When God responds to our anxieties (Jer 33:14-26)
Jer 33:14-26
A year before I went to Israel on a gap year, I moved out of the room I shared with my brother into the boxroom. Although it was smaller and darker, I loved arranging the furniture and decorating it, so it really became my own. The year I was away, my brother got married and flew out of the nest, so my parents moved my things back from the boxroom into the original room before I returned home. This made good sense, but initially I was very upset about the change. I had a transformative year in Israel which I did not want to end. After the high of that experience, I landed back home with a thud, uncertain about the direction of my life and shocked at how much my perspective has changed, so that I felt a misfit in my church and country. In all that turmoil of change, I desperately wanted to hang on to something familiar like the boxroom that I had made my own. Thinking of the exiles, I can well imagine that in the seismic changes that they had to endure (loss of their land, temple, and king), they longed for the reinstatement of their familiar (royal and priestly) institutions yet doubted whether God would ever restore them to their former state (Jer 33:24).[1] In times of change and difficulty, we long for the security of the familiar.
The reassurance of God
God well understands this human need for the familiar and reassures the exiles that they will not be left permanently without a king or priesthood. There will be a just and righteous Davidic king under whose reign the people will live securely (Jer 33:15-16; 23:5-6) and a priesthood that will ensure the continuing offering of sacrifices, so essential for the worship of God at this time (Jer 33:18). The reference to Jerusalem’s name as ‘God our righteousness’ will testify to God’s character (the name earlier is given to the Davidic king; Jer 23:6; 33:16). Righteousness in the OT can encompass a variety of meanings because it essentially denotes right behaviour in the context of a relationship. Thus, a king’s primary obligation to his people is to rule fairly, so that in describing his reign as executing justice and righteousness, the two words are essentially synonyms. When the term refers to God, it indicates His covenant obligations towards Israel. As their God, He comes to their aid and brings deliverance in their need (as well as justice when He judges their oppressors), so that God’s righteousness is most often parallel to His salvation (e.g. Isa 59:16-17; 61:10). Thus, both king and city will proclaim in their name that ‘God (is) our deliverance/salvation’.
God answers the heart
God affirms the certainty of the two (royal and priestly) institutions and His continuing relationship with His people by pointing to the unchanging nature of the created order (Jer 33:20-21, 25-26). In retrospect, how these promises have worked out is not entirely straightforward (see under ‘For Interest’). Nevertheless, despite the question marks regarding how these prophecies were fulfilled or how they might still be in the future, it is important to recognise and uphold God’s faithfulness. At the heart of Judah’s desire for kingship and priesthood was the longing to be God’s people still. The king, certainly the messianic king, was meant to uphold God’s right and just reign as His representative. The priests and Levites were necessary because the continuing sacrificial system ensured the ongoing relationship with God expressed variously in devotion to Him, atonement, and fellowship.[2] The Lord answered the people’s insecurity about their future status in categories that they could understand, even though He had something better for them than what they could envisage from their horizon (see below).
Living by faith in the interim
The takeaway from this exploration is that God understands our uncertainties and anxieties and is willing to engage with us when we need reassurance. He will never reject His own and will provide what they need to have fellowship with Him. Although there may be some surprises along the way in how He answers our longings, it is ultimately always more and better than what we could have imagined. The waiting may be hard and the interim at times disappointing, but we live by faith not by sight, and must trust in the wisdom of our loving God.
[1] It is not entirely clear what the ‘two families’ in v.24 refer to. Some argue from what follows that it is the rejection of the nation (Israel and Judah) that are in view or possibly, the people in general and the royal line (cf. Jer 33:26). However, Israel and Judah are made up of several tribes and ‘family’ seems too small a category for them. It makes better sense if the reference is to the royal and priestly lines. Since these represent key institutions that enable the nation to function, it would explain the comment that some no longer considered the exiles to be a nation at all (Jer 33:24).
[2] The various sacrifices are not mere rituals as we might think of them but symbolic of different aspects of belonging to God. The burnt offerings that are completely burnt up express the people’s daily re-commitment to God, the various sacrifices for sins provide a visual expression for how God deals with sin and cleanses His people, while the peace offerings are shared between priest, worshippers, and God, and express the fellowship of the community and their God in a joyful banquet.
For Interest – Promise and Fulfilment in Jer 33:14-26
Post-exile
After the exile, priests and Levites indeed served in the rebuilt temple (Ezra 6:16-18) until the latter was destroyed after Jesus’ time in AD 70. The Davidic monarchy was not restored, and Judah was a Persian province initially after the exile and later came under Greek influence. It gained independence briefly under the rule of the Hasmonean dynasty (a priestly family) in the second century BC, but by Jesus’ time it was under the Romans’ thumb.
