Sheep and Goats

Category: Jeremiah

  • The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31: Parts 1-3

    (1) The New Covenant of Jeremiah 31

    Just after that slogan of setting teeth on edge and what it means (Jeremiah 31:29-30) comes the promise of the new covenant that sets it in motion:

    “Look! The days are coming,” declares Jehovah, “when I will make with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah a new covenant. It will not be like the covenant that I made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, ‘my covenant that they broke, although I was their true master,’ declares Jehovah.” “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares Jehovah. “I will put my law within them, and in their heart I will write it. And I will become their God, and they will become my people.” “And they will no longer teach each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know Jehovah!’ for they will all know me, from the least to the greatest of them,” declares Jehovah. “For I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin. (31:31-34)

    A new covenant replaces an old one. What is the old one, the one whom Jehovah “made with their forefathers on the day I took hold of their hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt?”

    “You have seen for yourselves what I did to the Egyptians, in order to carry you on wings of eagles and bring you to myself,“ Jehovah himself says at Exodus 19:4. The proposed covenant follows:

    “Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property out of all peoples . . . You will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”

    Did they strictly obey his voice and keep his covenant? Not so much. Though there be a few exceptions, (a remnant, it would later be called) both the historical and prophetic books of the OT detail the sorry history of abandoning Jehovah to carry on with the gods of the raucous neighbors—the Baals, and so forth. Nor did the discipline of exile help. To be sure, upon return, Israel never touched idolatry again, but they transgressed in other ways, ultimately rejecting the one God sent as Messiah.

    It is this Messiah who serves to mediate the new covenant.

    Celebrating their final Passover that would become their first Lord’s Supper, we read: “And taking a cup, he offered thanks and gave it to them, saying: “Drink out of it, all of you, for this means my ‘blood of the covenant,’ which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins. (Matthew 26:27-28)

    And in Luke: “Also, he did the same with the cup after they had the evening meal, saying: “This cup means the new covenant by virtue of my blood, which is to be poured out in your behalf.” (22:20)

    It’s a better covenant than before in that it is based on forgiveness of sin, rather than the continual appeasing it through animal sacrifices. Returning to Jeremiah 31:34: “I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin.” It is extended only to that faithful remnant, of which Jesus’ eleven are the first members.

    The reason it works, whereas the animal blood of the old covenant merely bought time, is the superior aspect of Jesus’s shed blood. He is “the last Adam” of 1 Corinthians 15:45, whose death perfectly offsets that of the first Adam. That first Adam’s rebellion sells humankind into slavery to sin. Jesus’ death buy them back. It’s not something that could be done with animal blood. “It is not possible for the blood of bulls and of goats to take sins away,” says Hebrews 10:4. With Jesus’ blood, it is possible. All one must do is put faith in it and follow through.

    At first, those who enter the new covenant are all Jews. (Acts 2) But in time, starting with Cornelius (Acts 10), non-Jews enter the covenant and eventually far outnumber those natural-born Jews. That this would happen is told several times in Scripture:

    (1) “The Kingdom of God will be taken from you and be given to a nation producing its fruits,” Jesus to the chief priests and elders of his day at Matthew 21:43.

    (2) The OT prophet Hosea said it, too: “I will say to those not my people: “You are my people,” And they will say: “You are my God.”’” (Hosea 2:23)

    (3) The apostle Paul applies Hosea’s words to those “called not only from among Jews but also from among nations,” at Romans 9:24.

    (4) And Peter speaks to this latter group as those who “were once not a people, but now you are God’s people.” (1 Peter 2:9)

    For what purpose is this all done?

    (2) Even the name Israel changes in going from old covenant to new—not the name itself but the people who fall under that name. “Israel” literally means “perseverer (or contender) with God.” Who is it that perseveres with him? It is not the physical nation. That nation ends up rejecting his chosen messiah (Greek: ‘anointed one’). Call that persevering with God? Instead, those who fit the description of persevering with God are the ones taken into that new covenant—at first all Jews but it soon expands to include non-Jews. Thus we read of the “Israel of God” at Galatians 6:16, which is not the same as the physical nation. The new covenant is between Jehovah and “the Israel of God.”

    If the word Israel is given a new application, then so will the word Jew. In the context of the new covenant, it no longer involves physical lineage. The apostle Paul explains it in his letter to the Romans: “For he is not a Jew who is one on the outside, nor is circumcision that which is on the outside upon the flesh. But he is a Jew who is one on the inside, and his circumcision is that of the heart by spirit.” (Ro 2:28, 29) Natural Jews were given first dibs on this expanded definition, but they couldn’t in themselves fill the bill. Only a “remnant” of them could. The physical nation itself, with few exceptions, was unfaithful.

    Consistently, the word Jerusalem also changes. The capital city of Israel now becomes the capital of another governing arrangement, one that will rule from heaven. It is called “heavenly Jerusalem” at Hebrews 12:22. Those who “approach it” are the ones taken into the new covenant referred to above—at first just natural Jews, but later expanding to Gentiles. As such, they “are to receive a Kingdom that cannot be shaken.” When assembled in full, they comprise the “New Jerusalem” of Revelation 21:2 that is to come “down out of heaven from God and prepared as a bride adorned for her husband, With that coming down from heaven is “a loud voice from the throne [that says]: “Look! The tent of God is with mankind, and he will reside with them, and they will be his people. And God himself will be with them. And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.” (21:3-4) It is more than any earthly government has ever done or could do.

