Rethinking the Land in Jeremiah 12

My first encounter with climate change came through Bad Religion’s “Kyoto Now!” At 12 or 13 years old, these lyrics rang in my in head: “In your dreams/You saw a steady state a bounty for eternity/Silent screams/but now the wisdom that sustains us is in full retreat/….Alien/We need a fresh and new religion to run our lives/Hand in hand/the arid torpor of inaction will be our demise.”[1]

As ice melts, forests burn, and the planet swelters, it is easy for many Christians to think that we need a fresh, new religion. We’ve been seduced by the “mythological, hopeful beast,” as evidenced by an addiction to fossil fuels.[2] The careless exploitation of the environment has long been couched in Christian platitudes. The Western Church’s empty expressions which extol the environment merely as our dominion demonstrate an underdeveloped view of the world. Despite that, perhaps what believers needs is not a new religion, but old wisdom.

A common perspective in Christian theology is the subordination of land to human and spiritual forces, which is rooted in Greek philosophies.[3] The natural is denigrated for our own benefit, on the assumption that people and acts can be understood in an intelligible manner when abstracted from the natural world. I believe the necessary corrective to this perspective is to understand that land as an entity we are in relationship with. This is a corrective that Indigenous theologians are already offering the Church, if only more believers would listen. Land is not just soil, but land includes all that live in it, on it, and above it. Indigenous theologians Clara Sue Kidwell, Homer Noley, and George E. “Tink” Tinker are unambiguous in their affirmation that land is alive (“both in a literal and figurative sense”) and “[is] the embodiment of spiritual power;” consequently, all of the earth is a gift, unable to be truly possessed.[4] Creation is to be treated respectfully and with a sense of responsibility to it.[5] Humanity occupies a niche in a cosmos that is “sacred and alive,” a cosmos which reacts to human activity, and (perhaps most importantly) a cosmos which broadly demands reciprocity.[6] Reciprocity assumes agency – the land gives not because it is required to, but because it has agreed to do so. Humanity’s unique position in this cosmos is not one of superiority, but typically one of befuddlement as people appear to be the one element on the land which is unsure of their place in the world.[7]

In comparison, it’s more likely to see land discussed in a way in keeping with capitalistic understandings of land as a resource. It’s not uncommon to see Western theologians speak of the environment as an inert blessing owned by God and rented out to peoples: land is understood merely as a blessing to people or as a possession which God allows people to use. Even when seemingly grounded in theism, this is fundamentally an anthropocentric understanding of land. The relationship is akin to a landlord and renter, while the land is simply a good in such a transaction. Theological language needs to be reworked to ensure that we are understood as being part of the created order and that we are in relationship with the rest of creation.

The natural reply one might expect, though, is that to read the Bible with Indigenous views of land in mind might bring animism into Biblical faith or that such an effort would be tantamount to paganism. But that assumes that the canon is devoid of such perspectives and, indeed, that the Bible predominately mirrors our own beliefs. However, the Bible preserves prophetic voices that more resemble the Indigenous perspective than the perspective of the mainstream Church. And Jeremiah’s prophetic ministry is one such instance.

In Jeremiah there are strong emphases on “knowing and clinging to God” and the importance of being on the land.[8] Broadly speaking, the failings of the people had a direct effect on whether or not they will continue to have place on “their God-given land.”[9] However it would be a mistake to assume that the land is without a role in this. Within Jeremiah “Earth is portrayed as having emotions” as it “suffer[s] and mourn[s]” while being obedient to “God’s commands.”[10] For the prophet, the earth mourns because it is deprived of “the creative order of the covenantal relationship between the people and Yhwh” which causes the land to “raise its voice in grief due to its separation from the people.”[11] These are themes that are present in Jeremiah 12, and special attention will be given Jeremiah and God’s discourse in that chapter.  

Jeremiah starts the conversation by simply asking: “Why does the way of the wicked prosper?” (v. 1, English Standard Version). God is accused of “planting” a sinful people who are far from God (v. 2). Jeremiah implores Them to “set [the unjust] apart for the day of slaughter” (v. 3), and offers a plea on behalf of the land: “How long will the land mourn and the grass of every field wither? For the evil of those who dwell in it the beasts and the birds are swept away, because they said ‘He will not see our latter end’” (v. 4).

