Jeremiah 33.19–22 (𝔐): Christ, the Church, and Contingency

Jeremiah 33.19–22 (𝔐): Christ, the Church, and Contingency

One of the most cited passages in the prophetic corpus is Jeremiah 31.31–34, where the Lord declares that He will “make a new covenant with the house of Israel […] I will put my law in their inward parts […] and they shall be my people […].”[1] The passage rightfully receives focus, since the Spirit of Christ Himself illuminates the author of Hebrews to cite the passage at length when contrasting the Mosaic Law with the fullness of the Melchizedekian priesthood (Heb. 8.7–13).

Jeremiah 30–33 functions as an entire textual unit of restoration oracles within the metanarrative of Jeremiah and serves as a foundation for the rest of the book. Even passages that are often neglected within this section of Scripture are integral to the structure of the book. Origen states this lattermost point more poignantly:

“For it belongs only to those who are wise in the truth of Christ (and to all them it does belong) to unfold the connection and meaning of even the obscure parts of prophecy, ‘comparing spiritual things with spiritual,’ and interpreting each passage according to the usage of Scripture writers.”[2]

One such passage—a prime example of what appears to be a “failed prophecy” in the words of some—is Jeremiah 33.19–22. Here, an oracle of restoration is entrusted to Jeremiah the prophet, marked by a formulaic marker (“And…saying” in Jer. 33.19). The passage reads as follows:

“And the word of the LORD [came] unto Jeremiah, saying, (20) Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; (21) Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers. (22) As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of David my servant, and the Levites that minister unto me” (Jer. 33.19–22).

The passage not only reinforces the immutability of God’s covenant, but the oracle also specifies a witness (Jer. 33.20 cf. Jer. 31.36; 33.25) and two ramifications: the covenantal presence of a Davidic ruler (cf. 2 Sam 7) and the covenantal presence of the ordained priesthood (cf. Num. 25.12; Mal. 2.5). The difficulty with this text stems from the latter ramification. Why has the Levitical priesthood not continued? What about the Scriptures which suggest that the priesthood of Levi has been superseded (e.g., Heb. 7.11–15)? Finally, where is the New Covenant for the exiles?

Despite some of the textual and historical difficulties, this oracle foretells the mystery revealed in Christ and His Church (cf. Eph. 1.22–23). It is as Ignatius writes:

“And let us also love the prophets, because they too have proclaimed the Gospel, and placed their hope in Him, and waited for Him; in whom also believing, they were saved, through union to Jesus Christ, being holy men, worthy of love and admiration, having had witness borne to them by Jesus Christ, and being reckoned along with [us] in the Gospel of the common hope.”[3]

Basic Interpretive Principles

When interpreting prophecy, a basic axiom to abide by is that prophecy has socio-historical, Christological, orthopraxical, and eschatological implications. Each must be considered within a particular literary unit. Many interpreters of prophecy emphasize one of these above all others.

For example, scholars who resonate with dispensationalism tend to downplay the Christological components of prophecy and focus on eschatological themes. Other theologians emphasize purely socio-historical considerations and neglect the overarching metanarrative of God’s people. Old Testament scholar James Nogalski frames the ontology of prophecy well in his introductory work on prophetic literature:

“Beginning students are often surprised to learn that prophetic literature is not primarily predictive in nature. Rather, prophetic literature functions primarily as interpretive theological literature. Prophetic texts interpret personal, communal, religious, and political behavior in light of prophetic understandings of the expectations of God for God’s people. In so doing, these texts also interpret history itself in light of these expectations.”[4]

Thus, prophecy has an element of timelessness, since prophetic oracles function to reveal God’s purposes in every generation of the faithful. Often, interpreters misapply Sign-Acts, Visions, Disputations, and other oracles concerning judgment and salvation as unconditional promises and predicative divinations. This hermeneutic fails to recognize the functionality of prophetic language and alienates the prophetic oracles from their respective audiences.

Failed Prophecy?

With this in order, Jer. 33.19–22 may properly be discussed. It is an oracle fit within the framework of a larger literary unit spanning across Jer. 30–33 concerning Jacob’s return from Babylon (Jer. 30.10), the restoration of Jerusalem (Jer. 30.18), a new covenant (Jer. 31.31–34), the Sign-Act of Jeremiah’s field (Jer. 32), a restoration of property (Jer. 32.42–44), and covenantal reassurance (Jer. 33). Certainly, these oracles serve as a comfort to God’s people.

