jeremiah 16:1-18 exegesis

1

ASSIGNMENT TITLE PAGESTUDENT NAME (in full): John MayneACT NUMBER: 200916727UNIT CODE AND TITLE (in full): OT628LECTURER: Charles De Jongh

DUE DATE:16/5/2013 (1 Day Extension Granted)

SUBMISSION DATE: 20/5/2013

The following essay, of which I have kept a copy, is entirely my own work. All sources of ideas and quotations are duly acknowledged in references.

SIGNATURE OF STUDENT: John Mayne(enter name for electronic submissions)

ASSIGNMENT TITLE (detailed):Exegesis Assignment

ASSIGNMENT OUTLINE (if outlined):1. Introduction2. Cultural and Historical References3. Exegesis Introduction 4. Exegesis of 16:1-95. Exegesis of 16:10-136. Exegesis of 16:14-157. Exegesis of 16:16-18

Word Count: 2198 for Exegesis Component ~2000 for Sunday school Presentation

WORD COUNT: See above

words (excluding abstract and list of references)

MARK AWARDED: PERCENTAGE: % GRADE:

2

LECTURER:

1. INTRODUCTION

The passage we will delve into further is Jeremiah 16:1-18.

2. CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL REFERENCES

The warning Jeremiah received to “not marry and have sons or

daughters” (Jer 16:2) would have exacerbated his isolation

from fellow Israelites, fuelled their mockery and confounded

family. Singleness is largely viewed today, through our

Western lens, as socially acceptable. Yet marriage was a

natural state to the Jew (Gen 1:28; 2:18; Deut 7:14). This

outlook would have permeated society, in addition to the

Abrahamic Covenant with its promise that Israel would number

as “the stars in the sky” (Gen 22:17) and the notion that

God’s blessing was upon those who bear descendants (Ps 113:9;

127:3-5), rendering Jeremiah’s celibacy as anathema. The

Talmud went so far as to pronounce a curse on men not married

by age twenty (Huey 1993, 166) and the OT has “no word for a

bachelor” (Kelly et al 1991, 216)! Israel was a “patrilineal

society that chose to control the portioning out of property

by granting the majority share to the eldest surviving son”

(Matthews 2007, 151). This was why Levirate marriage

provisions (Deut 25:5-10) were codified, for the purpose that

the name (and land entitlement) of the deceased brother “will

not be blotted out from Israel” (Deut 25:6). Furthermore,

3

the agrarian setting, akin to African nations today, lent

itself to dependency on children for labour, and as

superannuation (cf. Ps 45:16). As Jones (1992, 229)

comments, “celibacy was rare and exceptional, if not unheard

of in Israel.”

The concept of deceased Israelites failing to be buried or

adequately mourned would have been abhorrent to an ancient

Near East audience (Jer 16:4-7), not dissimilar to the

reaction caused by Ezekiel’s refusal to grieve the death of

his wife (Ezekiel 24:16-17). Walton (2009, 272) mentions

that a body which was not properly interred was thought to be

spiritually unsettled, referencing the Epic of Gilgamesh and the

Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. Though mourning

rites were partially prohibited in the Torah (Lev 10:6;

19:28; 21:5, Deut 14:1), it is evident that the rending of

clothes, usage of sackcloth and shaving of heads was common

practice (Jer 41:5; 48:37; Amos 8:10; Ezek 7:18), prompting

McCane (1986, 367) to conclude that “they are referred to

here as normal rites… there is no hint of disapproval”.

Gaster (cited in Carroll 1986, 339) declares that such

customs were an avenue in which the “living proclaimed their

solidarity with the dead and the spirits of the ancestors,”

though he was probably referring more to a pagan, rather than

Jewish framework. The term for funeral meal (marzeah) occurs

once in the Hebrew Bible (Amos 6:7), but a Ugaritic text

sharing a similar cognate points toward a banquet from which

4

excessive drinking and feasting were normative (Walton 2009,

271).

Israel was a “culture built around community” (O’Connor 2012,

73). The exhortation to refuse even setting foot in the

venues (Jer 16:5; 16:8) would have been alien to Israelite

standards of hospitality, particularly if Jeremiah was

connected with their kinship community. Holladay (1986, 8)

argues that the abstaining from weddings and funerals was

more extreme than the abstention from marriage, in terms of

dishonouring Jeremiah’s family and provoking opposition. The

Wisdom Corpus promotes a theology of seasons, a “time to

mourn and … dance” (Eccles 3:4). Thus the stark contrast

existing between Israelite conventions and Yahweh’s

commandments to Jeremiah, mark them as being unlikely to fall

upon deaf ears.