It doesn’t take long for us to see an issue with how this verse is commonly interpreted. There is a tendency to assume that Jeremiah is actually speaking about his own situation or this is actually a prayer for the people. Verse 4 is too commonly treated as a non sequitur. But I don’t believe it’s an intuitive reading to regard Jeremiah’s closing statement as unrelated. My objections can be summarized quite briefly. First, if Jeremiah 12:1-4 continues the narrative of the previous chapter, there is no need for Jeremiah to pray for his own deliverance because he has been promised deliverance (11:21-23); he also knows that praying for the people will be fruitless (v. 11:14).  Second, if these verses are not related to the narrative found in the previous chapter, there is no need for Jeremiah to be obtuse and he could frame his concerns in a more straightforward manner. Thirdly, as God speaks to Jeremiah, the focus does not shift to speak of the prophet or the poor. Instead, as God speaks, They focus largely on how the wicked will be brought to submission by both the nations and nature.

Because it is commonly assumed that Jeremiah’s subject is not actually the land itself, God’s response to Jeremiah is often framed as if the Lord is dodging the question (or, at best, offering an extremely glib response). One commentator summarizes God’s response simply: “Cheer up, Jeremiah. The worst is yet to come!”[12] But if readers assume that Jeremiah’s concern for the land is genuine, that Jeremiah legitimately hears the sorrows of the land, then the chapter is much more cohesive and less ambiguous than commonly assumed. Throughout the entire chapter, there is “concern for a land that mourns (12.4, 11), and for the land as heritage (12.7-9, 14-15)” which form “interlocking themes across the chapter.”[13] If the land is excluded from discussions on God’s justice, then the result is a narrow understanding of how God’s presence is felt in the land. Throughout the chapter God speaks of both people and land as Their own inheritance – both are God’s possessions to be passed down. This brings to the forefront the brutal tragedy of Jeremiah’s ministry: God’s treasured possessions will be ravished. 

God’s inheritance, in this case God’s people, is given up to judgement. The judgement against Judah is abandonment, which causes the kingdom to fall into enemy hands. However, Judah has become like a lion against God. The kingdom is like an untamed bird that will be attacked by birds of prey. As God’s rebuke to the nation develops, the reader begins to see that creation will also judge the rebellious kingdom: the land itself is invited to be part of attack against Judah (vv. 10-13). The kingdom is surrounded as the nations, animals, and land itself all prepare to besiege God’s people.

Just as Jeremiah had brought forth a complaint about God’s justice on behalf of the land, God offers a response for the land. What is noteworthy is that Jeremiah and God have both heard the land’s cries loud and clear. That the land cries out is not in dispute. What is disputed is what the cries mean. When Jeremiah hears the land cry, he interprets that to mean that its helpless and in need of his intercession; God’s reply highlights that the land is empowered. God points out that the land has the good sense to mourn its plight: “Desolate, the whole land, because no one takes it to heart” (v. 11, New American Bible Revised Edition). The cries do not mean the land is weak, it means the land is dismayed that the people ignore it. Likewise, who is to blame for the degradation of the land is contested. Jeremiah blames the unjust – their sins had brought about the present condition – while God compares the desolation of the land to “the sword of the Lord” (v. 12, ESV). The sorry state of the land is God’s proof that the land is fighting back. Terence Fretheim concludes that “this grieving, angry God bears some responsibility for the wasted land.”[14]

God’s role in the land’s desolation is a contrasted to how the sinful people react. While sinners “deny any connection between [the plight of the land and creature] and their sin…. God does take some responsibility for the land.”[15] In fact, God will use the situation to correct the people’s sin. In this respect, the land and the creatures on the land are not different from the nations in other prophetic contexts: agents of God’s judgement. However, while the nations God employs to judge God’s people are typically treated as sinful creatures which inevitably overstep their bounds; the land and the animals are obedient agents. As a result, the land is no mere victim: “the land is depicted as resisting the destruction resulting from human activities” while being “caught in the middle.”[16] The land is shaped by its relationship to both God and people, but it has a distinct relationship with both. God appears to affirm that the land will become an active partner in bringing about justice.