However, if we apply the principles of the preceding section to Jer. 33.19–22, an apparent paradox surfaces. Recall that the passage is considered a “failed prophecy” by some. Why is this? Simply put, the specifications of the prophecy did not come to pass within the historical generation’s lifetime. Despite the return from exile, a restoration of land, and so forth, there is no new covenant established by God at this time. It seems as though God’s word was nullified to the recipient generation because the Promise had not yet arrived. On the contrary, Old Testament scholar Robert Chisholm corrects this misunderstanding:

“To explain adequately the phenomenon of ‘failed’ prophecy we must move beyond this simplistic hermeneutic and recognize that prophetic language is inherently functional, often contingent, and invariably contextualized.”[5]

Prophecy’s function is to invoke repentance, cultivate godliness, give assurance, or harden hearts (Is. 6.9–13; Jer. 4.1–6; Ezek. 16.59–63; Mic. 6.6–8).[6] Prophecy’s contingency rests in the Torah, since it is written that the Lord set before the people “life and good, and death and evil” that they may obey His commands, lest they “surely perish” (Deut. 30.15–20). Finally, prophecy must be contextualized within its respective historical setting, and its contents received as the people of God received them as they awaited the Promise.

Consider the example of Jeremiah 18.1–11. The passage begins with a Sign-Act oracle in vv. 1–4. Then, a formulaic marker marks the next oracle, informed by the first, in vv. 5–11. Here, the Lord proclaims a series of conditionals:

“If that nation, against who I have pronounced [destruction], turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them […] if [a nation] do evil in my sight, that it not obey my voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them” (Jer. 18.8, 10).

The oracle directly reflects the blessings and the curses of the Torah in Deut. 28, which are conditioned upon the respective obedience (Deut. 28.1–2) or disobedience (Deut. 28.15) of the people. The oracle thus functions to silence the Israelites’ claim that “there is no hope” in righteousness (Jer. 18.12). The curses which have befallen them resulted from their own disobedience. Oracles such as these function as a foundation for all other prophetic utterances.

And again, consider a portion of a second Jeremian oracle, Jeremiah 36.30–31. King Jehoiakim of Judah had just burned Jeremiah’s [and Baruch’s] prophetic scroll of impending destruction in a demonstration of rage (Jer. 36.7, 23). The resulting utterance, preceded by a formulaic marker in Jer. 36.27, transitions to Jehoiakim’s denouncement (lāḵēn kōh āmar YHWH—”therefore, thus says the Lord”). However, not only does the oracle denounce the king, but it also denounces his posterity. It reads:

“Therefore thus saith the Lord of Jehoiakim king of Judah; He shall have none to sit upon the throne of David: and his dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, and in the night to the frost. (31) And I will punish him and his seed and his servants for their iniquity; and I will bring upon them, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and upon the men of Judah, all the evil that I have pronounced against them; but they hearkened not” (Jer. 36.30–31).

The words hearken back to 2 Samuel 7, where the Lord gave David His covenant of a perpetual reign (2 Sam. 7.13), though the Lord said He would discipline the sons of David (2 Sam. 7.14). Jeremiah 36 features an example of this discipline. Though Coniah, the legitimate Davidic heir to the throne, was to continue in the Davidic line, the Lord tore him off like a signet ring and Babylon installed the puppet king Zedekiah (Jer. 37.1 cf. Jer. 22.24). Though Zedekiah was yet in the Davidic line, too, it would soon end with his rebellion against Babylon. Thus, the rebellion of Jehoiakim incurred wrath against him and the people according to the Torah—even to the eventual removal of the Davidic ruler.

The pattern continues beyond the exile. In the post-exilic period, the hope rests in Zerubbabel, the Davidic heir (Hg. 2.20–23). Joshua the high priest points toward the hope of an enduring priesthood (Zech. 3.1–10). Haggai and Zechariah are on the scene. Yet, just a few generations later, these same priests are desecrating the temple through faulty sacrifice (Mal. 1.9–10). Moreover, the people had become lazy and apathetic.

Eventually, the Davidic line ceases to rule from Israel, too. Consider the intertestamental period. Prior to the Maccabean revolt, Antiochus Epiphanes captured Jerusalem (1 Macc. 1.20–28), established himself as king (1 Macc. 1.34, 41–42), and desecrated the temple (1 Macc. 1.21–22); as a result, Israel entered a period of wickedness (1 Macc. 1.43), save a faithful remnant (1 Macc. 1.62–64).[7] No Davidic king ruled on the throne, despite what was perceived to be a promise of God harkening back to Jer. 33.19–22.

Finally, ponder the classic example of the New Temple in Ezekiel 40–48, and in particular Ezek. 40–42. Here, the measuring lines for the temple are laid out. Why are such specific measurements laid out? Is it the future millennial temple? Is it all symbolic of Christ? After all, the post-exilic temple that was constructed in Jerusalem was not near the glory of the Ezekial vision (cf. Ez. 6.3–5). It is more accurate to say that these oracles did not come to full fruition for the post-exilic community (Socio-historical), but it gave them hope (Orthopraxical) that the perfect Messiah (Christological) would actualize this temple (Eschatological).

