John 12:20-33

John 12:20-33 (NRSV)

²⁰ Now among those who went up to worship at the festival were some Greeks. ²¹ They came to Philip, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, and said to him, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” ²² Philip went and told Andrew; then Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus. ²³ Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. ²⁴ Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. ²⁵ Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. ²⁶ Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there will my servant be also. Whoever serves me, the Father will honor.

²⁷ “Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say—‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour. ²⁸ Father, glorify your name.” Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified it, and I will glorify it again.” ²⁹ The crowd standing there heard it and said that it was thunder. Others said, “An angel has spoken to him.” ³⁰ Jesus answered, “This voice has come for your sake, not for mine. ³¹ Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. ³² And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” ³³ He said this to indicate the kind of death he was to die.

John 12:20-36 tells the story of the preparation for the Passover, with the specific theme of the coming hour. Although the tone of John's narrative is vastly different from the tone of the synoptics, in this passage John relies heavily on the synoptic tradition. The passage hints at matters that have stimulated me to share a bit about finitude and death. 

This passage is the climax of Chapters 11-12, as John reflects upon the nearness of the hour of glorification. It also forms a suitable conclusion to the public ministry of Jesus as John views it. From the opening, the reader is aware that something different and significant is happening. Rather than Jesus offering a sign to the world (2:11, 4:54), the appearance of the non-Jews who seek him is a sign to Jesus that "his hour" of glorification is drawing near (12:23). First, it signals the close of the account of the ministry of Jesus. From this point on, Jesus will offer no more signs to the public. Second, this passage serves as a bridge to the final discourse of Jesus to his disciples and to the passion narrative. While the opening of this scene suggests that several characters will play important roles (Jesus, the Greeks, Philip, and Andrew), the dialogue that John wants to highlight is between Jesus and the Jewish crowd.

In 12: 20-26, Jesus offers a short discourse on the meaning of his death and discipleship. 

In 12: 20-22 John relates the coming of the Greeks. To confirm the Pharisees' fears, voiced in v. 19, that the world has gone after him, John immediately introduces as representatives of that entire world some Greeks seeking Jesus. Their arrival indicates that the death of Jesus is imminent. ²⁰ Now, among those who went up to worship at the festival were some Greeks. ²¹ They came to Philip, a non-Jewish name, who was from Bethsaida in Galilee, Galilee have long had association with gentiles, and said to him, “Sir, we wish to see or to believe in, Jesus.” This desire to see the now notable Jesus indicates that these figures are either "God fearers" (Torah observers but not circumcised) or full proselytes to Judaism.  Instead of confronting Jesus directly, the Greeks first seek out Philip. Do they hope that because of non-Jewish name he might pull some strings for them? If "God-fearers," they could not partake of the Passover lamb.  However, it would be evidence of true religious searching.  Following on the heels of the Pharisees' disgruntled observation, "Look, the world has gone after him" (v.19), John notes the arrival of "some Greeks" who want to see Jesus. The fact that these "Greeks" have gone up to worship at the temple during the Passover festival is indication enough of their serious search.

In many pulpits, in a place where you must be behind the pulpit to see it, is the phrase, “Sir, we would see Jesus.” It makes sense that those gathered in front of a pulpit might do so. It might sense that Greeks would be present at the Passover if they were devout and found something attractive about the Jewish faith. However, I would like to broaden the question. The Greeks are on a serious search. I want to ponder the possibility that human beings are on a search as well.

Let us consider an amazing aspect of the natural world. Certain mammals, especially dogs, are somehow able to accomplish feats of geolocating — figuring out where they are in the world — but scientists are not entirely clear about how they do it. The leading theory is that dogs have some innate ability to sense and follow the Earth’s magnetic field. It is like they have a built-in compass. Just as a compass needle swings to point unerringly towards magnetic north, something inside a dog’s body does much the same. Scientists also believe that whales, dolphins and even sea turtles share these magnetic navigation abilities.

A June 2020 study from the Czech Republic tracks how this happens. Over a three-year period, researchers equipped 27 dogs of 10 different breeds with GPS tracking devices, then released them into the woods. The dogs consistently found their way back home. They could not have been using the sun’s position, because they found their way back, even on cloudy days. Nor could they have been using visual landmarks, because there was no difference small dogs and large dogs — which are better able to see over obstructions like tall grass. If their route simply went out and back, there was an easy explanation: the dogs followed their own scent trail. But a sizable number of dogs, released from vehicles far from home, exhibited what scientists call “scouting” behavior. They began their journey home with a north-south run that the researchers believe is a way of resetting their internal compass according to the Earth’s magnetic axis. The dogs made this north-south “compass run” regardless of the direction in which their destination was located. After the compass run, they headed unerringly in the direction of home.

Do human beings have something similar that moves them toward their best life, that which gives them passion and joy, that which gives their lives meaning and fulfillment? We might call it a form of prevenient grace that keeps stirring within us the desire for more than simply satisfaction of material needs. Granted, life experiences may suppress the quest, make us content with so much less, and put us in a dark place morally and spiritually. Life is difficult that way. It can be incredibly challenging to find our unique path. 

 ²² Philip went and told Andrew, another non-Jewish name; then Andrew and Philip went and told Jesus. The Greeks of this story do not receive further mention. The reader receives no indication that Jesus grants the request of the Greek inquirers. Some scholars suggest that these "Greeks" are also a final temptation to Jesus before he heads down the passion path. Might these Greeks not represent the lure of a Gentile mission that Jesus could turn toward at this time, instead of continuing his clashing mission among "the Jews" and its tragic outcome?  There is little textual evidence for this tempting interpretation, however. However, this passage suggests that Jesus no longer has a place in Judaism. The gospel will now take root in the Hellenistic world. His coming, crucifixion and resurrection will open the door fully to non-Jews to believe in the Lord God of Israel, and John is dramatically foreshadowing this shift here. Jesus has already said that he will welcome other sheep into the fold as part of his universalism.  The appearance of Gentiles suggests now is the time to lay down his life. Thus, the appearance of some Greeks seeking him doubtless prefigures the spread of the good news about him beyond Judaism. ²³ Jesus answered them, “The hour has come for God to glorify the Son of Man. References to the hour of Jesus in the first eleven chapters of John point forward.  Abruptly, in 12:23, the situation changes, and Jesus announces that the hour has now come.  What prompts Jesus to make this pronouncement about his crucifixion? Although the Greeks themselves disappear, they usher in a new age. The hour arrives because opposition to Jesus reaches its inevitable outcome: the officials will seek his death.  Nevertheless, the hour also arrives because of Jesus' very success with the world. John is concerned that if these Greeks must "see" to believe, they then had better "see" the right Jesus. Those who want to "see" Jesus most often "see" him only through his reputation as a great teacher, healer, and miracle worker. Glorification has nothing to do with becoming an admired teacher and healer among the Gentiles as well as the Jews. At this "hour" of his "glorification," however, John reveals Jesus (again) as enduring suffering and death if one is to understand his mission. This hour refers to a return to the Father through crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension. This glorification because of death is the fullness of saving power that is universal in scope.  Jesus draws attention to the meaning of the hour, given to all people, death bearing fruit to all. 

We now have a series of sayings that form commentary on the theme of death and life. They have hints of the Synoptic gospels. We may think it better if we did not have to deal with our temporality and the pain of death. Some stories may make us think twice.