God’s plan for justice reaches its fullness in verses 14-17. The nations and creation will mete out justice for God and the land has an opportunity to exact some measure of restitution. Yet, Elmer Martens notes that these verses complicate God’s answer to Jeremiah “by changing the agenda to a discussion of compassion.”[17] God will have compassion on Judah. Even more shocking, God will have compassion on the nations on those “who touch the heritage that I have given my people Israel to inherit” (v. 14). This also marks a shift in the meaning of heritage/inheritance. Previously in the chapter, inheritance had referred to Israel and God’s rejection of it. God abandoned God’s inheritance, it roared at God like a lion, and the inheritance was surrounded by birds of prey seeking its life; but in verses 14-15, the land is God’s inheritance that will be returned to the people. In short: God will give God’s inheritance to God’s inheritance. Inheritance here refers to a gift which is passed on from generation to generation.

Just as God had planted the unjust ones whom had taken root (v. 2), God promises that Judah will be “plucked” from exile and returned to the land (v. 15). The surrounding nations are also included in this oracle. The nations had taught God’s people how to worship other gods, but God’s inheritance will bless the nations as they teach them to worship Yahweh, and if they keep their Baals they will be plucked just as Israel had been – though their fate seems to be destruction, rather than exile (v.16-17). This further emphasizes the shift in meaning for God’s inheritance: in vv. 5-13, God’s inheritance (people) has been designated for judgement; in vv. 14-17, God’s inheritance (land) becomes the designated locus of God’s justice and compassion.

Rethinking how the Bible is to be contextualized as we consider the state of the planet does not require a complete abandonment of the theologies that came before. But we are required to rethink the assumptions we carry with us. Rethinking how we read Scripture is an important step in learning to see the world in a new light.  

[1]. Bad Religion, “Kyoto Now!,” by Greg Graffin, recorded 2001, track 7 on The Process of Belief, Epitaph.
[2]. Ibid. 
[3].  Vine Deloria Jr., The Metaphysics of Modern Existence, (New York, NY: Harper and Row Publishers Inc., 1979. Reprint, Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing, 2012), 55.
[4]. Clara Sue Kidwell, Homer Noley, George E. “Tink” Tinker, A Native American Theology, (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001), 126-7.
[5]. Ibid., 33. 
[6]. Ibid., 41.
[7]. Ibid., 39. 
[8]. Elmer A. Martens, Jeremiah, Believers Church Bible Commentary, (Kitchener, ON: Herald Press, 1986), 21.
[9]. Ibid., 24.
[10]. The Earth Bible Team, “The Voice of Earth: More than Metaphor?” 23-8, The Earth Story in the Psalms and the Prophets, vol. 4 of The Earth Bible, ed. Norman C. Habel, (Cleveland, OH: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), 27.
[11]. Val Billingham, “Some Ecological Perspectives on Jeremiah and Exile.” Colloquium 45, no. 1 (May 2013): 19.
[12]. F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, vol. 16 of The New American Commentary, (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1993), 140.
[13]. Terence E. Fretheim, “The Earth Story in Jeremiah 12,” 97.
[14]. Terence E. Fretheim, “The Earth Story in Jeremiah 12,” 101.
[15]. Ibid., 104.
[16]. Ibid., 107.
[17]. Elmer A. Martens, Jeremiah, 100.

Batman and Job

Stories shape how people interact with the world and understand their place within it. We tell stories to provide a sense of order to the world and sometimes we tell stories to name the difficulties and nuances of the world around us. Stanley Hauerwas, a Christian ethicist, posits that societies tell stories to help equip people for the life-long adventure of living the good life. Stories help maintain the courage necessary for us to keep “faithful to the struggle, since by its very nature adventures means that the future is always in doubt. And just to the extent that the future is in doubt, hope is required, as there can be no adventure if we despair our goal. Such hope… involves the simple willingness to take the next step.”[1]

