The juxtaposition of Isaiah and Jeremiah is very instructive both for an understanding of the progression and relationship of the prophetic message and also for the interpreters, and their understanding of the importance of memory. Thus, we know that Jeremiah challenged Hananiah on the latter’s proclamation that Jerusalem will be safe and there will be peace. Isaiah had prophesied that while Israel will face severe judgment through the conquest by Assyria, Jerusalem will be saved and delivered from such punishment. One of the fundamental lessons here is the fact that one must learn from one’s past, and the history that surrounds and encompasses us. We see the evidence of this in two important ways. Hananiah was inattentive to the fact since the time of Isaiah, the behavior of Jerusalem had changed dramatically and thus a reprieve from the Assyrians did not commit Jerusalem to a carte blanche freedom from judgment. Jeremiah on the other hand was cognizant to the fact that the messages of those who came before and prophesied have to be remembered. The prophets and their message therefore did not function independently of each other; the one constant being God. What Jeremiah knew was that unless Jerusalem heeded the mistakes of Israel, judgment would be meted out to Jerusalem as well. If ever there was a universal lesson to be heeded here, it would certainly be that we must have a memory that is beyond the recent past, and perhaps most importantly, we must have a memory that does not assume that which has gone before us cannot be replicated. For that matter we ourselves who do not carry the blood stained hands of our ancestors, howsoever faints these stains might be, are not above reproach. Those who in the past have taken on this posture have done so at their own peril. What is particularly striking about Jeremiah’s message, specifically in his Letter to the Exiles, is the recognition that there were prophets among the exiles who were preaching a message of empty and painless deliverance. It is not that there was no recognition that the people were in exile, but rather the unwarranted belief that life in exile will be brief and the judgment will pass quickly and life will return to the way things were. This, for Jeremiah would not be, for he was compelled to pronounce very specifically that they must in fact live their lives fully in Babylon. Jeremiah was not in any way relishing the pronouncement of judgment, but he recognized that as painful as it was, the truth must be told. We are further reminded that before all else in Jeremiah, words of restoration, to build; to plant (Jer 1:10) are made; it is also made clear that what was about to transpire in terms of judgment and punishment will not be the last word. However the moments of “darkness” so to speak cannot be circumvented or for that matter navigated away. If anything, Jeremiah’s message is that all of life must be lived even in the midst of exile and among those who are deemed the enemy. Having said this we are still faced with difficult questions, such as divine judgment not predicated on any kind of sustained evil or sinful behavior.
Jeremiah tells the people not to listen to the more popular but false assurances that the exile is nothing more than a “passing glitch” and will soon be over. Indeed Jeremiah’s younger contemporary Ezekiel points to the rebuilding of the Temple and Jerusalem, but does so on the heels of having made clear that the reason in the first place that this is even necessary is that all creation has been corrupted through idolatry. While one may not dispute this reality, we are to equally recognize that such an idea as this cannot be applied universally. Ezekiel has been particularly concerned about the problem of evil and what might have precipitated the evil of exile and the devastating punishment that was the exile. Ezekiel believed with justification that the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem were the result of the people’s intransigence and attitude of ritual self-indulgence that ultimately led to judgment. Certainly, there were many moments of resistance and reluctance to bring such devastating message to the people. No prophet took pleasure in bringing a message of doom and destruction, and on occasions the reluctance was so sharp that the prophets not only brought the message, but even cast derisive comments against God’s decision and the divine insistence on severe punishment. The prophet’s life is such that his identification with his people (and one thinks most notably about Jeremiah in this regard) that his loyalty and deep compassion only made his message so much more unbearable and difficult to proclaim. Indeed Jeremiah grieved and was pained for his people, the people whom he loved and with whom his life was deeply invested. But it is precisely a prophet such as Jeremiah that reminds us that as much as he cared deeply for his people, he could not casually approach the message, nor was he crazy about the idea of delivering it, yet his principal and first loyalty was to God. The people’s pain would be his pain, and in this respect, his words first pierced his heart along with the people. While a prophet such as Amos made pronouncements and then left, and though his words would live on with him, and his words would be the framework for future prophets’ ethical imperatives, it is entirely different when the prophet lives among the very people, and to whom his words will serve as a devastating indictment and judgment. The challenge with Ezekiel’s message is not only that it has unequivocal truth with regard to Judah and Jerusalem of the sixth Century, but how might one translate this message for today, particularly in light of some systemic and devastating evil such as the Shoah.
The fact remains that in some very striking ways, memory, and the act of remembering might very well be a double edge sword. Some memories are so very deep that one cannot get out from under them. It is not to suggest that one must forget, but the deep memory is such for some that it becomes another remarkable burden that cannot be shared. Former President Jimmy Carter relates the story of the meeting of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin meeting at Camp David to work out a peace treaty, which would emerge as the Camp David Agreement. In the first face to face to meeting between Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat, Prime Minister Begin was so aggrieved about the ancient Hebrews being in bondage in Egypt, that he spoke about such Egyptian oppression and reached so far back in the history and memory of what transpired that such deep memory had the potential to unravel the fragile talks before they ever settled into forming something permanent and formidable. So the question is whether the possibility exists that imagination can be born out of such deeply set memory? The answer must be “yes.” Though it comes with substantial challenges, it can be a road that leads to redemption. “In some way too, with the exception of surviving victims, all are witnesses to memory rather than remember themselves. They have an ‘unstory’ to tell.”35
1. Langer, Shoah Testimonies, xv.
2. Brueggemann, “Fissure Always Uncontained,” 73.
3. Tollington, “Ethics of Warfare,” 72.
4. Langer, Shoah Testimonies, 150.
5. Isa 6:8–13.
6. Sweeney, Reading the Hebrew Bible after the Shoah, 91.
7. Dobbs-Allsopp, Lamentations, 45.
8. Ibid., 48.