Feinberg (1986, 478) dates this passage as the fourth year of

King Jehoaikim’s reign (2 Kings 24:1-2).

3. EXEGESIS INTRODUCTION

Commentators seem unanimous that Jeremiah 16:1-18 contains

independent strands (Brueggemann, Feinberg, Jones,

Nicholson), though not all are as convinced as Brueggemann

(1998, 150) that they are woven together to form a “coherent

statement.” Jones (1992, 227) accuses them of being a

“complex of oracles,” bundled conveniently together, in

5

comparison to the “careful, artistic arrangement” of chapters

14-15. It is in adhering to Carroll’s choice of divisions

(Carroll 1986, 338-346), which are not too unorthodox, that

we shall set about exegeting them.

4. EXEGESIS OF 16:1-9

The rhythmic prose of vv. 1-9 differentiates it from vv. 10-

13, in addition to lack of shared vocabulary (Holladay 1986,

467). Yahweh communicates three pronouncements to Jeremiah

about his social life, the abstention from marriage (v. 1-4),

mourning for the dead (v. 5-7), and joyous occasions (v. 8-

9), prompting Fretheim (2002, 247) to suggest that his life

will no longer “proceed in any way that would suggest

normalcy.”

Loneliness (15:17) and isolation (15:10) had already befallen

Jeremiah, but these latest instructions push the ostracism to

further extremes. Why was marriage forbidden him? It was

likely a symbolic act, defined by Huey (1993, 166) as

temporary inconvenience or embarrassment to a prophet in

order to communicate God’s message more effectively. However

unlike the afflictions of Isaiah (7-8) or Ezekiel (24:15-27),

Jeremiah’s predicament appeared permanent. Some such as

Rudolph (cited in McCane 1986, 364) who doubt the full

historicity of the Jeremiah account in lieu of later

‘Deuteronomistic’ influence and redaction, would question the

symbolic act motif. Carroll (1986, 340) notes that the

6

symbolic act thesis lacks the “popular inquiry and response

about its significance” in the narrative, and views the text

as a “series of statements addressed to the community” rather

than autobiography. Goldman (cited in Thompson 1980, 403)

argues that Jeremiah had probably once been married, but was

forbidden to do so “in this place,” (v. 2) Anathoth, but this

remains a minority position. In light of chapter 7, the term

“in this place” probably refers the land (Jones 1992, 230).

I would propose that Jeremiah was celibate, and that the text

combines elements of what might be deemed ‘regular’ prophetic

utterance, conjoined with strong symbolic action, even if the

phraseology does not follow the conventional schema.

Jeremiah’s personal life was now the “embodied word of God,”

(Fretheim 2002, 247) “a visible proclamation … of the

deprivation all must face,” (Jones 1992, 230) demonstrating

the “high cost of a prophetic vocation where life and message

become indistinguishable” (O’Connor 2012, 73). He remained

celibate to emphasise the immanency and seriousness of exile.

It is not dissimilar to the message of Hosea (Hos 1-3), in

which the prophet married an adulterous woman, their broken

relationship illustrating Israel’s unfaithfulness to God.

The severe consequences of war and famine were to befall the

“sons and daughters born in this land” (v. 3-4), the basis

for Jeremiah’s symbolic refusal to marry. The grievances

known only to bereaving parents would not afflict him. These

were to be “unnatural terminations of lives… involving

7

suffering on a great scale,” a “national catastrophe” (McCane

1986, 364). Their dead bodies would be utterly neglected and

disgraced, perhaps also hinting at the rapidity with which

disaster would unfold. Carcasses being devoured are a

prophetic fulfilment of the covenantal sanctions, invoked by

Judah’s lawless disobedience (Deut 28:26). The recipients of

judgment were multi-generational: sons, daughters, wives and

husbands.

The instruction to boycott funeral meals was because Yahweh

had withdrawn his “blessing,” love” and “pity” from his

people (v. 5). The covenant relation is now over, “exhausted

and terminated by recalcitrant Judah” (Brueggemann 151).

What sense lay in mourning the loss of a loved one when

widespread national calamity was impending? For “all

individual deaths will be as nothing compared with the death

of the people of God” (Jones 1992, 231). Despite

prohibitions on mourning customs, the prophet refers to them

without censure (v. 5-7). Whether divinely approved or

disapproved, future events will soon put an end to their

practice. No strata of society will escape judgment (v. 6).

