There is a series of intended acts narrated at Chapter 37 of the Book of Genesis, which culminates in the sale of Joseph.
I don’t think that anyone has more facts than anyone else except as narrated in the said chapter, which I consider pivotal in determining the human trafficking of Joseph which takes place in Dothan, where Jacob’s ten brothers had meandered into from Shechem with their flock.
The fist part of evil intent is expressed by the sons of Bilhah and Zilpha, the maid servants of Rachel & Leah, who when they sighted Joseph afar discussed among themselves that if they killed Joseph, they could put an end to the fulfilment of Joseph’s DREAMS.
Who were the sons of Bilhah & Zilpah?
Dan and Naphtali were Bilhah’s; and Gad and Asher were Zilpah’s children by Jacob. Essentially the four sons who conspired to kill the dreams of Joseph were these four boys born to the maids of Jacob’s wives.
From the narration it is clear that these 4 were in the outer, if we look at the formation of the wives and children of Jacob when they were arranged by Jacob to meet Esau, his bother, at the vanguard were these two maids and their 4 sons. The middle was Leah and her six boys; and the rearguard comprised of Rachel and her two sons Joseph and Benjamin.
This formation must have been the hierarchical structure within the brothers too.
It is clear that they could PROPOSE BUT CANNOT EXECUTE WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF RUBEN.
Ruben heard the conspiracy and tells these four to desist from killing Joseph but to keep him in the pit so that Ruben could rescue Joseph later.
From the narration it is clear that Judah enters with his own proposal of selling Joseph to the Ishmeelites who were on their way to Egypt with their spices and myrrh sourced from Gilead.
When Judah and his brothers were waiting, Midianites pull out Joseph from the pit and sell Joseph for twenty pieces of silver to the Ishmeelites.
28 Then there passed by Midianites merchantmen; and they drew and lifted up Joseph out of the pit, and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites for twenty pieces of silver: and they brought Joseph into Egypt.
But there arises a contradiction at the end of the chapter wherein it is mentioned as follows:
36 And the Midianites sold him into Egypt unto Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh’s, and captain of the guard.
Therefore, the ultimate sale is made in Egypt by the same Midianites to Potiphar.
So what is this arrangement between Ishmeelites and the Midianites?
I believe in speculation that after retrieval of Joseph from the pit, the Midianites who were merchants in articles did not want to take up trading in slaves nor were they into human trafficking, which involved controlling the human being, guarding, feeding and marching him to Egypt, which they as merchants didn’t want to get embroiled in, consequently the Midianites must have sold Joseph for 20 pieces of silver with the assurance that if the Ishmeelites were to successfully bring Joseph to Egypt, the Midianites would get Joseph sold to someone at a good price, which would not only make good their 20 silver but fetch a better price including the cost of transporting joseph and a handsome profit over and above their initial investment. The Midianites would also get a commission on the final sale price.
Wonderful arrangement it seems.
So Ruben returns and finds that Joseph was not in the pit. What was his reaction?
Was Judah with his elder brothers Simeon & Levi the types who would have meekly left the scene without any money?
I guess not.
There is enough room to spin a big Hollywood story on this missing link.
Ruben is astonished that Joseph was not in the pit. Look at Ruben’s reaction, quite sincere:
29 And Reuben returned unto the pit; and, behold, Joseph was not in the pit; and he rent his clothes.
30 And he returned unto his brethren, and said, The child is not; and I, whither shall I go?
31 And they took Joseph’s coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood;
Ruben is astonished and he is bothered more about how he would answer their father Jacob. The story is spun, the multicoloured coat which the maids’ boys had stripped was drenched with blood and presented to Jacob, as if Joseph was killed by a wild animal on his way to meet his brothers.
There is no effort by the four boys of the maids nor is there any mention of Simeon. In the latter chapters it is shown how Joseph had kept Simeon as a pledge till Benjamin was brought to him. Why Simeon? Simeon and Judah were the FORCE, the brutal force of the twelve and they were a pair. Joseph with all his experience in the most trying circumstances had learnt that these two HAD TO BE SEPARATED and by a master stroke separates Judah from Simeon, while taking Simeon as a pledge.
So from Chapter 37, the persons who were responsible for the sale of Joseph were Judah, Simeon, Dan, Naphtali Gad and Asher.
Ruben was kept ignorant and like a chief executive who is only worried about his charge, upon a credible alibi propounded by the conspirators abandons his pursuit of facts.