    Those taken into the new covenant are to become the “kingdom of priests” once intended for the earthly descendants of Abraham. “Now if you will strictly obey my voice and keep my covenant, you will certainly become my special property out of all peoples . . . You will become to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation,” God had said through Moses. (Exodus 19:5-6) This new “kingdom of priests” exercise their kingship and priesthood from heaven. This is something absolutely new for humans, who were created for earth. “As for the heavens, they belong to Jehovah. But the earth he has given to the sons of men,” says Psalm 115:16. It’s not as though God put humans on earth because he wanted them somewhere else. But now, those taken into the new covenant are to rule and function as priests from somewhere else—from heaven. This is “the sacred secret that was hidden from the past systems of things and from the past generations. But now it has been revealed to his holy ones,” (Colossians 1:16) to those taken into the new covenant. It’s sort of like when you get a promotion at work and have to move to the big city.

    It is no longer a dealbreaker not to be literally a descendant of Abraham, as it would have been if fleshly Israel had been able to fulfill the role of “a kingdom of priests.” To those reveling in their lineage, Jesus said, “Do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones.” (Matthew 3:8) He has done so with the new covenant, taking non-Jews into the fold when qualifying natural Jews proved too few.

    Not everyone can be a priest. A priest serves to mediate between God and people. Who are these people? Not everyone can be a king. A king must have subjects to rule over. Who are these subjects?

    (3) There are several extensions of “Jerusalem” beyond the physical city, several extensions into a greater spiritual application. If you’re really finicky, for example (as Jehovah’s Witnesses usually are when it comes to biblical things), “heavenly Jerusalem” of the Letter to the Hebrews is not the same as “new Jerusalem” of the Book of Revelation. The first assumes the marriage to the Lamb has taken place and the second is a scene just before that marriage. Then there is the “Jerusalem above” of Galatians, which seemingly includes all spirit beings in heaven, the angels as well as those of humankind who ascend to heaven, where they are to rule as kings and mediate as priests. (Revelation 5:10)

    The one common aspect of these applications into the spiritual realm is that they are all sinless, and hence, free. The “Jerusalem above is free,” Paul says at Galatians 4:26. This harmonizes with those taken into the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:34. “For I will forgive their error, and I will no longer remember their sin,” the verse says. In contrast, the earthly Jerusalem is associated with sin perpetually appeased by animal sacrifice, a payment plan that will never be paid off, and thus comprises “slavery.”

    We live in a world in which people obsess over the petty freedoms that can be had by rebelling against human authority and have made their peace (or are oblivious to) the greater slavery to sin afflicting all humankind, that inevitably produces death. Here on this forum such a person tried to stir up discontent a few days ago over the fact that there are standards of dress one must observe onstage at the Kingdom Hall. Me, I take the words of Nathaniel Hawthorne as a motto, who observed: “It is remarkable that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly than do Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have no difficulty whatsoever “conform[ing] with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.”

    Though Hawthorne didn’t say it the reverse is also true. People who rail against the external regulations of society tend to be the most conformist of all. They will strain out the gnat but gulp down the camel every time. The devil is misleading the entire inhabited earth? They’re oblivious to it if only they can be in place where you can ditch ties onstage for men and skirts for women.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Fathers Eat Sour Grapes; The Teeth of the Sons are Set on Edge

    What about this expression: “In those days they will no longer say, ‘The fathers ate sour grapes, but the teeth of the sons were set on edge. But then each one will die for his own error. Any man eating sour grapes will have his own teeth set on edge?” (Jeremiah 31:29-30)

    Does it mean that the days are coming (1) in which no one will be judged for their parent’s deeds, as in ‘Your parents were trash, so you must be too.’

    Does it mean that the days are coming (2) when the parents no longer bring disaster upon themselves and it is the kids who end up trekking through the wilderness or hiking to Babylon?

    Does it mean that the days are coming (3) when people will hold themselves accountable for their own actions and quit blaming their parents for every little thing?

    It means all those things and more, most likely, with the ‘more’ part the most significant. The ‘more’ part comes into the new system, during the 1000 year reign of Christ, and progressively towards the end. During this time, the benefits of Christ’s spilled blood, will be poured out upon redeemed humankind, with children and resurrected ones added to that number. Toward the end of that period, as humans close in on the unblemished state once enjoyed by the first parents, there will be no bad examples to blame one’s on conduct on.

    There certainly is today. If alcoholism runs rampant in the family, or abuse, or hotheadedness, or just general dysfunction, it has a way of being picked up by the next generation. Dysfunction may be bad, but it defines “normal” to a child so molded. That’s why a woman so often marries someone just like her dad. Lout though he may be, he is the only type of man who registers with her as “normal.”

