Jerusalem’s speech to her children (Bar 4:9b–29)

(παροργιζειν) by worshipping demons instead of the true God (Bar 4:6). The context and the terminology in the Septuagint attest well to the link between the anger of God and idolatry.¹⁶ This statement is further reinforced through the expression παροξυνειν (“to goad or incite someone”, Bar 4:7). In this way, the wrath of God is ultimately activated. This anthropomorphism is remarkable since, for example, the Greek version of Job, as against the Hebrew original, does not mention the incitement of God by Satan (cf. Job 2:3). Bar 4:8 is formu-lated as a violation of God’s commandment to honour parents (Exod 20:12/Deut 5:16): as a failure to remember the one who raised the folk,¹⁷ who is the eternal God, and as a cause of grief for the one who brought up the people as a foster-mother, that is, Jerusalem. A more deeply emotional accusation than this could hardly be made.

2.1.2 Jerusalem’s speech to her children (Bar 4:9b–29)

The maternal side of Jerusalem is expressed in Bar 4:9 in such a way that she speaks up when she sees the wrath of God falling upon those whom she has raised up (Bar 4:9a). This highly emotional speech by Jerusalem is again divided into two parts. In the first part, Jerusalem twice addresses her neighbouring cities (Bar 4:9b–16). It is ultimately not clear, whether this is meant for non-Israelite centres¹⁸ or the cities of Judah. In the second part (Bar 4:17–29), Jerusa-lem addresses her children (τεκνα).

In the first part of the speech Jerusalem begins her remarks to the neighbours of Zion (αι παροικοι Σιων)¹⁹ with moving words about her fate,²⁰ both as deserted mother and forsaken widow (Bar 4:9b–13). Although the term “mother”, in con-trast to the term “widow”, is not used in Baruch, the first part of the speech contains the lamentation of a mother over her children: on the one hand the joy of rearing the children (Bar 4:11a),²¹ on the other hand, the misery of witnessing,

||

16 Cf. 1 Kgs 16:13, 33; 2 Kgs 17:11, 17; 21:6; 2 Chr 33:6; Jer 11:17.

17 The term τροφευειν is a neologism and apparently appears only in the LXX, in two instan-ces. In Exod 2:7, the sister of Moses asks Pharaoh’s daughter if she should get her a nurse.

18 Cf. Steck, Buch, 62.

19 The phrase “neighbouring cities of Zion” is found only in Baruch; cf. Bar 4:9, 14, 24. Other-wise, the term “neighbouring cities” appears only in Jer 30:12 (LXX) in relation to Sodom and Gomorrah.

20 Literally: “great suffering”. This phrase in the LXX is attested in other later texts (Esth 4:3; 1 Macc 1:25; 12:52) in addition to Gen 50:11.

21 Cf. Isa 66:10–13.

with mourning and weeping, the fate of her children, who have experienced captivity (Bar 4:10, 11b). The unexpected reference to the widowhood of Jerusa-lem is surprising (Bar 4:12a), because there was no previous mention of the city as a woman, or a wife. Added to that, the miserable isolation of the widow Jeru-salem is not a result of the death of her husband, but because of the neglect of God’s commandments by her own children (Bar 4:12b–13). It is noteworthy that the concept and the image of the widowhood of Jerusalem are found explicitly only in Baruch (cf. Bar 4:16). Although the metaphorical image of a marriage between YHWH and Jerusalem is already found in Ezek 16:1–8, it is used there in a negative sense (she is a whore) and with an ambivalent connotation.²² In contrast to Ezekiel 16, the sins are not here attributed to Jerusalem (cf. Ezek 16:2–3), but to her children, i.e. the inhabitants of Jerusalem (cf. Bar 4:12b–13).

In this way, there is not only a rehabilitation, or a release from guilt, but also a hypostasis of Jerusalem.

Further, in the second speech addressed to the neighbours of Zion (Bar 4:14–16), the (war-)captivity of the children of Jerusalem is illustrated in vivid and captivating words (cf. Bar 4:14). Here we again encounter the theme of the abandoned widow Jerusalem (Bar 4:16). Now the talk is no more of transgres-sions by the children of Jerusalem, but of the unrestrained behaviour of a people who have come from a distance, and are acting ruthlessly and disrespect-fully towards the old people and children (Bar 4:15). Although this misfortune has been decreed and brought about by God or by the Eternal²³ himself (Bar 4:10b, 14b), this reference to the “distant nation” is designed to elicit a deep sympathy on the part of the neighbours of Zion not only for the children of Jeru-salem, but also for Jerusalem herself. After having addressed these words to the neighbouring cities, Jerusalem now turns the message directly²⁴ to her own children in a mood of disappointment, and with an expression of her own suf-ferings (Bar 4:17–20). This passage opens with a sharp rhetorical question,²⁵