Levi was absent and the other two boys Zebulun and Issachar were probably hoodwinked by their powerful siblings Judah and Simeon.
But did Judah and Simeon make a part of the money out of the 20 silver coins?
For all we know, it could have been these two who had shown the boy in the pit to the Midianites to rescue Joseph and later enter into an arrangement with the human trafficking Ishmeelites.
Maybe Judah used the ill-gotten silver to obtain his wife Shuah, which appears in the very next chapter. A much older Judah is seen with bracelets, staff , all those accoutrements of a dandy when he went after his own daughter-in-law, whom he thought as a harlot‼️
Let us look at Joseph’s version
15 For indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews:
Joseph says he was STOLEN and nowhere does he say that he was SOLD BY HIS BROTHERS, that is probably because joseph didn’t want to belittle his older siblings in the eyes of the superior Egyptians. But later in chapter 45 when Joseph makes himself known as Joseph to his brothers he says thus:
5 Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither: for God did send me before you to preserve life.
Joseph’s verdict is that ‘they had sold’
But not before Joseph brings two of his brothers to super time trouble. Simeon was bound and kept for at least 6 months, as only 2 years had expired at the time when joseph made himself known to his brothers.
Secondly, Joseph humbles Judah to such an extent that he makes Judah tell Joseph that he be taken as a bond man instead of Benjamin.
Joseph, who was perceptive wouldn’t have done these to Judah and Simeon, if they had been blameless.
Definitely, Judah and Simeon were the boys who benefitted by the sale and pretended as if the Midianites rescued Joseph and sold Joseph to the Ishmeelites.
Why am I leaving out Levi? Levi teamed up with Simeon in the matter of Dinah in respect of Hamor of Shechem, but there was a gross injustice involved of using force to rape Dinah and in this case, Levi wouldn’t have involved himself in such a despicable deal. Simeon was up to any violent deal and Judah’s line of reasoning was always ‘profitability’. Considering these traits I am inclined to believe that Judah and Simeon were responsible for an operation amounting to a sale with the active assistance of the Midianites, disguised as an act of stealing which happened when they left the boy Joseph in the pit‼️
Sabarimala: It has become a very difficult problem, Fali Nariman [Watch Video in YouTube]
Fali Nariman had said this in the video:
Nariman was also critical of what he called the lack of “Collegiality” amongst Supreme Court judges.
“The importance of Collegiality amongst judges is a very important thing which I have found lacking. Unfortunately, the difficulty is when Supreme Court judges sit in Benches of three, five and seven. But they don’t sit and discuss as to what is to happen. Or that ‘you write for the majority and you write for the minority’. While that happens everywhere in the world, it does not happen here. They (Supreme Court judges) all come on the same day and pronounce the judgment. Nobody knows which judge has dissented [until then].”
We know that, not so long ago the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of India and three other then senior Justices had openly alleged that the then Chief Justice, being the Master of the Roster, was acting arbitrarily and assigning high profile cases to juniors and cold-shouldering the seniority of those peeved Justices! So much for the simmering that goes on within the Justices of the SCI. It also brings out an important point that the puisne Justices are not among equals qua the Chief Justice; secondly that there is an unwritten but a felt seniority and juniority among the puisne justices too. Consequently the only forum where they have a right is to register their opinion on an issue before them when they find themselves as a member in the bench.
From what Mr. Fali Nariman talks of Collegiality, one needs to understand the meaning of COLLEGIALITY. It derives from “Colleague”. Notwithstanding the root of the word, one has to see if a Justice of the Supreme Court of India, who has been vested with privileges and immunities and when being a member of a Constitutional Bench be bound by Collegiality or as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes described “be as scorpions in a bottle?”
Predominantly a Constitutional Bench is set up to review an existing precedent or in any case to LAY DOWN A BINDING LAW for the times to come. Is it better that each Justice should articulate the legal grounds or the principles or even the weight of the exigencies on which he bases his ruling; or to use his authority as a Justice of that bench and concur with the majority or dissent therefrom and be a footnote to that judgement authored by another Justice?
I believe that the former is better for a democracy which is built by the people brick by brick made of the reasonings given, emphasis laid, and delivered through those binding judgements.
As per an article titled UNDERSTANDING COLLEGIALITY ON THE COURT
by Frank B. Cross and Emerson H. Tiller, “…After a majority opinion author is assigned, he or she circulates a draft opinion, after which other members of the Court circulate bar- gaining statements, agreeing to join the opinion if certain changes are made.Subsequently, a Justice may circulate a dissenting or concurring opinion in hopes of persuading other members of the Court, or affecting the content of the majority opinion, and this action is not
The above is based on the American model, where the ideological leanings are openly stated and mostly reflected in their rulings.