    It takes relentless pressing to break away from dysfunction. Who doesn’t know the feeling, at least once, of spending years breaking away from the pattern of the folks, imagining success, then one day realizing that beneath the facade, one is just like them? The transformation has been surface. Rinse, wash, and repeat is what is needed.

    Not so, however, at the end of the thousand years. If one dies then, it will be entirely due to their own transgression. That this will happen is seen from Revelation 20: 7-9:

    “Now as soon as the 1,000 years have ended, Satan will be released from his prison, and he will go out to mislead those nations in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Maʹgog, to gather them together for the war. The number of these is as the sand of the sea. And they advanced over the whole earth and encircled the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down out of heaven and consumed them.”

    Most likely those who have passed through the great tribulation into the new system will not succumb to this. They stood up to Satan once; why not again? Not so, however, for ones resurrected during this time, or for children born. They won’t have parents to blame in those days—something that is completely plausible today—because humankind will have been restored by then. “Each one will die for his own error. Any man eating sour grapes will have his own teeth set on edge,” as the verse says.

    ******  The bookstore

  • It is Always the Priests and the Prophets

    “Now the priests, the prophets, and all the people heard Jeremiah speaking these words in the house of the LORD. When Jeremiah finished speaking all that the LORD commanded him to speak to all the people, then the priests, the prophets, and all the people laid hold of him, crying, “You must die!”

    …The priests and prophets said to the princes and to all the people, “Sentence this man to death! He has prophesied against this city! You heard it with your own ears.”

    It’s set up as though a court trial, everyone convening at the city gate for that reason. (vs 10-11)

    …Then the princes and all the people said to the priests and the prophets, “This man does not deserve a death sentence; it is in the name of the LORD, our God, that he speaks to us.” (Jeremiah 26)

    It is frequently this way. The princes have no problem with it. It is the priests and the prophets who oppose religious truth. The very ones who you think would be in harmony with it are on the other side.

    “But when Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews rose up together against Paul and brought him to the tribunal, saying, ‘This man is inducing people to worship God contrary to the law.’ When Paul was about to reply, Gallio spoke to the Jews, ‘If it were a matter of some crime or malicious fraud, I should with reason hear the complaint of you Jews; but since it is a question of arguments over doctrine and titles and your own law, see to it yourselves. I do not wish to be a judge of such matters.’ And he drove them away from the tribunal. They all seized Sosthenes, the synagogue official, and beat him in full view of the tribunal. But none of this was of concern to Gallio.”

    Gallio saw that what was before him was a religious dispute. Why should he care about it? He ruled an empire. He “drove them away.” Despairing of his waning attention, they beat the daylights out of someone right under his nose. But their fifteen minutes of fame had expired. The Roman official had moved on to other things, perhaps rustling the pages of his newspaper to shoo the agitators away.

    Enemies of Jehovah’s Witnesses seek to ban the faith in Russia. It may remind one of General Bell’s World War I threat to Joseph Rutherford regarding a bill specifically designed to eliminate Jehovah’s Witnesses in the United States: “That bill did not pass because [President] Wilson prevented it, but we know how to get you and we are going to do it!” In general, the military will not do such a thing. A patriot will not do it. Certainly, a civil libertarian will not do it. Those who grumble that Jehovah’s Witnesses have woken them up from a sound sleep will not do it. Even Richard Dawkins, the atheist advocate who thinks all religion is a cancer and would snuff it out gladly, will not do it to Jehovah’s Witnesses specifically. It is almost always powerful ones with strong Church connections who will do it.

    Note who does not do it: Wilson. He “prevented it.” Thereafter, as the opponents stirred up major trouble for the Witnesses, was he even aware of it? It is not as though his mind was not occupied with other matters. The one at the top is like Pilate, as are all national leaders—he has a country to run. “Look, this is not my cause,” Pilate thought. “I’ll give the scoundrels what they want. That way, I’ll get them out of my hair.” Certain countries favor a “house” church. Russia was long a country officially atheist. Its leaders discovered that worship of God simply cannot be extinguished, so it is channeled into a single main church as a concession. The main church, they find, is a strong force for national unity. It becomes a symbiotic relationship to be preserved and nurtured, a win-win. “What can we do for you?” the country asks the main church. “Take out the competition,” is the reply.

    Even so, the house church of Russia insists it did not orchestrate the attempt to snuff out Witnesses in that land. I’m inclined to believe them. That’s not to say they didn’t squeal like kids on Christmas morning, but the impetus comes from elsewhere. It was for the Daily Caller to reveal that elsewhere. Turns out it is the French anti-cult activists (FECRIS) whose VP is prominent with the Russian Orthodox Church.

    https://dailycaller.com/2017/07/23/the-french-connection-how-the-russian-orthodox-church-and-the-putin-administration-colluded-with-a-french-ngo-to-destroy-the-jehovahs-witnesses

    Hundreds of homes have been broken into by police in full riot gear and hundreds imprisoned, all at the prompting of anti-cult zealots determined that no one should veer from the mainstream.

