An Atheist Explores the Bible Part 156: Schroedinger’s God, Babylonian Conquest and Ebedmelech the Ethiopian Eunuch (Jeremiah 36-40)

Jeremiah 36-40
Schroedinger’s God, Babylonian Conquest and Ebedmelech the Ethiopian Eunuch

Welcome to another instalment of An Atheist Explores Sacred Texts (Bible version).

In this series I work my way chapter-by-chapter through the King James Bible, commenting on it from the point of view of the text as literature and mythology.

For more detail, see the introductory post http://bit.ly/2F8f9JT

For the online KJV I use, see here http://bit.ly/2m0zVUP

And now:

Jeremiah 36

 “Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.”

Back in the reign of Jehoiakim, Jeremiah dictates the words of his prophecy to the scribe Baruch, who then goes and reads it out in public, and to a collection of nobles and princes, including a young Zedekiah. It is implied here that Jeremiah is “shut up”, although where is uncertain if the king later calls for his arrest.

Anyway, the princes advice Baruch and Jeremiah to go into hiding, but they take the scroll to Jehoiakim who is so enraged that he cuts it up with his penknife (which I think we can assume isn’t some Swiss multi-bladed thing) and throws it on the fire, then calls for the arrest of Baruch and Jeremiah. However, everyone roundly ignores him, and later Jeremiah dictates another scroll, which perhaps we can assume is the fore-runner to this whole book.

Aside from Baruch having to explain to the princes how dictation works “He pronounced all these words unto me with his mouth, and I wrote them with ink in the book” (with the unspoken addendum “How else did you think we’d do it you idiots”), this chapter is a good example of the thought that came to me in the course of this book – that of how much free will is involved. The intent is clear; God tells Jeremiah to warn the people to change their ways lest they be destroyed by the Babylonians, so in that there is a real and actual opportunity for them to avoid their fate. But at the same time, if God can see all ends, then He knows that this is a futile task, that the people won’t listen to Jeremiah and the Babylonian exile will be inevitable; in fact necessary to purge the people of their sins. So really, how much agency does anyone have? In this chapter, God only decides to punish Jehoiakim after he burns the scroll. So does God know what Jehoiakim is going to do before-hand or not? At least there’s no hint here as in, say, Exodus or Samuel where God makes a ruling figure (Pharaoh or Saul) refuse to listen, which shifts the agency from them to God. Jehoiakim, and later Zedekiah, seem to be free to make their own choices, even though God still seems to have at least an inkling as to which way they will go. Given that the entire expulsion from Eden involved Adam and Eve becoming aware of the difference between good and evil, it makes more sense that the people ought to be able to make their own choices, and face the consequences, than that it is all pre-ordained. It also makes poor Jeremiah’s function less pointless as well.

But if that is the case, we are faced with the problem of how a God able to see all of time feels the need to pretend that there is a choice. Unless we’re looking at some kind of collapsing wave function thing here – up until Jehoiakim burns the letter there are two possible outcomes, and even God is unable to see which way it will go. Or even a multiverse thing, where there is an alternative world where the Israelites listened to Jeremiah, God relented and there was no exile. And God, being God, exists in both at the same time. Ha! Take that one away with you.

Jeremiah 37

“Then Pharaoh's army was come forth out of Egypt: and when the Chaldeans that besieged Jerusalem heard tidings of them, they departed from Jerusalem.”

And now we jump forwards, to the reign of Zedekiah. This does tie in with the previous chapter, however, in that God foretells that Jehoiakim and his line will no longer rule, and this chapter starts by pointing out that Zedekiah rules instead of Coniah, son of Jehoiakim.

The Babylonians are attacking, but they are driven back at first because the Egyptians are there. Zedekiah sends for Jeremiah to ask him if God will help, and Jeremiah returns his usual cheery prophecy that, no, the city is doomed. I don’t know why these kings keep asking his opinion if they don’t like the answer – Jeremiah is beaten up and stuck in prison because Irijah, captain of the guard, thinks that he’s in league with the Babylonians.

