A Tradition Of Wells (part 11 of 11)

The Jeremiah narrative happens upon a well on two occasions.  In the sixth chapter, as Jeremiah verbally depicts the destruction that is going to come upon Jerusalem due to its idolatry, he shares some of the Lord’s thoughts concerning the city.  The God of Israel can be heard to say “Cut down the trees around Jerusalem and build up a siege ramp against its walls.  This is the city which is to be punished.  Nothing but oppression happens in it.  As a well continually pours out fresh water so it continually pours out wicked deeds.  Sounds of violence and destruction echo throughout it.  All I see are sick and wounded people” (6:6-7). 

This is, of course, a reflection upon Israel’s covenant failures.  For this, the Creator God brings His curse against His covenant people.  Death is coming to them.  It is against this that Jesus can be heard speaking, when He says “whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become a fountain of water springing up to eternal life” (John 4:14).  This eternal life is so much more than a one-way ticket to heaven upon death.  Rather, it is an entrance into the covenant people of the Creator God, in which one shares in the covenant blessings promised by the God of Israel (Leviticus 26, Deuteronomy 28), and presumably the resurrection of the righteous at the end of the age. 

Not long thereafter, the Samaritan woman questions Jesus about whether Jerusalem is the appropriate place to offer worship.  Might this be a reflection on what the Creator God says about Jerusalem in Jeremiah (a well that pours out wicked deeds rather than fresh water)?  Jesus responds by telling her “a time is coming… when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth” (4:23a).  Further on in Jeremiah, the prophet laments over that which he speaks, saying “I wish that my head were a well full of water and my eyes were a fountain full of tears!  If they were, I could cry day and night for those of my dear people who have been killed” (9:1). 

Hosea is the next prophet to be heard, as he spoke to the situation of the northern kingdom of Israel.  Referring to the judgment of the Creator God that was coming upon that portion of His people, Hosea says “Even though he flourishes like a reed plant, a scorching east wind will come, a wind from the Lord rising up from the desert.  As a result, his spring will dry up; his well will become dry.  That wind will spoil all his delightful foods in the containers in his storehouse” (13:15).  Beyond the natural fact that water is necessary for life for all peoples everywhere, wells had been a source of life for Israel, stretching back to Abraham as a place of marriage and ultimately offspring that continued their God’s covenant purposes.  Here, their God speaks of a well that would become dry.  Specifically, this is directed against Samaria (13:16), which is the setting for Jesus well meeting.  This provides added color to Jesus’ talk of “living water” (4:10) and “a fountain of water springing up to eternal life, as well as Jesus’ directing of the woman’s attention away from either Samaria or Jerusalem as the center of worship. 

In a similar instance, to round out and wrap up this study, is to be found in the prophetic work of Micah.  Here, it is possible to readily identify informative points of contact with the Johannine well story, as Micah speaks of the Creator God’s judgment that comes “because of Jacob’s rebellion and the sins of the nation of Israel” (1:15a).  Not unlike the woman’s question to Jesus about the proper place of worship, and being mindful of Jesus’ response, Micah can be heard to rhetorically inquire “How has Jacob rebelled, you ask?  Samaria epitomizes their rebellion!  Where are Judah’s pagan worship centers, you ask?  They are right in Jerusalem!” (1:15b).  As Micah goes on to describe the tribulation that will come their way, he is heard saying “Therefore you will have to say farewell to Moresheth Gath.  The residents of Achzib will be as disappointing as a dried up well to the kings of Israel” (1:14).  

Historical Continuity (part 3 of 3)

“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?’” (1 Samuel 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 evidenced by what one can 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 their 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 also demonstrating the historical congruence of the message of the Creator 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 the author reports 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 one can easily be led 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 the covenant 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 the Creator God, who mocked their responsibility, perished as the ark was taken.  As the ark represented the glory of the Creator God, a tabernacle or Temple with no ark is also devoid of that God’s glory and is therefore no tabernacle or Temple at all.  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, the Creator God’s ways and that which He intends for His people can be clearly detected.     

Historical Continuity (part 2)

Jeremiah, who is not even close to finished with his scathing indictment of Israel, would go on to say “But just look at you!  Your are putting your confidence in a false belief that will not deliver you.  You steal.  You murder.  You commit adultery.  You lie when you swear on oath.  You sacrifice to the God Baal.  You pay allegiance to other gods whom you  have not previously known.  Then you come in and stand in My presence in this Temple I have claimed as My own and say, ‘We are safe!’  You think you are so safe that you can go on doing all those hateful sins!” (Jeremiah 7:8-10) 

Though many of these things were most likely being carried out by the acting priesthood, it is safe to presume that the people, who also stood under Jeremiah’s gaze, are doing the same while also being complicit in the activity of their leaders.  Jeremiah continues to deliver the words of the Lord, saying “So I will destroy this Temple which I have claimed as My own, this Temple that you are trusting to protect you.  I will destroy this place that I gave to you and your ancestors, just like I destroyed Shiloh” (7:14).  These are harsh words indeed.  Jesus’ words, as they are directed at the Temple authorities and call Jeremiah to mind, were no less harsh.

So it is plain to see that Jesus is using Jeremiah and the historical situation there recorded as His model.  However, is it appropriate 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 Jesus is not limited to only bringing new teaching founded upon an entirely new basis, then it would not be right 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 the covenant God’s judgment on Israel’s covenant failures, one could 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 (which, as has been said, would have been true for Jesus as well).     

If this premise is accepted, then to what historical situation might one look in order to gain insight into Jeremiah’s understanding?  Is it possible to 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 an answer to those questions.  The fourth chapter records in a story in which it is reported 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 considering the way in which the Creator 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, demand to be understood as an instrument of the Creator God’s judgment against His covenant people, exercised in accordance with His covenant promises as the covenant people failed to live up to their covenant obligations. 

Historical Continuity (part 1)

Then He began to teach them and said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’?  But you have turned it into a den of robbers!” – Mark 11:17  (NET)

Mark reports that when Jesus spoke these words that “The chief priests and the experts in the law heard it and they considered how they could assassinate Him, for they feared Him, because the whole crowd was amazed by His teaching” (11:18).  Why did they want to assassinate Him?  Primarily because the words that Jesus was employing were those previously used by the prophet Jeremiah.  All who heard Jesus, including the chief priests, the experts in the law, and the crowds, knew that Jesus, who had gained quite the reputation as a prophet, teacher and healer, was leveling words of judgment and accusation against those who were responsible for the operations of the Temple.  The Temple was the place from whence they derived their livelihood and their power. 

At the same time, one should not forget that Jesus also speaks in the hearing of crowds which, though amazed at His teaching, also stand in purview of His judging words, as they effectively hear Jeremiah speaking and saying “Listen, all you people of Judah who have passed through these gates to worship the Lord.  Hear what the Lord has to say.  The Lord God of Israel who rules over all says: Change the way you have been living and do what is right.  If you do, I will allow you to continue to live in this land” (7:2b-3). 