Of course, there is a space where the justices could confabulate on the perspectives and opinions articulated by the justices before delivery of the majority opinion, but doing so in the private would not be an ideal situation as how much pressure could be brought on puisne justices to go with the majority could become a matter of speculation in the media.
Supposing a justice were to take a position and later gets ‘convinced’ by the persuasion of a minority opinion Justice and if it were to tilt the verdict pronounced in the court earlier, the principle of pronouncing in the open court would be a travesty.
Alternatively, if there were to be a lone dissenting Justice and if he were to change his opinion after collegial confabulations the judgement would become a unanimous one, without the point of dissent neither brought out in the judgement nor explained on what line of reasoning the change of mind took place.
One cannot lose sight of the fact that our system is adversarial and in the name of dispensing justice the role of the courts shouldn’t compensate for the inadequacies of a lawyer and thereby make the adversarial system an inquisitorial one.
I personally feel that it would be best to leave each justice to hear and clarify points in the open court but when the pronouncing of the judgement takes place, each should present his perspective and the basis of his/her opinion so that even an observer would feel that justice was indeed done. This collegial confabulation may not be the best for our system especially because of the variegated culture and different priorities of each state.
Socrates was highlighted and brought to public view beyond the territory in which he lived by two persons, one was Plato and the other one was Xenophon.
Plato is read well, whereas Xenophon is not read much for reasons more than the fact that he did not have an illustrious disciple like Aristotle.
Xenophon is supposed to have been turnpiked by Socrates and asked: How men are made virtuous?
When Xenophon pleaded ignorance, much as the Biblical command of Jesus to Matthew at the customs, is supposed to have stated: FOLLOW ME & LEARN‼️
This Xenophon became Socrates’ follower and wrote many books, which have mostly survived and the one book called Apology deals with the trial of Socrates and the defence.
The interesting part of all this is that Xenophon being the head of 10,000 men of the mercenary band, had gone on a war and was actually absent from Athens at the time of the trial and execution of Socrates. Yet, what Xenophon wrote of Socrates, is accepted by historians as true.
The point I am labouring at is that one need NOT BE A WITNESS to the events to gather facts from those who were present at the scene and present those facts as History. Therefore on a comparative basis, much of the History wouldn’t measure up to the touchstone of historicity if the same yardstick which is applied to Jesus were to be applied to those historical figures.
Like Plato and Xenophon to Socrates, the persons who were in a position to write about Jesus were John and the other 10 disciples who survived the crucifixion. But it was not any of these who brought out the teachings of Jesus as much as the Evangelist Paul. An erudite Jew, with a Roman citizenship. This Paul of Tarsus, earlier called Saul, wrote on Jesus and his teachings by the mid fist century of the Common Era. The evangelism of Paul made enclaves of Christianity in various cities of Greece and the Asia Minor. That is History. A record not disputed. Paul had not met Jesus while Jesus was in the flesh, however Paul says that Jesus appeared to him. This is almost a few years after Jesus’ crucifixion, if we take that as a fact, then Pontius Pilate, who as per historical records was the Roman Prefect in-charge of Judaea executing the functions on behalf of the Roman emperor, was contemporaneous to Jesus historically.
But why was not Jesus’ name not mentioned in the records?
I believe that not only the Roman Prefect was not interested in perpetuating the status of persons who could be a threat to the the Roman Empire; even the Jewish Religious heads were against the memory of Jesus, consequently all records must have been destroyed so as to gloss over the empty tomb issue.
Further, looking at Jesus from the synoptic Gospels, Jesus was then a popular local hero shuttling between Galilee and Judaea, at variance with the established Jewish faith and its informal custodians like the Pharisees and the Scribes and it wouldn’t have been anybody’s case to glorify his deeds in the flesh or to perpetuate the memory of Jesus. In fact the Jews then being under the Roman vassalage, the local authorities were interested in maintaining status quo lest a worse fate befall them. Therefore, to look for contemporary references either in the Roman history or the Jewish history wouldn’t be of much avail.
At least one and a half decade had passed before Paul starts his epistolary venture, before the Gospel writer Mark wrote his Gospel.
Therefore the forerunner to the Gospels were those 13 epistles written by Paul the evangelist to the various branches he had established around Greece and Asia Minor. These pockets of Christian Faith coagulated into the Church. These are facts.