So, where does all of this information lead? These oracles—the potter and the clay, Jehoiakim and the scroll, the Ezekial temple—are subject to conditionality, functionality, and rhetoric unless otherwise stated. The people of Jeremiah’s day expected a new covenant with a constant Davidic ruler and Levitical priests to offer up sacrifices forever. Yet, this oracle must be read within the light of the Law. No such covenant comes about in its exact stipulations for the post-exilic community, despite the return of the exiles and recovery of property. The people rebelled constantly, and they did not experience the covenant blessings of God due to their hardness of heart.

The Law and Gospel

If prophecy is inherently conditional, then Christ has fulfilled the conditions (Mt. 5.17–20). In learning obedience through His suffering (Heb. 5.8), Christ has effectively actualized the heavenly mysteries concerning which the prophets foresaw in part. The salvation, restoration, and glory found in the prophetic oracles bears witness to the heavenly realities of Christ. As Leo the Great, former bishop of Rome, taught:

“He Whom under the veil of mysteries the types that went before had promised, is displayed clearly and conspicuously by the splendor of the present glory. Because, as says the blessed John, “the law was given through Moses: but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ,” in Whom is fulfilled both the promise of prophetic figures and the purpose of the legal ordinances: for He both teaches the truth of prophecy by His presence, and renders the commands possible through grace.”[8]

By consequence, Christ has fulfilled Jer. 33.19–22. Though the covenant was not ratified in the post-exilic era, the oracle did not fail; rather, the oracle was truly and literally fulfilled in Perfect Israel, Christ Himself. He is the perpetual Davidic King. He is the Temple from which living water flows (Jn. 2.19; 7.37–39). He is the Prophet, the Word Himself (Jn. 1).

Like the Law, the Prophets bear witness to Christ because blessing was impossible to receive apart from the divine intervention of the Lord. Though the Israelites received types and shadows of such deliverance, many prophecies did not come to exact fruition because of their disobedience, despite the rhetoric to repent. Jesus Himself affirms this when He says “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Mt. 4.17). In saying this, He has summed up all of the prophets, for now their soteriological and eschatological visions find embodiment in the kingdom of God through the Church.

An Ecclesiological Implication

If Christ has fulfilled this prophecy, then what is to be made of the Levitical priests? What is implied by Jer. 33.19–22 is that sacrifice will always be offered, since the priests were to “minister” (məšārṯēy) cultically unto YHWH (cf. Jer. 33.18).[9]

The common response is that the priesthood has been made universal through Christ, thus fulfilling the prophecy (1 Pet. 2.9). However, the reality is that the priesthood has been universal ever since Israel crossed the Red Sea (Ex. 19.4–6). All of God’s people are priests insomuch as they offer sacrifices to the Lord, whether that be the fruit of their fields or the fruit of their lips.

Rather than referring to all of the people, God fulfills His covenant in Jer. 33.19–22 concerning the priests by raising a new priesthood of ordained presbyters, anointed by God’s Spirit and consecrated by His Church. Consider Ex. 19 within the framework of Ex. 29–30. Even though the entire nation of Israel is reckoned a priesthood, God “hallows” priests to minister unto Him “in the priest’s office” (Ex. 29.1). The difference is that these New Covenant priests are after the order of Melchizedek, and they therefore receive the Abrahamic promise of an innumerable posterity.[10]

At the end of the day, because Christ has fulfilled Jer. 33.19–22, the Church with Her priests shall be innumerable and unending. The Eucharistic sacrifice, prefigured in the Torah, will be offered forever as God’s priests lead His people in offering the sacrifice of praise to God (Heb. 13.15). Day and night, God’s people will feast in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb as Christ sits upon His throne.

“Worthy are you to take the scroll and to open its seals, for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation, and you have made them a kingdom and priests to our God, and they shall reign on the earth.” (Rev. 5.9–10)

ܛܝܒܘܬܐ ܥܡܟܘܢ ܘܫܠܡܐ

Alex McWilliams

---

[1] All Scripture quotations are derived from the King James Version (1900).

[2] Origen, Origen Against Celsus 7.11 (ANF 4.615).

[3] Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians 5 (ANF 1.82).

[4] Nogalski, Interpreting Prophetic Literature: Historical and Exegetical Tool for Reading the Prophets (Presbyterian Publishing Corporation, 2015), 21, E-Book.

[5] Chisholm, “When Prophecy Appears to Fail, Check your Hermeneutic,” JETS 53/3 (2010), 561.

[6] This principle is a universal principle that carries into the Church. See Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen 7 (ANF 2.193).

[7] All references are derived from the Lexham English Septuagint (LES).

[8] Leo the Great, “Sermon LI: A Homily Delivered on the Saturday before the Second Sunday in Lent,” Sermons 12.163 (NPNF 2.12).

[9] While the Hebrew word does not always refer to priestly service, it is suitable here since Jer. 33.18 talks about the Levites offering burnt offerings and sacrifices. See Ludwig Koehler et al., “שׁרת,” The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 1661–1662.

[10] Huey, Jeremiah & Lamentations, NAC (Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1993), 302.