So Jesus is not merely quoting Scripture.  By taking up the words of Jeremiah, He not only calls to mind that which Jeremiah accused the people and the priestly establishment of doing in his own time, but He also reminds the Temple authorities that the Babylonians destroyed that very Temple to which Jeremiah made reference---thus breaking the authority of the priests associated with that Temple.  If Jeremiah’s words came true, how much more should they concern themselves with what is being implied by the words of Jesus, who has proven Himself to be greater than Jeremiah. 

When it comes to the words of Jeremiah, it is known to be the case that a fair amount of the people, especially the leaders and the wealthy, were carried off into exile in Babylon.  As it relates to Jesus, it is known that within the lifetime of many of those who heard His words, the Romans came and destroyed Jerusalem and its Temple, slaughtering many in leadership and driving a large number of people from their ancient land of promise. 

Though this is necessary background, this study is not designed to focus on what is to be gleaned from the accusations and the comparison.  Rather, it is designed to highlight a degree of historical continuity and congruence within Scripture.  Jesus cannot be limited to bringing new teaching and new ways of thinking.  His 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. 

Jesus, as said, quotes from Jeremiah.  When He does He not only calls attention to the specific phrases, but also to the words of Jeremiah that led up to, surround, and follow that which was quoted.  In conjunction with that which was mentioned by Jesus, Jeremiah also says “Stop putting your confidence in the false belief that says, ‘We are safe!  The Temple of the Lord is here!  The Temple of the Lord is here!  The Temple of the Lord is here!’  You must change the way you have been living and do what is right.  You must treat one another fairly.  Stop oppressing foreigners who live in your land, children who have lost their fathers, and women who have lost their husbands.  Stop killing innocent people in this land.  Stop paying allegiance to other gods.  That will only bring about your ruin” (7:4-6).  Presumably, Jesus was desirous of communicating such things as well. 

Absalom (part 11)

Does David get a sense of this?  Did he realize that the Ark was being treated as a talisman and an idol?  This had happened once before during the time of the judges, when Hophni and Phinehas, the corrupt sons of Eli, brought the Ark into the presence of the Israelite army as they were being threatened by and were fearful of the army of the Philistines.  What happened to the Ark in that instance?  It was captured by the Philistines.  Israel fell to the Philistines in battle, Hophni and Phinehas were killed, Eli fell over and broke his neck when he heard the news of the Ark’s capture, and Phinehas’ wife gave birth to a son and named him Ichabod, saying that “The glory has departed from Israel, because the Ark of God has been captured” (1 Samuel 4:22). 

Understandably then, David did not want to be on any side of that issue.  He did not want to treat the Ark as an idol.  He did not want to leave the people in a vulnerable position without the presence of their God, and thereby effectively in exile.  He did not want to be thought of as somebody who had captured the Ark and therefore caused the glory of the Lord to depart from Israel, nor did he want to experience the exile-like curses that came upon the Philistines because they presumed to possess the Ark of the Covenant God.  So “the king said to Zadok, ‘Take the Ark of God back to the city.  If I find favor in the Lord’s sight He will bring me back and enable me to see both it and His dwelling place again.  However, if He should say, “I do not take pleasure in you,” then He will deal with me in a way that He considers appropriate’.” (15:25-26)  This represents a turning of the tide for David.  Once he actively recognizes the Lord God of Israel’s hand in all of these things, matters begin to turn out better for him and worse for Absalom.        

Later on in Israel’s history, the book of Jeremiah will inform a people that are nearing a time of exile and foreign subjugation to not lose heart or forget the covenant faithfulness of their God.  Their God has delivered a solemn promise, saying “When the time for them to be rescued comes… I will rescue you from foreign subjugation.  I will deliver you from captivity.  Foreigners will then no longer subjugate them.  But they will be subject to the Lord their God and to the Davidic ruler whom I will raise up as king over them” (30:8-9).  Ironically, it is King David---the very one to whom is made reference by the term “Davidic ruler”---that is himself going into exile.  He is, in a way, undergoing a foreign subjugation.  Why?  Because, like Israel itself, he had taken his eyes off of his God.  Because, like Israel itself, he had forgotten his purpose.  He had begun to treat the people of Israel as if they were there for him, rather than remembering his role and that he was there to be a servant to the covenant people of the covenant God. 

How could he serve them best?  By being a testimony of what it looked like to be a light to the surrounding nations and so reflect the glory, into the world, of the God Who had anointed him and delivered him a kingdom.  How could he do that if he was oppressing his own people, taking their wives, and killing them?  How could he do that if he was showing favoritism to his own son and not executing what justice demanded?  How could he do that if he allowed the relationship with another son to deteriorate to the point that that son could feel the need to turn the people against his father and take the kingdom for himself?  David had become a king for himself and for his own glory, rather than for his people, for the world, and for the glory of Israel’s God.  This was David’s idolatry, and it had earned him an exile. 

Inspired Scripture (part 3)

When Scripture is referenced as being God-breathed, one is forced to discern what it means to be God-breathed?  What would the recipient of this letter, immersed within a world of self-identification that was shaped by the Scriptural narrative to which the author refers, have understood when he read about the Creator God-breathed nature of the divinely shaped writings that were set apart to be used by that God for His purposes (holy)?  Answering this question drives necessitates a return to the beginning of the story, to Genesis, and to the creation of the divine image-bearer. 

In the second chapter of Genesis it is written that “The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” (2:7).  Here, the Creator God breathed.  In the first chapter, one finds that “God created humankind in His own image, in the image of God He created them, male and female He created them.  God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply!  Fill the earth and subdue it” (1:27-28a).  Yes, the second chapter confirms that the Creator God breathed life into the being that He created as and to bear His image into the world---into the being that He intended to tend to His good creation, spreading the knowledge and glory of Himself as His representatives.  Has this mission gone unchanged?  Is this not a great work for which the Creator God continues to train those that are called by His name, doing so through that which is primarily designed to communicate knowledge of Him, that being the Scriptures (and the church)? 

Though this would be a more than sufficient basis upon which to build a doctrinal foundation that should animate all believers in their representation of and service for the kingdom of the God of Israel, this is not an isolated occurrence.  Though this study is certainly not designed to be an exhaustive presentation of the Creator God’s acts of breathing, there are other important instances of such things in Scripture, to which the author of the second letter to Timothy makes reference and most likely expects to be called to mind by this simple reference. 

In the book that bears the name, Job makes reference to the general understanding of the creation narrative and of man’s place in it when he speaks and says “for while my spirit is still in me, and the breath from God is in my nostrils” (27:3).  Later on, Elihu will speak to Job and say “But it is a spirit in people, the breath of the Almighty, that makes them understand” (32:8).  He will continue on to say “The Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life” (33:8). 

In Ecclesiastes, the “preacher” insists that “the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the life’s breath returns to God who gave it” (12:7).  In Isaiah, as reference is made to the covenant God’s creation and His creative power, the prophet writes “This is what the true God, the Lord, says---the one who created the sky and stretched it out, the one who fashioned the earth and everything that lives on it, the one who gives breath to the people on it, and life to those who live on it” (42:5).  Jeremiah and others make the point that “There is no breath in any of those idols” (51:17b).  Idols, which are designed to represent a god, have no breath, whereas a human, a divine image-bearer, is animated by the Creator God’s very breath.  A stark contrast indeed. 