I begin with a beautiful little story about one of the Greek gods.  Zeus fell in love with a mortal woman.  Mercury told him, "Look, you are Zeus; you can do anything you want.  So why do you not declare a little war down in Greece, so her husband, who was a young general, will have to go off.  You can go down masquerading and make love to his wife."  Zeus thought this was an innovative idea, so he did it.  When he came back to the heavens, Zeus is very reflective on what the gods are missing by being immortal.  "She was saying, 'when I am young,' or 'when I am old,' or 'when I die.'  This stabs me Mercury.  We miss something Mercury.  We miss the poignancy of the transient, the sweet sadness of grasping for something we know we cannot hold."  

During his travels, Gulliver came to the land of the Luggnaggians.  Among them was a group of persons who were born with a red spot on their foreheads.  They were exceedingly rare, only once in an age, they told Gulliver.  He was curious as to what that meant.  They told Gulliver that they were the immortals, those who would never die.  Gulliver was excited at this possibility.  He told them that if he were fortunate enough to be among this group, he would want to learn as much as possible, and then be a wise counselor to those who were ruling the country.  He would want to be of the greatest value to the race.  They told Gulliver, however, that these people were the most pitiable of their people.  Gulliver assumed that immortality meant eternal youth, and this was far from the truth.  These people aged like everyone else and had all the physical and mental declines of old age.  When they reached 100 years old, the country gave their land over to their children, they became wards of the state, and the country forced them to live on a small amount of funds.  It was not long until, precisely because they were immortal, they no longer cared for anything.

Our finitude and temporality can lead us to appreciate the precious time and space we have the privilege of participating in today.

First, Jesus offers a parable of the seed that dies. ²⁴ Very truly, I tell you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains just a single grain; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. The point is that Jesus is speaking of death as the means of gaining life.  The point stresses the productivity of the seed.  In context, it refers to the death of Jesus in analogy to death as bearing fruit. Although this parable has some similarities with the seed parables in the synoptic gospels and with I Corinthians 15:35ff, it is not the same.  Jesus illustrates the fruitfulness of his death.  The death of Jesus is necessary to bring abundant missionary fruit.  Death, as the carefully chosen image of the grain of wheat illustrates, brings forth life, not only for Jesus, but also for all those who follow and serve him. The attitude of Jesus toward his impending death becomes a model for all believers.  Jesus does not propound some Gnostic-like absolute denial of the goodness of physical life, but he does connect his own death with a certain understanding that one cannot hoard life away; only those prepared to give up everything can receive the gift of eternal life, both now and hereafter. Although Jesus never addresses the Greeks directly in response, he does offer yet another lesson on discipleship. Like himself, his disciples must be willing to follow the plan of God to the end, even death itself, if they are to "bear fruit."

Second, Jesus offers a saying on loving and hating one’s life. John offers his version of the idea that whoever would save their lives will lose them/whoever would lose their lives will find them teaching, a truth found in all four gospels (Mark 8:35; Matthew 16:25; Luke 9:24).  ²⁵ Those who love their life lose it, and those who hate their life in this world will keep it for eternal life. Eternal life does not come sequentially after death.  Eternal life is the life promised now to all who become disciples of this glorified one. Jesus confronts the disciples with the necessity of discipleship even unto death.  Death is not the end, but the perfection of life. Jesus refers to his death, and now he refers to the death disciples of Jesus must experience. The call to discipleship is a call to suffer, sacrifice, even die for others to live as God lives, to live as Jesus did.  This unexpected nature of messiahship is a messiahship that embraces servanthood and dying is not an easy pill to swallow, not even for Jesus himself.  He is ready, resisting the temptation to have his Father save him from this hour.  The implied answer to the Greeks from Jesus is no, but only because Jesus must first undergo death before his followers can bring salvation to the Greeks.  

A little boy had a sister who needed a blood transfusion.  The boy had recovered from the same disease two years before.  Her only chance for recovery was to have a transfusion from someone who had recovered from the disease.  The boy had the same rare blood type and recovered from the disease. He would be the ideal donor.  The doctor asked if he would be willing to do this.  At first, the boy hesitated.  His lower lip started to tremble.  Eventually, he said, "Sure, for my sister."  Attendants wheeled brother and sister into a hospital room.  They were side by side.  They did not speak, but when their eyes met, the boy smiled at his sister.  He was so healthy, while she was very pale and sickly.  The nurse put the needle into the arm of the boy, and his smile faded.  He watched his blood flow into the tube.  When the ordeal was almost over, his voice slightly shaky, he said, "Doctor, when do I die?"  Only then did the doctor realize why the boy hesitated, and why his lip trembled.  In that moment, he made a great decision.^[1]

John Wesley, on his 85^th birthday, said that for the rest of his days he wanted to spend to the praise of Jesus Christ, who died to redeem the world. Many or few, he owed and devoted the rest of his days to Christ.

On April 4, 1968, in Memphis, Tennessee, the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. On the night before his death, he gave a speech in which he said, "Like anybody, I would like to live a long life -- longevity has its place. However, I am not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. Moreover, he has allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over, and I've seen the Promised Land."

A third saving concerns the following of Jesus, parallel to Mk 8:35. ²⁶ Whoever serves me must follow me, and where I am, there my servant will be also. Whoever serves me, the Father will honor. The reward for following Jesus is to be with him and to receive honor from the Father. It emphasizes the unity of serving and following Jesus, with the promise of the presence of Jesus and receiving honor from the Father. It suggests readiness to face death, since it takes seriously following Jesus as referring to the cross.

"The blood of Christians is seed," wrote Tertullian, a North African Christian, in about 197. "[It is] the bait that wins men to our school. We multiply whenever we are mown down by you."  Tertullian, of course, wrote with rhetorical exaggeration. Pagans hardly flocked to the church after witnessing the death of Christians. Martyrdom eventually made a large-scale impact on pagans but not before two centuries of sacrifice. Ordinary citizens in Tertullian's day were not impressed with Christian deaths. In fact, they took pleasure in the persecution of Christians. "Faggot-fellows" and "half-axle men" were nicknames of contempt for people who allowed themselves to be tied to a half-axle post or have faggots (wood chips) heaped around them in preparation for being burnt. Many viewed Christians as only a sect or school that opposed the established order, dabbled in black magic, and practiced incest and ritual child-murder. The Romans saw them as a dangerous cult, disliked and despised. One ancient mocked them. They trust in resurrection. They have brought into the world strange and new worship. They despise former terrors, going readily and joyfully to death. Let us see if they rise again, and if their god can help them, taking them out of our hands. From Tertullian's time, many Christians became "evangelists to the death." Only in the fourth century did martyrdom become a serious factor in the church's growth. So long as the empire flourished and the values of Roman civilization prevailed, many saw Christians as an illegal and disloyal minority. Martyrs merely displayed their zeal to a hostile or indifferent populace. The Great Persecution seems to have flipped the scales. After the conversion of Constantine, martyrs became part of a "Golden Legend." In Rome, for example, the Spanish poet, Prudentius (d. 402) embellished the story of the martyrs with miraculous details of their legendary heroism against pagan governors. Yes, Tertullian was right, though his statements took time to see their fulfillment. For him, the martyrdom of Christians was the supreme influence that drew people (himself among them) to Christianity: "For who that beholds [martyrdom] is not stirred to inquire what lies indeed within it?"^[2]

One problem with the argument of Tertullian is that while many people have enough goodness within them to have the suffering another move them to sympathy, some people do not. What they see weakness that they need to abuse and kill. The history of humanity is full of atrocities that good people find repulsive. We will refer to the people who do such things as monsters. They are not. They are human beings capable of great evil. 