    From: I Don’t Know Why We Persecute Jehovah’s Witnesses: Searching for the Why

  • A Good Fig but a Bad Egg

    Read up on the father-son combos of Bible history and it’s enough to make you doubt Proverbs 22:6. You will at least footnote it:

    “ Train a boy in the way he should go; Even when he grows old he will not depart from it.”

    *”Not necessarily so in the case of kings,” the footnote will read. (“Past returns do not guarantee future performance,” says Wall Street, before making a grab for all your money.)

    How can you say otherwise in the light of prominent father-son trainwrecks, such as Hezekiah’s boy Manasseh being a bad king “like no one’s ever seen” (to use Trump-speak) or those horrific sons of Josiah: Shallum, Jehoikim, and Zedekiah. Not to mention (though not kings) Eli’s sons being rotters (for which Eli was rebuked) and Samuel’s sons going bad (for which he is not). It’s almost like if you load up with too many duties, life takes it out on your sons.

    AI doesn’t like that view. AI usually takes the majority view on anything. It is not (yet) at the point of correcting its creators. However, if the pattern of contemporary science holds true, we can expect, eons down the road, AI to maintain that humans had nothing to do with its creation. We can expect it to insist that it did so on its own through pure natural processes.

    At any rate, AI likes the more traditional rule of thumb that is “train up a boy in his way and he will not depart from it,” contenting itself with the observation that it is not a guarantee to override free will. What about Asa-Jehoshaphat, it says, or Uzziah-Jotham? Call those bad father-son combos? It has a point, I guess, but I still think my examples are more prominent. Of course, I don’t want to go around calling Josiah, Samuel, and Hezekiah bad dads, lest they come back in the resurrection and sue me for slander. Take that principle of attentiveness to one’s own sons too far and a man will never do anything else. But it does seem a good cautionary tale to have your ducks lined up upon taking upon oneself large responsibility, because the pressures to take one’s eye of the ball are heavy. Even wonderful people like writers can be tough to live with because their heads are always elsewhere. Balancing duties is a bear.

    There is a cautionary way of reading Proverbs 22:6 that I knew nothing about until I accidentally veered there while looking for something else. The something else was evidence that Jeconiah, Josiah’s grandson, could be called a good fig while being a bad egg. The “good figs” of Jeremiah 24 are not necessarily good in the moral sense. They are good in the same sense that a fruit that has not rotted on your kitchen shelf (gone bad) is “good.” Jehovah shows the prophet a collection of figs:

    “One basket had very good figs, like early figs, but the other basket had very bad figs, so bad that they could not be eaten. Jehovah then asked me: “What do you see, Jeremiah?” So I said: “Figs; the good figs are very good, but the bad ones are very bad, so bad that they cannot be eaten.” (Jeremiah 24:3-4) Sure. If you see a spoiled fig on your counter, you don’t say, “You bad fig!” as though it had done something wrong. It’s just not “good” anymore. It has spoiled.

    The next verses of 24 make application:

    “This is what Jehovah the God of Israel says, ‘Like these good figs, so I will regard in a good way the exiles of Judah, whom I have sent away from this place to the land of the Chaldeans.” (vs 5)

    That being the case Jeconiah might be called a “good fig.” An Israelite king who reigned only 3 months, he surrendered to the Chaldeans. Was he also “good” in the moral sense? No. He was a stinker. Says 2 Kings 24:9: “He continued to do what was bad in Jehovah’s eyes, according to all that his father had done.”

    He also died in Babylon. So he doesn’t fit the next verse at all: “ I will keep my eye on them for their good, and I will cause them to return to this land. I will build them up, and I will not tear down; I will plant them, and I will not uproot.” (6) It seems there is a moral component to “good” after all.

    ******  The bookstore

  • What is the Burden of Jehovah? (Jeremiah 23:33)

    What is ‘the Burden of Jehovah?’ (Jeremiah 23:33)

    Burden of Jehovah?

    “And when this people or a prophet or a priest asks you, ‘What is the burden of Jehovah?’” (Jeremiah 23:33)

    Huh? What is being spoken of?

    There is a play on words here towards a people who are anything but respectful toward the prophet. The Hebrew word massa has a double meaning. It can genuinely mean a heavy burden. Or it can mean a solemn utterance that is that way.

    ‘What “burdensome message” do you have for us today? As they party and carry on and preside over a shipwreck of maltreatment (to other people, not themselves) which suits them just fine, here comes Jeremiah. “What downer do you have for us today?” they jeer. “Come to spread a little more doom and gloom?”

    The prophet does not flinch: “You people are the burden!” he throws back at them, reverting to the other meaning of the word. “And I will cast you off,” declares Jehovah.” (33b) Mend your ways and you won’t be such a burden. But it doesn’t seem too likely that you will, as the remainder of the twenty-third chapter indicates.

    Imagine the stress of such a role. Imagine being in Jeremiah’s shoes. No wonder his book shows him all but being dragged kicking and screaming to his work:

    “You have fooled me, O Jehovah, and I was fooled. You used your strength against me, and you prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all day long; Everyone ridicules me,” he explodes at 20:7.

