The concept of the “inner man” and Busskampf in Pietism and its relevance for today’s ministry in Brazil

Introduction
The importance of Pietism to the Church is immensurable. No one denies it, especially when one looks at its influence in all the protestant branches after the time of Reformation. In fact, the Reformation would be incomplete (as many Pietists would claim) if the movement did not come about. Olson in his wonderful book says, “The basic thrust of Pietism was that the Lutheran Reformation had been an excellent beginning of a renewal movement left incomplete.”[1] In other words, even if they highly estimated Luther and his teachings, something was lacking, and that was the Pietistic flavor for the Christian life.
Pietism was not built on new theological arguments, nor on intellectualism, but totally on personal experience with God. This experience, however, would lead people to a more pious way of living. Undoubtedly, this emphasis on experience would raise resistance among other Christians and therefore resulting in persecutions and misunderstanding, especially when one looks at the way Lutherans were establishing their orthodoxy after Martin Luther’s death. “A generation or two after Luther’s death, leading Lutheran theologians began to engage in a project of rational systematizing of doctrine that often included natural theology, Aristotelian logic and extreme fine-tuning and hairsplitting with regard to doctrinal formulations.”[2] Pietism reacted to this type of theology and life. The main most well known Pietists were[3]: Johann Arndt, Philipp Jakob Spener, August Hermann Francke and Nikolaus Ludwig von Zinzendorf.
Unfortunately, the term Pietism continues to have negative connotations for many people in the modern Christian culture. Dale Proulx quoting the Pietist scholar Dale Brown says, “Pietism has been identified negatively as emotionalism, mysticism, rationalism, subjectivism, asceticism, quietism, synergism, chialiasm, moralism, legalism, separatism, individualism, and otherworldliness.”[4]

Conversion experience and inner transformation in Pietism
Pietism is characterized by its emphasis on experience. Not that it rejected Orthodoxy completely; however, it would always give priority to practice. This preference of practice and experience over Orthodoxy would very soon bring conflicts between the Pietists and those who held the conventional view as the correct way to teach and live Christianity. F. Ernest Stoeffler says in his book that, after having received a severe opposition from both theologians and pastors, Francke wrote a sermon blaming Orthodoxy for religious ignorance and moral degradation.[5] In reaction to Francke’s sermon Albrecht Christian Rothe, pastor at St. Ulrich’s Church “hastily put together a manuscript against the major leaders and errors of Pietism and distributed handwritten copies locally.”[6] The question one should ask at this point would be what the teachings of Pietism are and why they raised so much controversy? The answer for this question is worthy of an entire book and goes beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is relevant for this paper the Pietist view of conversion, especially Spener’s idea of the “inner man” and Francke’s doctrine of Busskampf.
Among the several teachings of Pietism, one finds the notion of the “inner man.” The term was probably first used in Spener’s Pia Desideria after his explanation of how theology students should write sermons and what they should focus on while writing them. He then introduces the term as follows: “I shall here gladly pass over additional observations that might well be made about sermons, but I regard this as the principal thing: Our whole Christian religion consists of the inner man or the new man, whose soul is faith and whose expressions are the fruits of life, and all sermons should be aimed at this.”[7] He continues his explanation of the “inner man” by criticizing those who practice their Christianity merely from an external point of view and are not worried about their hearts. For Spener, those who act like this are hypocrites. Sacraments, listening to the Word of God, baptism, prayer and worship are only effective in the life of those who hear and practice them if they allow these rituals to “infiltrate” and hit their hearts. The outward life, therefore, will be the reflection of what is inside, what is in the heart; the outward life will reflect the “inner man.” It is important to understand the distinction that Spener makes between “faith in which we believe” and “faith by which we believe.” A correct understanding may lead one to what is desired by Spener, namely, true knowledge and true faith. “True believers are those who are not only correct in reference to the articles of faith but also in relation to the inner nature of their faith.”[8] Spener ends his explanation of the “inner man” saying, “Since the real power of Christianity consists of this, it would be proper if sermons, on the whole, were pointed in such a direction [toward the inner man]. If this were to happen, much more edification would surely result than is presently the case.”[9] Here, it seems that Spener is again criticizing the current Lutherans’ way of preparing sermons and preaching as not being good enough for the edification of the people.
However, Spener is not the only German Pietist who talks about the work of God in the inner human being. Brown mentions Francke saying that he as well would desire that each Christian lived “a true sense of the gracious operations of the Holy Spirit in our souls, and know experimentally, that God of a truth has erected his Kingdom in our souls, which consists in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”[10] Francke’s notion of conversion is deeply rooted in the concept that new Christians need to go through an experience of genuine rebirth which will lead them to a “lasting new condition.”[11] This experience would inevitably direct them to repentance, and through analogy with the Lutheran traditional sacrament of penance, to the penitential struggle, also called Busskampf.[12] Francke’s biblical basis to support his doctrine is found in Psalm 51 where David sets the example for a genuine repentance. This empirical theology, however, raises several problems, especially when one talks about human relationship with God.
Perhaps the main difference between Spener and Francke is exactly on the subject of conversion. For Spener, conversion may vary from person to person. Some individuals would experience the struggle of repentance whereas others would have an ongoing slow process of conversion.[13] Francke’s Busskampf on the other hand denies the individuality of the human being, and even worse, places God in a box that does not allow Him to deal with His creatures in different ways.
The emphasis on experience has led theologians to charge Pietism with subjectivism, and its doctrine of the “inner man” helped raise anthropocentricism in the church.[14] At this point one must ask if Pietist’s leaders have intentionally focused on man as the center, therefore, building an individualistic view of Christianity, or if Pietism took this direction due to misunderstandings among the common people who received these teachings and applied them wrongly. These are tough questions that one should struggle to answer if he/she wants to profoundly understand this movement. It is very difficult to picture today’s Christianity without the influence of Pietism. Particularly I cannot think of Christianity apart from feelings, a certain dosage of emotion and personal relationship and experience with Jesus Christ. Christianity apart from this “subjectivism” can become very dry and lifeless. Unfortunately, some leaders can take the good and beautiful doctrines of Pietism and use them to manipulate people. I now want to focus this paper to my personal experience with Pietism in Brazil as well as to the consequences of the misuse of this doctrine in the midst of the church. I also want to look back to the roots of Pietism and try to find in it the healing for the church today in my own country if used in a correctly balanced way.

