Does Jesus Fulfill God's Promise About David's "House?"

Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me; your throne shall be established forever.

According to 2 Samuel 7:16, David will always have a descendant on the throne of Israel. This promise appears to be unconditional. Indeed, many interpreters look at passages like the one made directly to David as being fulfilled in Jesus. Well, yes and no.

One big problem with the view that God's promise to David is unbreakable is the fact that, between Zerubbabel (not really a king) and Jesus, there was a really long dry spell of no Davidic kings. Half a millennium!

Interpreters can cite references that look back to God's promise to David and seem to anticipate Jesus (Isaiah 9:7; 11:2). We can take note of Matthew's detail of Jesus' ancestry as Matthew traces it through David and the kings of Judah (Matthew 1:1, 6-12). We can recognize that Jesus is identified as the son of David in the gospels (Luke 1:32-33 and many references of Jesus as "son of David" by people he encountered in the gospels).

We run into some trouble when we read passages like Jeremiah 33:19-26.

19 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 20 Thus says the LORD: If any of you could break my covenant with the day and my covenant with the night, so that day and night would not come at their appointed time, 21 only then could my covenant with my servant David be broken, so that he would not have a son to reign on his throne, and my covenant with my ministers the Levites. 22 Just as the host of heaven cannot be numbered and the sands of the sea cannot be measured, so I will increase the offspring of my servant David, and the Levites who minister to me.
23 The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah: 24 Have you not observed how these people say, “The two families that the Lord chose have been rejected by him,” and how they hold my people in such contempt that they no longer regard them as a nation? 25 Thus says the LORD: Only if I had not established my covenant with day and night and the ordinances of heaven and earth, 26 would I reject the offspring of Jacob and of my servant David and not choose any of his descendants as rulers over the offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will restore their fortunes, and will have mercy upon them.

According to these two oracles, God's promise to David that he will always have a descendant on the throne of Israel is as unbreakable as God's covenant with day and night. But this passage refers to God's promise to David's family in the same breath as God's promise to Levi's family. In other words, the perpetuation of the throne of David and the perpetuation of the levitical priesthood are equally certain. But we know that the levitical priesthood was put to rest by Jesus (being a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, Hebrews 5:5-6; 7:11-12, 17). Jeremiah's oracles in this place look like another unfulfilled prophecy since there is no way to explain how the promise was fulfilled for the Levites!

The problem, the way I see it, is that we are not understanding God's covenantal promises correctly. Even when they appear to be unconditional, they really are conditional. God's promises can be resisted. Consider this passage, also in the book of Jeremiah, that warns that God's promise to David is in jeopardy of failing because of the people's sinfulness.

Jeremiah 11:4-5

For if you will indeed obey this word, then through the gates of this house shall enter kings who sit on the throne of David, riding in chariots and on horses, they and their servants, and their people. But if you will not heed these words, I swear by myself, says the LORD, that this house shall become a desolation.

Even David understood God's promise to be conditional.

1 Kings 2:1-4

When David’s time to die drew near, he charged his son Solomon, saying: “I am about to go the way of all the earth. Be strong, be courageous, and keep the charge of the LORD your God, walking in his ways and keeping his statutes, his commandments, his ordinances, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, so that you may prosper in all that you do and wherever you turn. Then the LORD will establish his word that he spoke concerning me: ‘If your heirs take heed to their way, to walk before me in faithfulness with all their heart and with all their soul, there shall not fail you a successor on the throne of Israel.’

In the case of the citizens of Jerusalem in the days of Jeremiah, the idea was that, while God's promise to David seemed unbreakable, the people could push back with their ungodly ways and deny fulfillment of God's promise. In fact, they had to push back really hard; but when the Babylonians came to town, it was over.

The New Testament church was constantly on the lookout for ways that Jesus fulfilled God's promises. Those connections identified Jesus as the Messiah of God. Nevertheless, many of those connections link back to promises that were unfulfilled in their original intentions. (I do not mean to imply that the church misused Scripture. Their reading was valid for their day). In the case of the perpetuation of the levitical priesthood, it just flat never happened.

---

Appendix:

A fascinating oracle that relates to this discussion appears in Isaiah 24. In that oracle, the prophet identifies another seemingly unbreakable promise, the rainbow promise (Genesis 9:16) to be conditional.

Isaiah 24:5, 18

The earth lies polluted
    under its inhabitants;
for they have transgressed laws,
    violated the statutes,
    broken the everlasting covenant.
Whoever flees at the sound of the terror
    shall fall into the pit;
and whoever climbs out of the pit
    shall be caught in the snare.
For the windows of heaven are opened,
    and the foundations of the earth tremble.

Emotionally conflicted God

God is consistent in character. Consistent character is definitely the meaning of the "God does not change" statements in the Bible (1 Samuel 15:29; Numbers 23:19; James 1:17). Nevertheless, God experiences emotions and sometimes those emotions are conflicted.

Jeremiah 12:8
My heritage has become to me
like a lion in the forest;
she has lifted up her voice against me—
therefore I hate her.