While it is not necessary to take the time to draw all of the possible conclusions that can be teased out from these passages, certainly, these passages from the book of Job, Ecclesiastes, Isaiah, and Jeremiah, which well encapsulates the exile and exodus narrative that appears to be foundational within Scripture, provides a tremendous perspective from which one can view/hear the words on offer to Timothy.    

No One Knows The Hour (part 35)

This line of thinking becomes especially poignant when one considers that Jesus’ dealings with and in the Temple are a central feature of the Gospel accounts, and that all three make it more than clear that it is this ongoing clash with the Temple authorities, culminating in Jesus’ enacted judgment (in the mold of Jeremiah) against the Temple that ultimately resulted in the collusion with the Roman authorities that was productive of His death by crucifixion. 

While this can be said, it is more than possible that Mark did in fact write His Gospel before the Temple had come to its end, as is often posited.  Mark’s Gospel lacks the embellishments (in the sense of a more rounded-out presentation) on Jesus’ life that are to be found in Matthew and Luke, with this lack of embellishment being quite understandable.  If Mark writes before the Temple’s fall, whereas Matthew and Luke write after the fall and because of that fall, then it is understandable that Mark’s account would be more direct and straightforward, lacking the material details and stories to be found in the narratives on offer in Matthew and Luke.  Understandably, composing their accounts of Jesus in a post-Temple-fall world, Matthew and Luke could be far more comfortable relating more of Jesus’ life story, as preserved and transmitted via the oral tradition. 

Together with these important realizations, if one also holds to the idea that the early church, having rightly comprehended what Jesus meant by His fall-of-the-Temple-focused discourse (as recorded in Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21), tightly connected the fall of the Temple with the coming of the Son of Man to the Ancient of Days in order to receive His kingdom, then the heavy inclusion of all of the Son of Man language throughout the Gospels makes even greater sense.  While this study will not take the time to offer an in-depth review of all of the mentions of the Son of Man, it is worth taking a bit of time to review and to draw out some conclusions and inferences that would have been obvious to Jesus’ original audience. 

In a superficial review, one cannot help but notice that John has the fewest uses of “Son of Man.”  Mark clocks in with the next fewest, while both Matthew and Luke are replete with its usage (Luke nearly doubling Mark’s count, while Matthew more than doubles Mark’s usage).  While John obviously pursues its agenda on a different path than do the synoptics, Mark’s relative restraint in using the term is understandable if it is, in fact, cautiously and expectantly composed before the fall of the Temple.  If Jesus presents Himself as the Danielic Son of Man, while tying the expected reign of the Son of Man to the fall of the Temple, it would not be odd to see a pre-Temple-fall composition being a bit more judicious in the use of the term.  If both Matthew and Luke are composed and disseminated post-Temple-fall, then all things considered, it would make far more sense to include far more Son of Man language. 

Of course, one does not simply assert that a lack of details in indicative of a pre-fall composition, as Mark could certainly have been just as precise and non-verbose, as opposed to his evangelistic counterparts, while writing after the Temple’s fall.  Once a position has been achieved in which it possible to correctly and contextually hear Jesus’ Son of Man language within His crystal clear, prophetical, and predictive speech about the coming fall of the Temple, doing so in the light of Daniel’s seventh chapter, it would be a tremendous dis-service to fail to reflect on a few of its appearances prior to the Temple speech in which Jesus connects the Temple’s fall with the Son of Man’s arrival and kingdom acquisition.  

No One Knows The Hour (part 29)

This makes a great deal of sense.  Jesus was painting Himself into a corner, relying on Israel’s prophetic tradition and demanding that He be judged in the same way that all prophets were judged---based on the verifiability of their predictions.  In His actions in the Temple, Jesus presents Himself in the mold of Jeremiah, and does so by making reference to His very words.  Had his words of the Creator God’s judgment against the Temple not come to pass, Jeremiah would have lambasted as a false prophet and held up to scorn rather than honor. 

However, Jeremiah’s words did come to pass, the Temple fell, and even though His words were not exactly grand proclamations for Israel, he is held up as a great prophet of Israel (a prophet being one who calls corrupt powers to account, not necessarily one who makes predictions about the future).  The same standard would have applied of Jesus.  Would anybody listen to Him, or have any use for Him, if the singular distant prediction that He made, which was well understood to be a prediction about the demise of the Temple within the lifetimes of many of His hearers, did not occur?  One would think that the answer to that question would be in the negative. 

Certainly, the Resurrection was and is vital as a witness to Jesus.  However, those that witnessed and interacted with the risen Jesus following His Resurrection were limited in number.  Accordingly, skepticism towards such a claim would be natural and completely understandable, as people simply did not come back to life, especially after undergoing a Roman crucifixion.  While Jesus obviously staked a great deal of validation on His Resurrection, He also appears to have staked a great deal on the fall of the Temple as well (and His biographers seem to have staked much on this claim as well).  

If Jesus staked much on this claim, then His church could do no less.  Not only did He claim that the Temple would fall, but perhaps more importantly, as it concerns the church that would follow Him, He claimed that when the Temple fell, He, as the Son of Man, would go (or have gone) before the Ancient of Days to receive His kingdom, power, and authority (or this event would be confirmation that this had in fact already occurred).  Is this not important? 

Now, to get a taste of where this idea might be headed, it could be said that one gets a sense of this way of thinking in the first chapter of Romans, as Paul declares that Jesus “was appointed Son-of-God-in-power according to the Holy Spirit by the Resurrection from the dead” (1:4a).  The letter to the Romans, of course, was written between the Resurrection of Jesus and the fall of the Temple.  If the early Christians knew that Jesus had staked His claim on the fall of the Temple, explicitly linking its fall with His receiving of His kingdom, then one can easily hear this as Paul speaking about this appointment as an appointment-in-waiting, expecting the validation to come.  One can also imagine Him being quite confident that the validation would come, especially considering the fact that Jesus had risen from the dead and appeared to Paul, which was the basis for Paul’s dramatic transformation from persecutor of the church to its chief proponent and the originator of Christian theology/philosophy, and the complete re-orientation of his life around the claims of Jesus.

It is quite likely that, as the message of Jesus went forth, and as the church presented itself, through and in union with their risen Lord, as the new Temple, that Jesus’ words about the fall of the Temple that was to take place relatively soon had an important place in talk of Him.  Why would this not be the case?  Indeed, it would be odd if this was not the situation at hand.  Why can such a thing be said?  Well, one would have to consider the question in accordance with the fact that the issue of Jesus, as Messiah, was a primarily a Jewish issue. 

Salvation for the world was to be through the Jews, and any proper understanding of the role of the Messiah cannot be divorced from the history of Israel and the Creator God’s role for His chosen people.  Why would the Jews, especially, whose lives were oriented around the Temple, shift their allegiance from the Temple (and therefore the God represented by the Temple) to Jesus?  It is a legitimate question.  If they had the Temple, then why would they need to seek their God in some other place or person?  It was the lack of the Temple, during the period of the Babylonian exile, that forced the Creator God’s people to seek Him.   