Batman #53[2] is a story that is explicitly about the struggle on how one should best take that next step. This issue is the conclusion to a three-part story called “Cold Days.” In this story, Bruce Wayne is doing jury duty for a case involving Mr. Freeze that he, as Batman, helped solve. Or, so it appears. The reader quickly learns that Bruce is arguing for Mr. Freeze’s innocence with the jury. Bruce thinks his conclusions he made as Batman were based on flawed evidence and had himself put on the jury so that he could try to correct his mistake. As the story reaches its conclusion, the nature of the conversation shifts away from the evidence and toward the nature of justice and hope. The final issue builds upon Job to contrast God’s justice with Batman’s justice, and the inherent fallibility of Batman as a symbol. Bruce Wayne ends up reflecting on the story of Job to help articulate why a not guilty verdict would be the best way for the jurors to move forward.

The biblical story that Bruce reflects on, the story of Job, speaks to the difficult nature of understanding theodicy, or God’s justice. It opens with a description of a man who is “blameless and upright” (Job 1:1, New American Bible Revised Edition) in every sense of the word. Job is a just man who eagerly observes the necessary cultic practices of his faith. He’s blessed with a large family, much wealth, and good health. Job’s piety is so great that Yahweh, or God, takes note of him. One day Yahweh and Satan converse when the conversation turns to Job. God boasts on Job’s behalf, saying “Have you noticed my servant Job? There is no one on earth like him” (1:8). Satan isn’t convinced that Job is so great. In fact, he believes that Job is only faithful because he is prosperous. Satan, as the tempter and tester, proposes that Job’s faith be tried by stripping him of all blessings; God agrees to this. Job’s possessions, family, and even his health are all taken away from him. Job sits by a fire, in mourning and contemplation, when his friends come to offer comfort, which quickly turns into heated debate. Job is admonished and pushed to admit that he sinned, for if he had not sinned he would not face such hardship. But Job is adamant, he has done no wrong! Eventually Job meets God, face-to-face, to engage in a dialogue. Yahweh confirms that Job’s suffering is not the result of wrong-doing. Job is ultimately vindicated and his blessings returned: he’s given a larger family, even more wealth, and is blessed with a long life.

            Tom King’s use of Job in Batman #53 initially seems like a way to flesh the character of Bruce Wayne out. In the story Bruce discusses his loss of faith when his parents died and how he found a god in Batman; the irony, the reader knows, is this is not merely idolatry, but self-deification. King effectively reframes the story to be about idolatry and justice. After all, Batman is not God or even a god (as Bruce reminds the jury). Batman is a man who can make mistakes, thus his justice and his pronouncements of guilt can be wrong. The nature of Batman’s justice is put on trial. In doing so, the comparison between God’s justice in Job and Batman’s justice is made. We cannot assume the justice of our idols; Batman only seems just because the alternative is so cruel – maniacs and “demons” terrorize Gotham on a regular basis – and the citizens have resigned themselves to accept that “his will is our law.”[3]

In presenting a new spin on the classic story of Job, Tom King also recreates a central nuance present in Job. A theme in Job’s speeches, and later in Yahweh’s speech in the story, is that Job is unfit to question the ways of the Creator. Early in the story, Job notes that people “Accept good things from God; should we not accept evil” (2:10). Even when Job does lament his situation, he says that even if one were to “contend” with God, they “could not answer him once in a thousand times,” even if they were “right” (9:3, 15). When God does arrive to take part in the debate, Job refuses to engage in an argument with God, while God’s own arguments mirrors Job’s earlier arguments: can the created understand the ways of the Creator? The closing dialogue with Job and God suggests that “God’s goodness lies beyond justice. This is why the categories of guilt and punishment, true and terrible though they are, can only view human suffering as a consequence of sin, not as an occasion of grace.”[4]

Likewise, Bruce Wayne states he “sought transcendence” in Batman and “thought he was God.” He implies that because so many people have been saved from the grave by Batman’s actions, they view him as a god: who are we to question the world’s greatest detective? This is compared to God’s words in Job. Tom King, like Job’s author, then reframes the question of justice. Batman fails as a god because “he does not provide solace from pain” and “cannot give you hope for the eternal” or “comfort you for the love you lost;” bluntly stated, “God blesses your soul with grace. Batman punches people in the face.”[5]