Jeremiah 31:3
I have loved you with an everlasting love;
therefore I have continued my faithfulness to you.

Well, what is it? Does God hate God's people or does God love God's people? The answer is that God sometimes has a love-hate relationship with God's people. God's actions in history have betrayed both relational passions toward God's people.

Jeremiah 10:24
Correct me, O Lord, but in just measure;
not in your anger, or you will bring me to nothing.

Jeremiah realized that God is sometimes so angry that, if God punished his people during that angry spell, it would be the end of them. God needs a cooling off period before punishing. Similarly, we humans should cool off before we perform any punishment to our own children.

How can we accept a God who is sometimes emotionally conflicted? The reason we should accept this God is:

• because God is consistent in character and faithful to covenant/promise.
• because the God of the Bible is the only God that exists.
• because a responsive God holds to account the actions of those God loves.

The less we are committed to covenant relationship with God, the more arbitrary God's emotional disposition toward us may seem. God has positioned God's self into a divinely vulnerable position because God is totally committed to relationship. We are the ones who wander away from God. In a relationship, the one who is most committed to it is the one most vulnerable to grief and pain. God has exposed God's self to that kind of damage. Would we renew our own promisses to be faithful to God?

Does this revelation about God's emotions bring God down to the level of humans? No. We need to be careful about assuming God is just like us. It is true, however, that we are a lot like God. It means something to be created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Humans experience emotions that originated at the divine level. Emotions are not in themselves evil. I am even talking about negative emotions like anger and jealousy. The question is if your emotions control you or if you control yourself while experiencing these very strong emotions. God works to prevent God's motions from ruling God just as we are expected to prevent our own emotions from ruling ourselves.

Jeremiah 4: Break up the fallow ground

The central verse in Jeremiah 4 may be

O Jerusalem, wash your heart clean of wickedness
    so that you may be saved.
How long shall your evil schemes
    lodge within you? (Jeremiah 4:14)

Washing the heart of wickedness denotes an overhaul of one's own character. It parallels the figures of breaking up the fallow ground and of circumcising the heart in vss. 3-4.

For thus says the Lord to the people of Judah and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem:

Break up your fallow ground,
    and do not sow among thorns.
⁴ Circumcise yourselves to the Lord,
    remove the foreskin of your hearts,
    O people of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem,
or else my wrath will go forth like fire,
    and burn with no one to quench it,
    because of the evil of your doings. (Jeremiah 4:3-4)

We can see that failure to do this character adjustment risks God's wrath. Breaking up the soil of a fallow field denotes years of neglected relationship with Yahweh. Working a field after so many years means that a lot of work will go to getting the weeds out (Mark 4:7; 18-19). Judah had gotten used to bad habits and even pagan rituals. The religious leaders were no longer worried about them. Getting rid of them would mean making difficult changes to long-established bad habits. Circumcision of the heart denotes the same thing. It means to perform surgery on the heart ( = the mind) to get rid of whatever is separating one's self from God (Romans 2:28-29; Deuteronomy 10:16; 30:6; Colossians 2:11-14).

Notice in Jeremiah 4:14 that this self-reorientation results in salvation. God in the Old Testament is not all about wrath. God has always been about salvation. God's call to repent is always open (Jeremiah 4:8) and it always comes with a promise of salvation. And more importantly to God, a broken relationship is repaired.

In verse 14, we also hear a question.

How long shall your evil schemes
    lodge within you?

An atemporal god would not ask such a question. A god who practices Unconditional Election and Irresistible Grace would never ask such a question. A God who desires a real relationship with a people wearing God's name would definitely ask this question; for that relationship is neither established or restored until such time as you and I respond to God's earnest appeals. Our response is required or else the relationship cannot be real.

This drawing near to God is not a first action on our part. God is already passionately moving in our direction and he is diligently working to repair a damaged relationship. Something frequently stops the desired reconciliation. That something is our failure to respond to God's work. God is reaching out to us but we often fail to respond. The relationship remains damaged. That dynamic is what James has in mind when he says

Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. Lament and mourn and weep. Let your laughter be turned into mourning and your joy into dejection. (James 4:8-9)

I love the words to the song "Reach Out to Jesus."

When you get discouraged, just remember what to do.
Reach out to Jesus. He's reaching out to you. (Ralph Carmichael, 1968)

Jeremiah 3: To God, restored covenant is more important than reputation

In Jeremiah 3, God compares his relationship to Israel, in part, to a marriage relationship. (The marriage metaphor is mixed up with figures of a Father and his children and also a chief shepherd with his flock of sheep).

God knows the rule about a faithless spouse. The faithful partner in the broken relationship is barred from receiving the faithless partner back into the marriage covenant. It pollutes the land. It shames the faithful partner.

Yet God is willing to set his own good reputation aside in order to receive back his faithless partner Israel.