In 12: 27-31 we find a concern for the hour of glorification and the heavenly voice. One finds victory in submission to the plan of God. Jesus rejects the option of deliverance. ²⁷ “Now my soul is troubled. John stresses that the sacrifice and death that loom in his future troubles his soul. Now is not the time to draw back or try to sidestep the messianic future. Moreover, what should I say—‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour. We have a version of the Gethsemane scene in Mark 14:32-42. Hebrews 5:7 refers to the agony of Jesus before his death.  This account of the agony of Jesus and his submission to the will of his Father comes from the traditional account of the Mount of Olives.  Though the cross is the culmination of glory, it has not lost its human darkness. The verse shows Jesus fully accepting the terms of his messianic identity and readily accepting the "coming" of his hour. His obedience mirrors the call to discipleship Jesus extended to others. He refuses to try to save himself. Instead, ²⁸ Father, glorify your name.” A Christ crucified, that stumbling block to all rational thinking people.  John transforms that very humiliation into nothing less that complete glorification. Then a voice came from heaven, “I have glorified (aorist tense) it in the course of the life of Jesus, and I will glorify (future tense) it again in the resurrection and ascension.” The heavenly voice answers the prayer of Jesus.  Jesus comes to terms with the hour by turning to his Father, who gives assurance of glorification. Doxa is part of the kabod of the OT, a revelation of God's presence.  It is clear John has picked up a theme in early Christian preaching and expanded upon it.  The cross becomes a rich and vivid symbol.  God is acting behind the external events.  John begins a symbolic approach.  Also, the whole earthly ministry of Jesus becomes a revelation of divine glory.  God has come to dwell among people.  Finally, there is a unity of the historical Jesus with the glorified Christ.  One could object that the Christ presented in John is simply God striding across the earth. However, the purpose of John's language of glory is to bring the distant God closer to us.  This God would otherwise be inaccessible and unintelligible. The voice from heaven responds directly to the obedience of Jesus, affirming his understanding both of his identity and of his future. Here is the Johannine form of the Lord's Prayer, requesting God to do the sanctifying of the name.  Reassurance from the Father meets with the submission of Jesus to the plan of the Father. This is the first time in John that there is a voice from heaven.  There is similarity with the Synoptic baptism and transfiguration stories.  Strongly associated with the death of Jesus, it acknowledges Jesus as the Son. John has altered the impact of the Synoptic account. The synoptic accounts offer the reader a window into Jesus' agony and struggle. In contrast, John gives the reader a description of Jesus' confidence and readiness. In John's gospel there will be no sign of weakness, no sign of wondering, no agony, no pain, no request to "let this cup pass"; Jesus is in control throughout. The death of Jesus is the climax of his obedient life. The heavenly voice confirms Jesus' obedience and echoes the description of Jesus' transfiguration and baptism described in the Synoptic Gospels. ²⁹ The crowd standing there heard it and said that it was thunder. Others said, “An angel has spoken to him.” John notes the presence of the crowd and they become the collective foil for the remainder of the drama. While this voice is not a private communication with Jesus, what the voice said is not clear to the crowd. Though John suggests that all those gathered near heard something, there is considerable disagreement over what that something was. Just as for some, the message of a Suffering Servant, a crucified Christ, a mortal Messiah, was beyond the pale of their comprehension, so for some who witnessed the heavenly voice's response to the obedience of Jesus, the message is impenetrable. To others, those who had listened to Jesus' teachings and heard his calls to discipleship and service, the heavenly voice sounded like that of an angel. Though they could not yet discern the whole implication of what was to come, they sensed the presence of the divine in their midst. For a great many, however, the teachings of Jesus remained scrambled, turning whole notions of messianic leadership, divine power and glorification over hard and on their heads. To those who simply cannot "get it," the voice is only so much noise, like the din of thunder. ³⁰ Jesus answered, “This voice has come for your sake, not for mine. ³¹ Now is the judgment of this world. Now God will drive out the ruler of this world (Satan). That the Greeks recognize what the Jews do not is the cause for the judgment of the world and the casting out of the "ruler of this world." John identifies the Jews as being part of Satan's world - reminiscent of the connection John has made between the Jews and Satan, or the devil, before (8:44). Judgment takes place through unbelief itself.  The world has come under the tyranny of an ungodly force, the prince of this world.^[3] The eschatological truth is already a present reality even if in hidden form. Thus, judgment as well as life is already present with Jesus Christ in the world.^[4] From where is God casting out this ruler?  The verse may refer to a loss of influence over believers, thereby becoming powerless.  

In 12: 32-34, the theme is the lifting up of Jesus and the problem of the Son of Man.  Darkness is closing in, but the hour brings judgment upon the Prince of this world and life to those who follow Jesus.  The glorification of Jesus brings expulsion of the enemy.  The victorious hour of Jesus is a victory over Satan in principle; yet the working out of this victory in time and place is the gradual work of believing Christians. Jesus' death is not a sign, but the realization of God's plan.  John stresses the announcement of the crucifixion. ³² And I, when I am lifted up from the earth on the cross and later ascend to the Father, will draw all people to myself.” The more important and positive aspect of Jesus' hour is the salvation of believers, extended to all persons.  John draws together triumph over the enemy and drawing people to Jesus. Jesus' crucifixion will be the moment of judgment, exaltation, fruition, and challenge. The Prince of the World, who is Satan, God will judge and defeat. In the crucifixion, all humankind is lifted up. Then, in an editorial comment, ³³ He said this to indicate the kind of death he was to die. Crucifixion indicates a monstrous Roman capital punishment, but to John the gruesomeness of crucifixion becomes a gracious posture of an open-armed welcome. John de-emphasizes the bloody spectacle of the suffering of Jesus. Thus, this gospel can call the crucifixion exaltation, a statement possible only in the light of the resurrection and the return to the Father.^[5] Thus, the text concludes with Jesus revealing more of the events that make this the hour for his glorification. It is a time for judgment, a time for the Devil ("the ruler of this world") to get his due and be run out of this world. The power that can accomplish these feats, which also draws all people to the risen Christ, offers readers the smallest hint of what the glorified Jesus will be like. His primary message here is that he will achieve this glorification through a shocking means: suffering and death. Nevertheless, his Father will raise him in glory and power.

On the one hand, this passage presents the inclusive, powerful, saving gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, on the other hand, this passage presents a darker side. As throughout John's gospel, so also in this passage there is an extremely negative sentiment against the Judaism of the first century. The astute preacher must recognize this. Casual or unreflective use of John's reference to the Jews or Judaism can cause great damage in today's pluralistic world.[6]

---

[1] Robert Coleman, Written in Blood.  

[2] -William H.C. Frend, "Evangelists to the Death: It took centuries for Christian martyrs to impact pagan society," Christian History, September 23, 1998, www.christianity.net

[3] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 108.

[4] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 605.

[5] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 365.