Relevance of Pietism to Pastoral Ministry in Brazil
Pietism in Brazil is by default the way most people practice their Christianity. The largest evangelical Christian groups in the nation are the Pentecostals and Neo-Pentecostals. Even the Catholic Church, in order to not lose more of its members, went through several changes to adapt to these social religious circumstances. Philip Jenkins in his prophetic book The Next Christendom[15] shows the massive movement of Christianity from the northern to the southern hemisphere. According to U.S. government statistics, in 2050, the countries of the African continent as well as Latin America will have an extraordinary increase of their Christian population. When one looks particularly to Brazil, however, the numbers are astonishing. Jenkins says, “Today, about 75 percent of Brazil’s population is reported as Catholic, while a further 20 percent are Protestant or Pentecostal.” Brazil grew from a population estimated at 53 million people in 1950 to 170 million in 2000. Along with this enormous population growth comes evangelical community growth. For Jenkins, the number of Protestants in Brazil in 2050 can reach half of the Brazilian population; however, he is clear that this prediction is an extrapolation of the existing statistics for the country. He concludes his analysis of the evangelical growth rate in Brazil by saying, “That Brazil will be a key center of world Christianity is beyond doubt, but the precise contours of its religious life are unknowable.”
With all this being said, one must look now at the way Christianity is being practiced in the country. Unfortunately, numeric increase does not represent an increase of sound doctrine or pious life; the opposite is most likely and it is what is actually happening. Pietism in this case plays a major role, though. If one uses the doctrines set up by Francke and Spener soundly, he/she will obtain great benefits related to life transformation; however, if these doctrines are misapplied, the consequences are tragic and dangerous to the human soul. Today in Brazil, we find Neo-Pentecostals as the major example of Pietism’s misuse. They use religious experience and feelings as a way to brainwash people and make them accept erroneous views of Christian doctrines. Neo-Pentecostals are against any other religious groups, including other types of Christianity. They have built an “empire” through television and radio evangelism, following the model of American televangelists. Indeed, religious emotionalism is very much used, but as I said, to exploit people’s faith.
Several traditional churches have opposed Neo-Pentecostal practices in the country. However, at the same time that opposition raises up against these strange practices, many others have shaped their own theology to “accommodate” this new “methodology” that increases the attendance of the church. Indeed, fanaticism and many other “isms” can appear if Pietism is used for personal purposes. The correct way to use Pietism, though, as Brown puts it is “much more the appropriation of [experience] than the substitution for revelation.”[16]
This is, however, the approach I want to have in my own ministry, when thinking about conversion experience, for instance. I want to teach my congregation the importance of experience as part of Christian life, not as the ultimate goal to be achieved. Seeing experience this way would prevent several misinterpretations and misuses of the doctrine of the “inner man” and Busskampf.
One of the main emphases of my ministry will be concerning the human heart as the way Christians should perceive reality. The Bible uses the analogy of the heart in many occasions in both Old Testament and New Testament (Ez. 11:19, Ps 51:17, 1Pe 3:15, Eph 6:6). Heart and inner man are almost synonymous, as we find in the New Bible Dictionary:
“The contrast in view is rather that between the ‘outward appearance’ and the ‘heart’ drawn in 1 Sam. 16:7: ‘inner man’ and ‘heart’ are, indeed, almost synonymous. This contrast reflects two facts. First, God, the searcher of hearts, sees things in a man that are hidden from his fellows, who see only his exterior (1 Sa. 16:7; Mt. 23:27 and Peter’s assertion that meekness and quietness adorn ‘the hidden person of the heart’, which God notices, if men do not, 1 Pet. 3:3f.). Secondly, God’s renewal of sinners in Christ is a hidden work (Col. 3:3f.), of which human observers see only certain of the effects (cf. Jn. 3:8). The sphere of character, and of the Spirit’s transforming work, is not the outward, but the inner man. The exact point of the contrast differs in each of the three texts.”[17]