An undercurrent to the story relates to what type of society is Gotham with Batman as its idol. Bruce, with his own lack of faith, preaches on the meaning of Job to a Christian juror and suggests that everyone in that room has come to see Batman as a god. But questioning the nature of justice is enough to prove that Batman cannot be the basis for the story which allows people to have genuine hope in their own lives. Bruce pushes the other jurors to engage in an argument about which tradition will shape their lives. Hauerwas writes that societies are engaged in “extended argument[s]” involving “living traditions” and “rival interpretations. Good societies enable the argument to continue so that the possibilities and limit of the tradition can be exposed.”[6] In this issue, Bruce Wayne does exactly that. He argues that Batman simply cannot stand up to rival interpretations of reality: once you start asking the tough questions, Batman is revealed to be a mere idol.

Hauerwas notes that “[a]bsorption into most societies is training in self-deception as we conspire with one another to keep death at bay…. Good and just societies require a narrative, therefore, which helps them know the truth about existence and fight the constant temptation to self-deception.”[7] King’s Batman #53 highlights that the common superhero narrative can become a form of self-deception. The story does not just deal with Bruce Wayne’s self-deception, but the self-deception of the larger world. At the conclusion of the issue, Bruce eventually wins the argument and convinces the jury to acquit Mr. Freeze and admit that their false god can err. As the jury leaves the room, they leave with an apparent new-found sense of purpose that they had lacked earlier on the narrative when they assumed their role was to merely rubber stamp the judgements of the Dark Knight; there’s even a sense of joy in the moment as Bruce and his Christian interlocutor appear to warmly converse on their way out. Yet, the reader knows that Bruce/Batman is still engaged in this self-deception, even if he knows that his judgement is fallible. He still lacks a narrative to give him direction when confronted with the larger issues in life.

[1]. Stanley Hauerwas, “A Story-Formed Community: Reflections on Watership Down,” from A Community of Character: Toward a Constructive Christian Social Ethic, reprinted 2008, (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1981), 13,  

[2]. Tom King, Lee Weeks, Elizabeth Breitweiser, Cold Days, Pt. 3 of 3, Batman #53, (Burbank, CA: DC Comics, October, 2018).  

[3]. Ibid.

[4]. Francis I. Andersen, Job: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 14, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1976), 310.

[5]. Tom King, Lee Weeks, Elizabeth Breitweiser, Batman #53.

[6]. Stanley Hauerwas, “A Story-Formed Community,” 14.

[7]. Ibid., 18.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders Flirts with False Prophecy

Sarah Sanders is making headlines for making a bold claim: God wanted President Donald Trump to be president.[1] If Sanders is right about this, she should be worried. She might even need to take a Biblical literacy course to realize why her comments should be worrying.

A quick look at the history of Israel’s judges and kings prove that being chosen is difficult, at best, and often results in ruin. A quick overview of the Biblical narrative surrounding the transition from Israel being a loose confederation of tribes to a united monarchy is, perhaps, in order.

In 1 Samuel 8, the audience encounters a story in which the people approached their current leader and asked for a new ruler, a king. In the background of this story, Samuel had been chosen by God to be a judge over Israel. With God on his side, Samuel led Israel to military victories, presided over the nation, and settled disputes.  However, Samuel had failed to keep his sons in line. They were corrupt and flagrantly so. In this way, Samuel’s story mirrors the previous God-appointed judge, Eli, who raised Samuel as a boy. Eli, previously Yahweh’s appointed leader, received a prophecy that his lineage would cease to exist – his family would be no more – because his sons were corrupt and he stood by and did nothing (1 Sam. 2:12-17; 2:27-3:18). In 1 Samuel 8, Samuel was confronted by the people who had decided they could no longer tolerate the system of charismatic judges and wanted a king, like the other nations.

Samuel, displeased, left to pray about what should be done. God spoke to the Samuel and told him that it is not Samuel that the people have rejected, but the rather they have rejected Yahweh. The Lord, nevertheless, agreed to give Israel a king. Samuel still tries to dissuade the people, under a monarchy they will trade away their sons, daughters, livestock, land, and wealth to a king in the hope of security when it is God that provides security. The people remained adamant, they wanted a king.

