Did God Rape Jeremiah?

Jeremiah was an intense man of God. Known as the weeping prophet, he often used fierce language to describe his suffering. 20:7 is an example of such fierce language, and it is directed at Yahweh. The language here is so fierce that it has been widely dumbed down to make it less graphic. Surely Jeremiah was not blasphemous! Ironically, the not-so-harsh version suggests that Yahweh deceived him. To many, this is preferable to the harsher version which states that Yahweh seduced and raped Jeremiah. The purpose of this study is to assess whether or not ḥāzaq in this verse should be translated ‘raped’. 

I. Defining the Term

The Hebrew word חָזַק (ḥāzaq) denotes the use of strength.(1) John Koehlenberger and William Mounce provide it may refer to ‘strengthening’—for example, “the Lord hardened (ḥāzaq) Pharaoh’s heart” (Ex. 9:12). It could also refer to using strength to acquire something, to seize.(2) The strength implied is outstanding, as the word, according to Carl Philip Weber, is often used to mean, “To be stronger than” or ‘to prevail’.(3) This explains the common translation of Jer. 20:7: “you have overpowered me and prevailed.” Abraham Heschel suggests that the word implies coercion by the use of violent force.(4) Kathleen O’Connor also prefers this more intense translation.(5) At the very least, the word denotes the use of strength; it is up to the context to determine what form that strength takes and how far it goes.

II. Interpreting the Term

It would benefit this study to thoroughly discuss the other key word used in Jer. 20:7 (פָּתָה, usually translated ‘deceived’ or ‘seduced’), but such an excursus would take us too far afield. Nevertheless, a brief assessment of this word is necessary to determine what ḥāzaq in Jer. 20:7is supposed to mean.

Peter Craigie, Page Kelley, and Joel Drinkard, Jr., along with Heschel, maintain that ‘deceived’ for פָּתָה is not a good translation.(6) Heschel and O’Connor both suggest that it should be translated ‘seduced’.(7) Heschel cites examples in which the word is used "in the special sense of wrongfully inducing a woman to consent to prenuptial intercourse (Exod. 22:16 [H. 22:15]; cf. Hos. 2:14 [H. 2:16]; Job 31:9)."(8)

Both Heschel and O’Connor then suggest that ḥāzaq refers to rape, rendering it, "You have seduced me, and I am seduced; you have raped me, and I am overcome."(9) O’Connor prefers this translation, "because it conveys intimate violation and rupture of faith that accompany disaster, and it connects Jeremiah’s outrage with the fate of Daughter of Zion, raped by her divine husband (13:20-27)."(10) I find this convincing, as Jeremiah is often depicted taking on the sufferings of his people in his own experience.(11)

However, Craigie, Kelley and Drinkard prefer ‘persuaded’ and ‘overpowered’, saying that the sexual connotations of these Hebrew words are the least common, and, to them, the context does not suggest seduction and rape.(12) Thus, in order to come to a proper conclusion about ḥāzaq, we must consider the context of the lament, as well as the context of the entire book of Jeremiah.

III. The Term in its Context

In assessing Craigie, Kelley and Drinkard’s conclusion, we have to ask, “Does the context tell a story of a reluctant Jeremiah and a convincing Yahweh who overpowers him through persuasion?” I would be surprised if one could make a case for such an understanding. It seems more evident that Jeremiah is miserable, bitter towards Yahweh for forcing him to do something he never wanted to do, and struggling with a desire to abandon his vocation. Indeed, from the very beginning in his call narrative, Jeremiah’s response to Yahweh’s use of him was ‘Alas!’ (1:6).

Jeremiah often used intense language to describe his suffering and the suffering of his people. The combination of these words, whether or not their sexual connotations were in the author’s mind, implies a ferocious violation of the person of Jeremiah by Yahweh. That the Daughter of Zion is described in graphic imagery as being similarly violated by Yahweh (13:20-27) makes it quite probable that the verse implies rape. Thus, it seems reasonable to translate the verse to say what seems explicitly implied, using the words ‘seduced’ and ‘raped’.