 “Return, faithless people,” declares the LORD, “for I am your husband. I will choose you—one from a town and two from a clan—and bring you to Zion.” (Jeremiah 3:14, NIV)

What a wonderful God is the God of the Bible! God is willing to set aside his own good reputation in order to restore me into covenant relationship to God—even after I have sullied God's good name and I have violated that relationship to such a level that the damaged should have been permanent! Such a restoration could be compared to a husband receiving back his faithless wife knowing full well that receiving her back as his wife is unlawful and a pollution to the land!

While I dirtied the relationship and while restoration is invited, the choice is to return completely my own. In the metaphor, I must return and behave as a faithful wife. In the meaning of the metaphor, I must return with intent to be faithful. The ball is so much in my court that God often expects one response when he gets another. In Jeremiah, God remembers his hopes for Northern Israel that were never realized.

And I thought, "After she has done all this she will return to me"; but she did not return, and her false sister Judah saw it. (Jeremiah 3:7, NRSV)

With God's invitation, God was certain the people would return in a similar manner of a restored marriage; but God's expectation was not realized. God was surprised by Israel's and now Judah's faithlessness! In fact, this chapter features a verse that seems to be deliberately vague; but if it is read carefully, it becomes evident that the verse describes God in the figure of the estranged husband, standing outside the house of his wife's lover. He is weeping because his faithless wife in inside the house with her lover.

A voice on the bare heights is heard, the plaintive weeping [because*] of Israel's children, because they have perverted their way, they have forgotten the Lord their God. (Jeremiah 3:21)

It is no wonder the poet says

I held out my hands all day long to a rebellious people, who walk in a way that is not good, following their own devices. (Isaiah 65:2)

If we have violated covenant against God, God calls us back with weeping. Though God's reputation may be damaged by taking us back, restored covenant is more important to God than a good reputation.

---

* The Hebrew word, almost universally translated as "of" is variously translated in other places as "that, because, for, if, surely, except, yea, doubtless" (Strong's, OliveTree resource). The word "of" can indicate either a consequence or an antecedent. In the context of God begging the people to return to God in covenant relationship, the weeping in verse 21 is to be understood as God's weeping for Israel rather than Israel's ritual weeping in the Baal cult. A case can be made that this weeping is the weeping God and Jeremiah expect from the people over their own apostasy. The text eventually goes there in Jeremiah 3:22b; but the strength of the case is indirect and the text is confusing to read that way. (See Alex Varughese, Commentary on Jeremiah, Beacon Hill Press, 73).

Anthropomorphism in Jeremiah 31:20

I recently stumbled upon a passage in Jeremiah that makes for a great discussion on the nature of a kind of figure of speech called anthropomorphism.

Jeremiah 31:20
Is Ephraim my dear son?
Is he the child I delight in?
As often as I speak against him,
I still remember him.
Therefore I am deeply moved for him;
I will surely have mercy on him,
says the LORD.

An anthropomorphism is "an interpretation of what is not human or personal in terms of human or personal characteristics: HUMANIZATION" (Merriam-Webster software dictionary © 2018).

The statement "The breeze through the trees moaned in deep grief" is an anthropomorphism because a breeze is not something that can literally experience grief.

Is God really "deeply moved" or is that description of God an anthropomorphism?

The vast majority of English translations translate the clause to express deep emotions on God's part. The English Standard Version is typical.

Therefore my heart yearns for him.

There are many in Christianity who will teach that, since God does not really feel emotions, the whole notion that God is "deeply moved" has to be an anthropomorphism. Indeed, a Christian might argue that being deeply moved by anything is undignified for a being such as God. There is a word for this theory of theology.

Impassibility: The characteristic, usually associated with God, of being unaffected by earthly, temporal circumstances, particularly the experience of suffering and its effects (Grenze, Guretzki, Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, IVP, OliveTree version).

We must remember that an important aspect of symbolism is that the symbol has real meaning. When somebody says that something in the Bible is a figure of speech, then the figure must carry with it an evident meaning. The symbol needs to denote something. For example:

John 15:1
​ “I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinegrower.

Jesus is not literally a vine nor is the Father a vinegrower (well, maybe the Father is a vinegrower; but that is not the point of this passage). Jesus being a vine is a figure of speech. It is not an anthropomorphism in this case but it is nevertheless a metaphor. The meaning becomes apparent with further reading of John 15. It means that Jesus provides a kind of spiritual nourishment to the branches (his disciples) so that they can thrive and bear fruit. His point is that the disciples should draw from Christ their spiritual nourishment and they are thus expected to use that energy to bless the world.

Do you see how a figure of speech denotes meaning? If there is no evident meaning to a speech figure, then one must reject that a description of something is a figure at all without real strong evidence.

What is the meaning in Jeremiah 31:20 when God says "I am deeply moved?" The clause denotes no meaning relative to the figure; so we strongly come out in favor of the clause not being a figure at all but rather, it is a literal description of God having grievous emotions!

But it gets better!

Jeremiah 31:20 has a hidden anthropomorphism that most translations do not translate literally. They instead translate the obvious meaning that is denoted by the figure.

