behind in the land moreover indicates just how ambiguous the prophetic word proves to be amidst these trying times. As noted in the previous section, the clear lines that are drawn between those who are compelled to go and those who are bound to stay is confounded when the prophet himself ends up staying in the land. Thus, despite launching a cutting attack against those who stayed behind in the land (Jr 29:17), calling them rotten figs and proclaiming God’s punishment to befall upon them in the form of sword, famine and pestilence (Jr 29:28), Jeremiah himself finds himself to be in the bad fig basket.
In yet a third option in the aftermath of the attacks against Jerusalem, we find another group of survivors who felt that conditions in the aftermath of the Babylonian invasion had become so intolerable that they felt that they have no choice but to flee to Egypt (Stulman
An interesting perspective is that in Jeremiah 42:1, Johanan and the group of refugees who want to flee to Egypt approach Jeremiah and implore him to intercede on their behalf by praying to God. This remnant, who as they themselves acknowledge is made up of only a very few survivors, want to know from Jeremiah and God what they should do now? Even more pressing, they want to know where should they go (Jr 42:2–3)? Clearly, in the aftermath of the Babylonian invasion, no good options exist, which makes discerning exactly what the right thing is to do exceedingly difficult.
Jeremiah’s prayers are met by silence. For 10 days, God does not answer, which quite likely caused even further anguish for an anguished people seeking to discern where to go and what to do. When God finally does answer, God offers a surprisingly different message than what Jeremiah had proclaimed all along. Whereas Jeremiah for the longest time had said that the best choice for the survivors was to submit to Babylonian rule and to go into exile to Babylon where they were to build a life for themselves, now the prophet maintains that God is telling them to remain in the land, where God will build them up instead of breaking them, and plant them instead of plucking them up (Jr 42:10).
However, the survivors of the Mizpah massacre, who had been greatly traumatised by recent events, do not want to hear anything about staying in the land. They are afraid, and justifiably so because they have seen a lot of violence and evidently the threat still had not passed. In ironic fashion, they view Egypt as the Promised Land, where they believed they shall see war no more, nor ever experience hunger again (Jr 42:13–14). Desiring to leave their traumatic past behind, this group of survivors is determined to start a new life in Egypt (Maier
The prophetic rhetoric directed against this group is equally harsh than directed at the group who remained in the land as outlined in the previous section. Jeremiah proclaims that the same plight, and even worse, will follow these refugees into Egypt (Jr 42:16–17, 22) (Stulman
From the various scenarios outlined above, it is evident that there are a variety of strongly divergent voices at work in this book.
However, beyond the reminder of the importance of ideological criticism that highlights issues such as power, class and influence when it comes to reading the book of Jeremiah, a number of theological and ethical perspectives emerge from our engagement with the various voices in the text that may help us face the complex challenges of migration and forced migration in our contemporary context.
Firstly, the existence of these sharply divergent voices in itself communicates the fact that when it comes to migration, then and now, things are complex. In many circumstances, there are no good options. Do you stay, do you go? Is there anything
Nevertheless, in the second instance, it is indeed remarkable that in spite of the sharp divergence amongst the voices reflected in the book as to how to survive imperial domination, a unifying theme in Jeremiah is the fact that God is present everywhere. In war-torn Palestine. In the heart of the Empire in Babylon. Stulman (
Though banished far from their country, God will watch over and care for them. Even in Babylon, perhaps the least likely place for the presence of God, the Jewish refugees are able to find God (24:7). (p. 220)
Also in Egypt, God is with the people. Regardless of God’s sharp judgement, the prophetic word continues to follow the exiles, inciles and refugees wherever they will go. This particular point is vividly illustrated in the presence of the prophet who is closely with each of the three scenarios – writing to the exiles in Babylon and propagating a pro-golah perspective (Jr 24, 29); staying behind with the people left behind in Judah and buying land whilst in prison (Jr 32); and being taking along when the refugees flee to Egypt (Jr 43:5–7) (O’Connor
Thirdly, a common feature amidst all three these divergent scenarios is the theme of building a life. To make a home whether by returning home, or by making a new home elsewhere is held up as an important truth within all three scenarios envisioned in this book. So we see already in Jeremiah 32, how an incarcerated Jeremiah, when approached by his cousin, makes a bold decision to buy a plot of land that indeed may seem quite ludicrous given that it is located in a war-torn area (Stulman
They shall come and sing aloud on the height of Zion,
andthey shall be radiant over the goodness of the Lord,
overthe grain, the wine, and the oil,
andover the young of the flock and the herd;
theirlife shall become like a watered garden,
andthey shall never languish again.