No One Knows The Hour (part 11)

It’s worth reviewing what happened when Jesus entered the Temple.  He “drove out all those who were selling and buying in the Temple courts, and turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves.  And He said to them, ‘It is written, “My house will be called a house of prayer,” but you are turning it into a den of robbers!’” (Matthew 21:12b-13)  Then, “The blind and the lame came to Him in the Temple courts, and He healed them” (21:14).  This forces another look at Jeremiah, from which Jesus’ words of judgment are lifted, where one can see the Levitical parallels (and stand amazed at all that is going on in Jesus’ words and Matthew’s record) when reading “Change the way you have been living and do what is right.  If you do, I will allow you to continue to live in this land” (7:3b). 

Notice the connection here made by Jeremiah between land and Temple.  By quoting and re-enacting Jeremiah, Jesus would be making the same connection.  Jeremiah goes on to say (and Jesus intends to call to mind) “Stop putting your confidence in the false belief that says, ‘We are safe!  The Temple of the Lord is here!  The Temple of the Lord is here!  The temple of the Lord is here!’  You must change the way you have been living and do what is right.  You must treat one another fairly.  Stop oppressing foreigners who live in your land, children who have lost their fathers, and women who have lost their husbands.  Stop killing innocent people in this land.  Stop paying allegiance to other gods.  That will only bring about your ruin” (7:4-6).  Here, one should note that Jeremiah’s reference to Deuteronomy flows into a concern that Israel not fall into idolatry---worshiping the gods of the people of the land to which the Lord is bringing them. 

Continuing in Jeremiah, and continuing to connect land to Temple: “If you stop doing these things, I will allow you to continue to live in this land which I gave to your ancestors as a lasting possession,” as we note the land and Temple dynamic (7:7).  Jeremiah goes on to say (and again Jesus could just as well have said) “But just look at you!  Your are putting your confidence in a false belief that will not deliver you.  You steal.  Your murder.  You commit adultery.  You lie when you swear on oath.  You sacrifice to the god Baal.  You pay allegiance to other gods whom you have not previously known.  Then you come and stand in My presence in this Temple I have claimed as My own and say, ‘We are safe!’  You think you are so safe that you go on doing all those hateful sins!  Do you think this Temple I have claimed as My own is to be a hideout for robbers?” (7:8-11a) 

So not only has Jesus made reference to the whole of this section of Jeremiah’s seventh chapter while He dramatically acts in the Temple, but situated as it is within Israel’s history, its collective and active memory, and its understanding of past exiles and current subjugation to a foreign power, He calls this to mind again along with the Leviticus passage that Jeremiah seems to also have in mind when He speaks about the demand to love neighbor as self.  To clinch the argument that Jesus’ words are not to be disconnected from His ongoing and primary concern with the Temple as demonstrated in Matthew, it is necessary to point out that this section of Leviticus basically begins with “When you sacrifice a peace offering sacrifice to the Lord, you must sacrifice it so that it is accepted for you” (19:5).  The Temple, of course, was the place of sacrifice.

No One Knows The Hour (part 6)

So, with the Temple as the backdrop, Jesus embarks on a series of parables.  The first one of these is known as the “parable of the two sons.”  Not only is the parable offered in the Temple, but it begins with a question, “What do you think?” (Matthew 21:28a), with that being directed to “the chief priests and elders of the people” (21:23b).  They had posed a question to Jesus.  Jesus had not answered the question, but instead posed a question to them.  He continued to question them, as was just said, by prefacing a parable with a question. 

The parable of the two sons, spoken in the Temple and to the Temple authorities, uses a vineyard as its setting, with a father and two sons as the characters in the story.  Thus Israel as the point of reference is unmistakable.  The father and two sons theme is quite prevalent in Israel’s history: Abraham with Ishmael and Isaac, Isaac with Esau and Jacob, and Joseph with Manasseh and Ephraim.  The fact that it is being directed to whom it is being directed, in the place where it is being spoken, with the conclusion drawn about a failure to believe on the part of those to whom Jesus speaks (Temple authorities), builds on the Jeremiah theme and is further judgment upon the Temple and its system.  Remember, Jesus has already pronounced judgment on the Temple by way of His actions and His words in the Temple.  The fig tree has withered and He has spoken of the mountain to be thrown into the sea.  The setting has not changed, so it is correct to continue hearing Him speak according to this train of thought, without any unwarranted deviations from this path. 

Following the parable of the two sons is the “parable of the tenants.”  Jesus commences with “Listen to another parable” (21:33a), with this serving as a reminder that Jesus is speaking to the same people to whom He was speaking with the previous parable.  This parable tells a horrible story, and Jesus uses terms such as “evil” to describe the antagonists in the tale.  Of course, Matthew removes all ambiguity when he writes “When the chief priests (Temple authorities---representatives of the Temple) and the Pharisees heard this parable, they realized that He was speaking about them” (21:45).  Jesus is calling the chief priests “evil.”  Thus, He effectively de-legitimizes them, their positions, and that which they represent. 

With this, one cannot help but think about the Apostle Paul standing before the council in Jerusalem and being struck on the mouth.  Paul responds to his abuser by saying “God is going to strike you, you whitewashed wall!” (Acts 23:3a)  The reply that comes to this statement is “Do you dare insult God’s high priest?”  (23:4b)  Now, this is not to say that Jesus was speaking to or of the high priest, and of course He did not speak these words overtly, as they were implied in the parable and the chief priests made the connection themselves, but as one considers the issues of legitimacy and authority and the words of Jesus, it is interesting to note that Paul says “I did not realize, brothers, that he was the high priest, for it is written, ‘You must not speak evil about a ruler of your people.’” (23:5) 

Because Jesus refers to the antagonists in the parable of the vineyard as evil, with the knowledge that this epithet was meant for those who were challenging Him there in the Temple, Jesus may very well have been emphasizing that these men (and even the high priest) were not legitimate rulers, and that they were nothing more than the caretakers of a Temple and system that has been judged as illegitimate by Israel’s Creator God.  Indeed and to that point, Jesus also says “I tell you that the kingdom of God will be taken from you” (21:43b), and it was the Temple---the place of God’s dwelling and the place where heaven and earth met---that represented the Creator God’s presence and His kingdom.  This carries meaning on multiple levels, especially if one considers that Matthew, using these words that are absent from Mark’s account, is most likely composed in a time following the destruction of the Temple at the hands of the Romans. 

No One Knows The Hour (part 3)

Returning to Matthew and to the day after Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, which took Him to the Temple to pronounce a symbolic judgment against it in the mode of Jeremiah (and for the same reasons), along with which He referred to the Temple authorities as robbers (for engaging in insurrection against the God of the Temple---an insurrection that will cause Israel’s God to bring upon Jerusalem and its Temple the same type of judgment that their God brought upon it by way of Babylon, which are the thoughts that Jesus’ words and actions would have stirred, therefore setting him at odds with the Temple authorities and the people, as also happened to Jeremiah), Jesus returns to Jerusalem and to the Temple, having spent the night in the nearby village of Bethany (the home of Mary, Martha, and Lazarus). 