Here are a few translations that are more literal at Jeremiah 31:20 (italics mine).

Is Ephraim a dear son unto me? is he a child of delights? For whilst I have been speaking against him, I do constantly remember him still. Therefore my bowels are troubled for him: I will certainly have mercy upon him, saith Jehovah (Darby).

Surely Ephraim is an honourable son to me, surely he is a tender child: for since I spoke of him, I will still remember him. Therefore are my bowels troubled for him: pitying I will pity him, saith the Lord (Douay-Rheims).

A precious son is Ephraim to Me? A child of delights? For since My speaking against him, I do thoroughly remember him still, Therefore have My bowels been moved for him, I do greatly love him, An affirmation of Jehovah (Young's).

The New Beacon Bible Commentary on Jeremiah 26-52 reports "The Hebrew phrase literally means, therefore, my bowels moan for him" (Alex Varughese, Mitchel Modine, Beacon Hill Press, 2010, print 140).

What we have in this verbiage is an anthropomorphism! The description of God's bowels making noise is a figure of speech. It denotes something. It describes God's real deep emotions about the trouble Ephraim suffered for the people's (nation's) sin.

The figure (growling bowels) denotes the meaning of deep emotional grief.

Let me draw a picture:

Growling bowels ⸻> deep emotion

Theologians that promote the doctrine of impassibility tend to prefer to call God's deep emotion here a figure of speech and then to move quickly along. More often, they see the weakness in their position and just avoid comment.


The NIV Study Bible provides only crossreferences to the verse.

The Reformation Study Bible (2015) completely avoids any comment on the verse.

Those who resist the notion that God has emotions are indeed forced to try to explain that this passage describes God having growling bowels (anthropomorphism) which denotes deep emotion which is itself an anthropomorphism which denotes... well, they don't know. It must be a mystery; but surely we should not accept that God is ever grieved about anything, right? A figure of speech denotes another figure of speech which denotes some mysterious meaning.

Growling bowels ⸺> deep emotion ⸺> unknown meaning

Just how gullible are we supposed to be?

I think this passage really helps us to appreciate the application of anthropomorphism. We don't just call it an anthropomorphism and quickly move on to something else. If we cannot discern an intended application of the figure, then we are strongly reluctant to accept the description as a figure at all.

John Calvin provides a good explanation of the meaning in this passage in his commentary on Jeremiah:

So also when God expresses the feelings of a tender father, he says that his bowels made a noise, because he wished to receive his people again into favor. This, indeed, does not properly belong to God; but as he could not otherwise express the greatness of his love towards us, he thus speaks in condescension to our capacities. (OliveTree version)

God wishes for things that do not ever come to be realized. God feels strong unrequited love. Exactly!

How may I know if I am a false teacher?

Most of the false prophets in the Bible seem to be aware that they are charlatans. Most. There are some who seem to be certain that they are preaching the truth while they are in gross error on some points. There are no clearcut rules for identifying false teachers, or prophets, in the Bible. There are some indicators; but they are more in the category of "evidence" than proof. What I have been interested in doing is turning the false-teacher-detection scrutiny inward on myself. Are there ways I can know whether or not I am a false teacher? Trying to answer that question will be the burden of this article.

The definition of a prophet is itself difficult to determine. I want to touch on the definition of a prophet because I suspect there is little difference between a prophet and a teacher. I believe the two terms are nearly synonymous. We can safely talk about "false prophets" and "false teachers" together.

There are indicators that a person is a prophet; but several indicators have exceptions. For example, a prophet

1. has had a divine calling experience in the form of a vision or supernatural visitation. There are the examples of Isaiah 6:1-8; Jeremiah 1:7-10; Paul in 2 Corinthians 12:2-4; John in Revelation 1:9-17. The problem is, several prophets didn't have these experiences (that we know of).
2. has made prophetic predictions that came true (Deuteronomy 18:21-22). The problem here is that not all prophets made predictions. How can you test a prophet who does not predict anything? Furthermore, several prophets made predictions that did not come true; but the Bible treats those prophets as true prophets. It's not a dependable test.
3. has never taught the people to follow other gods (Deuteronomy 13:1-5). That is a pretty solid one. If the prophet teaches the people to follow other gods, he is a false prophet. It does not matter how powerfully he testifies to the truth of his false message.

The office of prophet, it seems, is a skill-set that could be taught. Elijah and Elisha ran prophetic schools. There was some sort of prophetic guild in the time of Samuel (1 Samuel 10:9-13; 19:18-24). Prophets seem to base a lot of their oracles on how they perceive God's character. For example, when David talked to the prophet Nathan about an idea to build a temple for the ark of God, Nathan said Yahweh would be with David in this enterprise (2 Samuel 7:3). Nathan's answer was based upon his knowledge of God. Later, Nathan received different instructions. The writer says "the word of the LORD came to Nathan." Nothing in the Bible explains what is meant by the expression, "the word of the LORD came." It is possible that the meaning has more to do with the prophet's wisdom than with some kind of ecstatic experience, after all, in several places, the word of God is described as coming through much effort and study on the part of the prophet (e.g., unknown prophets in 1 Peter 1:10-12; Paul in 2 Peter 3:15). Whatever is meant by "the word of the LORD came," Nathan had to change his answer to David.