Also in Jeremiah 29:5–6, the people who find themselves in exile are also encouraged to have a life, to ‘build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat what they produce’. These physical activities associated with making a home are coupled with the imperative to also build a house in another way, that is, to have children, and for your children to have children as well. Home is thus associated with family and building a future filled with wedding celebrations and the rituals marking the birth of children (e.g. circumcision and baptism).
And in Jeremiah 44, the women amongst the Egyptian refugees take the initiative in resuming the religious activities that they have engaged in before the war. In Jeremiah 44:17, it is the women who vow to once again:
make offerings to the queen of heaven and pour out libations to her, just as we and our ancestors, our kings and our officials, used to do in the towns of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem.
In this act of agency by the female refugees, we see a continuation with their lives from before, doing whatever it takes to find meaning and significance in what had happened to them (cf. also Jr 44:19) (Maier
Finally, probably the most important insight regarding the variety of perspectives present in the second part of Jeremiah as to how to survive imperial invasion is that these divergences are not resolved, but rather that the contradictions stand. In this regard, Holt (
In this situation of despair, a one-sided and narrow answer would not do any good. It would soon fall short in a complex situation, which demands complex answers. And complex answers is what we achieve in the book of Jeremiah (Holt
In the song ‘Going Home’ with which this article started, Leonard Cohen steps forward in the figure of the prophet who is compelled by the Deity to speak the words of the refrain cited in the introduction. He reflects as follows on this call to speak:
But he does say what I tell him
Even though it isn’t welcome
He just doesn’t have the freedom
To refuse
He will speak these words of wisdom
Like a sage, a man of vision
Though he knows he’s really nothing
But the brief elaboration of a tube (Cohen
A prophet speaking words of wisdom – in the ancient book such as Jeremiah but also in contemporary times. What words of wisdom will be spoken in today’s context? Particularly in a world where there is much folly, and an abundance of hate speech.
Perhaps the words of wisdom we need to hear is that things are more complex – even Jeremiah who in the harshest of terms condemned the refugees of his day, in the end found himself sharing the same fate. Jeremiah indeed felt on his own skin that the reality is more complicated. Ultimately, I am convinced that to read with compassion, hence comprehending and respecting the complexity and ambiguity in the text, is key to also living with compassion in a compound and ambiguous reality. It is precisely this point that leads me to dedicate this particular article to my colleague and friend, Prof. Eben Scheffler, who over the years have truly embraced reading and living with compassion.
The author declares that he or she has no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced him or her in writing this article.
There has been an explosion of works in recent years on the theme of migration, both in the biblical traditions as well as in our current global context. Cf. e.g. Ahn
Stulman (
Cf. also the prophetic dispute between Jeremiah and Hananiah (Jr 28) according to which Jeremiah maintains that the exiles were going to be in Babylon for a very long time (Sharp
Stulman (
For some of the challenges facing modern day migrants cf. Rivera-Pagan
Compare though Stulman’s (
Davidson (
Biddle (
This measure of agency amidst the Occupation is quite remarkable and speaks to the high regard Jeremiah held in Babylonian circles (Davidson
Stulman (
In this text, Johanan thus serves as the great liberator when he frees all the people, the soldiers, women, children and eunuchs, who had been taken hostage by Ishmael, taking them to a safe haven in Egypt. This portrayal is rather ironic given that in the book of Exodus, the liberator Moses had led the people
Sharp (
Maier (
Cf. Sharp’s (
Ahn (
Cf. Davidson (
According to the women, they ascribe their current misfortune to the fact that they had stopped bringing offerings to the queen of heaven. Cf. Jeremiah 44:17–18: We used to have plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no misfortune. But from the time we stopped making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out libations to her, we have lacked everything and have perished by the sword and by famine. Maier (
In this regard, O’Connor (