I’d like to excerpt Schopenhauer here from his essay WISDOM OF LIFE:
“We can thus understand how it is that the vainest people in the world are always talking about la gloire, with the most implicit faith in it as a stimulus to great actions and great works. But there can he no doubt that fame is something secondary in its character, a mere echo or reflection—as it were, a shadow or symptom—of merit: and, in any case, what excites admiration must be of more value than the admiration itself. The truth is that a man is made happy, not by fame, but by that which brings him fame, by his merits, or to speak more correctly, by the disposition and capacity from which his merits proceed, whether they be moral or intellectual. The best side of a man’s nature must of necessity be more important for him than for anyone else: the reflection of it, the opinion which exists in the heads of others, is a matter that can affect him only in a very subordinate degree. He who deserves fame without getting it possesses by far the more important element of happiness, which should console him for the loss of the other. It is not that a man is thought to be great by masses of incompetent and often infatuated people, but that he really is great, which should move us to envy his position; and his happiness lies, not in the fact that posterity will hear of him, but that he is the creator of thoughts worthy to be treasured up and studied for hundreds of years.
Therefore, it was the content of Jesus’ teachings which Paul gathered from the Apostles which form the bulk of his exhortations to those pockets of Christianity which Paul established, which formed the kernel and substance of Jesus’ sayings and lent to the appeal and coagulation of the movement called the Church at Antioch.
In the case of Jesus the man, the man Jesus died and His ideas sprouted and spread. Whether he was crucified, buried and resurrected could be a matter of faith but that the Faith led to the discovery of tracing those teachings to Jesus, which is discovery of a fact from an Idea.
That atoms existed was an Idea even before it was discovered and proved and its structure hypothesised though chemistry. Likewise, Jesus was a discovery and that discovery is a fact that its origins are not concentrated at one point does not take away the fact that it was historical.
If Imran Khan could rely on the revelations made by the Angel Gibrel to the Prophet Mohammed as ‘facts’ and implicitly believe in those facts as historical, he should at least concede to the fact that Jesus, Isa Nabi, for him and refrain from questioning the Historicity of Jesus.
I may not agree with the belief that Jesus was merely a prophet, but Mr. Imran is bound to believe as a fact that Jesus was born, lived a Prophet and would return.
At least each man is to be judged by the same yardstick which he uses, for Jesus said:
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
(Matthew Chapter 7)
‘Did he know her?’ Son asked.
‘Not in the biblical sense’ the father said.
‘Then what is she MeTooing about?’ Son asked.
‘He wanted to know her – in the biblical sense’ the father answered.
‘So what’s wrong in the asking?’ The Son asked.
‘She felt that it was in that asking that her modesty was outraged!’ The father answered.
‘Outrage of modesty in the asking?’ The Son lamented and added: “ Did she say No?”.
‘Outraged, not in the asking, but that he thought of her the type who could be asked.’ Said the father.
‘Now she has to prove to her paranoid spotlight syndrome of her youth that she didn’t mentally succumb later on to that asking, the answer for which was kept in abeyance then! – the father added.
An unuttered NO of the youth, haunts her well past her youthful body‼️
There was this Captain of a ship which set sail from a port to another somewhere in the Middle East. On the way, a storm brewed and all the passengers, the crew and the Captain realised that their journey was in jeopardy and escaping with their Lives became their ONLY PRIORITY. Bad Times don’t support our pet theories and ideologies, consequently, the Captain of the ship issued an edict as follows:
So the shipmaster came to him, and said unto him, What meanest thou, O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not.
The Shipmaster was the Captain of the ship proceeding to Tarshish from Joppa and the sleeper was Jonah, a Jewish Prophet, running away from the instructions of his God to proceed to Nineveh.
The Captain says: O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not. The Captain’s personal beliefs notwithstanding chides the sleeping Jonah to call upon HIS GOD and doesn’t even ask the sleeping Jonah to identify his religion or the name of the God he worshipped.
The prayers sought was for the storm to subside but the answer came from Jonah, who felt penitent and told the Captain to throw him overboard. Sure enough the crew, Captain and the passengers threw Jonah out and sure enough the storm abated.
Well it is not uncommon to say that God had plans, rather other set of plans to deal with the errant Jonah. Doctrinally that ‘plan of God’ is odious to my ears and thought. God is God and Time is in His hands. God could do anything, so why plan? Plan is a forethought of a
possible future. When it is God who creates ‘future’, where would be the necessity of a Plan? Plan is an anthropomorphic idea laden with the deficiencies of human understanding. Why ascribe that to God?