||

22 Although the metaphorical image of a wife with respect to (the people of) Israel is well attested in the prophetical literature (cf. Hos 1:2–3, 5; Jer 3:1–13), only Ezekiel 16 expressly uses this image with regard to Jerusalem. Of course one could, with Greenberg, equate Jerusalem with Israel in the context of marriage imagery in Ezekiel (cf. Greenberg, Ezekiel, 324). But the prophet does not expressly say so. However, it is common to all these passages that the meta-phorical image of marriage is usually presented negatively.

23 When Jerusalem speaks (Bar 4:9b–29), she uses not only the term “God”, but also “the eternal” (ο αιωνιος); cf. Bar 4:10, 14, 20, 22, 24. In Bar 4:8 we find the phrase “eternal God”

(θεος αιωνιος).

24 In this sense there is a parallel here with Bar 4:5–9a.

25 Introduced by εγω δε (“but I”), which has to be understood as an adversative.

which accentuates the actual helplessness of Jerusalem towards her own chil-dren. As in Bar 4:15, her helplessness is justified by a reference to God, who has initiated the punishment and the disaster. But, at the same time, Jerusalem makes it clear that it is God alone who can reverse their misfortune. In anticipa-tion of the impending end of the disaster, Jerusalem urgently summons her children to start making their way immediately (Bar 4:19a).²⁶ In the course of this literary process, Jerusalem describes her own wretched condition with passionate, appealing and sad words: she lies desolate and abandoned (Bar 4:19b); she has taken off the dress of peace, and put on the sackcloth of mourning (Bar 4:20a);

finally she cries to God incessantly (Bar 4:20b). Jerusalem succeeds with these statements in showing her twofold loyalty, both towards her children and to God.

With Bar 4:21, a new section commences, and it again opens with the im-perative acclamation "Be of good cheer" (θαρσειτε), which we have already seen in Bar 4:5. With this call, the city of Jerusalem once more turns expressly and emotionally to her children. In contrast to section Bar 4:9b–20, the situation of Jerusalem is now determined not by sorrow but by firm confidence. Conveyed together with this call is an invitation to cry unto God, because Jerusalem now has the firm confidence that the liberation of her children from the power of the enemy is imminent (Bar 4:21–22a). The children have themselves to beg God persistently and to cry out to him (βοαν). The reason for this firm confidence is the fact that Jerusalem has already experienced the mercy of God. This mercy will be revealed in the form of the salvation²⁷ of her children (Bar 4:22). The credibility of this statement is accentuated by the adverbial “very soon” (εν ταχει, Bar 4:22). It is also found, three times in all, in subsequent verses. More-over, this encouraging statement is underlined by how solemnly Bar 4:22 speaks about God in closely succeeding terms: the Eternal, the Holy One, the Redeem-er. Although Bar 4:23 underlines the sorrow of Jerusalem because of the contin-ued exile of her children (cf. Bar 4), Jerusalem is now quite certain that she will get back her children as a joyful gift, and that this will be forever (Bar 4:23b).

Sorrow and lamentation are followed by cheerfulness and joy,²⁸ brought about through the intervention of God himself (cf. Bar 4:9b). This transformation of Jerusalem is not hidden from the neighbouring cities. Just as they once

wit-||

26 From a stylistic and syntactic point of view, this call consists of a vocative framed by two identical imperatives.

27 Bar 4:22 consists of three parts. Both the first and the third part end with a hint of salvation:

your salvation (την σωτηριαν υμων, Bar 4:22a); your saviour (σωτηρος υμων, Bar 4:22c). Corre-sponding to this, Bar 4:22a and 4:22c speak of God as “the eternal”.

28 Cf. the corresponding phrases in Bar 4:23.

nessed the captivity of the children of Jerusalem (Bar 4:14), so will they also take notice of their return from exile (Bar 4:24), and that will be “very soon” (εν ταχει). Furthermore, just as the circumstances of the deportation were grievous (Bar 4:15), so the return of the children will be like the solemn entry of a victorious sovereign into his city, accompanied by “great splendour”²⁹ and “radiance”.³⁰ It is worth noting that Jerusalem speaks not about “our God”, but about “your God”, when talking about her children, their liberation and their homecoming.