On his way back to Jerusalem, Jesus is reported to have caused a fig tree to wither for not producing fruit.  This echoes Jeremiah’s repeated use of fig tree symbolism, and therefore becomes a clear allusion to the nation of Israel, which was failing in its task to be a light to the nations.  This withering of the fig tree also functions as an allusion to the well-understood curses of the twenty-sixth chapter of Leviticus and the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy, which the Creator God (as Matthew writes from the post-Resurrection perspective of Jesus as the physical embodiment of Israel’s Creator God) promised to bring upon His unfaithful people). 

This causing of the fig tree to wither, for Matthew, appears to stem from the reaction of “the chief priests and the experts in the law” (Temple authorities) when they “saw the wonderful things he did” (21:15a).  Matthew alone, to the exclusion of Mark and Luke, reports that following Jesus’ talk of the Temple as den of robbers, “The blind and the lame came to Him in the Temple courts, and He healed them” (21:14).  In addition, there were “children crying out in the Temple courts, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David’” (21:15b).  This is said to have caused the chief priests and the experts in the law to become “indignant” (21:15c). 

Those that represented Israel before their God were unable to celebrate Jesus’ entry in the way of Solomon as pronounced by Zechariah, they refused to repent when one who had been attempting to be a Jeremiah (and more than a Jeremiah) to the people for three years called them to account, and they refused to rejoice in what was a rather obvious coming of their Messiah (in the mold of Isaiah 61) and His healing of the blind and the lame in the Temple courts.  Little wonder then that Jesus spoke to and about the fig tree in such a way.  Matthew writes that “When the disciples saw it they were amazed” (21:20a), and wondered at what they had seen.  To their amazed inquiry, Jesus replied “I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only will you do what was done to the fig tree, but even if you say to this mountain, ‘Be lifted up and thrown into the sea,’ it will happen.  And whatever you ask in prayer, if you believe, you will receive” (21:21-22). 

As these words are heard, one must not lose sight of the fact that Jesus is on His way into Jerusalem.  Matthew will move immediately to add “Now after Jesus entered the Temple courts, the chief priests and elders of the people came up to Him as He was teaching and said, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?’” (21:23).  So the story of the fig tree and the words about the mountain are bracketed by Jesus being in the Temple (Israel’s God returning to Zion and to the Temple), where the legitimacy of His presence there is challenged by the Temple authorities.  This fact shall not be allowed to casually pass.  This makes the point that it is the Temple mount that Jesus has in view when He speaks about the mountain being cast into the sea.  It must be understood that it is the Temple that is central to Matthew’s narrative (along with Mark and Luke), and one must not lose sight of that fact while working towards an appropriate understanding of Jesus’ statement about the day and the hour that no one knows.   

No One Knows The Hour (part 2)

It might be of interest to note that, in order to call Jeremiah to mind, Jesus quotes the from the eleventh verse of the seventh chapter.  He may have been able to quote from another portion of the section provided above, but He did not.  He references the portion of Jeremiah’s polemic that speaks of “robbers.”  The Greek word translated as “robber” in Matthew is “leston.”  Now this is not to be found in Matthew’s narrative, but in the Gospel of John the man named Barabbas is described as a “robber,” using a derivation of the same Greek word used by both Jesus and Jeremiah. 

Matthew merely mentions the fact that Barabbas was a “notorious prisoner.”  Presumably, the people in Jerusalem knew who and what he was.  According to Mark, Barabbas “had committed murder during an insurrection” (15:7), and Luke also mentions the insurrection and murder (23:19).  This is interesting, as the Greek term applied to Barabbas by the author of John, which is the same one that is directed to the Temple authorities by Jesus, carries with it the notion of insurrection and revolution---going well beyond simple thievery.  Little wonder then that Barabbas was, to use Matthew’s language, a notorious prisoner. 

It is appropriate to here marvel at the genius of the author, as ironically, through His triumphal entry, Jesus is stirring thoughts of an insurrection to be carried out against the Romans, whereas those that run the Temple are carrying out an insurrection against the very God that they believe is going to act to deliver them from the power of Rome.  Ultimately, as is well known, Barabbas, the one that seeks to participate in revolutionary activity that may have the effect of driving the Romans from Jerusalem and from Israel through armed conflict, is the man that is released rather than Jesus.  Also in a horrific ironic twist, eventually the people of Israel will undertake a violent resurrection against Rome that will result in the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem, so that the very place in which Jesus stands and speaks will be thrown down to the ground.      

Matthew is not the only Gospel in which Jesus words about the day and hour are reported.  Mark records these words as well.  In the thirteenth chapter Jesus is heard to say “But as for that day or hour no one knows it---neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son---except the Father” (13:32).  Without any intervening material such as that which is to be found in Matthew, Mark moves immediately to Jesus saying “Watch out!  Stay alert!  For you do not know when the time will come” (13:33). 

Luke presents a similar narrative to what is heard in both Matthew and Mark, though it has its own differences that are peculiar to Luke’s presentation of Israel’s Messiah.  Luke does not have Jesus offering an opinion on whether or not one can know the day or the hour of the coming of the Son of Man, but he does alludes to it when he writes “But be on your guard so that your hearts are not weighed down with dissipation and drunkenness and the worries of the life, and that day close down upon you suddenly like a trap.  For it will overtake all who live on the face of the earth.  But stay alert at all time, praying that you may have strength to escape all these things that must happen, and to stand before the Son of Man” (21:34-36). 

No One Knows The Hour (part 1)

But as for that day and hour no one knows it---not even the angels in heaven---except the Father alone. – Matthew 24:36  (NET)

“Jesus was going out of the Temple courts and walking away” (Matthew 24:1a).  As He did so, “His disciples came to show Him the Temple buildings” (24:1b).  A couple of days prior to this, Jesus had made His “triumphal entry” into Jerusalem.  He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey.  As He rode, “A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road.  Others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road.  The crowds went ahead of Him and those following kept shouting, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David!  Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!  Hosanna in the highest!’” (21:8-9) 

This was a dramatic exhibition, full of provocative imagery, stirring passions within the people of Israel in regards to their King and Messiah and the coming of the kingdom of their Creator God.  Matthew reports that “As He entered Jerusalem the whole city was thrown into an uproar” (21:10a).  With His actions, Jesus was playing upon and creating certain expectations, not the least of which was that the time of Roman occupation was coming to an end.  However, rather than leading a mob to storm the Roman governor’s residence or the fortress housing the Roman soldiers in an attempt to take up His position of earthly power by overthrowing the local representatives of those that were then ruling over Israel, Jesus directed His steps toward the Temple. 

“Jesus entered the Temple area and drove out all those who were selling and buying in the temple courts, and turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves.  And He said to them, ‘It is written, “My house will be called a house of prayer,” but you are turning it into a den of robbers!’” (21:12-13)  Some misguided (but perhaps well intentioned) souls look at this and see Jesus taking issue with buying and selling and money changing taking place in the Temple courts.  Unfortunately, because these things were actually legitimate and sanctioned activities that needed to take place in order to facilitate the sacrifices for the people, this is a shortsighted view and misses the context provided by what He has said in quoting from the prophet Jeremiah. 