God send a fish which swallows Jonah and he his transported to another location and he finally lands up in Nineveh.
The point of this blog is that, when absolute necessity arises in one’s life one may surrender to the will of God, whom he or she believes. But as a Captain of a ship, having the responsibility of the ship, the goods in the ship and the human lives involved it is the DUTY OF THE CAPTAIN not to ascertain the names of the gods those humans worship but to exhort every human in his ship to pray to HIS OWN GOD. That full-throated participative prayer is what a Captain is to exhort and hope for a relief.
The prayer was not answered in the way it was imagined. Till Jonah was offloaded, the storm did not subside. The proposal itself came from the person who was to suffer the consequences of his own proposal. That is how the prayers of those who called their own God’s was answered.
My best example for Secularism is the Captain of that ship caught in the storm with Jonah.
Getting human participation retaining their own beliefs is more important than proselytising humans in distress or cataloguing them during distress.
Like that Captain, leaders ought to shed the divisive distinguishing mapping of people and exhort them to give their best.
Some of the conflicts which have arisen between contemporaneous Prophets are interesting. I rely on the Prophets and prophecies exclusively from the Bible, not merely because I trust the Bible but because I don’t trust the way the Bible is being interpreted to suit the preacher’s priorities.
Week before last I had the opportunity of attending a service at King’s Temple, Hyderabad. The preacher, not only spoke on Tithes, but also caveated the listeners that one should Tithe only at the local church, which supports its members of the congregation and explicitly warned the congregation against contributing to the Tele-evangelists out of the Tithes. Understandably, Malachi 3:10 was pressed into service.
You may call me a forum shopping Christian, if you choose to. I would fain listen to a well read Osho on Christianity than listen to a ‘fire & brimstone’ doomsday preacher stirring up unsavoury anxieties to make the listeners submit to their agenda on their avowed ‘distributive infrastructure enabling’ programmes.
I believe, and firmly at that, that God given Liberty cannot be mindlessly squandered away at these exhortations which are neither consistent with the Bible nor with the teachings of Jesus.
Micaiah s/o Imlah and Zedekiah, the son of Chenaanah, stake it out in I Kings 22 chapter.
Zedekiah had mustered the support of 400 other prophets who had prophesied that if Ahab and Jehoshaphat went to war together against Syria to regain Ramoth-Gilead for Israel, Ahab along with the King of Judah Jehoshaphat would defeat the Syrians. But there is one lone voice against that prophecy by another Prophet Micaiah, who says that a ‘lying spirit’ had fallen upon the other 401 prophets and that Micaiah saw the Israelites ‘shepherdless’. The way these two prophets confront each other is dramatic and versified well:
24 But Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah went near, and smote Micaiah on the cheek, and said, Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee?
25 And Micaiah said, Behold, thou shalt see in that day, when thou shalt go into an inner chamber to hide thyself.
The issue raised was not that Zedekiah had become possessed by the ‘lying spirit‘ but how did the ‘Spirit of the Lord’ get into Micaiah? That was the question of Zedekiah. Zedekiah would that all the prophets were wrong so that the blame could be laid on the King or the people. But when the prophecies are contrary to each other, and there are two camps of Prophets with two contrary prophecies, the one who turns out to be right is likely to have an upper hand post, the event. This division cannot be countenanced by Prophets. They stand united or they rise united, but never fall. Here, by hindsight we know that Zedekiah fell.
Similar situation arose in Chapter 27 of Jeremiah, wherein Jeremiah prophesied thus:
8 And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, and that will not put their neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, that nation will I punish, saith the LORD, with the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence, until I have consumed them by his hand.
9 Therefore hearken not ye to your prophets, nor to your diviners, nor to your dreamers, nor to your enchanters, nor to your sorcerers, which speak unto you, saying, Ye shall not serve the king of Babylon:
The interesting part of this prediction was that Zedekiah, probably a close relative of the reformer King Josiah, was the then ruler of Judah and probably wanted to become a sovereign and not continue to be a vassal King of the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar. At the same time he did not want to lose control over the king of Edom, the king of Moab, king of the Ammonites, king of Tyrus, and to the king of Zidon, who had sent messengers to Jerusalem unto Zedekiah king of Judah, either as bringers of tribute or for a conclave of the emissaries of vassal kings led by Zedekiah.