[6] I have not followed the critical stance some take toward what happens in this passage. For some scholars, even though this passage promises the inclusion of all, John has shaped it at the expense of the Jews who - to John - exclude themselves from the salvation offered in the "lifting up" of Jesus on the cross. John places his presentation of Jesus in stark relief against the Johannine portrayal of the Jews. The context of this passage is the Passover festival, and the scene is rich in bitter and tragic irony. The Jews gather in Jerusalem to remember a passing over of God's spirit at the Exodus that spared the children of Israel and killed the first-born of the Egyptians. John juxtaposed this Jewish event with the early Christians' celebration of the memory of the crucifixion of God's first-born son. Jesus is lifted up to die, but in so dying, all are included in the life-giving promise, except for those who do not accept who Jesus is (i.e., the Jews). The fourth gospel, which scholars see as an expression of a more exclusive sect within early Christianity, here highlights the inclusive nature of the crucifixion at the expense of the perceived exclusivity of Judaism of the first century. John goes as far as to imply that God will pass over the Jews again; however, this time it will not be for freedom from slavery but for judgment and, according to the author of the gospel, for damnation for their decision to stubbornly cling to the ruler of this world.

 

Hebrews 5:5-10

Hebrews 5:5-10 (NRSV)

⁵ So also Christ did not glorify himself in becoming a high priest, but was appointed by the one who said to him,

“You are my Son,

today I have begotten you”;

⁶ as he says also in another place,

“You are a priest forever,

according to the order of Melchizedek.”

⁷ In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. ⁸ Although he was a Son, he learned obedience through what he suffered; ⁹ and having been made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him, ¹⁰ having been designated by God a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek.

Hebrews 5:5-10 is part of a larger segment, Hebrews 5:1-10, the theme of which is that God appointed Jesus and Jesus perfected that appointment through obedience. The work and calling of the high priest provide a background against which the author develops the notion of the high priesthood of Christ. These verses form an introduction to 5:1-10:39, introducing Jesus as high priest. The author organizes this section well, showing Jesus to be the one who meets the qualifications of being high priest. These verses display a tight unity.  The author intends to first show that although Jesus is not of Levitical descent, he was indeed a high priest, one like ourselves, who bears out infirmities, weaknesses, and petitions before God.  

In Hebrews 5: 5-6, in Israel, the office of priest and king were separate persons.  In the period between the Old and New Testament, priest and ruler often were together, especially during the Hasmonean period, around 140 BC. Many identified the Hasmonean leader with Psalm 110. The author will unite king and priest here. Yet, he does so in a way that challenges us. Human beings admire mastery. A religion that admits that life is inevitably tragic will lose out in the minds of many. Therefore, ⁵ Christ also did not glorify himself in becoming a high priest, but God appointed him, as the one who said to him in Psalm 2:7, referred in in Hebrews 1:5 as well, "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." The point is that God has appointed priests, so also God has appointed Christ. The author declares this quote is from God speaking to Jesus about his sonship. Luke will use it to refer to the baptism of Jesus, while this author uses it to refer to the installation of Jesus as high priest. In Hebrews 1:5, the citation illustrates that Jesus is higher than the angels are, for God never called an angel, Son. Historically, the psalm was part of the ritual sung at the coronation of an Israelite king. However, early Christians interpret it as messianic in describing the status of Jesus as Son, which is how the author of Hebrews uses it.[1]  The author utilizes the quote here to say that the same God, who designated Jesus as Son, has now also appointed him as high priest. Some scholars believe that a noticeable shift occurs in chapter 5 because until chapter 5 the author has concentrated primarily on presenting Christ as Son. Yet from 5:6 onward, the author changes the focus to Christ's priesthood.[2] Thus, ⁶ as he says also in another place, Psalm 110:4, "You are a priest forever, according to the order (κατὰ τὴν τάξιν) of Melchizedek." This quote serves to describe the priesthood of Christ. Once again, God is speaking to Christ. We as readers overhear the pronouncement by God to the Christ of his eternal priesthood. Scholars debate as to what Christ as the priest “after or according to the order" of Melchizedek means. While the author uses both Genesis 14 and Psalm 110:4, the author only uses Genesis to describe what a priest "after the order" of Melchizedek signifies, which is a "king-priest who does not come from a Levitical genealogy and whose office as priest does not end."[3] Here is the point. Only the fact that he is Son qualifies Christ to be high priest for us all.

 In Hebrews 5: 7-10, the author wishes to prove that Jesus Christ has the necessary qualifications for high priest. ⁷In the days of his flesh (ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις τῆς σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ). Interestingly, the author moves from the eternal priesthood of Christ to describe the days of Jesus on Earth. Here, the author appears to place in juxtaposition the eternal and fleshly, as well as the finite and infinite. Instead, the author provides evidence of the priestly activity of Christ. Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to the one who was able to save him from death, and God heard him because of his reverent submission. The similarity of this passage with Psalm 116:1-8 is suggestive. The Psalmist speaks of his love for the Lord, who heard his cry for mercy, even as the cords of death entangled him and the anguish of the grave overcame him. He called upon the Lord to save him. He invites his soul to return to its rest, for the Lord has been good, delivering him from death, his eyes from tears, and his feet from stumbling. All of this is in order that he may walk before the Lord in the land of the living. None of this similarity with the Psalm diminishes the obvious allusion to Gethsemane. God heard him because Jesus offered to God respect and devotion. The prayer of Jesus in Gethsemane was a prayer of total submission to the will of the Father. We can see this connection in the presentation by Matthew. Jesus throws himself on the ground and prays that his Father, if possible, will let the cup pass from him. Yet, he submits to whatever the Father wants (Matthew 26:39). He submits to drinking the cup so that he will do the will of the Father (Matthew 26:42).[4] This language illustrates the humanity of Jesus in that he was and is able to sympathize and intercede for those suffering. The author said earlier that we have a high priest who is touched by the feelings of our infirmities (Hebrews 4:15).  While the author does not explicitly tell us what Jesus requested in his prayers and supplications, the language suggests the agony of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane and his cries for deliverance from death. He experienced distress and agitation and admits his grief. He prays for the passing of this hour, as he faces death. Yet, he also wants the will of the Father. The hour has come for his betrayal to death (Mark 14:32-43).[5] In a passage of questionable authenticity, but part of the tradition, an angel came to Jesus and gave him strength. His prayer had profound anguish, so much so that he sweat looked like great drops of blood fall to the ground (Luke 22:40, 43-44).[6] He felt deeply his troubled soul. Yet should he ask the Father to save him from this hour? No, for this hour of his death is the reason the Father sent him (John 12:27).[7] Yet, the one who could save him from death instead delivered him out of death by resurrection. It was not the purpose of God to save Jesus from dying.[8] Thus, God heard the prayer of Jesus in that God delivered him from death through resurrection (5:7). The author may have written the creed simply based on the suffering of Jesus, without an allusion to Gethsemane, but it is more likely he was aware of that story. 