It appears that a good deal of teaching and prophesying, especially in Biblical times, involved circumstances in which people in the faith community saw a teaching need and realized that they were in the right place and time to fill that need. Today, some people may refer to that realization as a "divine calling." I think of it as recognizing an unmet ministry need.

When I find myself in the role of Bible teacher, am I there for the right reason or for the wrong reason? If I am teaching because I saw a need and realized that I was in the right place to fill that need, then I think that reason is pretty good.

I now return to the main purpose of this article. How do I know that I am not a false teacher?

If I know that I am faking it, then I already failed the test. Most of the false prophets in the Bible were prophets for hire. They knew they were charlatans; however, there are several examples of prophets who were false prophets but they did not know they were false prophets. I offer two parade examples.

1 Kings 22:24
Then Zedekiah son of Chenaanah came up to Micaiah, slapped him on the cheek, and said, “Which way did the spirit of the LORD pass from me to speak to you?”

Zedekiah had delivered a prophecy about an upcoming battle. He was certain he had delivered a correct oracle; but another prophet, Micaiah, had contradicted Zedekiah's prophecy. In Zedekiah's case, Micaiah determined that Zedekiah had delivered a false prophecy out of his inadequate knowledge of God. Micaiah had better knowledge of the divine council than Zedekiah.

If we were to apply this principle today, we would make every effort to teach correct things about God. Such effort would be invested in study. When something we teach is challenged, we would solicit good Biblical arguments against our own view and examine those arguments carefully. That principle is seen in 1 Corinthians 14.

1 Corinthians 14:29
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.

Paul says to in 1 Thessalonians 5:20-21,

Do not despise the words of prophets, but test everything; hold fast to what is good.

Just because the person speaking has been identified as a prophet does not mean what the prophet says today is correct. Everything must be received through critical ears.

Another really good example of a false teacher is a prophet named Hananiah. He and Jeremiah had different prophecies to tell; and Jeremiah truly hoped Hananiah's prophecy was the correct one.

Jeremiah 28:11
And Hananiah spoke in the presence of all the people, saying, “Thus says the LORD: This is how I will break the yoke of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon from the neck of all the nations within two years.” At this, the prophet Jeremiah went his way.

Both prophets believed they were true prophets; but later, Jeremiah learned that Hananiah was a false prophet.

The book of Jeremiah suggests several rubrics by which we can measure the truthfulness of our own teaching ministry. I want to come back to Jeremiah's tests after I look at the Pharisees of Jesus' day. The Pharisees believed themselves to be true teachers. It took another prophet (Jesus) to point out the error of their teaching. If they had the right attitude, they would have taken Jesus' criticisms to heart and made adjustments to their teaching.

Matthew 23:23
“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint, dill, and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. It is these you ought to have practiced without neglecting the others."

There is much that is right about tithing. What the Pharisees missed is that justice, mercy and faith are more important. They neglected those important topics in their teaching. If they had made adjustments to their teaching, they would have quit being false teachers.

The book of Jeremiah points out that any prophecy that preaches only peace is false. There is always the risk of calamity, especially when there is no interest in repentance.

Jeremiah 23:16-17
Thus says the LORD of hosts: Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you; they are deluding you. They speak visions of their own minds, not from the mouth of the LORD. They keep saying to those who despise the word of the LORD, “It shall be well with you”; and to all who stubbornly follow their own stubborn hearts, they say, “No calamity shall come upon you.”

The false prophets did not base their teachings on knowledge of God but rather on what the people wanted to hear. If you are preaching nothing but good news, you will have people who want to hear what you have to say. That's a problem.

Jeremiah 6:13-14 ( = Jeremiah 8:10-11)
For from the least to the greatest of them,
everyone is greedy for unjust gain;
and from prophet to priest,
everyone deals falsely.
They have treated the wound of my people carelessly,
saying, “Peace, peace,”
when there is no peace.

Jeremiah 14:13-14
Then I said: “Ah, LORD God! Here are the prophets saying to them, ‘You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you true peace in this place.’ ” And the LORD said to me: The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds.

False teaching is all about peace. If there is no balance of teaching that includes strong messages of repentance, then it is false prophecy. If we look back on Hananiah's prophecy in Jeremiah 28, his message was all about peace but nothing about repentance. He preached salvation without repentance. That is false teaching.

When you examine yourself and try to determine if you a true or a false teacher, ask yourself, "Is there balance in what I teach, or is it all feel-good teaching? Is there a strong ingredient of challenge for people to grow in the Lord or do I try to comfort them with their current level spiritual maturity?"

Paul's teaching had balance and it made people nervous.

Acts 24:25
And as he discussed justice, self-control, and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and said, “Go away for the present; when I have an opportunity, I will send for you.”