I am not, however, despising human intellect. I find Paul in Romans 12 encouraging his brethren to have a rational faith as a mean of transformation. Therefore, to find reality in our hearts simply means that we need to live this life not as if there were only physical and material realms, but instead, we should live assured that there is something beyond, even if we cannot see it. We must know about it in our hearts or even feel it in our inner man. For example, let me say I have a friend who is not a Christian, and we went through a very hard experience in life having both lost our sons. My son was a faithful Christian as I am. I taught my son to live a pious and just life. My friend, even though was not a Christian, was a good person. Yet, he did not have Christian notions of salvation and eternal life and neither had his son. We both grieved over our sons’ deaths and we both suffered from this experience. Let me say that five years have passed since our sons died, and I am comforted in the Lord that my son is with Him and that one day I will have the chance to see my boy again. However, my friend continues grieving over his son’s death. His life is miserable, flooded with sadness and sorrow. Am I insensitive to my son’s death if I feel comforted by the Lord and believe that my son is in a better place than I am? Is my friend acting more parent-like because he could not overcome the pain of losing his son? The answer for both questions is no! The difference between my friend and me relies on the way we perceive the world, through which lens we observe reality. I look at reality through the lens of my heart (inner man, my belief system), and my friend through the lens of his intellect alone (his belief system). The above invented story gives the right illustration for what I mean by seeing reality through the heart.
When one comes to the matter of conversion, I see in Pietism another great way to distinguish true from false conversion. Again, I find in the Neo-Pentecostal churches the corruption of what is believed to be Christian conversion. A famous pastor in Brazil wrote a book against Neo-Pentecostalism in Brazil titled Conversão ou adesão, (conversion or adhesion). I found the title very relevant, especially when one looks at how the pastors of these types of churches treat their members. Basically, the leaders of Neo-Pentecostal churches will treat anyone who gives to their church as members of the church and/or faithful Christians. Hence, repentance and conversion are not required anymore, but instead, regular giving is enough to make you a good Christian. That is why the term “adherence” or “adhesion” is more appropriate to the members of those churches than “conversion”. It would not be an issue if this only happened in isolated locations and with the reach of few people. However, we are talking about today’s biggest denomination in Brazil (even bigger than the Assemblies of God), who owns the second largest national television, who has representatives in all levels of the government and who is influencing the non-Christian society to look at them as evangelical Christians. So, if you talk to non-Christians and ask them who the evangelicals of the country are, they will automatically point to the Neo-Pentecostals. For these and several other reasons, it is extremely important to set a division between who are true believers and who are not in this extremely confusing multi denominational Christian spectrum.
Francke’s Busskampf becomes tremendously relevant in a context such as the one described above. Not that I particularly think every Christian should struggle while experiencing conversion, but at least a divisor mark should be established. I am not advocating a moralist “before Christ/after Christ” type of experience, such as, “I used to dance, drink alcohol, and have sex with my girlfriend, and now I am free from all of the above; they are sins and I do not practice them anymore.” No, this is not the type of conversion I think Francke taught. Perhaps, he intended to teach this (not exactly as described above), however, it is not the way I see it. My understanding of Pietism looks at conversion as a human’s inner understanding of a profound encounter with Jesus Christ and consequently with himself as a sinner who needs a savior. After this encounter (with Christ and himself), the person may or may not struggle. Each person reacts differently to the grace of God. But even those who do not struggle will realize that something has happened in their lives. They will see things differently, they will be enlightened by the Spirit of God, and they will be raised from spiritual deadness. When a person experiences this type of conversion, he/she can say as Paul said, “For me, living is Christ and dying is gain.” This conversion must lead the person to practical living. At this point, I recognize my theology as profoundly influenced by Pietist thought. Yes, orthopraxis as opposed to a mere orthodoxy is also part of my theology. I strongly believe that orthodoxy alone is hazardous as well as orthopraxy alone. So, one must balance both orthodoxy and orthopraxy to achieve stability in Christian life. Neo-Pentecostals, however, are not completely devoid of orthopraxy. They indeed act to make their Christianity known. They evangelize, pray for and act toward the poor, etc. The problem, however, would be the motivations for such actions. The retribution theology of the Old Testament plays a great role in Neo-Pentecostal prosperity gospel. The reason for orthopraxy, however, can never be motivated by a retribution that God may give to those who are faithful. Orthopraxy should be the result of the conversion of the heart. A genuine convert will practice his/her Christianity always out of love, in obedience to God’s word, and never expecting to receive anything in exchange.
Again, one should always look for balance in all areas of life, including Christianity. It would not be different with Pietism. I strongly believe in Pietism and in its claim, but not without also considering other aspects of Christian life. A sound balance of teaching and experiencing, doctrine and practice, knowledge and piety, would transform the lives of many Brazilians who are today being deceived by this terrible Neo Pentecostal movement. A sound Christian means a sound society, and a sound society means a better world.

[1] Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology : Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform (Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1999), 473.
[2] Ibid, 475.
[3] Ibid, 477-482
[4] Dale Proulx, "A Pietist Model for the Renewal of the Church [Microform]" (Ph.D. diss., Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, 2002), 10.
[5] Fred Ernest Stoeffler, German Pietism during the Eighteenth Century (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 60.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Philipp Jakob Spener, Pia Desideria (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964), 116.
[8] Dale W. Brown, Understanding Pietism (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1978), 111.
[9] Ibid, 117.
[10] Ibid, 102.
[11] Carter Lindberg, The Pietist Theologians : An Introduction to Theology in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries (Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2005), 107.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Brown, Understanding Pietism, 117.
[14] Ibid, 118.
[15] Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom : The Coming of Global Christianity (Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 89-92.
[16] Brown, Understanding Pietism, 119.
[17]Wood, D. R. W.: New Bible Dictionary. InterVarsity Press, 1996, c1982, c1962, S. 506

Bibliography

Atwood, Craig D. Community of the Cross : Moravian Piety in Colonial Bethlehem. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2004.

Bloesch, Donald G. The Evangelical Renaissance. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973.

Brown, Dale W. Understanding Pietism. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1978.

Douglas, J. D. The New Bible Dictionary. Consulting Editors: F. F. Bruce [and Others. 1st ed. ed. London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1962.

Erb, Peter C. Pietists : Selected Writings. New York: Paulist Press, 1983.

Jenkins, Philip. The Next Christendom : The Coming of Global Christianity. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Landes, Wallace B.,. "A 'More Christ-Like Community': An Outline for Radical Pietism Reinterpreted." Brethren Life and Thought 50, no. 3 (2005): 150-163.

Lindberg, Carter. The Pietist Theologians : An Introduction to Theology in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub., 2005.

Mulholland, Kenneth B. "From Luther to Carey : Pietism and the Modern Missionary Movement." Bibliotheca Sacra 156, no. 621 (1999): 85-95.

Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology : Twenty Centuries of Tradition & Reform. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity Press, 1999.

Proulx, Dale. "A Pietist Model for the Renewal of the Church [Microform]." Ph.D. diss., Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton, MA, 2002.

Prout, William Cardwell. "Spener and the Theology of Pietism." Journal of Bible and Religion 15, no. 1 (Jan. 1947): 46-49. Spener, Philipp Jakob. Pia Desideria. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964.

Stoeffler, Fred Ernest. German Pietism during the Eighteenth Century. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Tipson, Baird. "How can the Religious Experience of the Past be Recovered? the Examples of Puritanism and Pietism." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 43, no. 4 (Dec. 1975): 695-707.

Note: Copy of this material is allowed and free, since the source is cited / A reprodução dos textos é permitida e gratuita, desde que citada a fonte.

