Verse 15

Clause 15a introduces the verdict that follows on the indictment recorded in verse 14. In this clause an extended use of the messenger formula is applied with the addition of

תוֹא ָׁב ְצ

. This exact extended formula is used fifty four times in Jeremiah, eighteen times in Zechariah, five times in Haggai with a single occurrence in Malachi. It is also used in 1 Samuel 15:2 and 2 Samuel 7:8. In the two instances that appear in Isaiah, it is even further extended with the addition of

י ִּנֹד ֲא

. It is evident that this use is characteristic in the book of Jeremiah and therefore the two occurrences in Jeremiah 23:15 and 16 are not unique. What is also clear is that this extended messenger formula appears mainly in exilic/post- exilic contexts.

In a study on the use of divine epithets for Yahweh, Mettinger has indicated that the designation

תוֹא ָׁב ְצ

הוהי

played a central role in the Temple theology in the Jerusalem cult tradition during the monarchy. He has also indicated the connection with the Zion tradition (Mettinger 1982:12-13). Mettinger (1982:15) states that “we must in any case describe the mainstream of the Jerusalem cultic

105

tradition as a “Zion-Sabaoth theology,” whose main theme was the notion of God enthroned in the Temple.”

It seems that the word

תוֹא ָׁב ְצ

derives from the Semitic root ṣb’, in Hebrew as

ṣābā’ “army; host.” The syntax of the designation has shown to be problematic.

Mettinger argues the best solution is to take the designation as a construct relation “Yahweh of ṣěbā’ôt” (Mettinger 1999:920).

There is no clear anwer to where the word

תוֹא ָׁב ְצ

was intitially used. Mettinger (1999:920-921) states a case that it goes as far back as Shiloh in pre-monarchic times. He has explained that Yahweh Zebaoth can be related to the iconography of the cherubim throne which was inspired by the throne of El and indicates the Canaanite milieu at Shiloh. Besides the cherubim throne, the Ark also played a role both at Shiloh and in Solomon’s Temple and served as the footstool at the throne (Mettinger 1982:23). Mettinger concluded that at some stage the Sebaoth designation was closely linked to the Jerusalm temple theology (Mettinger 1982:24). Zobel (2003:221) similarly argues that the epithet

תוֹא ָׁב ְצ

should be associated with the Jerusalem cult of Yahweh, but he however qualifies as found in the book of Psalms and the book of Isaiah. According to him there is no certainty whether it originally derived from Jerusalem linked to Jebusite traditions or from Shiloh. The link to Jerusalem might be when David brought the ark to Jerusalem. It therefore seems that the use of

תוֹא ָׁב ְצ

should be understood within a cultic context. Zobel (2003:225) has the following to say: “When the ark was brought to Jerusalem, its associated traditions and divine predicates were also brought to the city of David, where they merged with Yahweh and his temple in the new capital.”

Mettinger has hightlighted two important aspects assosciated with the Zion- Sabaoth theology, namely Yahweh as King and the aspect of his presence in the temple. Mettinger 1982:25-26) states:

106

The concept of God in the Zion-Sabaoth theology is simultaneously both aniconic (i.e. without icon) and anthropomorphic: No divine image reposes on the cherubim throne, but the impression of an empty throne is only superficial, since God reigns there invisibly like a king in his palace. An aniconic cult symbolism is thus conjoined to a massive theology of the Presence!

The meaning of the title

תוֹא ָׁב ְצ

הוהי

according to Zobel (2003:232) reflects the following: “Whether one understands this content as ‘Yahweh’s collective might,’ as his ‘might’, or even as the ‘excelling majesty of this Lord of all,’ it is certain that it remained the ‘loftiest and grandest and ...the royal name of God.’” The uses in Jeremiah seem to accentuate the grandeur and unchallenging authority of Yahweh.

The designation

תוֹא ָׁב ְצ

הוהי is used

in Jeremiah 23:15-16. Besides the points emphasised by Zobel, the importance of the association in the Zion-Zebaoth theology with Yahweh’s presence in the temple and him being king, has particular significance for the two uses mentioned. Yahweh Zebaoth as king reflects the notions of purposing and planning. These two aspects relates to the idea of the council of Yahweh (Jer 23:18, 22) where purposing and planning is communicated and the prophets are commissioned (Mettinger 1999:922-923). The aspect of Yahweh’s presence in the temple is also of importance. In this regard Mettinger 1999:923) states: “the temple is the point of intersection between heaven and earth; the temple is the point at which the dimensions of space are transcended.” Yahweh can therefore simultaneously be present both in the heaven and on earth. He continues by saying that the root ṣb’ “appears in contexts which draw upon its royal and its celestial connotations. Like terrestrial kings, the heavenly monarch has a court and council” (Mettinger 1999:923). In Jeremiah 23:16-22 both the notions of Yahweh’s presence in the temple and in the divine council can therefore be associated with the occurrence of the designation

תוֹא ָׁב ְצהוהי

in Jeremiah 23:16.

107

The various uses of this title in the prophets can therefore be linked to the Jerusalem temple theology. This theology, often referred to in the book of Jeremiah as the royal-Zion theology/ideology, has often surfaced in the rivalry between Jeremiah and the Jerusalem prophets.