False prophets offer peace even for the wicked. They never tell the wicked that they need to change. True prophets announce Yahweh's judgment.

---

Appendix:
People are often quick to identify other people as false teachers in order to resist their challenging teaching. Indeed, promoting a challenging message is one of the marks of a true teacher!

Some people are quick to identify people as false teachers because they teach something they don't agree with. When two teachers disagree it does not mean that one (or both) is a false teacher. It means they merely disagree. They should be able to study together on the point of disagreement. Maybe they will come together or maybe they will continue to adhere to their divergent views. That does not make one (or both) of them a false teacher. Quite possibly, it may not mean that either one is in error.

Yes, there are some points of doctrine that are really difficult to come together on. For example, it may be difficult for amillennialists and premillennialists to work together. It may be difficult for Calvinists and Open Theists to work together. The answer is not to avoid those topics in the interest of unity. The answer is to try to disagree without being disagreeable. I mean that. It is not a cliché. I am interested in your thoughts on this one. What do teachers do when they promote contradictory doctrines?

Jeremiah 26: Anatomy of a Religious Attack

Jeremiah 26 is a typical example of what happens when a person is attacked for what he believes.

Jeremiah's main message was that Jerusalem is going to be destroyed by Babylon; yet, if the people of Judah repent, God will change his mind and spare the city of destruction by the Babylonians.

A summary of Jeremiah's central sermon (Jeremiah 7:1-15) appears in Jeremiah 26:4-6. Notice what Jeremiah said:

4 You shall say to them: Thus says the LORD: If you will not listen to me, to walk in my law that I have set before you,
5 and to heed the words of my servants the prophets whom I send to you urgently—though you have not heeded—
6 then I will make this house like Shiloh, and I will make this city a curse for all the nations of the earth.

In sum, the terrible thing that God will do to Jerusalem is conditioned ("If," vs. 4) upon the people NOT repenting.

The priests and prophets quickly caught onto something they believed to be heresy.

8 And when Jeremiah had finished speaking all that the LORD had commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests and the prophets and all the people laid hold of him, saying, "You shall die!
9 Why have you prophesied in the name of the Lord, saying, "This house shall be like Shiloh, and this city shall be desolate, without inhabitant'?" And all the people gathered around Jeremiah in the house of the Lord. (Jeremiah 26:8-9)

The problem that the priests and their supporting prophets saw was a violation of temple ideology. They believed that salvation was by temple and not by repentance. (Today, we might verbalize it as, "We are saved by temple, not by works of faithfulness"). This temple ideology is expressed in Psalm 132:13-14.

13 For the Lord has chosen Zion; he has desired it for his habitation:
14 "This is my resting place forever; here I will reside, for I have desired it."

In other words, the priests, et. al. believed it did not matter how the people approached covenant relationship with Yahweh. The presence of the temple in Jerusalem would keep the city safe. The warrior God (Yahweh) would not permit his house to be destroyed by a foreign enemy. The favorite sermon of the profits who promoted the temple ideology was "Peace, peace" (Jeremiah 6:14).

That is why the priests were comfortable to misquote Jeremiah as saying, "This house shall be like Shiloh, and this city shall be desolate, without inhabitant." Jeremiah preached the judgment as conditional but the priests considered the city's safety to be unconditional.

They wanted covenant relationship with God except with no covenantal expectations.

Any preacher whose sermons only make people feel good about themselves without challenging them to see their spiritual failings and to make personal improvements is preaching lies. "Peace, peace" without "Repent, repent" is a lie.

Thus, they did not hear the conditional "if" in Jeremiah's sermon. We are the same way if we are not careful. If we do not agree with somebody on any issue, we tend to listen carelessly. We hear only part of what was said and repeat it back in a way that turns what was actually said into something heinous. We remember only half of what was said, and by itself the half sounds really bad.

Notice the content of the accusation with which the priests et. al. formally charged Jeremiah at trial.

Then the priests and the prophets said to the officials and to all the people, "This man deserves the sentence of death because he has prophesied against this city, as you have heard with your own ears." (Jeremiah 26:11)

People tend to regard as heresy any preaching against what they hold to be sacred (church or church's leadership). It is almost like church and church leadership have a pass from being called to repentance. I have personally heard the following verses cited in support of censoring people who make hard challenges to church and church leaders.

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; for many false prophets have gone out into the world. (1 John 4:1)

Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers and sisters, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness. (James 3:1)

Obviously, if you want to conscript these verses into the service of supporting the censoring somebody's preaching, you cannot read them too carefully.

The princes and the people recommended acquitting Jeremiah on some fascinating grounds.

Then the officials and all the people said to the priests and the prophets, "This man does not deserve the sentence of death, for he has spoken to us in the name of the LORD our God." (Jeremiah 26:16)

They believed that any prophet who spoke in the name of Yahweh could not possibly be preaching against Yahweh's people or his city or his temple. This statement clearly parallels Luke 9:49-50.