In the seventh chapter of Jeremiah, speaking on behalf of Israel’s God, the man who called the world’s powers to account (prophet) can be heard to say “Do you think this Temple I have claimed as My own is to be a hideout for robbers?  You had better take note!  I have seen for Myself what you have done!  says the Lord” (7:11).  What was it that they had been doing?  Was Jeremiah simply conveying the Creator God’s disgust at the activities taking place in the Temple?  Yes of course, but on a far larger scale than what one might have in mind if offering a cursory glance at the text. 

What was it that preceded the question and statement of the eleventh verse?  Again, speaking for the Creator God, Jeremiah said “You must change the way you have been living and do what is right.  You must treat one another fairly.  Stop oppressing foreigners who live in your land, children who have lost their fathers, and women who have lost their husbands.  Stop killing innocent people in this land.  Stop paying allegiance to other gods.  If you stop doing these things, I will allow you to continue to live in the land which I gave to your ancestors as a lasting possession.  But just look at you!  Your are putting your confidence in a false belief that will not deliver you.  You steal.  You murder.  You commit adultery.  You lie when you swear on oath.  You sacrifice to the God Baal.  You pay allegiance to others gods whom you have not previously known.  Then you come and stand in My presence in this Temple I have claimed as My own and say, ‘We are safe!’  You think you are so safe that you go on doing all those hateful sins!” (7:5-10) 

It is this---far more than the simple and legitimate acts of buying and selling---to which Jesus makes reference with His words and actions in the Temple.  By quoting from Jeremiah, Jesus is accusing the Temple authorities of doing all of these things.  Therefore, and rather than condemning Israel’s then-current oppressors as a messiah would be expected to do, with His words and actions Jesus actually legitimates the ongoing rule of Rome over Israel, with this rule by Rome part of the Creator God’s faithful covenant actions towards His people.  Jesus does this in the face of those that might be expecting Him to act to overthrow that rule and attempt to drive out the Romans, as it was the things to which Jeremiah points that contributed mightily to the Creator God bringing Babylon to destroy the Temple and drag His covenant people into exile. 

Experts In The Law (part 8)

The next instance of the use of this key phrase is found in the nineteenth chapter of Luke.  In the forty-seventh verse, Luke writes that “Jesus was teaching daily in the Temple courts,” and that “The chief priests and the experts in the law and the prominent leaders among the people were seeking to assassinate Him.”  This will be followed up at the beginning of the twentieth chapter with “as Jesus was teaching the people in the Temple courts and proclaiming the Gospel, the chief priests and the experts in the law with the elders came up and said to Him, ‘Tell us, By what authority are you doing these things?  Or who is it who gave you this authority?’” (20:1-2) 

Predictably, maintaining the rabbinic challenge motif that Luke seems to have carefully sought to build through his narrative, and yielding no ground in the perpetual contest of honor and shame, Jesus answers the questions with a question of His own, related to John the Baptist (it seems that Luke intends to demonstrate the explicit connection between Jesus’ ministry and that of John), eventually eliciting an embarrassing and honor-sacrificing “we don’t know” from His interrogators. 

Before the mentions of the experts in the law that close out and open the nineteenth and twentieth chapters respectively, it is reported that “Jesus entered the Temple courts and began to drive out those who were selling things there, saying to them, ‘It is written, “My house will be a house of prayer,” but you have turned it into a den of robbers!’” (19:45-46)  Thus, with this stirring reminder of the words of the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah (which would not have been lost on those who witnessed the incident or those who would hear about the incident from Luke and others), Jesus, with the full weight of His increasingly messianic life-path providing support, enacts a symbolic judgment against the Temple (as did Jeremiah). 

The people who hear these words of Jesus will know and potentially call to mind that Jeremiah went on to announce, presumably on behalf of Israel’s God, “I will destroy this Temple which I have claimed as My own, this Temple that you are trusting to protect you.  I will destroy this place that I gave to you and your ancestors” (Jeremiah 7:14).  Coming from the one that has been successfully challenging and meeting any and all challenges from the representatives of the Temple and of the Temple tradition at every turn, these are weighty words in deed. 

Those listening to Luke’s presentation, who are also aware, as would be the modern reader, of the way that the story proceeds, know that this is going to provoke a response by the very ones whose authority and legitimacy is being challenged.  Concordantly then, any mentions of the experts in the law, going forward, will carry with it this symbolic judgment of the Temple.  After reporting that Jesus has said these things, Luke writes that “Jesus was teaching daily in the Temple courts” (19:47a).  This would only be natural, in that if He has pronounced judgment on the Temple, and if He does indeed believe Himself to be the new Temple (the place at which the Creator God dwells/the place of the coming together of heaven as the realm of the Creator God and earth as the realm of the those created and put in place as the image of the Creator God), then Jesus is quite naturally going to locate Himself at the place where the legitimate Temple is to be found. 

Now it is much easier to understand why it is that “The chief priests and the experts in the law and the prominent leaders among the people were seeking to assassinate Him” (19:47b).  Luke is explicitly linking Jesus’ pronouncement as king (by the enthralled masses) and His judgment against the Temple with the desire for His assassination by those that represented the Temple’s power structure.  This most definitely feeds into the negative portrait of the experts in the law, which will also serve to heavily inform a statement that is soon to come, and which will be sure to draw the desired response from his hearers.    

Collapse Of The Temple (part 3)

As he “channels” and calls the prophet Jeremiah to the mind of the people of Jerusalem, Jesus had a great deal to say about the Jerusalem Temple.  His activity in Jerusalem, as one would expect, was centered around the Temple, though He did not treat it at all in the way which was expected of the messiah.  The messiah, more than likely, would have been expected to honor the Temple. 

However, when it came to the Temple of Jerusalem, Jesus did and said some rather interesting things.  The things He said and did were not necessarily directed against the Temple itself, as it, though a symbol of something much larger, was merely a building.  Rather, Jesus’ words were directed against the Temple authorities, who seemingly wielded the presence of a building and what it was meant to represent and contain, against the people of Israel, so as to preserve their own power and position. 

With that frame of mind created, one can look at one of the stories recounted in the Gospel of Mark as fairly representative of that which can be seen in both Matthew and Luke.  In the eleventh chapter of Mark it is said that “Jesus entered the Temple area and began to drive out those who were selling and buying in the Temple courts.  He turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves, and He would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the Temple courts” (11:15-16). 

This disruption in business would have had an obvious impact on the sellers, as they would be losing money by being unable to carry out their trade for a period of time.  In and of itself, such action is not a critique of the activity of buying and selling (though one could question the legitimacy and necessity of the way in which the sacrificial cult was in operation in that day) but of the greed and corruption that would so often be the companion of the commerce. 

Regardless, the disruption would certainly create some enemies for Jesus, as shutting down the buying and selling also shuts down the operations of the Temple, effectively shutting down the Temple itself.  Not only is this having an effect on livelihoods, but this is something of a symbolic pronouncement against the Temple, as Jesus actively calls into question not what was there taking place, but rather the ongoing need for the Temple.