I’ve been wondering about Zedekiah as a king, removing the supernatural elements. Obviously the bible wants us to see him as the archetype of a proud man who refuses to heed the word of God, and pays the price. From a purely political perspective, however, what are his choices. It appears that he’s got the help of Egypt to defend against the Babylonians, although I think the Egyptians have their own agenda, turning Jerusalem into a “protectorate”. He’s got a massive empire wanting to conquer his city – does he surrender or fight? Surrendering a city to an invader in those times seems to generally result in days of raping and plundering, so from that respect he may as well try to fight. I guess it depends on what terms the Babylonians are offering.

I guess the biblical message is that if Zedekiah and the people had listened to Jeremiah and stopped worshipping Baal, God would have given them the strength to defeat the Babylonians, after the super-heroic efforts of the Judges. Perhaps we could look at it that, by losing touch with their old identity, which was closely tied to their true faith, the Israelites had lost the will to put up a spirited defence. People fighting for a religious cause are far more likely to fight against the odds than those who are not, it would seem.

Jeremiah 38

“Therefore the princes said unto the king, We beseech thee, let this man be put to death: for thus he weakeneth the hands of the men of war that remain in this city, and the hands of all the people, in speaking such words unto them: for this man seeketh not the welfare of this people, but the hurt.”

Interesting. Whilst writing the commentary to the last chapter it occurred to me that what Jeremiah is suggesting is appeasement of an invading power, which is pretty much automatically seen as a weak and morally wrong thing. But then is this just testosterone-fuelled nonsense? The Byzantine Empire managed to get by very well by bribing would-be invaders rather than fighting them, and this gave them a reputation for being “effeminate Greeks” amongst neighbouring nations. But they outlasted, say Charlemagne’s “empire” run along more manly lines of constant warfare. So, really, whose judgment call is better?

So Jeremiah is accused of working for the Babylonian cause – “you’re either with us or against us”. Zedekiah pre-figures Pontius Pilate by saying that it is not for the king to decide, so Jeremiah’s accusers throw him into a very unpleasant-sounding cell. Later, however, Ebedmelech the Ethiopian Eunuch pleads on behalf of Jeremiah who is at least moved to a better cell, where he remains until the Babylonians take the city. In between, Jeremiah tries to get Zedekiah to surrender to the Babylonians, but in the end Zedekiah says, essentially, “this conversation never took place” and Jeremiah rather disappointingly goes along with this. I guess the succession of grotty prison cells must have worn him down.

Jeremiah 39

“In the ninth year of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the tenth month, came Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon and all his army against Jerusalem, and they besieged it.”

The Babylonians take Jerusalem and burn it. They carry off the people to slavery, and although Zedekiah and the princes try to escape they are captured. Zedkiah’s sons and the other nobles are killed in front of him, then Zedekiah is blinded and chained up. However, the poor of Jerusalem are spared, and even given fields to tend by the Babylonian captain (presumably, though, to make produce for the Babylonians, not out of the goodness of his heart). Jeremiah is taken by the Babylonians under orders from Nabuchadnezzar not to harm him, and he ends up in the care of Gedaliah the son of Ahikam. Jeremiah also promises Ebedmelech the Ethiopian Eunuch that he will be safe. Not much else for this chapter, except to mention the names of the Babylonian princes; “Nergalsharezer, Samgarnebo, Sarsechim, Rabsaris, Nergalsharezer, Rabmag”. Are there two Nergalsharezers or is this an oversight? “Nergal” is a Babylonian god, so perhaps it means something like “Favoured of Nergal” or similar?

Jeremiah 40

“And Gedaliah the son of Ahikam the son of Shaphan sware unto them and to their men, saying, Fear not to serve the Chaldeans: dwell in the land, and serve the king of Babylon, and it shall be well with you.”

Okay, this expands on the situation at the end of last chapter. Gedaliah is the Babylonian overlord left in charge of Judah, and he comes across here as a pretty fair ruler, allowing the remnant to return to their fields (as I said before I suspect a fairly hefty taxation heading off to Mesopotamia, but no mention of that here). Jeremiah is given the choice by Nebuzaradan, captain of the Babylonian guards: stay behind with Gedeliah or come back to Babylon. Jeremiah chooses to stay.

The last few verses deal with a bit of internecine politics, where Johanon son of Kareah tells Gedeliah that a man named Ishmael has been sent to kill him by Baalis, king of the Ammonites, but Gedeliah brishes him off. Possibly we will learn more next time, but it comes across here as if various factions in the conquered land are trying to use the Babylonians to settle old scores. I like it when these kinds of petty politics crops up.