In Hebrews 5: 8-9, we find a second confessional statement associating Jesus with the suffering servant of II Isaiah.  While II Isaiah refers to Israel this author refers to Jesus. ⁸ Although he was a Son, he learned (ἔμαθεν) obedience through what he suffered (ἔπαθεν). In Greek, this is a word play on emathen/epathen. The Bible nowhere attempts to describe this learning. We can identify with this, of course. We have all learned about self and life through a process that included suffering. The point of the learning by Jesus is the affirmation of the sinless quality of the life of Jesus. Jesus lived with the fallen condition of humanity. He lived and bore it as the Son. Yes, he wrestled with the fallen condition of his humanity, learning and struggling, yet, as the Son, God had to win in his life choices. In that sense, Jesus struggled as we all do to do the will of God. The Son is one with us all in that struggled. Yet, he made his life choices perfectly.[9]Christ maintained his perfection in freedom in a way that was not by any means self-evident. In his acts, he was without sin. He was perfectly obedient.[10] The statement that Jesus learned obedience seems to contradict his earlier statement in 4:15 in which he says Jesus sinless. Yet, most of us must admit that our best learning about life often comes through the greatest difficulties we have faced. Thus, one practices authentic obedience in particular situations. Jesus demonstrated obedience as life placed him situations in which doing the will of God and obedience confronted challenges from the people and institutions around him. Jesus was never disobedient to the will of God. He had unfailing constancy in obedience to the will of God. Yet, Jesus encountered new situations that challenged his faithfulness to God.[11] Here the author holds Jesus up as a model for his audience and helps them see their own plight differently. He reached a new level in the experience of obedience, fulfilling the plan of God through his death. Thus, Paul could say that the Son humbled himself, becoming obedient to the people of death upon a cross (Philippians 2:8). In John, Jesus sanctifies himself so that God may sanctify his followers in truth (John 17:19).  Life in this world tests the followers of Jesus, in a way that God will bring them to glory as well (2:10), and just as God brought Jesus out of suffering to glory, God will likewise bring them out of suffering to glory, too. In addition, Jesus ⁹ had life challenges that made him perfect (τελειωθεὶς). The aorist passive participle form appears. It suggests the sense of completeness rather than an absolute standard. It suggests reaching the goal or destiny of his life as high priest. As we all learn through suffering, so we need to be gracious with others, who are also learning. No one is perfect. No pastor is perfect. Only Jesus reached a place of completion of his life as he lived in obedience to the Father. All of us fail in that. His suffering leads to his "perfection" in that sense. The reference to when the challenges of life perfected Jesus is to perfecting his office of priest and victim. While human perfection does have a moral feature, including the cleansing of one's conscience (10:1-2), Christ's perfection has no moral component since he has no sin. Perfection for Christ entails demonstrating appropriate obedience on Earth (5:7), suffering for humanity (2:10; 5:9) and being exalted to the right hand of God (7:28). Therefore, perfection for Christ means that he has "successfully completed the human experience" and God exalted him to glory.[12] The perfecting of Christ means that he can now be the Savior and high priest for all who obey him. 

            This passage has become important in dealing with the difficult modern task of the development of Christology in the New Testament. Jesus accepted the consequences of obedience to the mission God gave him. Only in his completed life is he the Son, for his suffering perfect him as the Son. He learned obedience in the school of suffering, which should remind us of the Gethsemane prayer.  One must not limit the notion of incarnation to his birth. If other things did not happen, such as his baptism, his proclamation of the rule of God, the path of suffering, and his resurrection, he would not be the Son. The statement gives expression to the tension between learning obedience in time to be the eternal Son. The status of sonship and obedience to the Father go together. Obedient subordination to the Father characterizes Jesus as the Son. Further, obedience by Jesus finds expression in the ministry of Jesus to others by bringing to them the salvation of the reign of God, as well as his self-offering of Jesus as a sacrifice to the Father.[13]  The suffering of Jesus is not a destiny that causes the one afflicted by it to grow and mature. When the Son suffers, God has willed it, because it seemed right to God. These few words embrace the whole path of the Son. They state that Jesus honors God as his Father, entrusts himself to God, confident that God will give him the office and dignity that God wills. The point of “learned” here is that he learned from Scripture. The saying is a witness to the obedience that marked the Son. Yet, the notion of the development of Jesus is out of the question, whether moral growth or a developing maturity in Jesus for the fulfillment of his task. Such conclusions are the error of idealism. It points to the paradox that the Son is the one who suffers. Suffering, not learning, brings the Son to the goal appointed for him by God. The Word of God causes Jesus to accept suffering.[14]

Christ became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him. These verses are like a confession of faith. The emphasis is on the humanity of Christ. A priest must be human since he represents human beings. He must share their sufferings since he must feel compassion for them. Jesus suffered in this way all through his life on earth, and especially in his agony and death. Just as Christ learned through obedience, obedience becomes a central element for those who follow him. The writer's words in describing Christ in 5:5-10 may suggest a contrast between Christ and Adam, whose disobedience ushered in death and not life, destruction and not salvation.[15]

The segment closes with a reiteration of Christ's eternal priesthood in the order of Melchizedek. Some scholars think this verse continues the second confession of faith in verses 8-9. Buchannan (Anchor Bible Commentary) treats it as an editorial comment by the author, and that is how I am treating it.  Qumran identifies the Messiah with Melchizedek.  ¹⁰God has designated him as a high priest according to the order (κατὰ τὴν τάξιν) of Melchizedek.  We get a greater understanding of the role Melchizedek plays in the theology of Hebrews, which assists in our understanding of Melchizedek in chapter 5. He compares the eternality of Christ's priesthood to that of Melchizedek who is "without father, without mother, without genealogy, neither having beginning of days nor end of life" (Hebrews 7:3). It is important to remember that this statement is about Melchizedek's priesthood, not his actual person and that the author of Hebrews is engaging in an interpretation of Genesis 14, not the historical person Melchizedek.[16] The Genesis text is silent about Melchizedek's parentage, priestly origins, birth and death. The absence of information about Melchizedek in these matters permit the author of Hebrews to engage in a Jewish exegetical technique called non in thora non in mundo (literally, "If it is not in the law, it does not exist.") which means if the text is silent about something, then it could be considered nonexistent. Thus, the silence presents an opportunity for the author to interpret Christ's priesthood as one that is “after the order” of Melchizedek -- Jesus is a priest who has no "priestly lineage, no point at which he takes over from another priest or surrenders his office to someone who will succeed him.[17] More importantly, a priest after the order of Melchizedek does not die since Genesis does not narrate the death of Melchizedek. Thus, the narrative of Melchizedek provides an interpretive frame for Christ. Christ, like Melchizedek, has no Levitical lineage. Christ is eternal and, therefore, so is his priestly service, forever interceding for believers (7:24). According to the author, God uses Scripture to foreshadow Christ.[18]

            Of all the Christological roles in the New Testament, none should be more immediately relevant to the human situation than high priest should.  Since we do not bump into high priests every day, a sermon on the high priestly Christology of Hebrews may require a certain teaching dimension to get listeners aboard, but the force and clarity of the image are powerful.  A priest is one who handles the holy mysteries of God for the rest of us, one who prays, who leads us in worship.  Priests are mediators between humanity and God.  Rather than lord over the lowly laity, in the manner of some priests, Jesus the great high priest suffered.  He learned his priestly duties through obedient suffering.  When Jesus speaks in our behalf to God, Jesus personally knows that of which he speaks.  He is the one who was priest, not through his grasping for priestly glory, but in what he endured on behalf of those whom he came to save.

---

[1] (Gerald F. Hawthorne, New International Bible Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1979], 1507).

[2] (Kenneth Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003], 76).

[3] (Kenneth Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003], 113, note 32).