IV. Conclusion

Walter Brueggemann provides a helpful assessment of what Jeremiah is evoking in this lament:

The Hebrew word yakal occurs four times: “thou hast prevailed” (v. 7), “I cannot (prevail)” (v. 9), “we can overcome him” (v. 10), “they will not overcome me” (v. 11). Jeremiah prays about overcoming and being overcome. His only hope is that Yahweh will be his ally and not his enemy.(13)

Did God rape Jeremiah? Did he violently violate Jeremiah’s personhood for his own purposes? I see no reason why we should embrace this theology, but it is clear that this is how Jeremiah felt. He cried out to Yahweh because it seemed that he overcame and betrayed Jeremiah, and Jeremiah needed Yahweh’s help or else he would not be able to overcome the incredible feats for which he was called. He spoke of ‘terror on every side’ (v.10)—even from above—to insight Yahweh to be his ‘dread warrior’ (v.11) so that he would not be overcome, but would overcome.

Jeremiah was the king of using brutal imagery to voice the utter pain that he and his people were experiencing. That is what the entire book of Jeremiah does; it gives voice to the suffering to break down the barriers of self-destruction.(14) When he accused Yahweh of seducing and raping him, he was not doing so out of a blasphemous hate toward Yahweh; he was doing it because Yahweh had brought him immense suffering, and giving suffering a voice dethrones oppressive forces, provides the truth an opportunity to have its say, and ultimately allows hope to shine through brokenness.

Notes:
(1) See Francis Brown, Edward Robinson, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, “חָזַק,” in The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1979), 304.
(2) See “חָזַק,” Kohlenberger/Mounce Concise Hebrew-Aramaic Dictionary of the Old Testament, Accordance edition, 2012.
(3) Carl Philip Weber, “חָזַק,” in Vol. 1 of TWOT, eds. R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Jr., and Bruce Waltke (Chicago: Moody Press, 1980), 276.
(4) Abraham J. Heschel, The Prophets (New York: Harper & Row, 2001), 144.
(5) Kathleen M. O’Connor, Jeremiah: Pain and Promise (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 87.
(6) See Peter C. Craigie, Page H. Kelley, and Joel F. Drinkard, Jr., Jeremiah 1–25, Vol. 26 of WBC, eds. David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Books, 1991), 273, and Heschel, 144.
I am convinced by their assessments of the word, but it should be said that accusing Yahweh of deceit was not unlike Jeremiah, who described him as a ‘deceitful spring’ (15:18). I do not think much should be made of the usage of the word in Jer. 20:10—this time referring to the enemies’ wishes for Jeremiah to be ‘tricked’—as there is no connection between the thought in v.7 and the thought in v.10 that would suggest that the word was meant to carry the same meaning in both.
(7) See Heschel, 144, and O’Connor, 87.
(8) Heschel, 144.
(9) See Heschel, 144, and O’Connor, 87. James L. Crenshaw, A Whirlpool of Torment: Israelite Traditions of God as an Oppressive Presence (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 38-39, uses ‘seduced’ but does not translate ḥāzaq as rape, and yet still suggests that the verse explicitly implies rape. John Bright, Jeremiah, Vol. 21 of AB (Garden City: Doubleday, 1965), 129, 132, also uses ‘seduced’, yet also does not use ‘rape’ for ḥāzaq; however, his translation of the verse seems to imply rape: “You seduced me, Yahweh, and I let you; You seized me and overcame me.”
(10) O’Connor, 87.
(11) For example, he was inflicted with an ‘incurable wound’ (10:19), the same term used to describe the state of Israel (30:12, 15). For more on Jeremiah’s wholehearted empathy with the people of Israel, see Heschel, 151-156, as well as James Muilenburg, “The Terminology of Adversity in Jeremiah,” in Translating & Understanding the Old Testament, eds. Harry Thomas Frank and William L. Reed (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970), 60-61.
(12) See Terence E. Fretheim, Jeremiah (Macon: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 290-292, for an assessment of this verse that combines ‘seduce’, ‘persuade’, and ‘deceive’.
(13) Walter Brueggemann, A Commentary on Jeremiah: Exile and Homecoming (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998), 183.
(14) See Walter Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 46-57.

A brief devotional inspired by Peter O'Toole

I once watched an interview with Peter O'Toole in which he talked about acting. He said, "In the Bible it says, 'the word became flesh.' I think that's the actor's job, to make the word become flesh" (not an exact quote). I found this to be a beautiful description of acting, and not only of acting, but also of the Christian life.

As Christ, the Word, became flesh, I think we as Christians are called to make the Word become flesh in our lives. As actors should make the words of the script become flesh, bringing them to life by embodying them, so Christians should make the Word of God flesh, bringing him to life by embodying his way. As Henri Nouwen said, "Christians are called to live the Incarnation."