Jesus and the NT
As Christians, we recognise the righteous (Messianic) Branch to be Jesus, but His kingship is not of this world and His kingdom is radically re-interpreted as a spiritual reality – at least for the present. His death on the cross also re-configured the relationship with God that was earlier mediated through the Aaronic priesthood, the Levites and the sacrificial system in its major aspects (atonement, fellowship, devotion to God). Hebrews explains that Jesus as high priest is of a different order from the OT priesthood. He has offered Himself as a once-for-all sacrifice for sin, so that ongoing animal sacrifices are no longer necessary (Heb 10:1-25, note also the extended argument about Jesus’ priesthood in Hebrews 5-9). In a way, the Lord’s Supper commemorates Jesus’ sacrifice and our sharing in His redemption, as well as our fellowship with each other as a redeemed people of God (1 Cor 10:16-17). Since God’s Holy Spirit indwells us, we have a new intimacy with the Lord. Finally, our devotion to God as expressed in the burnt offering is re-interpreted by Paul as a spiritual act of worship as we commit ourselves with our whole life to God (Rom 12:1-2).
Still in the future?
Are there aspects to this prophecy that still await fulfilment in the future, as we have seen with the new covenant prophecies (Jer 31:31-34; see my post How is the new covenant fulfilled?)? The answer to this question depends on the extent these prophecies are contingent on the response of God’s people to Him (Jer 18:7-10) and how literally we think the details are to be fulfilled. Some are satisfied that in Jesus Christ the issues have been reconfigured and that is enough. Others would argue reading Jer 33:14-26 that a number of its aspects are unfulfilled. Thus, Jesus’ rule with justice and righteousness is certainly not obvious to all on earth and it is hard to see how Jerusalem’s permanent security has ever been assured (Jer 33:15-16). Likewise, not all may be satisfied that the promise of a continued Levitical priesthood is fulfilled in a reconfigured priesthood in Jesus and the universal priesthood of believers.
A millennial kingdom
Views that bridge this gap envisage a millennial kingdom based on Rev 20:1-6 in which Christ will return and establish a kingdom on earth and will rule with His elect for either a literal thousand years or for a long time. This is seen as an interim stage between the earthly existence we know today and the eternal state at the end of time after the final judgment. In this interim state, Satan is bound but sin and unbelievers are still around and believers will reign with Christ (there is debate whether these will be Jews and Gentiles, i.e. the Church, or renewed believing Israel). Such views have the advantage that they account for a number of prophecies that describe a reality that is not quite like our own (and has never been fulfilled) but is clearly not an eternal state where there is no more evil/sin or resistance to God (e.g. Zech 14:9-21).
If it is the Church who will reign with Christ, then there is still the difficulty that the distinctly Jewish elements in some of these prophecies (e.g. celebrating the Feast of Booths, potential sacrifices) are hard to make sense of from a Christian perspective. An alternative view divides history into different ages (dispensations) in which God deals with people in distinct ways (e.g. during the age of Israel, it is argued, it was through the Law and sacrifices, etc.). According to this view we are currently in the Church Age, which will end when Jesus raptures His Church (i.e. removes them from this world). Israel’s story will be taken up again, many will turn to Jesus Christ as their Saviour and after a period of tribulation, believing Israel will reign with Christ for a thousand years. The advantage of this view is that it is able to preserve in a straightforward way the distinctly Jewish elements in prophecies that still seem to be in the future. At the same time, it creates difficulty as to how believing Israel who have accepted Jesus Christ as Saviour can go back to a Levitical priesthood and animal sacrifices that only foreshadowed what Jesus would achieve.[3]
Our approach
Given the uncertainty over interpretation, we need to extend grace where we disagree with other Christians on the shape of the future. This is not one of the fundamental doctrines where the Church must agree. We also do well to hold our convictions with an openness towards what God might do that we have not envisaged. After all, the OT prophecies spoke only cryptically of a suffering Messiah and Jews could not have imagined that Jesus would bring salvation by dying on the cross. His redeeming work only makes sense in retrospect (witness even the disciples’ incomprehension throughout the gospels). I suspect that none of us have got it completely right about what is still in the future either and we will all have surprises waiting for us regarding what God will still do in our world.
[3] I cannot do full justice to these views here and advocates for each view I list here could advance arguments in favour of their positions. For anyone interested in more detail, Wayne Grudem sets out the different options in an accessible way and also notes follow-up readings of the various positions. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Nottingham: IVP, 1994), 1109-39.
If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.