[4] And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want." (Matthew 26:39)

Again he went away for the second time and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done." (Matthew 26:42)

[5] 32 They went to a place called Gethsemane; and he said to his disciples, "Sit here while I pray." 33 He took with him Peter and James and John, and began to be distressed and agitated. 34 And he said to them, "I am deeply grieved, even to death; remain here, and keep awake." 35 And going a little farther, he threw himself on the ground and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. 36 He said, "Abba, Father, for you all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet, not what I want, but what you want." 37 He came and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, "Simon, are you asleep? Could you not keep awake one hour? 38 Keep awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak." 39 And again he went away and prayed, saying the same words. 40 And once more he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were very heavy; and they did not know what to say to him. 41 He came a third time and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and taking your rest? Enough! The hour has come; the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. 42 Get up, let us be going. See, my betrayer is at hand." (Mark 14:32-43, with parallels in Matthew 26:36-46 and Luke 22:41-42, 45-46)

[6] 40 When he reached the place, he said to them, "Pray that you may not come into the time of trial." … 43 [Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and gave him strength. 44 In his anguish he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down on the ground.] (Luke 22:40, 43-44, with the latter two verses of questionable authenticity.]

[7] 27 "Now my soul is troubled. And what should I say—"Father, save me from this hour'? No, it is for this reason that I have come to this hour. (John 12:27)

[8] (New International Bible Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1979], 1514).

[9] Barth, Church Dogmatics, I.2 [15.2], 158. 

[10] Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV.1, 59.2, 260.

[11] (Craig Koester, "Hebrews," Anchor Bible, v. 36 [New York: Doubleday, 2001], 299).

[12] (Kenneth Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon, [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003], 69).

[13] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology Volume 2, 316, 375, 384, 439, Volume 3, 318)

[14] Rengstorf, TDNT, Volume 4, 410-412.

[15] (New International Bible Commentary, ed. F.F. Bruce, [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1979], 1514).

[16] (Kenneth Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon, [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003], 77).

[17] "(Kenneth Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003], 78).

[18] (Kenneth Schenck, Understanding the Book of Hebrews: The Story Behind the Sermon [Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003], 78).

Jeremiah 31:31-34

Jeremiah 31:31-34

³¹ The days are surely coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. ³² It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. ³³ But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. ³⁴ No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, says the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.

Jeremiah 31:31-34, part of the Book of Consolations, has the theme of Jeremiah promising a new covenant. I open with a brief reflection.

Prophets have the self-perception that they have become the emissary or mouthpiece of the divine. When people hear them speak, they have a decision to make. Do they trust this word? Do they reject it? A covenant is a formal agreement between God and a group of people, bestowing both privilege and responsibility on those chosen. One way that the Old Testament organizes the work of God with humanity through Israel is through an understanding of covenant. Thus, God had a covenant with humanity after the flood through Noah. God established a covenant with Abraham and his family. God made a covenant with Israel at Sinai that they renewed in their assemblies during the period of the Judges. God made a covenant with the family of David. The result of this accumulation of covenants was that God gave gifts to Israel. God gave the gift of land. God gave the gift of law, establishing moral law, laws of purity, sacrificial laws, and dietary laws. God gave the gift of a city (Jerusalem), a Temple, and a king. Yet, instead of responding with thankful obedience, Israel broke each covenant. The experience of Israel was that it profoundly violated the covenant it had with God. So much so, in fact, that in the experience of exile God took away land, city, Temple, and king. 

Now, I am sure that for some, if God wanted to reform Israel, a renewal of the covenant with Moses was the way to go. A new nation that enforced the obligations of the covenant at Sinai and its external demands would, one might argue, bring renewal to the nation. In fact, when people returned from exile, they sought the re-building of the Temple, they tried to re-institute the Davidic line as ruler, and they brought a strict adherence to the Mosaic Law. 

Yet, what if God wanted to do something new? God had already shown a willingness to enter new covenants as situations changed. What if God saw the series of broken covenants, saw a new situation that demanded a new covenant, and wanted to shift focus? What would happen if God wanted to go to the root of the problem presented by disobedience, namely, the human heart? The heart is where the people had engraved sin and disobedience. In this case, God would want internal transformation of desire. The promise of God gives a look into the future of what God wants for the people of God. If God wants to offer a new covenant, it suggests a revelation of something new that God wants to tell us about the future. The old was not sufficient. The old will need to give way to the new. 

For the new to come, God will need to forgive the disobedience of the past. This is an act of pure, divine grace and mercy toward the people. God looks at the ruined relationship of the previous covenants and forgives. This new covenant still involves a law, only now written on the heart. This will truly be a new time when the Lord will teach the Law directly to the people. This new covenant will become an intimate part of who the people are. Their knowledge of each other will be more like that of a good relationship between husband and wife. The new intimacy of this changed situation is what makes the new covenant possible.

Now, one who believes himself to be the mouthpiece of the divine says something like this. Those of us who hear and read will need to trust this word or reject it. 

Although some scholars have suggested that the biblical presentation of the covenant at Sinai played a much smaller role in the religious history of Israel prior to the period of the Deuteronomistic reforms of the 7th-6th centuries B.C. than the biblical record indicates, Sinai’s importance as a template of subsequent Jewish identity remains significant. A careful examination and dating of the biblical texts in which the Sinai covenant appears suggests that the reforming king Josiah recast Israelite religious identity in the 7th and 6th centuries B.C. The theologians who supported his reforms took the idea of Sinai as the terminus a quo of the Israelite covenant came into greatest prominence through careful editing of received texts by the Deuteronomistic theologians. These theologians were the so-called “Deuteronomistic theologians,” so named because of their understanding of Deuteronomy as the core of Israelite belief. At the same time, based on such texts as this one and other passages that speak of a “new covenant” with Israel,^[1] there was, competing with the essentially conservative Deuteronomistic reforms, a counter-reform movement that spoke of a “new covenant.” 

 ³¹ The days are surely[2] coming, the prophet opening with apocalyptic language.[3] He then offers the introductory messenger formula, says the Lord.[4] He then states the message: when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.[5] In II Corinthians 3, the apostle Paul distinguishes between the old covenant and the new covenant. Two passages (Luke 22:20 and 1 Corinthians 11:25) cite the words of Jesus at the Last Supper as representing “the new covenant in my blood.” We need to think of this in the context of Exodus 24:5-8 and the sealing of covenants with blood sacrifice. Matthew 26:28 and Mark 14:24 do not have the word “new” with covenant. The writer of the book of Hebrews frequently connects the shedding of the blood of Jesus with the establishment of a new covenant and the forgiveness of sins through Jesus: See Hebrews 9:13-22; 10:29; 12:24; 13:20-21. In addition, Hebrews frequently asserts the superiority of several new things God is doing through Jesus Christ compared to what God had done formerly. It is within this context that the writer uses the long citation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 as part of his promises, along with pleas/warnings to the listener to take care to continue to follow in the ways of the new covenant, and not go back to the old ways. Jesus will refer to the theme of a new covenant in the context of the last supper, as Paul relates it in I Corinthians 11:25. The covenant is new in the sense that it is individualized, internalized, and democratized. It does not seem to have updated content.

The nature of the Old Testament covenant is that it seems capable of radical change in structure, particularly when it encounters the event or moment of the last days.[6] God had been establishing and renewing covenants since ancient times. God established a covenant with humanity and all creation in Genesis 9. God established covenants with Abraham and his descendants. Moreover, God established a conditional covenant with Israel at Mount Sinai/Horeb: God would be their God and they would be the people of God. This covenant formula is frequent in Scripture. God had delivered Israel out of slavery and through the sea, but God expected Israel to follow the stipulations (laws and commandments) that God associated with the covenant. God would bless them for keeping the terms of the covenant, but it would be to their peril to break them. Of course, they did break the covenant. The Deuteronomic History, read carefully, is a record of Israel braking covenant that made the punishment of exile justified. More than once God punished Israel then later restored/forgave them. Periodically there was a renewal of the covenant between Israel and the Lord (as at Shechem, in Joshua 24). So, what distinguishes the Jeremiah 31 new covenant from previous renewed ones? 