Rodrigo Serrao

Jeremiah 20:7-18 - Exegetical Paper

1) Introduction
The idea of a merciful and loving God that allows His people to suffer is not easy to digest. Theodicy has always been a topic of hot debate among scholars. Evil as such, however, is still considered a mystery. On the other hand, suffering is spread into all levels of society. Violence, death and pain can be greatly appreciated by almost all audiences in movies all over the world. People are used to seeing suffering through the television on daily news reports as well as on the streets of any small, medium or large city.
Jeremiah 20:7-18 gives us the greatest opportunity to understand suffering in the lives of people who are called by God to serve Him, to spread His message, and do His will. It seems paradoxical to see the great number of biblical characters who at some point of their lives went through great trials and tribulations. This paradox is also true in Jeremiah’s life. He is called at a very young age to “root out and to pull down, to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant” (Jer. 1.10b). Jeremiah is advised by God about the people’s resistance to the message he is going to deliver. Verse 19 of chapter 1 says: “They will fight against you, but they shall not prevail against you. For I am with you, says the Lord, to deliver you.”
Part of Jeremiah’s sufferings has to do with the consequences of the message of judgment he is proclaiming against Israel. This type of suffering is very different from that experienced by Job, for instance. In Job’s case, suffering comes from a decision from God after a conversation with the devil. In Jeremiah’s, suffering comes from people’s reaction to God’s word.
At this point, questions are inevitable. The first question to ask would be, why does God allow people to suffer, especially those He chose to serve Him? An important question though would be, is there a purpose for suffering? And if so, what is this purpose? A final question would be, where is God when His servant is suffering?
In this exegesis we will deal in details with all the nuances of Jeremiah’s lament in chapter 20, verses 7-18.

2) The Biblical Text
Due to the size of this pericope and the study of form criticism, this text is usually subdivided into at least two[1] major poems. The first poem goes from verses 7-13, which includes Jeremiah’s laments, and the second, from verses 14-18 containing the prophet’s curses. In the NKJV we read:
PART I
O LORD, You induced me, and I was persuaded;
You are stronger than I, and have prevailed.
I am in derision daily;
Everyone mocks me.
For when I spoke, I cried out;
I shouted, “Violence and plunder!”
Because the word of the LORD was made to me
A reproach and a derision daily.
Then I said, “I will not make mention of Him,
Nor speak anymore in His name.”
But His word was in my heart like a burning fire
Shut up in my bones;
I was weary of holding it back,
And I could not.
For I heard many mocking:
“Fear on every side!”
“Report,” they say,
“and we will report it!”
All my acquaintances watched for my stumbling, saying,
“Perhaps he can be induced;
Then we will prevail against him,
And we will take our revenge on him.”
But the LORD is with me as a mighty, awesome One.
Therefore my persecutors will stumble, and will not prevail.
They will be greatly ashamed,
for they will not prosper.
Their everlasting confusion will never be forgotten.
But, O LORD of hosts,
You who test the righteous,
And see the mind and heart,
Let me see Your vengeance on them;
For I have pleaded my cause before You.
Sing to the LORD! Praise the LORD!
For He has delivered the life of the poor
From the hand of evildoers.
(NKJV 7-13)

The form of this section more likely follows the pattern below:[2]
v. 7aa - address
vv. 7-10 - lament
v. 11aa - confession of trust or confidence
vv. 11ab - 11bb - certainty of being heard
v. 12a - confession of trust
v. 12ba - petition
v.12bb - confession of trust
v. 13 - praise

Drinkard, Craigie, and Kelley suggest the follow chiastic structure for this passage:[3]

A Complaint against Yahweh (vv. 7-9)
B Complaint against “enemies” (v. 10)
C Assurance: Yahweh is with me (v. 11a)
B’ Fall of the “enemies” (v. 11b-d)
C’ Assurance: Yahweh sees the heart (v.12a)
B’’ Vengeance on “enemies” (v. 12b)
A’ Praise of Yahweh for deliverance (v. 13)

In verse 7, the NIV reads “O LORD, you have deceived me.” The Hebrew verb here is patah. Apparently, the word deceive does not sound too good when applied to God. So, the NIV footnoted it, trying to explain that the meaning of the Hebrew text is very broad and can be also translated as persuaded. The NIV probably follows the same pattern of the KJV and the NASB, where the word deceived is also used. For Brueggemann, however, the verb deceived “could be rendered more strongly as harassed, taken advantage of, abused, even raped.”[4] This sexual oriented interpretation, although popular among scholars, is not unanimous.[5]
The next verb in this same verse is hazaq. The meaning here is of overpower, according to NRSV, NIV, JB, and of being strong, according to NAB, NRSV.[6]
Verse 10, the Hebrew word for fear on every side (NKJV, KJV) is m­­agor missabib, and is probably referred to a nickname given to Jeremiah.[7] Here is probably the mocking word that Jeremiah refers to in verse 7. The NIV, Today’s NIV, and NASB translate it as terror on every side.
In verse 11, Jeremiah appeals to the mighty (NKJV), expressing his confidence in God. This verse is usually titled as Jeremiah’s confession of confidence.[8] Other Bible versions vary on the designation given to God, for instance, the KJV states, mighty terrible one, the NASB says, dread champion, the NIV and Today’s NIV says, mighty warrior.
Verse 12 is almost identical to Jeremiah’s 11.20. Here, all versions translate the verb as vengeance. There is no variation on this translation.

PART II
Cursed be the day in which I was born!
Let the day not be blessed
in which my mother bore me!
Let the man be cursed
Who brought news to my father, saying,
“A male child has been born to you!”
Making him very glad
And let that man be like the cities
Which the LORD overthrew, and did not relent;
Let him hear the cry in the morning
And the shouting at noon,
Because he did not kill me from the womb,
That my mother might have been my grave,
And her womb always enlarged with me.
Why did I come forth from the
womb to see labor and
sorrow,
That my days should be consumed with shame?
(NKJV 14-18)

Once again, the form suggested by Diamond[9] will be used:
vv. 14-15 - doubled curse formula
v. 16 - curse developments
vv. 17-18 - curse substantiations

Again, the chiastic structure of the trio Drinkard, Craigie, and Kelley will be used:[10]

A Curse on the day of birth (v. 14)
B Curse on messenger (v. 15)
B’ Motivation directed against messenger (v. 17)
A’ Lament on birth (v. 18)

