by jimwalton » Fri Jun 18, 2021 3:50 pm
I am glad to continue the conversation, and especially to discuss Jeremiah 19. Jeremiah was written when ancient Israel had become a failed society. They were murdering their own children, abusing the poor, and making a hypocritical charade of their religion, using God to justify their evil. Their leaders were corrupt beyond imagination and the courts were in the pockets of the wealthy. Jeremiah was written to let the people know that their behavior was beyond the pale and God would be bringing their time of evil to an end. Thankfully He's a just judge and doesn't even give His own people a free pass. There was no favoritism with God. But, as you mentioned, you get this part—at least to some extent. You don't seem to realize how bad it was when you make a comment like "harming children." This was far more than harming children.
You pick on verse 9 presumably as the place to claim that God is capable of great evil, and this is where you are not catching on. God is not forcing them to eat their own children. In the ancient Near East, cannibalism existed only in the most desperate time—during times of famine or siege. (Sort of much like when in our world we hear of plane crash victims eating the dead to survive). What God is saying is that when their enemies come upon them with barbarism (as the Babylonians are known from archaeology to have been like), things will be so bad that they will even eat their own. The people will fall by the sword (Jer. 19.7), the city will be destroyed (v. 8), and the people will be at the worst possible level—where they eat their own to survive. God is not saying He will force them to do this; He is saying that this is what the situation will be. In addition, and as further evidence of my position, "eating the flesh of one's own children" was a typical curse form in Mesopotamia. So the "cannibalism" might not even be literal. Instead, it's a statement of God's great displeasure with what they have become. Lamentations 4.5-10 shows the same interpretation, in the form of irony. Lam. 4.5 says they used to eat delicacies; 4.10 says now they eat their children, due to the famine (4.9). It may have been literal. The point is that God is describing the horror that will come upon them because of their sin, not the evil He will perpetrate against them. The Babylonians will perpetrate the evil of siege, destruction, and murder. The people will suffer the result of that in suffering, famine, destitution, and even cannibalism.
Talk back to me.
I am glad to continue the conversation, and especially to discuss Jeremiah 19. Jeremiah was written when ancient Israel had become a failed society. They were murdering their own children, abusing the poor, and making a hypocritical charade of their religion, using God to justify their evil. Their leaders were corrupt beyond imagination and the courts were in the pockets of the wealthy. Jeremiah was written to let the people know that their behavior was beyond the pale and God would be bringing their time of evil to an end. Thankfully He's a just judge and doesn't even give His own people a free pass. There was no favoritism with God. But, as you mentioned, you get this part—at least to some extent. You don't seem to realize how bad it was when you make a comment like "harming children." This was far more than harming children.
You pick on verse 9 presumably as the place to claim that God is capable of great evil, and this is where you are not catching on. God is not forcing them to eat their own children. In the ancient Near East, cannibalism existed only in the most desperate time—during times of famine or siege. (Sort of much like when in our world we hear of plane crash victims eating the dead to survive). What God is saying is that when their enemies come upon them with barbarism (as the Babylonians are known from archaeology to have been like), things will be so bad that they will even eat their own. The people will fall by the sword (Jer. 19.7), the city will be destroyed (v. 8), and the people will be at the worst possible level—where they eat their own to survive. God is not saying He will force them to do this; He is saying that this is what the situation will be. In addition, and as further evidence of my position, "eating the flesh of one's own children" was a typical curse form in Mesopotamia. So the "cannibalism" might not even be literal. Instead, it's a statement of God's great displeasure with what they have become. Lamentations 4.5-10 shows the same interpretation, in the form of irony. Lam. 4.5 says they used to eat delicacies; 4.10 says now they eat their children, due to the famine (4.9). It may have been literal. The point is that God is describing the horror that will come upon them because of their sin, not the evil He will perpetrate against them. The Babylonians will perpetrate the evil of siege, destruction, and murder. The people will suffer the result of that in suffering, famine, destitution, and even cannibalism.
Talk back to me.