In any case the situation was not very appetising. Jeremiah makes it worse by bringing out a prophecy, which I am unable to digest.
The Almighty God makes a Jewish Prophet say that not only Nebuchadnezzar but his son and grandson would rule over their kingdom without any recourse for the Israelites to repent and gain remission for that remaining period. Has Jeremiah forgotten that Yahweh had commuted the sentence decreed on Hezekiah; has Jeremiah forgotten that Yahweh had given options to King David to choose a sentence out of three?
In the next chapter there is s counter Prophecy by Hananiah, which like the previous set of prophets, is equally dramatic:
10 Then Hananiah the prophet took the yoke from off the prophet Jeremiah’s neck, and brake it.
11 And Hananiah spake in the presence of all the people, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Even so will I break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon from the neck of all nations within the space of two full years. And the prophet Jeremiah went his way.
12 Then the word of the LORD came unto Jeremiah the prophet, after that Hananiah the prophet had broken the yoke from off the neck of the prophet Jeremiah, saying,
13 Go and tell Hananiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Thou hast broken the yokes of wood; but thou shalt make for them yokes of iron.
14 For thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; I have put a yoke of iron upon the neck of all these nations, that they may serve Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and they shall serve him: and I have given him the beasts of the field also.
15 Then said the prophet Jeremiah unto Hananiah the prophet, Hear now, Hananiah; The LORD hath not sent thee; but thou makest this people to trust in a lie.
16 Therefore thus saith the LORD; Behold, I will cast thee from off the face of the earth: this year thou shalt die, because thou hast taught rebellion against the LORD.
17 So Hananiah the prophet died the same year in the seventh month.
Quite curiously, Hananiah prophesies this in the fifth month of that year and dies after Jeremiah’s prophecy, in the seventh month of the same year.
Jeremiah, instead of extolling the mercies and long suffering nature of the Almighty is ‘prophesying’ that God had given the lands to Nebuchadnezzar, who in the meanwhile probably was erecting a big statue, said to be Nebuchadnezzar’s god, in Babylon, and busy decreeing that everyone should prostrate before that statue. Ridiculous. I am sure and believe that God knew what Nebuchadnezzar was doing back in Babylon when Jeremiah was making those prophecies.
I find this prophecy to be in tune with the Prophecy of Caiaphas in John 11 thus:
47 Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.
48 If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation.
49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;
I find no difference between Jeremiah’s and Caiaphas’ prophecies. It was born out of expediency.
I believe in a God, who would confront me and make me go through deeds of penance either through a punishment, but never ever a God who would put the punisher above me and exalt him above me being a part of his flock.
Ezekiel 34 offers a better perspective on the goodness of God.
In any case, Jeremiah doesn’t measure up to the Prophets like Elijah, who not only withstood the might of Jezebel’s influence over Ahab but also exhorted the Israelites, in those trying times, to stick to Jehovah. Nor like John the Baptist, who resisted Herod.
Submitting to a political power that prospers, is one thing but to acquiesce to such political power doesn’t behove a Prophet. Jeremiah falls short and comes out as an expedient Prophet, who saw off his days of vassal-ship of Judah in comfort‼️ No wonder Jeremiah is called a ‘weeping prophet’ – helplessly Hopeless.
What could one expect of a contemporaneous Prophet like Jeremiah with the King Josiah, who was faultless but died in the hands of Neco, the Egyptian. Maybe his circumstances moulded him into a weeping prophet.
Me thinks that Jeremiah had been included in the canonical books of the Bible more because he supported the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar than the Egyptian Pharoahs, who went down in their quest for suzerainty over Canaan.
Unless Prophecies are written like minutes at the time of such utterances, it should be taken with a generous pinch of salt. It is even highly probable that after facts have stabilized, post facto writings could be passed off as fulfilled Prophecies, by the Baruchs and Boswells to enhance the image of their idols.
When one’s mind is infested with spiritual or temporal megalomania it may attract vain persons, who are seriously looking for someone to give them a direction. Such vain persons who lack the brakes of common sense, born out of liberal education, willingly believe those assertions powerfully made by those megalomaniacs.
Hitler’s assertions of superiority was neither tested in the touchstone of a large sample, nor did his assertions acknowledge exceptions. Those vain Germans who fell for that Austrian’s assertions took more than 45 years under the yoke of the victorious Allied powers. It is a pity that that generation of vain men who believed in the fake news of Aryan supremacy reached their graves with the yokes concocted from Nuremberg Trials onwards by the Allied thinktanks‼️