Joyful gatherings were also to be neglected by the prophet

(v. 8). In conjunction with previous verses, this

comprehensive ban of Jeremiah from festive occasions

signified that Yahweh had “withdrawn from the total life of

his people” (Thompson 1986, 406). Brueggemann (1998, 152)

declares “there is no longer any public life permitted.” It

8

portrays the free sovereignty of God as unable to be “mocked

or taken for granted” (Brueggemann 1998, 152).


This section is triggered by the preceding judgment passages,

taking the form of a question and response (v. 10-13), a

“didactic exposition of their meaning” (Carroll 1986, 342).

The ‘Deuteronomic’ schema of these verses is similar to Jer

5:18-19; 9:12-16; 22:18-19, as well as Deut 29:21-27 and 1 Kg

9:8-9, with Thiel contending that there are two predominant

styles in this format (cited in Carroll 1986, 342). For

Carroll, the fact that people are responding to words, is

further evidence of vv. 2-9 being proclamation rather than

symbolic action (Carroll 1983, 343). Whether it is a pre-

exilic account or post-exilic commentary is not able to be

verified, determined mostly by the expositors

presuppositions. One might carefully suggest that a ‘plain’

reading of the narrative suggests it is pre-exilic.

The reason for the Babylonian exile (v. 10, 13) was the

apostasy of Judah, their repugnant idolatry (v. 11).

Brueggemann (1998, 153) suggests that the threefold “why,

what, what” may be ironic, in that the reasons were patently

obvious. Both the fathers and the present generation had

9

forsaken the Lord (v. 12), highlighting the endemic nature of

their antipathy towards covenantal obedience. With greater

responsibility lies severer discipline, so that no one could

claim it was their fathers’ transgressions that invoked God’s

wrath (cf. Ezek 18). The people will be “hurled” or

“thrown” (לללל) out of their land (v. 13), a rare Hebraic verb, implying great force. The irony is not missed by

Feinberg (1986, 480), noting that Israel will soon “have the

opportunity of indulging their desire for pagan worship day

and night,” worshipping false nonentities whilst the true God

withdraws his blessing. Realities that are amusingly

obvious to Jeremiah may not be so promptly and readily

comprehended by this paganised audience.


With small variations, this oracle is duplicated in Jer 23:7-

8. The opening word “therefore” (v. 14) boasts a

controversial presence, suggesting close relationship with

the restoration oracles (v. 14-15) and the judgment (v. 10-

13) preceding it. McKane (1986, 373) contends that “further

threats” would have to follow on for it to meaningfully

synchronize. Fretheim (2002, 250) rightfully pushes back

however, noting that the “prior verses could be understood as

the necessary judgment before restoration,” and the disaster

being cast as a refining fire that shapes a new future.

Aalders (1958, 133) notes that the close connection of

“promise and threat in prophecy is not so contrary to reason

10

as a number of scholars suppose,” referencing Jer 4:27. The

hope of a new redemption shines forth in v. 14-15, recalling

the Israelite Exodus from Egypt (v. 14). The Exodus will no

longer be the sole watershed moment in the history of God’s

people, but will be shared, in one sense superseded, by God’s

deliverance of Israel from “the land of the north and… all

the countries where he had banished them” (v. 15).

Bablyonian Exile, as barbaric and heart-breaking as it will

be, is still part of Yahweh’s plan and purpose. It was

accompanied by death and judgement, but also new possibility,

“historical shattering,” followed by “historical creating in

sovereign graciousness,” each paying homage to the “tension

to Yahweh’s character” (Brueggemann 1998, 155).

Returning to the topic of redaction, Jones (1992, 233) notes

here that despite the greatness of the original prophet,

“other contributors are needed to create the total harmony.”

Yet he also acknowledges it is “unwise dogmatically to deny

the thought to Jeremiah.” This balanced approach represents

the ‘middle way’ of OT exegetical orthodoxy.


Verses 16-18 may have been intended to continue the

‘interrupted’ sermon at v.13, but we cannot conclude this for

certain (Fretheim 2002, 251). The Lord vows to send for many

11

fishermen to catch Israel, and hunters to pursue them (v.

16), “a statement about the destruction of the nation”

(Carroll 1986, 345). Their deity observes everything, thus

their “ways” and “sin” (v. 17) shall be subject to a “double”

portion of divine retribution (v. 18). Why? For Yahweh’s

land had been defiled with the “lifeless forms… vile images

and… detestable idols” (v. 18).