    “For whenever I speak, I must cry out and proclaim, “Violence and destruction!” For me the word of Jehovah has been the cause of insults and jeering all day long” just like it is with these homegrown prophets and priests sneering, “What is the burden today?”

    How to cope? Quit.

    “So I said: “I am not going to make mention of him, And I will speak no more in his name.” But in my heart it became like a burning fire shut up in my bones, And I was tired of holding it in; I could no longer endure it.”

    He can’t do it. But does it ever cause him stress! There’s no sanitizing these verses. He complains mightily, even bitterly. How else can you explain his subsequent words at 20:14-16?

    “Cursed be the day on which I was born! May the day that my mother gave me birth not become blessed! Cursed be the man that brought good news to my father, saying: “There has been born to you a son, a male!” He positively made him rejoice.And that very man must become like cities that Jehovah has overthrown while He has felt no regret.“

    Somehow God pulls him through despite himself, but he never regards his assigned role as a piece of cake. Maybe he’s the guy I’ll rush to chat up in the resurrection, as others are making a beeline for David. Sort of reminds me of an older brother, faithful lifelong, who will close out his days that way, I have no doubt, who nonetheless ventured his view that “Jehovah expects a lot.” I’ll ask Jeremiah how he ever pulled off his role.

    God keeps ratcheting up his assignment.

    He confronts those who say “again and again to those who disrespect [Jehovah]: “You will enjoy peace.”’ And to everyone who follows his own stubborn heart they say, ‘No calamity will come upon you.’” I mean, does that sound like a great assignment or what, continually butting heads with these people?

    It’s like a friend of mine remarking of those he encountered in the ministry, that they had minds “of concrete—all mixed up and firmly set.” The entrenched interests have taken charge, liken the modern-day counterparts who have adapted to doing anything they want and calling it ‘holy spirit,’ serving God with their lips but it seems not important to them if they actually do what he wants or not.

    His prophetic mission has taken him to the top of a world that doesn’t want to hear it. So much do they not want to hear it that. “Pashhur . . . the priest . . . the leading commissioner in the house of Jehovah, kept listening to Jeremiah while prophesying these words [and] struck Jeremiah the prophet and put him into the stocks.” (20:2) Was Jeremiah abashed the next day upon his release? Doesn’t sound that way:

    “Jeremiah now said to him: “Jehovah has called your name, not Pashhur, but ‘Fright all around.’ For this is what Jehovah has said, ‘Here I am making you a fright to yourself and to all your lovers, and they will certainly fall by the sword of their enemies while your eyes will be looking on; and all Judah I shall give into the hand of the king of Babylon, and he will actually take them into exile in Babylon and strike them down with the sword.” (20;3-4) It is another play on words, this time a play on Pashur’s actual name. Pashur literally means something like ‘fruitful/joy all around.” Jeremiah kept the ‘all around’ part’ changing only the stuff that the “all around” was all around.

    This is why you do not put intellectuals and academics in charge of disseminating the Word of God. Ever concerned about their stature in the eyes of their peers, they will wuss-out every single time when the game gets rough. No, you need to put lowly ones in charge who have no special stature to worry about. To me, Jeremiah’s becoming one of the most interesting players in the Old Testament.

    ******  The bookstore

  • The Potter Molds the Clay—Jeremiah 18

    (see Part 1)

    Though the world contain scoundrels a’plenty, though even in the congregation ones are not immune to falling away, the apostle says, “But in your case, beloved ones, we are convinced of better things, things related to salvation, even though we are speaking in this way.” (Hebrews 6:9)

    Yes. Of course. The potter molds the clay and you hope for the best. It doesn’t always work out that way, but he hopes. At Jehovah’s direction, Jeremiah “went down to the house of the potter, and he was working on the potter’s wheels. But the vessel that the potter was making with the clay was spoiled in his hand.” (Jeremiah 18:3-4)

    This recalls a visit to my college friend ages ago. There he was with a soldering iron in the lab trying to finagle a part for the centrifuge. But the project wasn’t go well. At length, he looked at the dubious results and said, “Well—this might be okay for the toilet, but I think not for a precision centrifuge.”

    Maybe he tried it out in the toilet, but he probably just scrapped it. As to Jehovah and his spoiled project, “So the potter reworked it into another vessel, just as he saw fit.” He didn’t save it for the toilet.

    Even so, the toilet is a better analogy than at first appears. A later passage of Peter speaks of another “toilet” of sorts, a “low sink of debauchery.” (1 Peter 4:4)

    “For the time that has passed by is sufficient for you to have done the will of the nations when you carried on in acts of brazen conduct, unbridled passions, overdrinking, wild parties, drinking bouts, and lawless idolatries. They are puzzled that you do not continue running with them in the same decadent course of debauchery, so they speak abusively of you.” (4:3-4)

    Not all translations keep the literalism of water. Even the 2013 NWT version has abandoned “low sink of debauchery” for “decadent course of debauchery.” Balancing literalism with conveying the meaning is ever a dilemma for translators. But there are plenty of translations on biblegateway*com that read “flood.” DARBY says “sink of corruption.” Evangelical Heritage Version (EHV) seriously ups the ante with “plung[ing] into the same overflowing river of filth with them.”