Additionally and as would be expected, the disruption would have had an impact on the finances of the Temple authorities, as they would have had a stake in each transaction made within the Temple in relation to the sacrificial cult.  Thus, more enemies for Jesus.  These are more powerful enemies than the merchants who plied their business at the pleasure of the Temple authorities.  Thirdly, Jesus might very well have been taking a chance at angering the people, and turning the populace in general against Him, as they would have been unable to buy the necessary items to make what they understood to be their necessary offerings, thus jeopardizing their right-standing with their God (their covenant status).  

However, it would seem that the potential for anger amongst the commoners was quickly diffused, which can be seen when one encounters Jesus’ words in which He said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’?  But you have turned it into a den of robbers!” (11:17b)  In this, Jesus apparently reveals to the people that the merchants in the Temple, in collusion with the Temple authorities, had conspired together to cheat the people through false dealings in their money-changing and sale of animals.  Beyond that, it is possible that there is an implication that the Temple authorities were cheating the people through their insistence that the sacrifices were a continuing necessity.   

Collapse Of The Temple (part 2)

Before one gets further into the record of the Gospels so as to examine Jesus’ dealings with the Temple authorities (remembering that this is an analysis occurring against the backdrop of the collapse of the Philistine temple at the hands of Samson), it is quite useful to peer into the book of the prophet Jeremiah, doing so in order to catch a glimpse of the types of things that Jesus would have been saying in and about the Temple, and how His words would have been received. 

In the twenty-sixth chapter, the Lord God of Israel is said to have spoken to Jeremiah, delivering instructions to him as to what to say to the people of Jerusalem and Judah on the Lord’s behalf.  The Creator God says, “Tell them that the Lord says, ‘You must obey Me!  You must live according to the way I have instructed you in My laws.  You must pay attention to the exhortations of My servants the prophets.  I have sent them to you over and over again.  But you have not paid any attention to them’.” (26:4-5) 

Similar things are to be heard from Jesus.  He says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6).  Jesus is found to be lamenting and saying, “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you!” (Matthew 23:37a)  In addition to that, one can read the “Parable of the Tenants”  in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which reflects the theme of the rejection of the Creator God’s prophets.  As is reported, this parable produced anger on the part of the temple authorities (chief priests and elders), as they realized, apparently quite astutely, that it was spoken about them. 

Returning to Jeremiah, one continues to hear the covenant God speaking and says “If you do not obey Me, then I will do to this temple what I did to Shiloh.  And I will make this city an example to be used in curses by people from all the nations on the earth” (26:6).  As Jesus consistently points to Himself, His ways, and His kingdom as the locus of a needful obedience, and as one considers the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple that came about at the hands of the Romans, one would do well to hear His voice in these words out of Jeremiah. 

What is said to have been the experience of Jeremiah as a result of the words of the Creator God that he is reported to have delivered to the people of Judah?  It is said that “The priests, the prophets, and all the people heard Jeremiah say these things in the Lord’s temple.  Jeremiah had just barely finished saying all the Lord had commanded him to say to all the people.  All at once some of the priests, the prophets, and the people grabbed him and shouted, ‘You deserve to die!’” (26:7-8) 

It is possible to see that this was not at all unlike that which was experienced by Jesus when He spoke against the Temple and its ruling authorities.  Furthermore, the reader of the Gospel hears what Jesus would eventually endure in the sneering questioning of His authority to act and speak in a way that was perceived to be against the Temple, as Jeremiah hears “How dare you claim the Lord’s authority to prophesy such things!  How dare you claim His authority to prophesy that this temple will become like Shiloh and that this city will become an uninhabitable ruin!” (26:9)        

Deceit & Judgment (part 2 of 2)

With this somewhat clear presentation of idolatry as the reason for judgment to fall upon Israel, one can then go on to make sense of reading about children that “are always thinking about their altars and their sacred poles dedicated to the goddess Asherah, set up beside green tress on the high hills and on the mountains and in the fields” (Jeremiah 17:2-3a).  Following that, the God of Israel says, “I will give your wealth and all your treasures away as plunder” (17:3b).  So here an explicit connection is made between idolatry and the material wealth of the people.  Before that point is reached here in chapter seventeen however, the reader will have stumbled across some words that should help to properly shape the conception of the true problem of idolatry that was being presented here by the people of Judah. 

In the sixteenth chapter, when the Creator God gives Jeremiah an answer to give to the people that might find themselves questioning the reason for the judgment and disaster that was going to befall them, He says to tell them, “It is because your ancestors rejected Me and paid allegiance to other gods.  They have served them and worshiped them.  But they have rejected Me and not obeyed My law” (16:11).  That sounds pretty bad, but it does not end there.  The covenant God continues His answer with “And you have acted even more wickedly than your ancestors!  Each one of you have followed the stubborn inclinations of your own wicked heart and not obeyed Me” (16:12). 

What is to be found in that statement?  Effectively, it is self-idolatry---the same old sin from the time of the garden---which always seems to get a far harsher reaction and treatment from the Creator God than the simple worshiping of wood and stone.  It is with this conception of self-idolatry that one can then move back to the Creator God’s statements about the human mind and its deceit and incurable “badness.”  Following that statement then, one finds “I, the Lord, probe into people’s minds.  I examine people’s hearts.  I deal with each person according to how he has behaved.  I give them what they deserve based on what they have done” (17:10). 

What does this have to do with idolatry or self-idolatry?  Well, connecting the thoughts concerning idolatry and wealth and treasures found just a few verses before, the reader goes on to learn in the next verse about “The person who gathers wealth by unjust means” (17:11a).  This is what follows talk of the human mind being more deceitful than anything else and incurably bad.  It could be said that the person who gathers wealth by unjust means is guilty of self-idolatry, especially in light of the statement in Deuteronomy that the Lord “is the One Who gives ability to get wealth” (8:18b). 

Surely, it can be said that a Creator God-granted ability to get wealth will see wealth accumulated by just means, and will therefore result in proper worship of the God that gave the ability, and Who therefore gave the wealth.  Wealth gained by unjust means will result in worship of what provided for the accumulation of wealth, which is the marred and falling-short-of-the-divine-image heart and mind that is said to have come about because of the desire on the part of the first humans to be like their God.  Because of this, it can be surmised that not only was idolatry, along with its companion of self-idolatry, the reason for the judgment that came upon the people of the covenant God, but one can also now understand that the gathering of wealth by unjust means, which will generally be connected with idolatry and with the extension of suffering and oppression, was a reason for that God’s judgment as well. 

Deceit & Judgment (part 1 of 2)

The human mind is more deceitful than anything else.  It is incurably bad.  Who can understand it?  - Jeremiah 17:9  (NET)

With these words, the God of Israel, presumably speaking through His prophet Jeremiah, sends forth a stinging rebuke against His covenant people.  Before attributing an incurably bad and deceitful mind to His own people that had been culled out from humanity so as to be the shining lights of His glory in and to the world, He accuses them of placing “trust in mere human beings” (17:5b).  The Creator God here says that He will curse His people that do such things, “who depend on mere flesh and blood for their strength” (17:5c), because in that, they demonstrate that their “hearts have turned away from the Lord” (17:5d). 