This passage is a target of much debate. Several interpretations have been suggested, including “self-hatred or self-loathing and self-curse.”[11] However, we will not enter into matters of interpretation at this point. By now, it is important to say that Jeremiah’s curses are neither directed to God nor to himself, but to both the day he is born and the messenger who brings the news of his birth.[12]
In order to have a better understanding of the text critical readers need to look at the nuances of different translations. According to Fretheim, “the verbs beginning the two halves of v.16 are often translated as jussives [“let…”], following the LXX rather than the Hebrew.”[13] The NIV and Today’s NIV do not translate let, but instead, may, indicating that its translation comes from the Masoretic text. On the other hand, the KJV, NKJV, and NASB, follow the Greek text (LXX), and translate the verb as let, instead of may.
Fretheim also points out that “as for the last line in v. 14, it can be translated, it could never be blessed, or similar. These translations would support the understanding that Jeremiah’s use of the word cursed (in vv. 14-15) is a declaration, not a petition or desire.”[14]

3) The World of the Text
Due to several factors (length, complexity, literary structure, etc), it is very difficult to find the author of the book of Jeremiah. Added to all the difficulties found in the book, there are two traditions of the book or two ancient versions of Jeremiah. Another great challenge of the book of Jeremiah is with regard to the prophet himself. All those who want to take the book of Jeremiah seriously, must take the man (prophet) Jeremiah seriously as well.
For the purposes of this paper, we need to expand a little more about these two great challenges that one faces when approaching the book of Jeremiah: the Greek (LXX) and Hebrew (MT) versions of the book, and the book of Jeremiah versus the historical Jeremiah.

3.1) Masoretic (MT) vs. Septuagint (LXX)
First of all readers need to understand, beforehand, that these two versions of the book are authoritative and trustworthy versions of the Old Testament. According to Stulman, the two traditions share a common line until they separate in two branches.[15] He then goes on to explain that due to the expansion of the MT tradition, the Hebrew text is longer than the LXX (which contains approximately three thousand fewer words).[16] “The Greek text is one-eight shorter than the Hebrew text, sometimes omitting a word or phrase found in MT and sometimes omitting entire passages.”[17] Bright gives us a detailed example of how the texts are placed in the LXX, taking chapter 25:1-13a, as an example:
“This is even more apparent in the Septuagint text…which, having omitted all reference to Babylon in the preceding verses, concludes vs. 13 at this point and then, omitting vs. 14 entirely, inserts between vv. 13 and 15 the whole of chapters 46-51 (in different order).”[18] Here, one has a clear picture of how the two texts are intrinsically connected, however, with the sequence of narratives totally modified.
For Bright, the cautious reader will notice that the book of Jeremiah is composed of several shorter books plus miscellaneous materials. Expanding this thought, Carroll mentions that “the 52 chapters of Jeremiah form a series of independent elements”[19]; he then suggests a four parts division for the book:
“1 and 52 form prologue and epilogue…; 2:1-3 are a preface to the ‘books’ contained in Part I (2-25) and especially to the first collections of poems in 2-6 (made up of smaller collections...) further collections are constituted by 7:1 – 10:25; 11:1 – 13:27; 14:1 – 17:27; 18:1 – 20:18; with an appendix to Part I in 21:1 – 24:10 and a concluding summary in 25:1-14; Part II begins in 25:15 – 38 (here MT and G differ in order of sequence) and is continued in 46 – 51; Part III (26 – 36) is made up of two collections 27 – 29 and 30 – 31 (appendices in 32 – 33) and a series of individual narratives in 26, 34, 35, 36; Part IV (37 – 45) consists of 37 – 38; 39:1 – 40:6; 40:7 – 41:18; 42 – 44; 45.”[20]

3.2) The Historical Jeremiah
Although the term “historical Jeremiah” is not appropriated, some theologians have found parallels between the “hunt” for the historical Jesus with that of the historical Jeremiah.[21] In order to simplify this matter, one needs to understand that there is a difference between the book of Jeremiah and the prophet named Jeremiah. The message of the book has only a few autobiographical data (see the so-called Confessions of Jeremiah), and it is not intended to give attention to the life of the prophet. “Viewed as biography, the Book of Jeremiah would be incomplete, inadequate, unchronological, and generally unsatisfactory.”[22] When one looks to the superscription of the book (1:1-3), one will notice that Jeremiah was a priest from the village of Anathoth and his role as prophet last for approximately forty years (627-587). However, the Book of Jeremiah takes shape after this period. It addresses the people in captivity during the Babylonian exile. Regarding this, Stulman states, “one of the book’s central claims is that the future of Israel lies with the Jewish community in Babylon, and not with those left behind in Judah or with Judeans who eventually settled in Egypt.”[23] In other words, the historical context of the writer(s) gives shape and content to the book as well as meaning for those who first read it.

4) The Historical Background
For the purpose of this work, the historical background will not be extended. A basic historical account fulfills what is expected.[24]
Before the Babylonians take control of the region, Assyria is the super dominant power. Israel has been decimated by the Assyrians, and Judah was in servitude to them. However, things started changing for Judah, when during the course of the seventh century the Assyrians begin losing their power and finally collapse in 612 BCE at the battle of Nineveh.
Under King Josiah, important actions are taken to reverse the pro-Assyrian policies of King Manasseh. Among these reforms to restore the national identity of Judah are the efforts to repair the temple, the centralization of worship in Jerusalem, the restoration of “the book of the law” to a place of importance among the people, and the reduction of foreign influence. In light of these reforms, a new expectation of independence arises among the people. Judah indeed experiences during the final years of Josiah (622-609), a time of stability and autonomy.
However, during a battle against the Egyptians in Megiddo (609), Josiah is killed, and with his death, the hopes of an even brighter future to the people ended. Egypt takes control of Judah, and appoints Jehoiakim as king, deporting Johoahaz, who is Josiah’s successor. From Johoiakim on, a series of pathetic kings change positions in the throne of Judah. At this point, Babylon appears as the new superpower nation subjugating all surrounding countries, including Egypt and its allies.
Due to Jehoiakim’s rebellion, Babylon moves towards Jerusalem and eventually conqueres Judah. The king dies during the siege, and Jehoiachin becomes the king for a short period of time. The new king along with many authorities of the city is taken captive to Babylon. In captivity, Jehoiachin “remained the titular head of the Israel”[25]; however, his uncle Zedekiah is appointed by Nabuchadrezzar as king of Judah.
The newly appointed king destroys the rest of what formerly was Judah. The relation between Judah and Babylon gradually becomes worse. Jeremiah’s advice to the king to submit is ignored, and many alliances are made in order to break free from Babylonian control. Stulman says that, “in 589 Zedekiah declared Judah’s independence.”[26] All this together raises the fury of Babylon toward Judah, and a new attack happens. Babylonians destroys the city and the temple and send more people to exile.
Another leader is appointed by the Babylonian emperor, and Gedaliah becomes the governor of Judah. Jeremiah, who is not taken into captivity, stays in Judah helping those who are left in the land. Unfortunately the good work of Gedaliah is abruptly interrupted by a group of anti-Babylonian zealots who kill him. At this point, more Judeans are exiled and others flee to Egypt. Jeremiah and Baruch are forcefully taken with them to Egypt.