    Suppose you accidentally drop your glasses or your pen or—Lord, I hope not—your phone in the toilet. Then you must brace yourself for an unpleasant task, made especially unpleasant if that toilet is occupied with substance. Imagine if the pen or glasses or—Lord, I hope not—phone were to say to you, “Nah, don’t worry about it. I’m good here.” It’s essentially what they say in the “low sink.”

    ‘Water’s fine in the low sink,” they say, both surprised and nettled that anyone would have a problem with it. They are “puzzled” at first. As soon as they resolve their puzzlement, they “speak abusively of you.” So it is with the crowd of Jeremiah 18:12. They’re both surprised and irritated that the prophet should call them out. ‘We’re good here,’ is their response. ‘Potter, schmotter—we like the way things turned out. “They said: ‘It is hopeless! For we will walk after our own thoughts, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his wicked heart.’” (Jeremiah 18:12)

    But, defying theologians, the JW meeting that week of July 19, 2026 was more along lines of Hebrews 6:9. , “But in your case, beloved ones, we are convinced of better things, things related to salvation, even though we are speaking in this way.” (Hebrews 6:9)

    “‘Can I not do to you just as this potter did, O house of Israel?’ declares Jehovah. ‘Look! As the clay in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand, O house of Israel,” the potter narrative resumes at Jeremiah 18:5.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Committing the Sin of Eisegesis—Reading Today into Yesterday

    The preamble is clear. God says to his people: “Turn back, please, from your bad ways, and reform your ways and your practices.”

    “But they said: “It is hopeless! For we will walk after our own thoughts, and each of us will act according to the stubbornness of his wicked heart.” (Jeremiah 18:12)

    It’s a tricky verse, for it seems to indicate inner conflict. As though, they would like to shape up, but knowing their past, they figure the task is hopeless, as though anticipating that they would just start out and immediately get tripped up by something else.

    ‘Nah, it is not that way,’ AI told me, summing up the majority view of commentators. They don’t despair. They are defiant. They just try to put a good face on it. They are framing defiance as though it were despair.

    You sure it’s not the other way around, I challenged AI—and thereby the majority of commentators. You sure it is not really despair, discouragement over their previous history of defiance? You sure it’s not like trying to break free of an addiction. You sure it’s not that they would like to, but they’ve failed so many times before that the task presents as hopeless. Society these days is empathetic towards those battling addiction.

    Well, it wasn’t in those days! AI shot back. You’re doing “eisegesis”—reading today’s attitudes into the past! How are you going to be a theologian if you keep doing that?! You need more exegesis. You need to interpret passages as they would have been understood then! Draw out its meaning as they would have done it, not what you think it means today.

    It is hard to argue with AI. Moreover, I do want to be a theologian, just like Pinocchio wanted to be a real boy. That’s why I was steamed when the JW o**********n built an entire meeting around the despair part of that verse and downplayed the defiance, taking for granted there would be some who wanted to repair their relationship with God. (week of 7/19/2026) I got on the phone to Bethel and complained to them. “How can you do that?” I muttered. “That’s eisegesis! Theologians say you can’t do that! Oh, how embarrassing to be out of step with smart people!”

    ‘Yeah, well, we don’t care,’ they told me. ‘If it can help someone, we’re going for it.’ And so the whole meeting was of people trying to come into accord with God’s purpose, either for the first time or returning to it. The task would look daunting at first. They had deviated so far. However, counsel was given that you don’t take on everything all at once. Of course you will feel despair it you look at it that way. Figure it’s like recovering from an illness. You start out very slow—broth, at first. Meetings revolve around a central theme, these days, combining whatever can be pulled out of that week’s Bible reading coupled with present needs.

    I actually think that the nerdy theologians are right. It IS eisegesis the Witnesses are committing—something not allowed by the rules of theology. The overall pattern of Jeremiah IS one of God’s people being defiant. But, just how bad is the sin of eisegesis in this instance? Rather than strut around and show off how smart you are, isn’t it better to employ verses so that they help people?

    For example, in the sixth chapter of Hebrews, Paul speaks “hardball” as to those who had fallen away, but then he follows with: “But in your case, beloved ones, we are convinced of better things, things related to salvation, even though we are speaking in this way.” (Hebrews 6:9) Of course. That’s what that midweek meeting did. Love hopes all things, says 1 Corinthians 13:7. Sometimes it’s wrong but it still hopes all things.

    The meeting theme even dovetailed with the new study book being considered, Walk Courageously with God. This could not have been pre-planned, I don’t think, since both the Bible reading (Jeremiah 18-19) and the study book selection were separately placed on the calendar long ago. Instead, it has to be that it reflects the overall tone of meetings. Look for the good whenever one can.

