At church this morning, the pastor preached about Jeremiah 33:14-16, which states (in the King James Version):
"(14)
Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good
thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of
Judah. (15) In those days, and at that time, will I cause the Branch of
righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and
righteousness in the land. (16) In those days shall Judah be saved, and
Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall
be called, The LORD our righteousness."
The
pastor was applying this to Jesus, but was it Jesus at his first
coming, or Jesus at his second coming? I don't entirely remember. On
the one hand, the pastor suggested that Israel's return from exile
occurred in 1948, with the re-establishment of Israel as a nation, and I
think that would coincide with applying Jeremiah 33:14-16 to Jesus'
second coming----the exiles return to Israel in 1948, and several years
later Christ comes back and rules Israel in righteousness while enabling
Judah to dwell in safety. On the other hand, the pastor also seemed to
think that v 15's reference to the Davidid as a branch was predicting
that Jesus would be a humble Messiah, not the conquering king that many
Jews in the first century were expecting. That appears to hold that
Jeremiah 33:14-16 concerns Jesus' first coming.
Perhaps
one could combine the two views: God caused the Davidic branch to
sprout during Jesus' first coming, in the person of Jesus, and years
later Jesus would come back and rule Israel in righteousness, save
Judah, and enable Jerusalem to dwell in safety. Speaking for
myself, I'm skeptical about applying Jeremiah 33 to Jesus, for I think
that what Jeremiah was saying was that the Jews would return from exile
in seventy years, and then God would restore the Davidic dynasty and the
Levitical priesthood (see vv 18-22, and Jeremiah 25:11-12; 29:10).
Even if you go the route of saying that the prophecy is consistent with
saying that the Jews would return from exile under Cyrus, and years
later God would re-establish the Davidic dynasty through Jesus, who
would rule years after that, there's still the problem of what to do
with the prophesied restoration of the Levites. Don't many Christians
believe that Christ nullified the Levitical priesthood? Is that
inconsistent with Jeremiah 33:18-22's prediction that God would not only
restore the Levites, but that they would be before him perpetually?
Christians can probably go a variety of routes here. First, they can say that God did
restore the Levites, in Israel's historical post-exilic period. But
Jeremiah 33:18-22 appears to describe the Levitical priesthood as
perpetual, whereas the historical service of the Levites in the Temple
came to an end, as did the Temple. Second, Christians can say
that Jesus as high priest fulfills the function of the Levitical
priesthood, and that Jeremiah 33:18-22 is symbolic of this. I can't
really refute that, but I do think that interpreting prophecies
symbolically is quite arbitrary and allows people to read back into the
prophecies their desired conclusions rather than allowing the prophecies
to speak for themselves. Third, Christians can say that
Levites will offer sacrifices before God during the millennial reign of
Christ. Perhaps that would work. When I read Jeremiah's
prophecies about restoration, though, it seems to concern what Jeremiah
expected to happen in seventy years, not something that would be
partially fulfilled in seventy years, while other parts would be
fulfilled later in the future. But many Jews and Christians believe
that the prophecies could be partially fulfilled in the past while also
having a later fulfillment, and the reason has been that they want for
the prophecies to have continued relevance rather than being an
expectation on the part of Jeremiah that did not fully pan out.
I should note something else: Jeremiah 33:18 states that "Neither
shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt
offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice
continually." So the Levites are offering sacrifices? That
appears to be inconsistent with Leviticus-Numbers, in which the Aaronic
priests perform the sacrifices, while the Levites are responsible for
transporting and guarding the sanctuary, and possibly other services.
Deuteronomy, however, does not present the Aaronides as a higher class
of priests than the other Levites, and it just says that the Levites
minister before God (Deuteronomy 18:7). Jeremiah appears to agree with
Deuteronomy, whereas Ezekiel depicts the Zadokites as the priests who
will offer sacrifices (Ezekiel 43:19; 44:15). Of course, I suppose that you could say that the Aaronides and the Zadokites were
Levites (Ezekiel 40:46), which is true. Still, it's interesting that
Jeremiah does not explicitly distinguish the sons of Aaron from the
other Levites, but rather says that the Levites will offer sacrifices to
God.
I was intrigued by what my
pastor was saying about the branch, for that made me wonder why the
Davidid in Jeremiah 33 was called the branch. Does it have to do with
lowliness and humility, as my pastor was suggesting? I wouldn't be
surprised if that were the case, for there was an expectation that the
coming king of Israel would be humble----Zechariah 9:9 presents him
peacefully entering Jerusalem on a donkey, for example. But I
think the passage probably means that there will come a king who will
have Davidic ancestry, which means that God will restore David's
dynasty. In short, a branch will come from the Davidic tree.