5) The text
Jeremiah 20:7-18 is the last of the prophet’s “confessions.” Prior to chapter 20, he has already spoken in similar ways in chapters 11:18 – 12:6; 15:10-21; 17:12-18; and 18:18-23. However, before getting into the “world of the text,” it is important to note the immediate context in which this pericope is inserted.
The main character in verses 1-6 of Jeremiah 20 is a man named Pashhur. Pashhur is a priest and chief officer in the temple. One of his duties is to maintain order in the house of the Lord. The words of doom from Jeremiah are hard enough, for Pashhur commands him to be beaten and put in the stocks at the upper Benjamin gate. Perhaps, one of the reasons for Jeremiah’s confession would be his public persecutions such as this. After one day in the stocks, Jeremiah is released, however, instead of going his way, he continues with his disturbing message. He now directs his message to Pashhur himself, saying that the Lord has given him a new name, Magor-missabib, which means, terror all around, the same name which Jeremiah is called in verse 10. The meaning of Pashhur’s new name is explained by the prophet from verses 4-6. From this point, Jeremiah introduces Babylon as the one who will really terrorize Israel. In verse 6, Pashhur is told that he, his family and friends will all go into exile and there, they all will die.
After this exchange between Jeremiah and Pashhur, one comes to find the text of lament. The relationship between the events previously described in verses 1-6 and what follows is very close. However, one cannot limit the motives of Jeremiah’s last confession to only this event with Pashhur. The prophet’s last lament is a combination of all his sufferings during his life as prophet.
As formerly mentioned, the text is commonly divided into two parts. In the first part, one finds Jeremiah’s laments (7-12) as well as a call to praise (13). In the second part, one finds a series of curses spoken by the prophet to particular situations of his life (14-18).
Several attempts to interpret Jeremiah’s confessions have already been made. The different interpretations vary from Jeremiah’s vocational crisis[27] to an expression of faith instead of despair.[28]

5.1) Jeremiah 20:7-12, (13)
Perhaps one of the most intriguing aspects of this first part of Jeremiah’s confessions would be the words used by the prophet. As mentioned already in the beginning of this paper, some of the words used by Jeremiah toward God can be understood as loaded with sexual connotations. This view, although accepted, is not held by all exegetes. Among those scholars who defend a different interpretation of the Hebrew word patah, one finds Kathleen M. O’Connor. O’Connor recognizes that the verb can have sexual implications, but only in three passages (out of many uses in the Old Testament) that the word must be translated and understood as regarding to sexuality (Ex. 22:15; Hos. 2:14; Jb 31:9).[29] She then explains that the stem of the Hebrew word is what makes it possible to understand patah as not having sexual terms. She says:
“There are only six instances, all in the hiphil stem, where patah carries a sexual connotation…, but in Jer 20:7 patah appears in the Qal stem. Nowhere in Qal or Piel stems does patah have anything to do with sexual imagery. Instead, it conveys the basic idea of strength modified according to a variety of situations…”[30]
For O’Connor, the right interpretation of patah, considering the context, is of deceiving and making Jeremiah a false prophet by domination and superior strength.[31] Diamond also agrees with this domination motif in the beginning of Jeremiah’s lament. He says, “The prophet protest at this domination by Yahweh (v.7) against whom he cannot prevail (v.9).”[32] For Brueggemann, Jeremiah is in a very difficult situation, due to Yahweh’s great power. Jeremiah, on one hand, cannot stop speaking because of the burning of God’s word within him; on the other hand, whenever he speaks, he is considered a laughingstock, mocked by everyone. And in both situations, according to Brueggemann, Yahweh does not do anything either to support or to console the prophet.[33] Fretheim corroborates this view saying, “…God has called him [Jeremiah] into a vocation wherein he feels trapped, caught in the middle, squeezed between these two parties that have quite different ‘agendas.’”[34]
In verse 10, Jeremiah hears the whisper of many (probably a conspiracy[35]) saying terror on every side; the same Hebrew word Magor-missabib that he had directed toward Pashhur, is now being turned back to the prophet himself. He becomes a target of jokes and persecutions. His persecutors want to overpower and revenge the prophet due to his words of judgment. In reaction to his persecutors, the prophet has no other option other than trusting in Yahweh. This trust comes alive in verse 11, where the prophet brings the warrior motif to the surface. Yahweh is the mighty terrible one, the dread champion, the mighty warrior. Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard observe that the Hebrew word which here is translated as dread champion is usually used elsewhere to refer to enemies and/or the wicked. Only here, in verse 11 (out of the entire Old Testament) this word is used as a reference to Yahweh. This ambiguous word is probably used as an expression of the prophet’s ambiguity towards Yahweh. However, Yahweh is not the enemy, as the prophet might have thought, but his deliverer. Now, the enemies of the prophet would stumble and not prevail against him. They would be ashamed and disgraced forever.
In chapter 12, we find the continuation of Jeremiah’s prayer. In this prayer, one finds a declaration affirming Yahweh’s justice toward those who are righteous and obey Him: “You who test the righteous, who see the mind and the heart (v. 12).” The prophet knows how he has conducted his life regarding the fulfillment of his calling. He is honest enough to lift his voice toward Yahweh saying what is going on in his heart, saying even that he wants to give up his calling, but that he cannot do so due to Yahweh’s power and dominion. For this reason, it is the time for Yahweh to show His vengeance toward those who are mocking not only the prophet, but also, the message that he is proclaiming, which comes directly from above, and ultimately mocking Yahweh.
Verse 13 is a doxology. Some exegetes consider it not part of the original poem.[36] The hymnic elements of this verse, according to Brueggemann, give enough ground for assuming that it is an addition.[37] Despite the conclusions one may find among some scholars, this verse smoothly fits in between the two parts of the prophet’s lament. Jones explains this verse, making a distinction between the poor and the evildoers. In the Psalms, we find poor or needy as a reference to faithful Israel, whereas the evildoers are the enemies of the nation. Jeremiah, in appropriating these words, is saying that he is the only representative of Yahweh, identifying with the poor ones; those who are mocking him are the enemies of Yahweh.[38]