49 John answered, "Master, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he does not follow with us."
50 But Jesus said to him, "Do not stop him; for whoever is not against you is for you."

The passage from Luke is really loaded with meaning. One very important lesson is that anybody who is ministering for Christ is not an enemy. He is on your side and you should find a way to work together. Quit practicing the politics of exclusion in the church!

Jeremiah was not the enemy of Jerusalem. People who preach tough lessons against spiritual lethargy are not the enemy of the church. If they bring "shame and reproach" on the church, perhaps the church is acting shamefully and in ways that invite reproach. Instead of censoring hard and upsetting teaching, maybe we should listen.

Footnote:
The elders, who were acting as judges in Jeremiah's trial, quoted Micah 3:12. They noted that Micah's preaching was very similar to Jeremiah's; but Micah's king Hezekiah instituted religious reforms and Yahweh changed his mind about the disaster Micah predicted. It is fascinating to me that Micah's disaster prediction did not include a conditional clause; but there clearly was one and Hezekiah worked with it. Jeremiah's disaster prediction clearly did include a conditional clause but the priests could not hear it. The elders pointed out that, unless the city respond as Hezekiah did, Jeremiah's prediction of disaster will actually happen.

Jeremiah 17:9-10. The heart is devious above all else; and is perverse—

Jeremiah 17:9-10
9 The heart is devious above all else; it is perverse— who can understand it?
10 I the LORD test the mind and search the heart, to give to all according to their ways, according to the fruit of their doings.

This passage is often conscripted (often without verse 10, see carm.org) into the service of proving that everyone is totally depraved.

The actual meaning of this verse can be understood by looking at a little context.

Jeremiah 17:1 says that the people have become so comfortable in their sin that their hearts have hardened to it. The writing on their figurative hearts is etched with a hard stylus. It cannot be erased and written over with right teaching. As we read on (Jeremiah 17:2-3) we learn how this heart hardening happened. The people had become accustomed to worshiping idols. They even taught their children how to practice this worship when they should have been teaching them about covenant with God (Deuteronomy 6:20-25).

The problem was in where they placed their trust (Jeremiah 17:5). Instead of trusting God (Jeremiah 17:7) they have trusted themselves‒their own strength and wisdom.

Contained in this context is invitation to reorient their misplaced trust back to God. The ones who trust God thrive (Jeremiah 17:7-8) while those who trust in themselves harden themselves like a shrub in the desert that has become adapted to lack of nourishment (Jeremiah 17:6).

Jeremiah 17:9 is directed at a particular segment of Judah that was unfaithful to God and had become comfortable with it. The point is that people can easily justify in their hearts that it is okay to do evil if it is for a good cause.

The poet goes on to explain the means by which God knows people's hearts. He knows by testing (see Deuteronomy 8:2; 13:3). What is on a person's heart is evidenced by what he/she does. He does not search the heart by reading people's minds. He observes their actions. He is not a thought cop but he is a fruit inspector; and what they are doing produces nothing useful, as a partridge that broods her eggs but nothing hatches (Jeremiah 17:11, NABre, or they accumulate from other people's hard work like a partridge collecting chicks from other birds).

Jeremiah 17:9 does not mean that everybody is totally depraved. The writer means to express that he is astounded people can engage in error to the extent that they become comfortable with it. They convince themselves that what they are doing is right. What an astonishing thing that some people's hearts have grown that hard.

They were not born that way. They became that way by misplacing  their trust.

Devotional on Jeremiah 2: Divine grief and God's desire for relationship

The word of the LORD came to me, saying:
Go and proclaim in the hearing of Jerusalem, Thus says the LORD:
I remember the devotion of your youth,
   your love as a bride,
how you followed me in the wilderness,
   in a land not sewn. (Jeremiah 2:1-2)

Jeremiah chapter 2 has a lot to say about remembering. The people of Judah had failed to remember and this failure got them into trouble (Jeremiah 2:32). The priests and prophets failed to teach the people about God (Jeremiah 2:8, 26). They are at fault for failing to bring the knowledge of God to the memory of the people; so they knew no better than to go after the worship of the idol Baal. They had either forgotten Yahweh completely (Jeremiah 2:5-6, 11), improperly understood Yahweh as a god who expects too much in exchange for protection (Jeremiah 2:20, 29, 36-37) or they believed it was alright with Yahweh for the people to divide their worship time between Yahweh and Baal (Jeremiah 2:26-27).

The people confused covenant with contract. They believed Yahweh needed to be obeyed in exchange for what Yahweh is skilled at giving, namely, protection from military threat. They approached Yahweh the same way they approached Baal. They gave what Baal wanted in exchange for what he is skilled at giving, namely, a good agricultural harvest, a growing herd of cattle and lots of healthy children.

The reason they approached Yahweh as a god that wants appeasement is because they really did not know Yahweh. Oh, they would go through the motions of worship the way they were taught; but they did not know God. If they did, they would not have appealed to Baal on the side.