If you want to get philosophical, here is the “Ship of Theseus” problem. In ancient times, there was a ship, called the “Theseus.” As the years wore on, the Theseus started getting weak and creaky. They removed the old boards, put them into a warehouse, and replaced with new ones. Then, the masts started tottering, and soon the owners warehoused and replaced them. In this way, after 50 years, this ship now has all new boards, masts and everything. The question then arises: Is the ship in the harbor, now called S2, the same ship as the ship that was in the harbor 50 years ago (S1, for convenience)? In other words, is S2 really the “Theseus”? Applied to the Old Testament, the assumption is that with all the changes from Abraham through the post-exilic period, the answer is affirmative. The New Testament will also give an affirmative answer in the sense that the same divine being who called Abraham, who revealed the covenantal name Yahweh, who guided Israel, also offered a new revelation and covenant in Jesus Christ. 

We also need to have a moment of clarification. The promise of a new covenant is to Israel, and not to another people. God has not abandoned the former covenant with Moses. The new covenant continues by virtue of its relation to the Mosaic covenant. The church must not look at itself as a “new” people of God. The Lord promises a new covenant with the houses of Israel and Judah, a phrase almost unique to Jeremiah.[7]

³² It will not be like the covenant that I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand[8] to bring them out of the land of Egypt[9]—a covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, says the Lord. If we go back to the Mosaic, Joshua, and Judges period, we can see the importance of this covenant in the Ten Commandments, the Shechemite Twelve commandments and the covenant renewal ceremony during the Judges period, and the Book of the Covenant in Exodus. The willful covenant-breaking behavior of the people wronged Yahweh (referred to here as the "husband" of the nation just as Israel had been the bride). It would be difficult to isolate a more prominent or more important idea in biblical literature than the idea of the covenant. Whether in the form of the chosen people of Israel or, much later, in the form of the Christian church as the body of Christ, the idea of a solemn, formal agreement between God and a group of people, which bestows both privilege and responsibility on the chosen ones, lies at the core of biblical thought. Pre-eminent among the several forms of biblical covenant agreements is the covenant at Sinai (Exodus 19-20), which included not only Israel’s encounter with the LORD at Sinai, but, as indicated, here, the entire exodus experience

  ³³ However, this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel[10] after those days, says the Lord: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. This is the old covenant drastically renewed.  Israel has broken the old covenant of Sinai so decisively that God must nullify it, but this new or renewed covenant will be keepable.  We will learn that this new covenant has four themes.

First, the Torah, that is, the commands, will be central and authoritative as at Sinai, but now the people will intensely embrace them, unlike the Sinai economy of covenant.  They will be intimately familiar and readily embraced.  Here is the difference with the previous covenant that Jeremiah envisions. Life's most problematic organ, the one that most betrayed the human condition, is the heart. Jeremiah is already thick with assertions about the wickedness and weakness of this deceitful organ (see Jeremiah 3:17; 4:14; 5:23; 7:24; 9:14; 11:8; 13:10; 16:12). Most famous of all of Jeremiah's "heart" insights is his reference to Judah's sin being “written with an iron pen; with a diamond point it is engraved on the tablet of their hearts" (Jeremiah 17:1). The image is unique to Jeremiah. The point seems to be that reforms of Josiah, which were external, clearly did get into the hearts of the officials or the people, which has been the focus of the reforms. Remember, Deuteronomy itself focuses on turning to the Lord with the whole heart and fearing the Lord with one’s whole heart. Now, however, Jeremiah envisions a time when the obligations of the Sinai covenant find transformed internal desires so that people will experiences transformation from the inside. Yet, this thought is not unique to Jeremiah. Thus, in a similar way, Deuteronomy 10:16 and 30:6 refer to the circumcision of the heart, which would also refer to a new covenant of renewed devotion to the covenant God had with Israel. Further, the notion of covenant, while it begins with Moses, as noted above, becomes a theological theme for J, as that author goes back to the Patriarchs having a covenant, and traces it through the time of Moses. Then, we find prophetic circles emphasizing the covenant with David and the bond established with sacral kingship. The point here is that the theme of covenant runs throughout the various schools within Israel and throughout its history. The idea of a solemn, formal agreement between God and a group of people that bestows both privilege and responsibility on the chosen ones seems like it became a theme throughout the Bible. 

Jeremiah is in the stream of tradition of the book of Deuteronomy and other books that emphasize heart-religion as well as outward obedience. In Hebrew, the primary words for “heart” also mean mind, understanding and will. Deuteronomy 6:5-6 says, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your might. Keep these words that I am commanding you today in your heart.” Deuteronomy 30:6 says, “The Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live.” Psalm 40:8 says, “I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart.” Psalm 51:10 says, “Create in me a clean heart, O God, and put a new and right spirit within me.” In Ezekiel 36:26-28 the Lord says, “A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will remove from your body the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I will put my spirit within you, and make you follow my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances. Then you shall live in the land that I gave to your ancestors; and you shall be my people, and I will be your God.” (See also Ezekiel 11:14-20.) Further, see Jeremiah 29:11-14 (“a future with hope”) and 32:37-42. 

Many New Testament passages also emphasize God’s Spirit-given heart/will as the source of true obedience and true life with God. Among others, see John 3 and its reference to birth from above or new birth.  Similarly, see such Pauline passages as significant portions of Galatians (e.g., 5:13 ff.) and Romans (e.g., see 6:17 ff. and 8:1-4), as well as Philippians 2:12b-13. See also Ephesians 2:1-10. Further, see II Peter 1:1 ff.

Second, we learn that the standard covenant formula of mutuality in relationship marks this covenant. We hear the covenantal language: and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 

Third, the newly formed community of Israel will be full of the knowledge of God. ³⁴ No longer shall they teach one another, or say to each other, “Know the Lord,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. The people heard themselves addressed as a people who had violated the covenant.  The context seems to imply that the sin of Israel is so great until God has to intervene in a mighty way.  Now the covenant is to become so deeply a part of each person that there will no longer be a need for teaching. To "know" is both to grasp intellectually and to have an intimate personal relationship -- as do a husband and a wife. The transformed people will "know God" and God's law with this kind of intimate association.  The idea continues the thought of the entire passage, which is individual responsibility. The individual Israelite of the redeemed future will no longer be able to claim ignorance of the law or a deficient priesthood teaching a corrupt version of the law as an excuse for the disobedience first manifest in the wilderness generation and persistent in subsequent generations of the chosen people. Every Israelite will know the law and every Israelite will bear the responsibility of obeying it. The Mosaic covenant (“my law,” v. 33) remains unchanged in content; what is new is its internalized, individualized, democratized form.

We need to be careful, lest we simply fall in line with what everyone else is doing. David Rieseman was a psychologist in the 1950's who wrote one of the classics in his field, The Lonely Crowd (1950).  He contrasts inner directed persons with the other directed persons.  Inner directed persons have internalized the ethics and morality of their parents, their church, their God.  This inner guide acts as a psychological gyroscope.  It keeps them on the right moral and ethical course even when confronted with perplexing moral problems.  Thus, even when parents and church are not there to give guidance in specific circumstances, these persons still know what to do.  The other directed person has a radar system which picks up messages from other persons.  They become like the people around them.  What everyone else is doing, these people will do, whether it is right or wrong.

