So we know that Jesus is using Jeremiah and the historical situation there recorded as His model. However, do we ever stop to consider if Jeremiah had a model upon which he drew in some way? If Jesus is relying upon something within Israel’s history to trigger the thoughts that He desired the people to have, and to provoke the response and hopefully transformation that He desired to see, it would be reasonable to suggest that there was something within Israel’s history prior to Jeremiah’s day, upon which he was relying as well. Surely, if we do not limit Jesus Himself to only bringing new teaching upon an entirely new basis, then it would not be right for us to foist this type of responsibility upon one of the prophets. Therefore, beyond the assertion that Jeremiah obviously had to base his understanding of the delivery of God’s judgment on Israel’s covenant failures, we can assert that Jeremiah’s words and ministry had to be rooted within the history and covenant by which Israel was defined in order for it to have any conceivable impact and permanence.
If this premise is accepted, then to what historical situation might we look in order to gain insight into Jeremiah’s understanding? Can we find something similar to the people’s reliance upon the Temple itself to protect and preserve them from the judgment that was owed to them? The first book of Samuel records a story that may provide us with an answer to those questions. In the fourth chapter, we read that “the Israelites went out to fight against the Philistines… The Philistines arranged their forces to fight Israel. As the battle spread out, Israel was defeated by the Philistines, who killed about four thousand men in the battle line in the field” (4:1b-2). When we consider the way in which God deals with His people, raising up foes such as the Babylonians and the Romans in order to exercise His judgments, as referenced by Jeremiah and Jesus, then the Philistines, clearly, are to be understood as an instrument of God’s judgment against His people, exercised in accordance with His covenant promises as they failed to live up to their covenant obligations.
“When the army came back to the camp, the elders of Israel said, ‘Why did the Lord let us be defeated today by the Philistines?’” (4:3a) The answer, of course, was their covenant failures. So what was their response? They said “Let’s take with us the ark of the covenant of the Lord from Shiloh. When it is with us, it will save us from the hand of our enemies” (4:3b). Effectively, they believed that they possessed “the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord,” so no harm could come to them. This is evidence by what we go on to read, which is “So the army sent to Shiloh, and they took from there the ark of the covenant of the Lord of hosts Who sits between the cherubim… When the ark of the covenant of the Lord arrived at the camp, all Israel shouted so loudly that the ground shook” (4:4a,5). A repetition of “the Temple of the Lord” indeed. Naturally, just as Israel was mistaken about the preserving power of the presence of the that which represented God in the times of both Jesus and Jeremiah, so too was Israel mistaken in this case. As Israel was routed by both Babylon and Rome, with the Temple destroyed on both occasions, the ark of the covenant was captured by the Philistines and Israel was defeated.
What was it that lead to these events? Surely, it was something that would have resonated with both Jeremiah and the people of Israel (Judah) to which Jeremiah spoke. Proving that there is nothing new under the sun, while demonstrating the historical congruence of the message of God, through and by which He reveals the plans and purposes of His kingdom and its denizens, the issue was the priests and the people. In the second chapter we learn that “The sons of Eli,” Eli being the High Priest, whose sons officiated alongside him in the tabernacle, “were wicked men. They did not recognize the Lord’s authority… They treated the Lord’s offering with contempt… They used to have sex with the women who were stationed at the entrance to the tent of meeting” (2:12,17,22b). Though not quite as explicit as the condemnation from Jeremiah, it does have its resonances. Clearly, they were not rightly worshiping the God of Israel, so they might as well have been worshiping some other God. Complicity, even if it is a grudging acceptance of this behavior on behalf of the people, is implied. Jeremiah could have easily recognized this, and we can easily allow ourselves to believe that this was in mind and designed to be called to mind when he speaks of the Temple in his prophecy. The presence of the ark was as helpful to the people in that day as was the presence of the Temple in Jeremiah’s day, or in Jesus’ day.
In addition, and just so God might get His point across, so that Jeremiah might get his point across, and so Jesus might get His point across as well, when the elders of Israel sent for the ark, it was accompanied by these sons of Eli, who were killed in the ensuing battle during which the ark was also taken. Those responsible for the house of God, who mocked their responsibility, perished as the ark was taken. As the ark represented the glory of God, a tabernacle or Temple with no ark is also devoid of God’s glory, and is therefore no tabernacle or Temple at all, and this rings loudly and clearly through to the days of Jesus and the events that followed not too long thereafter. Let it be said that, from the time of Samuel, to Jeremiah, and on to Jesus, God’s ways and that which He intends for His people can be clearly detected.
No comments:
Post a Comment