5.2) Jeremiah 20:14-18
This second portion of Jeremiah’s confession radically differs from the first one. While most of the biblical texts initiate a new topic after a doxology, here, Jeremiah goes back to a series of new complaints. In order to harmonize this tension, a few scholars have proposed the inversion of the parts, having verses 14-18 followed by 7-13.[39] However, in this passage, the prophet does not have his enemies as the target of his lament, but instead he is lamenting the day that he is born and the messenger who brings the news of his birth to his father. Several suggestions have been given to explain the motivations of Jeremiah to speak these words. O’Connor suggests that Jeremiah’s misery or his life of misery, trouble and grief is the main reason for his laments.[40] She uses Jeremiah’s same motif in his second confession (15:10) to explain her position. For her, “This diversion of attention from the birth to the problem of Jeremiah’s wearisome life indicates that the real issue in these two texts is not Jeremiah’s birth but his life.”[41] Carroll gives three possible interpretations for this passage. First, he suggests that Jeremiah’s curse is a lament over a terrible disaster, “a cry of utter despair over the fate of the people and the city.”[42] To support this interpretation, he uses Job 3 as a parallel to Jeremiah 20:14-18.[43]
Job 3: 1, 3, 4, 8 Reference to the day of birth Jeremiah 20:14
Job 3:3 Birth announced, specifically of a male Jeremiah 20:15
Job 3:10 Reference to remaining in womb Jeremiah 20:17, 18
Job 3:11 Reference to death “from” the womb Jeremiah 20:17
Job 3:20ff The question why Jeremiah 20:18

Carroll’s second suggested interpretation relates to Jerusalem’s destruction. For him, verses 14-18 find support in v. 16 and its reference to Sodom and Gomorrah. However, in this passage, the prophet is changing the normal use of Sodom and Gomorrah in prophetic literature, from a situation related to Jerusalem’s wicked leaders to a more literal sense of city destruction. Perhaps Fretheim disagrees with Carroll when he suggests that “cities” mentioned in v.16 is related to Judah and not to Sodom and Gomorrah. Fretheim says, that “these cities are named elsewhere in Jeremiah (23:14; 49:18; 50:40) [italics in the original]”[44] Fretheim uses the argument that Exilic readers, and possibly other audiences, would not see Sodom and Gomorrah as the cities mentioned by Jeremiah. Carroll’s third and last suggestion is that verses 14-18 relates to Jeremiah’s self-curse. For him, this interpretation is to be considered the least of all three, due to several difficulties found when one links the laments to the life of the prophet.[45]
There are several interpretations of this passage, trying to find the more accurate background which plays a pivotal role in discovering the truth. However, as Craigie, Kelley and Drinkard say, “the setting for this pericope is ambiguous.”[46] Some place it around 605-604 BCE, when Jeremiah’s life is being threatened by Jehoiakim. It can be also placed in 587 BCE during the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem/Judah. Another suggestion relates the passage to the last days of Jeremiah, when he is forced to go into exile to Egypt. A final interpretation places this pericope as part of Pashhur incident (vv. 1-6) and the prophet’s response to humiliation.[47]
The pericope ends with a question “Why?” and shifts Jeremiah’s thought from the past to the present. This is a question without answer, a question of a desperate man who is suffering the consequences of being an instrument of God, a question of a desperate prophet. As Brueggemann puts it, “it is the ‘why’ of being given a burden of ‘plucking up and tearing down,’ a message completely (and predictably) resisted.”[48] Only God could answer Jeremiah’s question, however, it seems that He chose not to.

6) Contemporary Application
Jeremiah’s lament is the main proof that there is no superman in the Bible. The prophet as any other person is struggling between obeying God and standing right before Him or giving up His calling to live an average life. However, what makes this more interesting is the fact that even if the prophet wants to escape and run away from the presence of the Lord, he cannot not do so, because his “heart becomes like a burning fire” (v. 9b). The prophet’s overwhelming situation, however, does not take from him the passion for God and the certainty in his heart that God is still with him, battling his battles, protecting him from his enemies.
Jeremiah’s struggle is the same struggle faced by all who are called to the ministry. It is not easy to serve a Holy God in the midst of a wicked people. It demands faith, grace, endurance, love, hope, and patience in order to fulfill the word of God to its full. One cannot forget that the nature of those who are called by God is the same as those who are receiving the message, which means corrupted. Several of our day’s leaders are finding the pressure of ministry just too much. Many of them are overwhelmed with tasks and duties and are not being able to fulfill God’s word. Several others are being targets of criticism and gossip and are getting close to burnout.
Jeremiah’s confession comes like a balsam to all those who are struggling with their callings. This includes all those who are thinking about giving up, as well as those who are cursing God for having received such a difficult mission.
Nevertheless, we cannot limit the outreach of these verses to only those called to the ministry. Jeremiah’s lament reaches all righteous people, all those who suffer persecution just for the sake of God’s justice and righteousness. The theme of theodicy permeates the entire Bible. From Joseph to David and from Elijah to Jeremiah,[49] we find righteous people suffering and encountering evil. The history of the church also bears witness to the suffering of those who did not negate their faith. “The English term martyr is based on the Greek word for those who ‘bear witness’ in times of persecution.”[50] And finally, as our greatest model for suffering, we find Jesus Christ, the Son of God. He was publicly humiliated and crucified for the salvation of those whom the Father gave to Him. He had no sin, no fault, and yet, He is the ultimate sufferer.