Of course, when the reader of Scripture stumbles across any mentions of curses, that reader’s thoughts should be caused to dwell upon the curses to be found in Leviticus and Deuteronomy that are especially pronounced against idolatry, which are set in juxtaposition to the blessings that are to be enjoyed for faithfulness to covenant obligations, the proper worship and recognition of the covenant God, and appropriate bearing of the divine image. 

The statement about the human mind found here in Jeremiah is not necessarily to be taken as a generalization and universal condemnation.  Rather, it is specifically connected to trust in human beings, so it asks to be understood as a reference to idolatry.  Jeremiah is in the midst of communicating judgment and exile to the Creator God’s people, and in doing, lets them know that their idolatry is the key component of that judgment.  The implications of the judgment is that rather than being a light reflecting the glory of their God, and subsequently directing the nations to the worship of the one and only God of Israel, they had instead imitated the nations surrounding them and gone after their idols.  It is because of that then, that “The Lord said, ‘So I will let them know My mighty power in judgment.  Then they will know that My Name is the Lord’.” (16:21) 

Remembering that there is a wider context and a continuous narrative stream in Jeremiah, it is appropriate to back up to the fifteenth chapter so as to learn that the punishment to be rendered by their God for this idolatry will be severe.  The covenant God speaks about His people and says “I will have war kill them.  I will have dogs drag off their dead bodies.  I will have birds and wild beasts devour and destroy their corpses.  I will make all the people in all the kingdoms of the world horrified at what has happened to them” (15:3b-4a).  Naturally, kingdoms being horrified at the woes of Israel stands in stark and glaring contrast to what the God of Israel had intended for His covenant people. 

It is worth inquiring as to when the fate of this people was sealed?  It is suggested that the were going to suffer judgment “because of what Hezekiah’s son Manasseh, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem” (15:4b).  As is to be routinely found in the historical narrative of Israel, the king stands for and represents the people, with the people often subject to cursing because of him and his actions.  Later on in the Scriptural narrative, it will be possible to find another King that stands for and represents the people, and that it is through Him that the people of God become blessed.  

Terms Of The Covenant (part 2 of 2)

What the Creator God is presumed to have said to Judah through Jeremiah, the same God effectively and presumably said to Adam, which was “Obey me and carry out the terms of the agreement exactly as I commanded you.  If you do, you will be My people and I will be your God” (Jeremiah 11:4b).  Had Adam been faithful to the covenant conditions that had been delivered to him, death would not have come upon him and (again, presumably) the creation over which he was given dominion. 

The Scriptural narrative suggests that Eden and the covenant God’s creation would have remained in the state of perfection in which it was delivered to man.  If His chosen people were faithful, Israel’s God promised to “keep the promise I swore on oath to your ancestors to give them a land flowing with milk and honey” (11:5a).  “Milk and honey” could certainly also be rendered as “fertile fields and fine pastures,” which could also serve as a description of the land into which man had been placed before the curse of his covenant failure caused it to be overrun with thorns and thistles.

It is possible to hear the Creator God not only speaking to the people of Judah, but to all that would eventually come to be His covenant people, as He says, “I solemnly warned your ancestors (Israel & Adam respectively) to obey Me.  I warned them again and again, every since I delivered the out of Egypt until this very day” (11:7).  Obviously, Adam was not personally delivered out of Egypt, though He was placed, as Israel would eventually be, in a land of the Creator God’s choosing. 

The described paths of Adam and Israel converge again, as one reads “But they did not listen to Me or pay any attention to Me!” (11:8a).  Clearly, this could be said of both, which lends credence to seeing Adam as the embodiment of Israel in the creation narrative.  “Each one of them,” the Creator God says, “followed the stubborn inclinations of his own wicked heart.  So I brought on them all the punishments threatened in the covenant because they did not carry out its terms as I commanded them to do” (11:8b). 

For His covenant people, the punishment was the curse that Jeremiah insisted was on its way; and for Adam and all of humankind, the punishment was death.  Why?  Because the Creator God is faithful to His covenants, even if and when those that are charged to be His image-bearers are not.  The Creator God of Israel demanded and expected trust, but the story of Scripture indicates that He did not receive it.  He expected these creatures that had been made in His image to reflect His glory, but they failed.        

For Israel and for Adam (and all the descendants of Adam), it could be said, “The people of Judah and the citizens of Jerusalem have plotted rebellion against Me…  They too have paid allegiance to other gods and worshiped them” (11:9,10b).  Both rebelled and, for all practical purposes, fell into idolatry.  Israel found itself bowing to the gods of the surrounding nations, whether by choice or through force, whereas Adam, beginning the idolatry with which each of his progeny (according to the Scriptures) is afflicted, seems to have bowed down to and worshiped himself, making himself the measure of all things, in trustful worship of the creature rather than the Creator.  The sovereign Lord’s response to this is consistent, as He says, “those gods will by no means be able to save them when disaster strikes them” (11:12b).  A redeemer would be necessary.    

Terms Of The Covenant (part 1 of 2)

Tell them that the Lord, the God of Israel, says, “Anyone who does not keep the terms of the covenant will be under a curse.” – Jeremiah 11:3  (NET)

So it was for the people of the Creator God, Israel (specifically those of the southern kingdom of Judah in the time of Jeremiah).  The curses under which they would find themselves are presented with utmost clarity in the twenty-eighth chapter of Deuteronomy (expounding on the Levitical curses).  Because Jeremiah is speaking on the coming destruction of Jerusalem and subjugation of Judah by the Babylonians, and because such subjugation and oppression can be located within the extensive list of curses that Israel’s God had promised to bring upon His covenant people if they did not keep the terms of the covenant, it can be reliably affirmed that the Creator God’s people had not kept to the terms of the covenant. 

More specifically, the covenant people had not lived up to their responsibility to properly bear the divine image, as set forth in the laws that were understood to have been provided to them by their God, through Moses.  To Judah in Jeremiah’s day, in reference to the terms of the covenant and its curses, the Creator God said, “Those are the terms that I charged your ancestors to keep when I brought them out of Egypt, that place which was like an iron-smelting furnace” (11:4a).   

However, it would behoove later observers not to look down upon them or speak poorly of them because of this.  The covenant people were unable to keep the terms of the covenant because they were human, and therefore, as the story of Scripture seems to be supposed to be understood, subject to the same failings to be found in the head of the entire race, that being Adam.  The covenant that Israel violated was not the first covenant to be violated.  They were not the first to find failure when it came to the Creator God’s expectations.  To find that occurrence, one must look to the book of Genesis, remembering that the Genesis narrative is crucial for the self-identification and self-understanding of the people of Israel. 

There one is able to read that “The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it” (Genesis 2:15).  This care and maintenance was a portion of the Creator God’s covenant with the being that had been created in His image.  Reading on, one  also finds it said that “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die” (2:16-17).  Of course, owing to the knowledge of pain and suffering, information about which provides a daily bombardment of the sense, all are quite aware that the terms of this covenant were violated. 

Again, as the Scriptural narrative seems to insist, owing to that violation, because the Creator God is faithful to His covenants, all of humanity and creation came under a curse, as death is said to have made its entry into the world.  The curse came upon the good creation of the covenant God for the same reason that the curse came upon that same God’s people, Israel.  Terms of the covenant were not kept.