O'Toole elsewhere said, "No one can take Jesus away from me." No one can take Jesus away from you, and no one can take away from you the ability to make the Word flesh.

How can you embody Christ's way? How can you make the Word become flesh?

Peter O'Toole was most definitely one of the greatest actors of movie history. It is with great reverence that I pray he rests in perfect peace.

Is My Faith in Trouble If the Fall of Jericho Didn't Happen? (A Response to V. Philips Long)

For decades, the dominant consensus in biblical archaeological research has suggested that the story of the Fall of Jericho in Joshua 6 (as well as the other conquest narratives) is not a record of an actual historical event. This presents a problem for Christians who are used to taking for granted the historical trustworthiness of the Bible's narratives.

V. Philips Long, in his book The Art of Biblical History, deals with this issue in a chapter about whether or not the historicity of the events in the Bible is important for our faith. He concludes that not only is it important, but Christian faith hinges upon the historical trustworthiness of certain events described in Scripture (for example, the resurrection).

At the end of the chapter, he discusses the less central story of the fall of Jericho. He concludes that the "Christian faith might well survive without the razing of Jericho, since it is not the razing of Jericho but the raising of Christ that saves us."(1) That being said, he goes on to say, "On what basis do we believe that Christ was raised? Surely an important part of the answer . . . is that we do so on the basis of trust in the scriptural testimony to that event."(2) He further concludes that it is possible that, if the fall of Jericho did not actually happen, our faith is in vain "because we would be made less sure either of the trustworthiness of the biblical witness or of our ability to discover its basic sense."(3)

While I agree that the Christian faith has at its cornerstone certain events that are essential to the whole picture (that Jesus lived, died, and resurrected as the Son of God, and that the Gospels capture who he was, is absolutely essential), I have problems with his overall conclusion on the historicity of the Bible's 'historical' narratives.

1) The fall of Jericho had to happen because it makes us less sure of the Bible's overall historicity if it didn't? This is not a reason to say it happened! "If this story isn't true, then it makes me question whether or not these other stories are true; therefore, it needs to be true." This is a non-sequitur if I've ever heard one. If the fall of Jericho didn't happen, then it didn't happen; if that causes us to doubt the historicity of the resurrection, then we will just have to deal with that. Dismissing the problem by affirming the historicity of all of the events in Scripture is not an actual solution.

2) I find Long's conclusion in this chapter unfortunate, as it is not as nuanced as the two previous chapters, the first on the many different genres included in the Bible, and the second on the use of fiction in writing history. On genres, he emphasizes that we have to expect different things from different genres. For example, we shouldn't treat a parable like a historical narrative. On fiction, he says, "historical reportage [in the Bible] is often more akin to painting than photography"--specifically, his example was impressionist painting.(4) He defines historiography as involving "a creative, though constrained, attempt to depict and interpret significant events or sequences of events from the past."(5)

While his assessment of genres and fiction in the Bible might be a display of mild positivism, it does recognize that when we are dealing with history in the Bible, we are not dealing with news reports, designed to provide the reader with all the right details of what happened. I found these to be strong chapters.

His conclusion here, however, did not pay respect to the nuances recognized in the other chapters. How can Long speak of "the trustworthiness of the biblical witness" if he recognizes that there are many genres in the Bible from which we should expect different things? Thus, it seems silly to speak of a "biblical witness" or of general biblical historicity, as if the Bible is one long history book. The book of Joshua is not the same kind of book as the Gospels; should we expect the same things from both? It does not follow to say that if a story in one book of the Bible didn't actually happen, then that casts doubt on stories in other books. The Gospels could be 100% historically accurate even if the book of Joshua is not accurate at all, and vice versa.

3) I think what he resists (casting doubt on the Bible's other historical narratives) should actually be embraced. We should seek to know what kind of literature with which we are dealing. For example, is the Gospel of John genuine historiography? Or is it fictionalized history?(6) Many Christians resist critical analyses of the Bible's historical narratives under the guise of not wanting to compromise their beleifs, but I think it has more to do with being afraid to find out that what they believe is wrong. I say, let your critical analyses determine what you think is true. If your critical analyses shows you that the fall of Jericho didn't happen, then accept that and go from there. If your critical analyses makes you doubt the historicity of the resurrection, study the resurrection and see what you find.