Interpretation of v. 16 has yielded a variety of theories.

Holladay (1986, 478) is convinced that fishermen equate to

the Egyptians and the hunters are Babylonian, two separate

invaders, dating the oracle to when neither was overly

threatening, between 609 and 605 BCE. His rationale is

dubious, relying on obscure wordplays. Aalders (1958, 138)

holds that both terms must be “the soldiers of

Nebuchadrezzar,” based on the reference to “land of the

north” in v. 15 preceding. Others, that the “double” mention

of v. 18 is in reference to two deportations in 598 and 587

BCE (Cornill, Duhm), or at least one deportation based on vv.

16-17 (Rudolph, Volz). Babylonian exile is suggested (cf.

Amos 4:2), yet beyond that we must exegete with humility,

empathizing with Brueggemann (1998, 156) in noting “the

passage is elusive… because the metaphors are remarkably open

and lacking in specificity”. The land strewn with unburied

corpses (vv. 4-6) will soon be littered by carcases of idols

(v. 18), the judgment oracles interwoven by the unfolding of

Yahweh’s salvific plan amidst the travails of exile (v. 14-

15).

12

LIST OF REFERENCES

Aalders, G. C. 1958. “The Fishers and Hunters,” The Evangelical Quarterly, no. 3: 134-139

Brueggemann W, 1998, A Commentary on Jeremiah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Carroll R. P. 1986. Jeremiah, The Old Testament Library Series. Philadelphia:

Westminster.

Feinberg C. L. 1986. “Jeremiah,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 6, edited

13

by Frank E. Gaebelein, 357-691, Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Fretheim T. E. 2002. Jeremiah, Smith & Helwys Bible CommentarySeries. Macon: Smith &

Helwys.

Holladay W. L. 1986. Jeremiah 1, Hermeneia: A Critical and Historical Commentary on the

Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress.

Huey F. B. 1993. Jeremiah and Lamentations, The New American Commentary Series.

Nashville: B & H

Jones D. R. 1992. Jeremiah, The New Century Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans.

Kelly, Craigies, et al. 1991. Jeremiah 1-25, The World Biblical Commentary Series.

Nashville: Nelson.

Matthews V. H. 2007. Studying the Ancient Israelites: A Guide to Sources and Methods.

Grand Rapids: Baker.

McCane W, 1986. Jeremiah: Volume 1, I-XXV, The International Critical Commentary

Series. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

O’Connor K. M. 2012. Jeremiah: Pain and Promise. Minneapolis: Fortress.

Thompson J. A. 1980. The Book of Jeremiah, The New InternationalCommentary On the

Old Testament Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Walton J. H. 2009. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zondervan Illustrated

Bible Backgrounds Commentary Series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

14

Youth Ablaze Sunday School (Ages 13-15): Leaders Guide

(Editor’s Note: Though the passage we exegeted was Jeremiah 16:1-18, our teenage Sunday School class lesson will focus solely on Jeremiah 16:1-9. I feel this passage alone provides adequate fodder for lesson material, and exploring extra narrative will make things too complex and cause the interest of the pupils to dwindle (i.e. it will have a ‘scattergun effect’ – firing lots of bullets but achieving little)

Pre-Reading: Jeremiah 16:1-9

Biblical Overview: Jeremiah was one of the Major Prophets in the Old Testament, ministering to Israel during a very difficult period in its history. He was known as the ‘Weeping Prophet,’ experiencing heartbreaking circumstances in the midst of seeking to instruct a disobedient nation to turn back to its Creator.

Just imagine if God asked you to do something incredibly painful, something that society could not comprehend. It would involve you losing your friends, family, employment status and the respect of neighbours. Would you considering doing it?

However God asks you to perform this act because you have some information that your fellow countrymen do not, for you realize that something terrible is soon going to occur. God desires to use your demonstrated actions, as much as your words, to communicate a message so that people would be reminded of his presence, sorrow and judgement (redemption and love is a theme of v. 16:14-15, a little bit further ahead in the text). This is what happened to Jeremiah when he was instructed not to marry or have children (Jer 16:1-2),with singleness unheard of in Ancient Israel after the age of

15

twenty. He was also told by God not to attend important funeral events (v. 5-7) and avoid celebratory occasions (v. 8), similar to not attending school graduations, birthday parties, weddings, big sporting events etc. today. His griefand frustration echoed what God’s attitude towards Israel looked like.

Primary Objectives of Lesson:

- Help the teenagers to understand more about the prophet Jeremiah, particularly the biblical text of Jeremiah 16:1-9. Contextualize the passage.

