So far we have learned one book, ספר ישעיהו. Now we have started to learn a second book from the נביאים אחרונים, which is about the Navi, ירמיהו. All week long, I have been trying to compare the two books in my head as we are learning about ירמיהו, and every time I find a similarity, I find one difference to go along with it. Of course they both came from different backgrounds, but also their whole missions are different. They might sound just alike, but they are so different. So just a little background for you on ירמיהו. He is from ענתות, from the family of cohanim, and prophesized from the time of יאשיהו until the time of the destruction of the Beit HaMikdash.
Some of the similarities that we can detect from both their missions are, they both had to make the people realize Hashem's power, and warn them of what was to come if they didn't change their ways. If I had to make a generally differentiation between them, I would say that ישעיהו was more of the started of the prophecy, and not only because he came first. He was the one who tried to get the people to change their ways, and he gave them so many chances, but they didn't listen. He was more of the warning prophet, and ירמיהו is now the action prophet. We learned that ירמיהו's reasons for being a Navi were to uproot, destroy, and rebuild and plant. Just from that we can see that ירמיהו was more of the action prophet. He wasn't going to give the people as much of a chance as ישעיהו did.
Another difference that I saw was that Hashem told the people, through ירמיהו, that he would be with them even through the destruction. It seems like He either has more hope, He is just being nicer. During the time of ישעיהו he didn't say that He would stand with the people during after the destruction or exile. This got me thinking that maybe the people weren't as bad in the kingdom of Yehudah. Maybe the kings we worse. Why would Hashem say that he would stand with them during destruction and tell ירמיהו to rebuild and plant new roots if they were so terrible. He is sort of contradicting his words and actions in the last book.
I did point out in class that the decline of a kingdom seemed to be led by changing kings so many times, which happened in ישעיהו and in ירמיהו. So, why should the people be blamed for the decline in this situation? The kings are the ones who keep failing, its not the people's fault. Yes, they do lack a sense of צדק ומשפט but the kingdom just keeps rolling through kings, and the people are having to suffer because of it. I think that in ירמיהו, that is why they are destroyed. Hashem is definitely going to destroy the Beit HaMikdash but he is going to let ירמיהו rebuild and replant the root after it is done, unlike in ישעיהו, the people were told they had to almost earn their way back in.
I don't exacly agree with Sophie's point. I do think that it was the people's fault, not the kings. Although many of the kings were bad, there were times when the kings gave the people opportunites to return to G-d. During the time of Yishiayahu (Ben Amon) all the avoda zara was removed and the beit hamikdash was repaired. A religious revival was beginning but the people were not committed. They continued to worship idols anyway. They had the opportunity to listen to their King and maybe even to teshuva but the people were too far gone and continued on with their evil ways.
ReplyDeleteSophie, like Alyssa remarked, I do not completely agree with your point. Yoshayahu attempted to institute a religious revival (which proved to be unsuccessful). However, it was a "joint effort." There is a Midrash we studied that the people hid their idols on the back of their doors. This does not spark the idea that it was the kings's fault. In order to maintain a strong religious kingdom, both the people and the kings had to be involved. Although we are sure the kings played a role in the corruption, the people were not strong enough to overcome their hedonistic desires, and unfortunately, constituted an enormous portion of the immoral society.
ReplyDeleteI agree both with Alyssa and Noga. I was intrigued by what you wrote. I agree that it was somewhat the kings fault that the people were punished, but it was also very much at the faults of the people. They could chosen not to follow their kings and realized that their leaders were nut-jobs, which is difficult to do, which is obviously why they weren't able to do it. I also disagree with the fact that ירמיהו was an action Navi and not so much a warning Navi. We saw that he did, in fact, have a very big part of warning the people of their coming danger. He was the last hope, he was the one who gave them the last chance to return to Hashem before it was too late, and this was probably one of his most important roles as a Navi.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everyone in someways. I do agree that maybe Yirmiyahu could have been the action navi because mainly his mission was destruction because the people hadn't listened to Yishayahu. I agree with Alyssa and Noga and Shani too because I don't think it was the kings' faults. Many of the kings had screwed up their jobs as king but when it came to the good kings the people had no interest in trying to change themselves for the better.
ReplyDelete