In the next clauses it is stated that the majestic and mighty Yahweh will make them eat wormwood and make them drink poisonous water (clause 15b and c). The combination of wormwood (

ה ָׁנ ֲע ַל

) and poisonous herb (

שאֹר

) appear in Deuteronomy 29:17, Lamentations 3:19 and Amos 6:12. In the case in Deuteronomy it refers to a person who is like a poisonous and bitter root that influences the society to serve other gods instead of Yahweh. The terminology is used in Lamentations to give expression to a situation of affliction and experiences of homelessness as Jerusalem has fallen. The Amos reference describes a situation where justice has turned poisonous and righteousness into wormwood. Justice did not serve the purpose it was supposed to, but had deadly consequences for the people. The uses of this combination are of particular importance in Jeremiah 9:14 and 23:15. In both these instances wormwood is used with the verb “to make someone eat”

(לכא

Hiphil) and the noun “poisonous herb” in construct formation with “water” (

שא ֹ ר־י ֵׁמ

) and the verb “to make someone drink” (

הקש

Hiphil). Both the references in Jeremiah concern judgement as a consequence of wrongdoing. In the case of 9:14 judgement is the consequence of the people worshiping Baal. The implications are spelled out in 9:15 as scattering amongst nations (exile) and eventually death (sword). The eating of wormwood and the drinking of bitter water therefore figuratively denote displacement and death.

The context in which the expression of eating wormwood and drinking poisoned water is used is different in Jeremiah 23:15. In this context the moral indiscretions of the prophets are in focus as well as the effect of their indiscretions on the land,

108

the people and the prophets themselves. What is interesting in this passage is the mention of the land that is full of adulterers, resulting in the land drying up and the pastures withering (cf. 23:10). In Jeremiah 23:15 the passage ends again outlining the consequences of the moral transgressions of the prophets. It is said that the ungodliness of the prophets has spread throughout the land. The prophets have polluted or defiled the land. The question could be asked whether the judgement of the eating of wormwood and drinking of poison water could be related to the conditions in the land. Both wormwood (Artemisia absinthium- cf. Koehler & Baumgartner 2001a:533) and poison water (water mixed with a poisonous herb) are elements of the land.

In a study of Numbers 5, Van Wolde (2009:228-233) discusses the interesting situation where a husband is suspicious that his wife engaged in an adulterous relationship with another man. What is of importance in the discourse in this chapter is that the wife is submitted to a test that would reveal whether she has transgressed or not. Where this description of the ritual that is followed corresponds with Jeremiah 23:15, is that first there is a meal offering (Num 5:15) brought and then the wife is made to drink sacral water in the Tabernacle, mixed with earth that was taken from the floor of the Tabernacle (Num 5:17, 27). The water she has to drink is referred to as “water of bitterness” (Num 5:18-19). The water will be the test whether she has defiled herself, meaning whether she had committed adultery by having intercourse with another man. If she is found to have defiled the self, it is said that Yahweh will cause her thigh to sag and her belly to swell (cf. Num 5:21). The drinking in Numbers 5 therefore functions in a context of fertility. Van Wolde (2009:232) argues that all the references to the female body “construe the female body in terms of reproduction.” She comes to the conclusion that the defilement of the woman in this passage implies that she would not be able to carry and bear children any longer. Van Wolde (2009:233) also alludes to the role cultural relations play in determining meaning. She further

109

draws, in terms of Numbers 5, a comparison between the defilement of the woman’s womb and how land that is infected is profiled as defiled or polluted.

The comparison between the procedures described in Numbers 5 and Jeremiah 23:15 is not in the correspondence of vocabulary, but in the cultural practice of a meal and the drinking of a substance when adultery is suspected. As mentioned above, the drinking functioned in a context where fertility was a concern. What adultery in the case of Jeremiah 23:9-15 exactly means is not clear-cut, but it seems to imply deception and disloyalty towards Yahweh. It might even have sexual overtones, but it cannot categorically be stated. If the cultural practice of dealing with adultery and deception described in Numbers 5 is related to the eating and drinking action enforced by Yahweh on the prophets of Jerusalem (23:15) and the context of 23:9-15 as explained is taken into consideration where land is infected and affected by the actions of adulterers (23:10; 14), then the possibility should be entertained that infertility of the land might be implied in 23:15. Be as it may, if the metaphorical meaning is entertained, then the substances of wormwood and poisoned water imply death eventually.

The last clause of this section, namely 15d, is introduced with the causal particle

י ִּכ

and substantiates the severity of the punishment. The verb

א ָׁצ ָׁי

indicates motion or movement and has the noun

ה ָׁפ ֻנ ֲח

as subject. In this context, it seems that the verb

א ָׁצ ָׁי

indicates the source or point of origin from whence ungodliness/ profane behaviour has spread. The prophets of Jerusalem are the point of origin or the source of the ungodliness (see the discussion of

ה ָׁפ ֻנ ֲח

at verse 11). In terms of the conceptual categories discussed in verse 9, this would place

ה ָׁפ ֻנ ֲח

within the concept of what is impure/ unholy. This implies that the land is defiled and therefore unholy and impure. Accordingly, the prophets have caused the land to be in a state of impurity and it is therefore unholy.

110

In document Failed Leaders. The Nature and Content of Prophetic Rivalry in Jeremiah 23:9-22 (Page 119-125)