Proper worship begins with knowledge of God. On the outside, proper and unacceptable worship both look the same; but on the inside, true worshipers relate to God in relationship rather than in appeasement.

Jeremiah chapter 2 explains the difference.

Yahweh comes near to his people as a husband does to his bride. Like a married couple, they remember the past and they fondly remember their wedding day.

A marriage is not a contract. It is a covenant. A wife does not behave towards her husband in such-and-such a way in exchange for something. She behaves towards him faithfully out of love and covenant. The same goes for the husband. He behaves towards his wife because of the relationship and not in order to take advantage of her.

Why the confusion? The priests and prophets did too much teaching about doctrine and not enough teaching about God! In the churches today, we have much the same problem. A steady diet of doctrine is equally out of balance as a steady diet of theology. Too much doctrine and people will not know why they worship or behave the way they do. Too much theology and people will think God has no covenantal expectations.

Jeremiah 2 is a really good study on the use of a metaphorical term called anthropomorphism. An anthropomorphism is a kind of metaphor in which something that is not human is described in human terms. Here are some anthropomorphisms from the chapter:

• Yahweh is a husband
• Israel/Judah is a faithless wife

These anthropomorphisms teach something. What do they teach?

They communicate to the reader that Yahweh is grief-stricken and wounded over his unfaithful wife (cf, Jeremiah 2:18). They help the reader to appreciate the sheer power of Yahweh's grief.

The following concepts are described in Jeremiah 2 but they are not anthropomorphisms:

• God grieves
• God is emotionally wounded

There are many sincere people today who do not believe it is possible for God to have those emotions. They will tell us that God's grief is also an anthropomorphism. The critical question we should ask is, "If divine grief is an anthropomorphism, what does the metaphor communicate about God or about his people? Does divine grief communicate anything other than that God grieves?"

In every case I have seen, those who hold God's emotions to be metaphorical cannot explain the meaning that should be derived from the metaphors. The reason is because God's grief is the meaning behind the metaphor of the husband of the unfaithful wife! God's grief is the teaching, not the metaphor!

It is the duty of the teachers in today's churches to teach about God properly.

Yes, we should draw near to God because there is something in it for us; just as God reaches out to us for relationship because there is something in it for him (see also Hosea 2:14-15).

A devotional on Jeremiah 1: Don't be paralyzed

God appointed Jeremiah to a vocation to go to Jerusalem and to preach a message of coming disaster, repentance and salvation. Jeremiah had very good reasons to resist this vocation. His situation may mirror our own as we try to do the Lord's work.

(1) He was from the town of Anathoth (Jeremiah 1:1). Anathoth was a little town near Jerusalem. It was one of the Levite towns where Levites who were not of the family of high priests lived. Many of them were priests' assistants. Many had their own non-priestly vocations. The people of Anathoth were "of the priests" but they did not have titles to go with their names. They did not have "office." So Jeremiah, the priest's go-for, was being told to go to the official priests in Jerusalem and tell them that the ruin of Judah is their fault. "Yeah," they would probably say. "Where did you say you got your education? Are you ordained?"

(2) He was too young (Jeremiah 1:6). The path to leadership is all wrong. Socially speaking, it is the duty of the young to prepare for leadership. It is their place. It is not their place to actually lead. Right? The path to leadership normally consists of pretend-leading while under the wise oversight of older, more experienced leaders. That is all well and good; but some "experienced leaders" find it their role to mentor young leaders whether or not they want or need it. Beware of the leadership mentor who coaches you to not teach some things on the basis that they make people feel uncomfortable. Beware of the leadership mentor who wants to take over a ministry you started on your own. You are certainly wise to listen to all advice. However, a mentor who wants to "oversee" your personal ministry, he may be looking for a way to shut you down. Finally, if someone tries to mentor you without asking, be polite. Keep the good stuff. Brush off the bad stuff. Keep up the good work.

(3) The message he was to preach would put young Jeremiah in mortal peril. Jeremiah was afraid. God agreed that Jeremiah would face violent resistance from kings, princes, priests and a lot of regular people (Jeremiah 1:18). God said that he would provide divine protection and boldness for Jeremiah.

Functional ministry, for some reason, is very rarely convenient. Is it ever convenient?

God rarely, if ever, tells us verbally what to do. However, he has gifted each of us with something useful. We quite often have experiences similar to Jeremiah's.

(1) I notice a situation that needs ministerial attention.

(2) Nobody is addressing the situation.

(3) I realize that I am gifted in some important way to address the situation.

(4) I am reluctant to act on it because I am not properly "titled" to do that ministry (I am not a church officer). I lack a credential. I lack permission. I fear backlash.

The message from Jeremiah is that the above indicators signal that I am the one who must move forward with ministry. Yes, there will be backlash. There will be sabotage. I must not be paralyzed.

Too often we wait for God to show us open doors. What if God shows us a closed door and notifies us that it needs to be opened? He may be saying, "I have appointed you to get that door open."

To say it in Pogo language, "I has met the minister and the minister is me."