- Help them get a feel for what Jeremiah might have been feeling.

- Develop an understanding of how God feels when we turn away from him. An understanding of judgement and wrath as attributes of God.

Secondary Objectives of Lesson:

- As Christians, there are spiritual truths that have beenrevealed to us that others do not yet understand (e.g. the lie of materialism, reality of eternal life). We need to live lives which radically reflect these truths,knowing that even in the midst of persecution; God will one day vindicate his message, and our actions.

- Being a prophet often meant ‘swimming against the tide’ of societal opinion, customs and activities Christians today should likewise be equipped to ‘swim against the tide,’ just like the prophet Jeremiah.

Outline of Lesson:

Skit 1 (4 mins)Skit 2 (4 mins)Skit 3 (4 mins) Small Groups (30 mins)

Skit Overview: Jeremiah the Pariah

The following are three skits that help to contextualize the Jeremiah 16:1-9 passage. Depending on the size of the stage

16

and amount of actors (& actresses) available, you might perform these skits as part of three distinct acts, appearingon the stage one after another (small stage/area/actors). But preferable, it would be good to assemble all the cast separately on the one stage (or viewing area), with Jeremiah the mime (J) performing Skit 1 through to Skit 3 in continuous sequence. The cast of each skit would ‘come alive’ and perform whenever J arrives, but once the skit is finished andJ moves onto the next set, the assembled cast would ‘switch off’ and become lifeless until the end of Skit 3, when they finally depart from the stage.

If it is evening and/or suitable lighting options are available, this could be handy. Focus the light on the skit that is currently ‘in play,’ whilst the others can remain darker, but not completely darkened altogether.

The length of each skit should be restricted to four minutes.

Visual Diagram of Stage

= Jeremiah the Mime

1st Skit: Happy Couples (loosely based on Jer 16:1-2)

Cast ofSkit 2

Cast ofSkit 3

Cast ofSkit 1

Audience Audience Audience Audience Audience



J J J

J

17

Cast: Jeremiah (J) the Mime. Three guys, three girls, each paired up to form three romantic couples (six people in total).

Props: Picnic blanket, two picnic chairs, beach chair, wine bottle, wine glasses, cheese, dips, picnic basket, bowl of grapes.

Wardrobe: White gloves, black pants, striped shirt and suspenders (optional) for J the Mime. The couples will be wearing black pants and various brightly coloured, collared shirts (not black or white) – think in terms of The Wiggles. Ideally each couple can have their own matching colour, so only three colours are needed. Shoes are not required.

Overview: Three couples are out at a picnic together as mutual friends. They are enjoying one another’s company, laughing and socializing. Conversation is focused particularly on the joys of dating, romance, love, child-rearing, baby names and upcoming events such as engagement parties, weddings, bridal showers, baby showers etc. They are not necessarily portrayed as ‘bad’ people, yet we do wantto convey them to the audience as perhaps being a little bit self-absorbed. (Think Great Gatsby if that helps, without the marital infidelity). One couple can be situated on the picnic blanket together (some form of light physical embrace is acceptable), another on the beach chair (girl) and sittingon the ground against the beach chair, or at the end of the chair (guy), and the remaining couple sitting on the picnic chairs.

While they are talking to one another, J the Mime starts observing and interacting with the scene. He is totally ignored and unnoticed by each of the couples who otherwise are engrossed in conversation with one another. His facial expression and actions demonstrate hope and joy to begin with, based on a desire to be included and understood, but asthe realization comes that they are ignoring him (even as he physically walks among them, in-between them and sits alongside them), his hope dissipates and is substituted by feelings of sorrow, grief, confusion and isolation.

18

The intention is that the audience would begin to empathize with J, as well as have their curiosity aroused as to why J is on the outer, alone, and why the others do not engage withhim etc. We do NOT want to answer these questions until the upcoming Small Group section.

Script: We will not provide a specific script, but rather give some general ideas and allow you the flexibility to tailor the skit to your own audience/context. (Editor’s Note: This is partly for reasons of brevity, to honour the assignment ‘3rd component’ 1500 word limit)

It can be wise to give each romantic couple a theme, their specific script being influenced accordingly.

Couple # 1: Have just started dating. They are in the early honeymoon period of their relationship. Everything is majestic and rosy. Couple # 2: Are recently engaged. They are quite absorbed with the wedding, and also of recounting the story of the fiancés proposal. Couple # 4: Brand new parents. Their new baby, and everything baby related, saturates their worldview.