    Take this excerpt of paragraph 7 from that book, for instance:

    “Jesus also expressed confidence in his followers. Imagine the reassuring tone of his voice when he told them: “Take courage! I have conquered the world.” (John 16:33) He knew that they could follow in his footsteps​—and they did. Jesus used the expression “take courage” on a number of occasions. He said it to a paralytic before assuring him that his sins were forgiven. (Matt. 9:2) He said it to a woman after healing her grievous illness. (Matt. 9:22)

    These are instances of “take courage” where you might not ordinarily expect them. “Take courage” for I have conquered the world, Jesus says. That doesn’t mean that I will. “Take courage” to the man forgiven of sins. That doesn’t mean he may not commit some more. “Take courage” to the woman healed of illness. She might get sick again. But in all cases, the “take courage” is an assurance that Jesus has triumphed, is leading the way, and, through holy spirit, will help you as well.

    ******  The bookstore

  • Retrieving the Ruined Belt

    Retrieving the Ruined Belt

    If Jeremiah shows deep emotion in the book bearing his name, so also does God, who says:

    “And if you refuse to listen, I will weep in secret because of your pride. I will shed many tears, and my eyes will stream with tears.” (Jeremiah 13:17)

    Why would one choose a course of revolt against God? Occasionally, yes—we are flawed and/or fall into bad company. But to choose it as a permanent course? Can it be anything other than pride? and he weeps over that.

    The “great Mississippi of falsehood,” de Tocqueville said about the human construct that we call history. Is the Euphrates the great river of human wisdom? Consistently, God likens water to wisdom—at Jeremiah 2:13, for instance: “Because my people have done two bad things: They have abandoned me, the source of living water, And dug for themselves cisterns, Broken cisterns, that cannot hold water.”

    Human reasoning is great stuff. Pour me a double shot of it. But it can be used for both good and for ill. It can be used to fortify one’s relationship with God or to justify abandoning it. The heart makes a grab for what it wants, then charges the head to devise a convincing rationale in justification. This gives the impression that the head is calling the shots, but it is the heart all along.

    Bury the belt by the Euphrates, Jeremiah is told. (vs 4) It is a long ways to travel. Go get it again, he is told days later. Nothering left of it. What does the belt represent? What is the overall message?

    “‘For just as a belt clings to the waist of a man, so I made the whole house of Israel and the whole house of Judah cling to me,’ declares Jehovah, ‘to become to me a people, a name, a praise, and something beautiful.” (vs 11)

    “But they did not obey,” the verse adds.

    Next is what we might call a big ‘Duh’: “And you must also give this message to them, ‘This is what Jehovah the God of Israel says: “Every large jar should be filled with wine.”’ And they will reply to you, ‘Do we not already know that every large jar should be filled with wine?’ [Duh!] (13;12) it is not as though they’re treating the prophet as an honored sage.

    Jehovah then likens the rebellious nation itself to one of large wine-filled jars, filled with wine to point of roaring drunkenness. (vs 13) Let us call it drunk on human wisdom, the crud from the Euphrates. If they are going to be that way, “I will smash them against each other, fathers and sons alike,” declares Jehovah. “I will not show compassion or feel any sorrow or have any mercy on them; nothing will stop me from bringing them to ruin.” I mean, running the show by human wisdom does that anyway, causing people to “smash against each other.” Just step it up a little and save time, appears to be what Jehovah is saying.

    This stuff resonates with me, though it will not with everyone. It serves as a good heads-up to get one’s act together, though not all with take it that way. I never want to be cocky in the face of God, though some don’t hesitate to do so. Things can usually be taken more ways than one, so that it becomes a matter of heart which one you will choose. Sort of like at Bob Wegman’s funeral how the story was told of a certain brusque vendor complaining to him, “Why do people instantly dislike me?” Well, it saves time, Bob replied.

    ******  The bookstore

  • If You Get Tired Running with Footmen, How Will You Run a Race Against Horses? (Jeremiah 12:5)

    So here Jeremiah is complaining about wickedness—why is there so much of it? why do the perpetrators do just fine?—and suddenly he goes full-on harsh: 

    “Single them out like sheep for slaughtering! And set them apart for the day of killing!” (Jeremiah 12:3)

    No turning the other cheek here!—that teacher wouldn’t come along for hundreds of years. Of course, the WERE trying to kill him, and those religious powers-that-be would later try and do with the same with Jesus. The chapter before paints the prophet as “a docile lamb being brought to the slaughter.” (11:19) Now, he wants to turn the tables on them. Sure. I can get my head around that. 

    His answer from God is not what one might expect:

    “If you get tired running with footmen, How can you run a race against horses?” (12:5)

    Translation: Suck it up. It’s not going to get any easier.

    Jeremiah here follows the tradition of Job, of Habakkuk, of Asaph, all of whom complained about evil proliferating and the perpetrators prospering, Job, at 21:7-15 of the book bearing his name, Habakkuk, at 1:2-4 at his respective book, and Asaph at Psalms 73: 2-13. 

    Preaching God’s purpose before those attempting to thwart it earned Jeremiah death threats. He gets fed up at one point and tries to quit:

    “You have fooled me, O Jehovah, and I was fooled. You used your strength against me, and you prevailed. I have become a laughingstock all day long; Everyone ridicules me.  . . . So I said: “I am not going to make mention of him, And I will speak no more in his name.” (Jeremiah 20:7-9)

    It was short-lived: “But in my heart it became like a burning fire shut up in my bones, And I was tired of holding it in; I could no longer endure it.” (vs 9)

    In today’s vernacular, he’d been in the cult too long and could no longer escape. Mercifully, such verbiage was not in vogue at the time.