[1] For a complete list of variances of the divisions of this text, see Peter C. Craigie, et al, Word biblical commentary (WORD BIBLICAL COMMENTARY; eds.David Allan Hubbard andGlenn W. Barker; Waco, Tex: Word Books, 270-272 . See also Samuel R. Driver, et al, eds., The International Critical Commentary: Critical and Exegetical Commentary: The Gospel According to St. Mark ( Edingurgh: T&T Clark Ltd, 1983), 317.T&T Clark, the International Critical Commentary, pages 467-470.
[2] A. R. Diamond, The confessions of Jeremiah in context : scenes of prophetic drama (JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. SUPPLEMENT SERIES, 0309-0787 ; 45; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987), 103.
[3] Craigie, et al, Word biblical commentary 271.
[4] Walter Brueggemann, A commentary on Jeremiah : exile and homecoming (Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1998), 181.
[5] Katheleen M. O’Connor strongly disagrees with this view. More on O’Connor’s view when we get in the study of the text.
[6] Terence E. Fretheim, Jeremiah (SMYTH & HELWYS BIBLE COMMENTARY; Macon, Ga: Smith & Helwys Pub., 2002), 290.
[7] John Bright, Bible. O.T. Jeremiah. English. Bright. 1964; Jeremiah. Introd., translation, and notes by John Bright (THE ANCHOR BIBLE, 21; Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1965), 132-133.
[8] See Kathleen M. O'Connor, The confessions of Jeremiah : their interpretation and role in chapters 1-25 (DISSERTATION SERIES SOCIETY OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE; Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1988), 66.
[9] Diamond, 103.
[10] Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, 278.
[11] Fretheim, 294. See also Terence E. Fretheim, "Caught in the middle: Jeremiah's vocational crisis," WORD & WORLD 22 (2002): 357.
[12] O’Connor, 76.
[13] Fretheim, 296.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Louis Stulman, Jeremiah (ABINGDON OLD TESTAMENT COMMENTARIES; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005), 8.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, xlii.
[18] Bright, lvii.
[19] Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah : a commentary (OLD TESTAMENT LIBRARY; London: SCM, 1986), 38.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, xxxviii.
[22] Ibid, xxxix.
[23] Stulman, 4-5.
[24] A “full version” of the historical background of the Book of Jeremiah, can be found in the work of John Bright 1965, pages xxvi-liv.
[25] Fretheim, 3.
[26] Stulman, 4.
[27] See Fretheim, Caught in the middle: Jeremiah's vocational crisis 351.
[28] See O'Connor, The confessions of Jeremiah : their interpretation and role in chapters 1-25 183.
[29] O’Connor, 70.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Ibid 71.
[32] Diamond, 103.
[33] Brueggemann, 182.
[34] Fretheim, Caught in the middle: Jeremiah's vocational crisis 357.
[35] Carroll, 400.
[36] Brueggemann makes reference to Carroll as a defender of this position in his “A commentary on Jeremiah: Exile & Homecoming” 1998. 184.
[37] Ibid.
[38] Douglas R. Jones, Jeremiah : based on the Revised Standard Version (NEW CENTURY BIBLE COMMENTARY; London; Grand Rapids: Marshall Pickering; Eerdmans, 1992), 275.
[39] Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, 277.
[40] O’Connor, 76.
[41] Ibid.
[42] Carroll, 402.
[43] Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, 277.
[44] Fretheim, 296, 297.
[45] Carroll 402, 403.
[46] Craigie, Kelley, and Drinkard, 278.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Brueggemann, 186.
[49] John A. Dearman, Jeremiah and Lamentations (THE NIV APPLICATION COMMENTARY SERIES; Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2002), 195.
[50] Ibid.

References

Balentine, Samuel E. Prayerin the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-Human Dialogue. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Bright, John. Bible. O.T. Jeremiah. English. Bright. 1964; Jeremiah. Introd., Translation, and Notes by John Bright. The Anchor Bible, 21. Garden City, N.Y: Doubleday, 1965.

Brueggemann, Walter. A Commentary on Jeremiah : Exile and Homecoming. Grand Rapids, Mich: W.B. Eerdmans, 1998.

Carroll, Robert P. Jeremiah : A Commentary. Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1986. Carroll, Robert P. From Chaos to Covenant: Prophecy in the Book of Jeremiah. New York, NY: Crossroad, 1981.

Craigie, Peter C., Page H. Kelley and Drinkard, Joel F. Jr. Word Biblical Commentary. Word Biblical Commentary. Edited by David Allan Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker. Waco, Tex: Word Books.

Dearman, John Andrew. Jeremiah and Lamentations. The NIV Application Commentary Series. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2002.

Diamond, A. R. The Confessions of Jeremiah in Context : Scenes of Prophetic Drama. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series, 0309-0787 ; 45. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987.

Driver, Samuel R., Alfred Plummer and Charles A. Briggs eds. The International Critical Commentary: Critical and Exegetical Commentary: The Gospel According to St. Mark. Edingurgh: T&T Clark Ltd, 1983.

Fretheim, Terence E. "Caught in the Middle: Jeremiah's Vocational Crisis." Word & World 22 (2002): 351-60.

Fretheim, Terence E. Jeremiah. Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary. Macon, Ga: Smith & Helwys Pub., 2002.

Janzen, J. Gerald. “Jeremiah 20:7-18.” Interpretation 37 (1983): 178-183.

Jones, Douglas Rawlinson. Jeremiah : Based on the Revised Standard Version. New Century Bible Commentary. London; Grand Rapids: Marshall Pickering; Eerdmans, 1992.

Lewin, Ellen Davis. “Arguing for Authority: A Rhetorical Study of Jeremiah 1:4-19 and 20:7-18.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 32 (1985): 105-119.

O'Connor, Kathleen M. The Confessions of Jeremiah : Their Interpretation and Role in Chapters 1-25. Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1988.

Sharp, Carolyn J. Prophecy and Ideology in Jeremiah: Struggles for Authority in the Deutero-Jeremianic Prose. London; New York; T&T Clark Ltd, 2003.

Stulman, Louis. Jeremiah. Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005.

Note: Copy of this material is allowed and free, since the source is cited / A reprodução dos textos é permitida e gratuita, desde que citada a fonte.

Rodrigo Serrao