At this point, Sanders should get the inkling that being the leader God picks is a scary prospect. Eli’s family was erased from history, while Samuel was forced to transition the nation to a new political system because people lost faith under his rule.

Samuel is, nevertheless, a faithful judge and a great prophet. Thus, he carried out his duty and anointed Saul as king at the Lord’s behest, making him the first king over the tribes. Saul is initially a successful king. Like Samuel, he led the nation to victory in battle and listened to the people. In fact, Saul’s downfall is he was a bit too worried about what the people thought. On the eve of battle, Samuel was supposed to offer a sacrifice but was running late. Saul felt he could not wait anymore and offered the sacrifice himself so his army would not lose confidence; as king, Saul overstepped his bounds and acted as priest. Samuel saw Saul offer the sacrifice and rebukes Saul. Readers know Saul’s dynasty is doomed from that point on. God had set Their eyes to a new king to succeed Saul (1 Sam. 13:1-14).

God selected David (1 Sam. 16:13). David’s a tricky character and was a thorn in Saul’s side for years. When David finally became king, we know that his failings are memorialized in Scripture. David famously committed adultery and murdered to cover up that sin; yet, due to God’s earlier promise to David, David remained relatively unscathed (2 Sam. 7:8-17; 11:1-26). David has become the one that will finally be able to see their family line continue and one of David’s sons, Solomon, became the first figure in this history to succeed his father to rule the nation. God selected David’s line, the root of Jesse, to lead the people, after all. After David’s death, Solomon built the Temple. History largely remembers him as wise king. But, he too experienced a downfall later in life as he accepted the idolatry of his wives and incurred judgement as a result (1 Kings 11:4-13).

People who know their Old Testament history will know that Solomon’s death led to the fracturing of the Israelite kingdom into Israel, to the north, and Judah, to the south. The people had been heavily taxed to build the Temple and sought relief from a dynastic line that was too callous to care. The first king of the Northern Kingdom was divinely appointed to lead the north away from the Davidic dynasty but was also judged harshly for impiety (1 Kings 11:26-39; 12:26-33). Both kingdoms were crushed by empire; Israel fell to Assyria while David’s line in the south fell Babylon. One can skim through the books of Kings and Chronicles to see that rulers were generally judged harshly, even those chosen by God.

Assyrian warrior on camelback; taken from David S. Dockery, ed., Holman Bible Handbook, Logos edition, (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992), 80.

And, if Sanders wants to continue reading the Bible, she wound find herself reading the prophets. A theme that develops over the prophetic books is that God controls the nations, even the ungodly nations: pious and impious. This is perhaps best illustrated by the prophet Isaiah. In a prophecy against Assyria, God affirms that They had chosen Assyria to be a tool of judgement against wicked nations, but the empire had been too eager in carrying out that duty, too unjust in execution, and had thus set itself up to be punished by the same God who wielded an empire as “a rod of My wrath” (Is. 10:1-12, New American Bible Revised Edition).

Of course, it is alarmist to compare the Trump administration the leaders of the Northern Kingdom of Israel, which was doomed to fall to the Assyrians, or to the Southern Kingdom of Judah, which was subjected to the Babylonian Exile. But if Sanders firmly believes that that God chose Trump to be president, she should realize that being chosen by God can be a blessing or a curse; being elected is a call to righteousness. The failings of God’s appointed leaders resulted in oppression and injustice. The result of judgement were catastrophic upheaval when God intervened. The bad kings of the divided kingdoms were bolstered by false prophets who assured them of success and told them they had been chosen by Yahweh or other gods. Bad rulers were backed by false prophets, impious priests, and sycophant advisors who believed they knew the divine will and believed they were vindicated.

Anyone who proclaims any leader to be God’s chosen should be wary. Those who claim to know the mind of God risk being false prophets. If Sarah Huckabee Sanders has any good, pious bone in her body, she should be worried that she is acting as a false prophet.

[1]. BBC, “Sarah Sanders says ‘God wanted Trump to be president,’” January 31, 2019, (Accessed February 1, 2019).