Novelist John Updike said, "The fact that we still live well cannot ease the pain of feeling that we no longer live nobly."  Discerning right and wrong, living by truth, is the only way we can live nobly or with excellence. Many Americans have a high degree of material well-being. During a political year, we act as if this is all that mattered. Yet, if we have full employment and economic growth, while having people who have abandoned God, goodness, justice, and mercy, we will have failed. 

A self-evident fact about the church is that we take the Bible seriously. When we gather for worship, we read from it. Many of us read it daily as individuals, couples, and families. This is one way we can be sure that God has not left us to our own devices. We have this constant check to our lives. The church today has accountability to the apostolic church and to the church of the centuries. We believe it faithfully communicates the will and purpose of God. The Bible takes time, patience, perseverance, and courage to read. It is difficult to understand at times, in part because the Bible is ancient and from a culture different from ours. Yet, we trust the witness of this text: God has shown us what God is like and what God wants of humanity in Jesus Christ.

Arthur Leff gave a lecture which became widely quoted.  He admitted that God is now out of the picture for us modern people.  That being the case, if you say, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," another person says, "Sez who?  What gives you the authority to prescribe what is good for me?"  He said that every time we make a moral judgment, it implies we are looking for an unevaluated evaluator, an unjudged judge, the uncreated creator of values.  On the one hand, we want to believe there is a right and a wrong, findable rules which give us clarity about how we ought to live.  On the other hand, we want to believe there is no such thing; we are free to decide for ourselves what we ought to be.  His solution, he admits, is not appealing: "All I can say is this: it looks as if we are all we have."  Looking at the world, it appears that if we are family, we are acting more like the brothers Cain and Abel.  Love, reason, even fear, have not worked to make us better people.  Nevertheless: "Napalming babies is bad.  Starving the poor is wicked.  Buying and selling each other is depraved.  Those who stood up and died resisting Hitler, Stalin, Amin, and Pol Pot - have done the right thing. Those who acquiesced have done the wrong thing.  There is in the world such a thing as evil.  All together now: Sez who?  God help us."[11]

My question is this: Are we all that we have? Are we accountable to Someone far greater than us?

Jeremiah then affirms, says the Lord, a concluding messenger formula. 

Fourth, the culminating feature of the new or renewed covenant becomes possible not by repentance or conversion on the part of Israel, but by the unilateral action of God, who will forgive and forget. The oracle concludes the Lord looking at the ruined relation of Israel with the covenant and pronounces, in act of pure grace and mercy: for I will forgive their iniquity, and remember their sin no more.  That new locus for the law is the result of a restored relationship that comes from forgiveness. One of Jeremiah’s singular contributions to the theology of the OT is the psychological and emotional insight that forgiveness is key to a right relationship between the human and the divine, and the foundation for appropriate covenantal behavior by both parties. It is incumbent upon the divine to forgive fallen human covenant partners, and it is incumbent upon the human party to accept that forgiveness with sincerity of heart (i.e., with firm resolve not to sin again) to re-enter the restored relationship. Forgiveness is the divine initiation of restoration and redemption. Christians must guard against individualism since God directs the promises to a community; not overly stress the new element; not allow a new covenant to be antinomian. This line is so crucial because it makes possible the establishment of this new covenant. Before God can replace the brokenness of the old covenant relationship by the new, God must wipe the slate clean. The dire consequences of their sinfulness now erased; the cause of their sinfulness -- an evil heart -- now transformed. God firmly establishes the new covenant. Such a notion envisions a time when God must take control in human hearts so that we may accept each other, forgive each other, and help each other. Until then, only a formulation and execution of law that can meet legitimate claims can establish a lasting stable order in human relationships.[12] Clearly, forgiveness in this new covenant is important. 

A famous Boston pastor of a much earlier generation related a story of forgiveness. A woman in his congregation was his most severe critic. Nothing he could do would please her, and she was outspoken in her criticism of the man. Every pastor has had one or more of these. However, this woman was a sore trial indeed. Therefore, it was a delightful day when he learned that she and her family were moving to a different city. Years passed. One day the pastor received a letter from the woman. Her life had changed in the intervening years. She reconsidered. Looking back, she realized how unfair she had been to the man. Overcome with remorse, she was writing to ask her former pastor to forgive her. The following day, that woman received a telegram, three words that set her free. They were these: “Forgiven. Forgotten. Forever.”[13]

---

[1] (e.g., Isaiah 55:3; 59:21; Jeremiah 32:37-41; Ezekiel 16:60; 37:26; Hosea 2:18 [Hebrew 20]).

[2] A construction of the word “surely” that is virtually unique to his book (cf 7:32; 9:25; 16:14; 19:6; 23:5, 7, 30:3; 31:27, 38; 33:14).

[3] (cf Jeremiah 51:47; Luke 17:22; and especially the apocalypse of II Esdras: 5:1; 6:18; 12:13; 13:29)

[4] The construction here is a variation of the more common formula “thus says the LORD,” with the temporal clause replacing the resultative “thus.” This common expression, found more than 2,000 times in the prophetic literature, is from the epistolary and diplomatic language of the ancient Near East, in which a messenger, sent to deliver a message orally, began by saying, “Thus says [the sender],” followed by a direct quotation of what the sender had said. Thus the opening words of King Cyrus’ announcement of the end of the Babylonian captivity of the Jews: “Thus says King Cyrus of Persia ...” (Ezra 1:2). The formula was not limited to imperial decrees; Jephthah’s negotiations with the king of the Ammonites included a message that began, “Thus says Jephthah” (Judges 11:15; cf also 2 Kings 18:29). It was in this capacity that prophets in Israel were thought of as “mouthpieces” for the divine.

[5] Almost unique to Jeremiah, occurring five times elsewhere in his book (5:11; 11:10, 17; 31:27; 33:14) and in only one other place in biblical literature, and that is in the apocryphal book of Baruch (2:26). The dynastic connotations that became attached to the word “house” were secondary to the original meaning of the expressions “house of Israel” and “house of Judah,” which were simply other ways of saying “Israelites” and “Judahites,” the references to the house of Israel being far more common than the references to the house of Judah.

[6] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.1 [32.2] 32.

[7] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 473, 477.

[8] Much more commonly means “by the agency of” (as in I Samuel 18:25; 27:1; II Kings 14:27; I Chronicles 6:15 and many other passages), and its use here is ordinarily found in poetry, and then not often (e.g., Psalm 37:24; Isaiah 42:6; 51:18).

[9] A stereotyped formula for the experience of liberation, found more commonly in the books of Exodus, Deuteronomy and Jeremiah than anywhere else in the Hebrew Bible. The Lord as husband and Israel as wife is a symbol used often in prophetic speech.

[10] The expression is clearly functioning pars pro toto, with “Israel” encompassing both the northern and southern kingdoms. In the post-exilic period, long after both kingdoms had been destroyed, the name Israel completely eclipsed the name Judah as the designation of the chosen people, with the latter preserved only in frozen expressions (such as “the Lion of [the tribe of] Judah,” Revelation 5:5).

[11] ("Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law," Duke Law Journal, 1979

[12] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 584.

[13] Carver McGriff.