Why did Johanan accuse Baruch of inciting Jeremiah against them in Jeremiah 43:3? I. Textual Setting Jeremiah 43:3 : “But Baruch son of Neriah is inciting you against us to deliver us into the hands of the Chaldeans, so that they may put us to death or exile us to Babylon!” Ii. Historical Background After the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC, Nebuchadnezzar appointed Gedaliah as governor (Jeremiah 40). Ishmael assassinated Gedaliah (Jeremiah 41), and the surviving Judahite military leaders—headed by Johanan son of Kareah—feared Babylonian reprisal. They considered flight to Egypt, but first approached Jeremiah asking for “the word that the LORD your God sends” (Jeremiah 42:2). They swore to obey whatever answer came (Jeremiah 42:5–6). Ten days later Jeremiah commanded them to remain in the land; flight to Egypt would invite sword, famine, and pestilence (Jeremiah 42:10–17). Immediately they branded the message false and accused Baruch of manipulating Jeremiah (Jeremiah 43:2–3). Iii. Who Were The Accusers? Johanan and the captains (Jeremiah 42:1; 43:2) were battle-hardened guerrilla commanders. Having just rescued captives from Ishmael (Jeremiah 41:11–18), they saw themselves as Judah’s last hope. Politically, they favored an Egyptian alliance, recalling Judah’s earlier reliance on Egypt against Babylon (cf. Jeremiah 37:7). Iv. Who Was Baruch? Baruch son of Neriah, Jeremiah’s scribe (Jeremiah 36:4), came from a noble family (grandson of Maaseiah the governor, Jeremiah 32:12). Bullae bearing “Berekyahu son of Neriyahu the scribe” unearthed in the City of David (Avigad, 1975) corroborate his historicity. Because Baruch publicly read Jeremiah’s scroll predicting Babylonian triumph (Jeremiah 36:10), pro-Egyptian officers viewed him as pro-Babylon. In their minds Baruch could have personal motives: Babylonian favor or social advancement. V. Motivations Behind The Accusation 1. Fear of Babylon Nebuchadnezzar had just destroyed Jerusalem. Gedaliah’s murder looked like rebellion. Johanan anticipated swift punishment (Jeremiah 41:18). Jeremiah’s command to remain felt like suicide. 2. Predetermined Will They had already gathered the people at Geruth Chimham en-route to Egypt (Jeremiah 41:17). Their “request” for divine guidance sought rubber-stamp approval. When God’s answer contradicted their plan, they discredited the messenger (cf. Isaiah 30:10–11). 3. Scapegoating Mechanism (Behavioral Observation) Rather than admit rebellion against God, they blamed an intermediary—Baruch. Shifting blame preserves self-image and group cohesion under stress, a pattern mirrored in Eden (Genesis 3:12–13). 4. Political Suspicion Baruch’s aristocratic ties and literacy gave him influence. Labeling him a Babylonian agent justified rejecting the prophecy and consolidating Johanan’s authority. Vi. Comparative Scripture • Numbers 14:4—Israelites plan to return to Egypt, rejecting Moses’ warning. • 1 Kings 18:17—Ahab calls Elijah “troubler of Israel.” • John 7:20—The crowd claims Jesus has a demon when confronted with truth. Pattern: God’s messengers are accused of ulterior motives when their words clash with human desire. Vii. The Accusation Analyzed Jer 43:2 states the captains called Jeremiah’s oracle “a lie.” Verse 3 attributes authorship of that “lie” to Baruch. The syntax (“ki Barukh… mesith”), using the causative verb “suth” (incite/mislead), emphasises intentional manipulation. Thus Johanan frames Baruch as the real puppet-master, rendering Jeremiah merely deceived, not malicious—easier to reject without directly cursing a recognized prophet. Viii. Prophetic Verification Jeremiah 44 records fulfillment: the remnant’s flight to Egypt ends in judgment; Nebuchadnezzar invades Egypt (Jeremiah 44:30). Historical synchronism appears in Babylonian Chronicle BM 33041 confirming Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th-year campaign against Egypt (568/567 BC). Prophecy vindicated; accusation disproved. Ix. Theological Implications 1. Authority of Revelation God’s word stands irrespective of human approval (Isaiah 55:11). Questioning Baruch’s integrity did not nullify divine command. 2. Heart Deceitfulness Jeremiah’s broader theme: “The heart is deceitful above all things” (Jeremiah 17:9). Johanan embodies this deceit—professing obedience, harboring rebellion. 3. Covenant Faithfulness vs. Pragmatism Egypt symbolized security through human power. Remaining in Judah required faith. The episode challenges every generation: trust God’s promise or seek worldly refuge. X. Archaeological And Manuscript Corroboration • Lachish Letters (c. 588 BC) reflect Babylonian siege atmosphere Jeremiah describes. • 4QJer^a from Qumran aligns with Masoretic text of Jeremiah 42–44; scribal fidelity supports accuracy of the narrative. • Seal of “Yehuchal son of Shelemiah” (excavated 2005) names the official who opposed Jeremiah (Jeremiah 38:1), illustrating continual resistance to prophetic truth. Xi. Pastoral And Apologetic Application The narrative illustrates that unbelief is rarely intellectual only; it is volitional. Confronted with inconvenient revelation, people fashion alternative explanations—“Baruch coerced Jeremiah.” Likewise, skeptics today may grant Jesus’ historicity yet allege conspiracy to fabricate resurrection. The solution is honest submission to evidence and, ultimately, to God. Xii. Summary Answer Johanan accused Baruch of inciting Jeremiah because the captains feared Babylon, had resolved to flee to Egypt, and needed a scapegoat to rationalize disobedience to God’s command. Political suspicion of Baruch’s perceived pro-Babylon stance, the psychological need to preserve group consensus, and the perennial human tendency to reject divine authority combined to produce the charge. Subsequent fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy exposes the accusation as baseless and underscores the reliability of God’s word. |
    |