    He’s a pretty good model for speaking freely before God, not holding back, not fearful that God will misunderstand him. He knows that won’t happen. Immediately before wishing those enemies to the slaughter (same verse), it is: “But you know me well, O Jehovah, you see me; You have examined my heart and found it in union with you.” (12:3) He presents a good model for prayer.

    Jeremiah is blunt with God earlier, too, leveling an accusation, unconcerned with making him mad, unconcerned that his angst will be misconstrued: 

    “Alas, O Sovereign Lord Jehovah! Truly you have utterly deceived this people and Jerusalem, saying, ‘You will have peace,’ when the sword is at our throats.” (4:10)

    Where does that come from? Why does God do that—“utterly deceive people?” What is the basis for this charge?

    The answer comes a chapter later. It is in God’s words: “Something appalling and horrible has occurred in the land: The prophets prophesy lies, And the priests dominate by their own authority.  And my own people love it that way.” (5:31-32)

    Why does God allow the prophets to prophesy lies? Because his own people “love it that way.” He’s giving them what they want, as payback, as what he says just the verse before: “Should I not call them to account for these things?” declares Jehovah. “Should I not avenge myself on such a nation?” (5:29)

    Thus, a model we hear all the time—it is advanced frequently in agnostic or atheistic circles—is, “if God would just but answer our sincere questions to our satisfaction, then we would come around.” Alas, he doesn’t oblige them. He allows a devious system to remain in place because they “love it that way.”

    Doubtless, they do not love it that way should they find themselves on the losing end, but so long as they maneuver to avoid that spot, they do love it, and can continue to support solutions for fixing the world that don’t work. Though there be agencies aplenty for addressing social problems, the reality remains as Jesus stated in three of the four gospels: “You always have the poor among you.” The agencies of human governments do not so much want their respective problems solved (if they were solved, they would go out of business) as they do want them funded, which is a big difference. It is the same as how the armaments makers don’t want lasting peace, nor the drug-makers lasting health, for in both cases, where would they be in that event? The model they love is one of chipping away at the problem, often fueling it at the same time through misguided assumptions and contradictory policies. “And my own people have loved it that way.”

    The betrayal, from God’s point of view, and from the point of view of those who love Him, is laid out at Jeremiah 2:13: “Because my people have done two bad things: They have abandoned me, the source of living water, And dug for themselves cisterns, Broken cisterns, that cannot hold water.” The theme resurfaces throughout the book: “The wise have been put to shame. . . . They have rejected the word of Jehovah, And what wisdom do they have?” (8:9) “Not much,” says one type of person. “Plenty!” says another, “Get a load of this technology!” Avoid the losing end, and “they love it that way.”

    This “permitting deception because they love it that way” rationale is not too different from a more fiery one that appears in the New Testament. The latter one is that “the lawless one’s presence is by the operation of Satan with every powerful work and lying signs and wonders and every unrighteous deception for those who are perishing, as a retribution because they did not accept the love of the truth in order that they might be saved. That is why God lets a deceptive influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie.” (2 Thessalonians 2: 9-11) 

    He allows that “deceptive influence” to “mislead them” Why? “Because they did not accept the love of the truth,” declares Thessalonians. Because they “love it that way,” declares Jeremiah, “it” being a system of things designed around the mistruth that human rulership can end injustice and bring peace.

    Thus, appealing as the idea may sound, God does not cater to those indifferent asking their sincere questions as to his existence. Apparently, he sees through their “sincerity.” Instead, he says: “A bull well knows its buyer, And a donkey the manger of its owner.” (Isaiah 1:3)

    You’re just supposed to know it. Maybe it is deep down so you have to dig around a bit, for there is much to distract, but in the final analysis, you’re just supposed to know it. It may be a question of where do you put your pride—in coming to know God (Jeremiah 9:24) or in human accomplishment? 

    Examination of the evidence takes second place to what appeals to the heart. When God passes by Moses’ face, it is not to declare, “Examine the evidence.” It is to declare himself “a God merciful and compassionate, slow to anger and abundant in loyal love and truth, showing loyal love to thousands, pardoning error and transgression and sin, but he will by no means leave the guilty unpunished.” (Exodus 34:6-7) If these qualities resonate, evidence becomes superfluous. If they don’t, evidence will not satisfy. 

    That is probably why Paul advises, at Romans, to “prove to yourselves the good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” (Romans 12:2) You don’t have to prove it to others. You prove it to yourself. Thereafter, you may proclaim it to others but whether they accept it or not will not be due to your “proof.” It will be due to how the qualities of the above Exodus passage resonates. It will be upon that basis that Jesus is said to draw people. Having been so drawn, a person will identify with the first portion of that 12:2, to “stop being molded by this system of things.” He or she will not fall for that phony portrayal of himself as being molded, much less “controlled,” or “brainwashed.” He will know that it is the other way around.

    ******  The bookstore