(Remember that the couples are more self-absorbed collectively as a group, not merely as individual couples. Hence all six of them are able to listen and interact with each other. It could be good for each couple to field questions from one another)

2nd Skit: Funeral Grievance (loosely based on Jeremiah 16:5-7)

Cast: Jeremiah (J) the Mime (same actor as previous skit), two girls, three guys (preferred number, but ‘flexibility is your friend’) and an additional actor to play a ‘dead body’ in a casket (optional).

Props: Two black shawls, or black robes/towels, a funeral casket or an equivalent (even some wooden boards to approximate), a few chairs.

19

Wardrobe: J the Mime wears same clothing. The others will be wearing black pants/skirts, black shoes and black tops.

Overview: A group gathers to mourn in front of a funeral casket. Some of the attendees (particularly one or two of the women) are mourning loudly, either through sobbing noisesor loud wailing. The women can make use of the black shawls.The men are comforting the women in addition to expressing their own sorrow: shaking their heads, pacing up and down, placing their palms over their face (more typically masculineforms of grievance). Most of the attendees are faced towardsthe body in the casket. J the Mime enters the scene and is distressed by the scene of grief and lament. He attempts to comfort people with physical embrace, but is kept from doing so by an invisible force field, prompting an increased amountof distress as the skit continues. The others are to act as if J does not exist. (No script required).

3rd Skit: Party On! (loosely based on Jeremiah 16:8-9)

Cast: Jeremiah (J) the Mime (same actor as previous skit), four guys, three girls.

Props: Grab any props that can contribute to a (clean) party atmosphere. Ideas that might work include a limbo stick, a foosball table, piñata, food, drink, punchbowl, balloons, streamers, music system, esky, disco ball, photo booth, deck of cards, novelty hats. It is an indoor party, so a sofa, upright floor lamp and table might be helpful to create that image.

Wardrobe: J the Mime wears same clothing as previously. Theother cast members will be wearing black pants, black shoes and a variety of coloured, collared shirts. Different colours to Skit #1 are preferable.

Overview: People gather for a loud party. Everyone is havinga lot of fun, eating, drinking (not necessarily alcohol), dancing and playing games. In terms of ambience, it might bewise to play some gentle background music, a dance track.

20

J enters the party scene, initially with joy and anticipation, but is not physically able to enter the house itself. There are invisible walls acting as an imperturbableforce field. His initial joy soon turns to despondency, as he tries to enter the house from multiple directions. J should be aware of invisible doors which he can try and open,as well as window frames to look through. (No script required).

Final Note: These skits can work well as part of an adult churchservice, with the teens heading off to small groups after theconclusion of the skits, and a sermon on Jeremiah 16:1-9 following on for the adults who remain behind.

** Transition to Small Groups for 30 minutes. 4-6 persons in each group **

Small Group Leaders Notes:

The questions below can serve as a guide, but the goal is to draw out the curiosities from the group about the passage, leading them to an understanding of what Jeremiah felt, and why.

Q1: What stood out to you from the skits?

Q2: Which skit did you find most difficult to observe, and why?

Q3: Did the skits remind you of anything you have experiencedin your own lives?

Explain that J was based on the biblical prophet Jeremiah. Read Jeremiah 16:1-9 aloud and provide a brief overview of the passage. Clarify that these were instructions God gave at that time to Jeremiah… he is not necessarily asking each of us to stop going to parties, football games etc.

Q4. Why did God want Jeremiah to abstain from these customs? Why was he angry?

Q5. God wanted to use Jeremiah’s actions to communicate an important message – even if people were not listening. What are some spiritual truths that have been revealed to us,

21

which God might ask for us to communicate through our actions?

Q6. The two great temptations for young people is that we want to be ‘like’ everyone else (conformism) and we desire tobe ‘liked’ by everyone else (approval). Yet being a prophet often meant ‘swimming against the tide’ of what others were doing. What are some ways that God might want each of us to stand out and be different?

Finish by giving each teenager a collection of candy: Black liquorice (Dutch style, very salty and bitter), striped humbugs (aniseed) and a very sour (but colourful) warhead! Let them know that what they will taste is NOT the sweetness of God’s love, but the bitterness of judgement. Yet it is this judgement that Jesus removed by his sacrificial act on the cross, something Jeremiah had not yet experienced.

(This study would be part of a series on Jeremiah where aspects of God’s love, mercy and forgiveness would be emphasized elsewhere)

jeremiah 16:1-18 exegesis

Documents