With these considerations, I will now respond to the question posed in the title:

Something I think we need to remember when studying the historicity of biblical narratives is that they approached history-writing in a very different way than we expect and are used to. Robert Alter says that a lot of the Bible's historical narratives are "chronicles of known events variously embroidered with folklore and underscored for theological emphasis."(7) They are "fictionalized history--history in which the feeling and the meaning of events are concretely realized through the technical resources of prose fiction."(8)

That being said, he also states that the "biblical authors [were] of course constantly, urgently conscious of telling a story in order to reveal the imperative truth of God's works in history."(9) The point is, ancient Israelite historiography conveyed what the authors felt was important to know about the past, and that, contrary to our modern beliefs, does not overrule the use of fiction. I don't know how much of the Fall of Jericho story is fictional, or if it even is, but I don't think it matters, as the purpose of the story was not to provide a news report on a military victory.

When it comes to Jesus, I don't know how much, if anything, of the Gospels is fictional or inaccurate, or how much is genuine historicity. What I do believe, and with good reason, is that it captures Christ's mission and message, and that the central events (i.e. his death and resurrection) have genuine historicity. The presence of fictional elements and/or inaccuracies (if they are even present in the text) does not detract from the overall portrait of the historical Jesus. In the painting above, we can tell that it is of some kind of castle overlooking waters with the sun above it. If it were based on a real place, we wouldn't get the most accurate depiction of the scene, but we can see the most significant parts; what more do we need?

Notes:
(1) V. Philips Long, The Art of Biblical History, Vol. 5 of Foundations of Contemporary Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 116.
(2) Ibid.
(3) Ibid., 117.
(4) Ibid., 85.
(5) Ibid., 87.
(6) This is Robert Alter's term. See The Art of Biblical Narrative, rev. ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2011), 47.
(7) Alter, 42.
(8) Ibid., 47.
(9) Ibid., 53.

"He used to be such a fine young Christian": Reflections on Finishing Undergrad

Photo cred: Katie Yaklin

One of my favorite quotes from all of the reading I've done these past few years comes from one of Peter Enns' professors: "For Jews, the Bible is a problem to be solved. For Christians, it is a message to be proclaimed."(1) The fact that I didn't understand this statement the first time I read it is a testament to the evolution of my thinking.

Christians like to package the Bible into creeds, or messages for evangelism, or systematic theologies. I was like this for a long time. I wanted to come to confident conclusions on everything so that I knew what I believed and could share it with others.

In mainstream evangelical American Christianity (I'll say MEAC for short), a lot of emphasis is put on 'knowing what you believe'. You need to know what you believe so you can stand firm in those beliefs when faced with opposing beliefs, in order to avoid losing your faith. I sympathize with this to an extent. The ancient Israelites often forgot their Heilsgeschichte (salvation history) with Yahweh, and started denying it to collude with the religions and cultures of other nations. They needed to know what they believed about Yahweh so that they could faithfully stand firm in their calling and in the relationship with him.

But there is a difference between standing firm in the knowledge of one's history and relationship with God, and standing firm in one's intellectual conclusions so that no re-assessment ever occurs. The latter is intellectually dishonest as it refuses to engage in a genuine search for truth. Something I have learned over and over again the past few years is the need to be humble in making conclusions, because they are always, and always should be, subject to change upon further analysis.

A huge problem I have with MEAC is its suppression of questions and doubt. To the Jews, faith wrestles. Jacob received the name Israel because he wrestled with God! To Christians, questions and doubt are threats; they threaten the established order of Christianity. The faith of MEAC is defined by blind acceptance of unquestionable beliefs, which is not a healthy faith, as humans were not created to be mere yes-men. What such Christians fail to understand is that questions and doubt are keys to becoming more acquainted with God.

One of the biggest lessons I have learned in college is not to be so confident in my conclusions that I never subject them to doubt. Have you ever questioned your view of Scripture? Your stance on homosexuality? Your stance on salvation? Your stance on evolution? The Bible tells us to "test everything; hold fast to what is good, and reject every kind of evil" (1 Thess. 5:21-22); don't condemn people like me for doing this intellectually. Instead, subject everything to critical analysis as well. If you aren't willing to do so, then you might not actually be interested in truth.

"The canonical literature does not offer a settled, coherent account of reality; rather, it provides the materials for ongoing disputatious interpretation." - Walter Brueggemann

(1) See Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 71.