After this auspicious announcement in Bar 4:25, the vocative “children” is used, as at the beginning of this section, and it marks a point of departure. In view of the imminent salvation of their children, they are now urged to endure the wrath of God with patience (Bar 4:25), especially because the destruction of the enemy is very near (εν ταχει). It is remarkable that within Bar 4:25 a grammati-cal change of the addressees takes place. Suddenly there is talk of the enemy who has persecuted “you” (singular). Who is this “you”? So far, the children have been always addressed in the second person plural, even in Bar 4:25. Does this change to “you” in Bar 4:25 mean an intensification in the form of address?

There is also a change of number regarding the pronoun within Bar 5:25 itself.

While at the beginning of the verse the enemy is mentioned in the singular – in the sense of a collective dimension – so at the end of the verse it is in the plural in the reference to their neck, upon which the children shall tread.³¹ Apart from the fact that we find here a reference to Deut 33:29 (LXX),³² the change in num-ber³³ may equally well be interpreted as an intensification of gratification on the part of the children of Jerusalem.

Between the direct address to the children in Bar 4:25, and Bar 4:27, Bar 4:26 is inserted as a dictum of reflection. Jerusalem’s repetitive talk about the deportation of their children is remarkable for the degree of love and sympathy that it expresses.³⁴ The children are called “my tender ones”,³⁵ if we translate τρυφερος³⁶ with “tender” and “lovely”.³⁷ They would also have fallen prey to the

||

29 The “great sorrow” of Jerusalem (Bar 4:9b) is now matched by the “great glory” (Bar 4:24).

30 The phrase “the radiance of the eternal” in Bar 4:24 is unique in the LXX. There are biblical parallels to this, but only a few; cf. Pss 89:17; 109:3.

31 Although the expression of putting your foot on the neck of the enemy is known in Josh 10:24 (LXX), the term “foot” is not used in Bar 4:25.

32 Nouns and pronouns are congruent in Deut 33:29.

33 Steck, Baruchbuch, 218–219.

34 Cf. Bar 4:10, 11b, 14, 16, 23a, 24a.

35 Cf. Mic 1:16.

36 Cf. Sus 31.

enemies (plural!) as victims without any guidance and protection. After this reflection, Jerusalem again turns insistently to her children and repeats the imperative call “Take courage, my children, call on God”, almost like a refrain.

Unlike Bar 4:5, 21, the aorist tense is consequently used in Bar 4:27a (θαρσησατε³⁸ ... βοησατε). In this way, the critical point, that is, the immediate liberation of the children of Jerusalem through God alone is also brought out grammatical-ly.³⁹ The urgency of the rescue is expressed by the very compact form used in Bar 4:27b and may be regarded as brachylogy.⁴⁰ Bar 4:27b may be translated as follows: “he who brought this on you will remember you”. From the immediate context it is possible to apply this arrangement to the destruction of the mies, which was spoken about two verses earlier. This destruction of the ene-mies simultaneously brings the deliverance of the children, who cry out to God.

But the salvation also assumes that the children have a verifiable commitment to reversion. In order to compensate for the lapse from God, a tenfold,⁴¹ that is to say, a constant striving for reversion is necessary. This striving is for nothing but a seeking after God (Bar 4:28). Reversion here, not as in Deut 1:24, 40; 2:1;

3:1 (LXX), no longer carries a geographical but a theological sense, which corre-sponds to a searching for God.⁴²

The speech of Jerusalem to her children concludes with a refrain-like sen-tence (Bar 4:18), which again summarizes what has been already said with the appropriate keywords (Bar 4:29): hitherto disaster; in the future eternal joy associated with salvation. The speech of Jerusalem started with the reference to the great suffering inflicted by God. The speech ends with the prospect of her children’s eternal joy and salvation coming from God.

||

37 This is a term that is used mostly with ambivalence and rarely in the Septuagint; cf. Deut 28:54, 56; Isa 47:1, 8; 58:13; Jer 27:2.

38 This form is a hapax legomenon in the LXX, but also occurs in the New Testament.

39 For aorist use, cf. Josephus, Ant. 8.293.

40 The word επαγοντος is a participle present tense active; genitive singular masculine, which represents a genitivus absolutus; cf. regarding participle present tense: Prov 26:11; Eccl 4:21; 2 Pet 2:1. Just as God has brought sorrow to Jerusalem (Bar 4:9b) and her children (Bar 4:10, 14, 15, 18), so will he let this happen to their enemies.

41 This verb δεκαπλασιαζειν is an absolute hapax legomenon in the LXX. It testifies to the word-coining-capability of the author as well as the editors of the book of Baruch.

42 Cf. Ezra 8:22; Pss 21:27; 118:2; Heb 11:6.

2.2 The second call of encouragement to Jerusalem