Original Meaning

CHAPTER 7 CONVEYS Jeremiah’s (in-)famous temple “sermon.” It is prose rather than poetry; thus, chapter 7 begins a new section different from the predominantly poetic contents in chapters 2–6. Whether the sermon originally included all the material now in 7:1–8:3 or whether some additional prophecies of Jeremiah have been appended in the process of transmission and compilation, readers will recognize why Jeremiah was later restricted from preaching in the temple precincts (36:5). These words cut to the quick.

Chapter 26 preserves a similar but shorter address given at the temple. Many interpreters, therefore, have concluded that chapter 7 contains the longer form of the sermon while chapter 26 contains a summary of it, along with a description of audience reaction. This reconstruction is plausible but not certain. Jeremiah may well have delivered the gist of this somber message on more than one occasion. The temple address in chapter 26 is dated to the beginning of Jehoiakim’s reign (26:1; 609/608 B.C.). If chapters 7 and 26 describe the same event, then we have one of the few indications of a specific date for material in the first half of the book of Jeremiah. The material in chapter 7 fits well with the reign of Jehoiakim.

Not only was the death of Josiah a traumatic event for the state of Judah, but the transitions that followed it were difficult as well. Jehoiakim became the third monarch on the throne in less than a year. Josiah had been followed by his son Jehoahaz, but he was removed soon afterward by the Egyptians, who favored Jehoiakim, another son of Josiah. Apparently Jehoiakim was more compliant with their wishes.1 Jeremiah has nothing good to say about Jehoiakim and the life of the people under his regime.

The pronouncements in the sermon contain a call to repentance from evil deeds, a searing reminder of the Decalogue as the standards of communal service to God, a denial that God will defend the temple from onslaught, and a polemic attack on various polytheistic activities, including ritual practices related to human sacrifice in a valley near Jerusalem’s temple mount. These prose pronouncements are similar in form to Moses’ sermons of Deuteronomy; indeed, the temple sermon and Deuteronomy share an emphasis on the sanctity of the place where God’s Name dwells (cf. below). One should not find this surprising. Within Jeremiah’s own lifetime a book (lit., a scroll) of covenant law was discovered in the temple that became the catalyst for King Josiah’s reform measures (2 Kings 22–23; 2 Chron. 34–35). Many interpreters conclude that the book discovered was Deuteronomy in either penultimate or final form.

7:1–15. Jeremiah warns worshipers not to trust in deceptive words that give them false hopes concerning the security of the temple or the efficacy of their religious activities. Three times the phrase “[this is] the temple of the LORD” is repeated in verse 4. It seems to function like a mantra, as if simply repeating it or even asserting it makes it true. Just because the temple sits in Jerusalem, worshipers should not assume that they can fail in their covenantal responsibilities to God and neighbor and then come to the temple and cry, “We are safe!”

Jeremiah has no intention of denying that the majestic temple on Mount Zion belongs to the Lord. Speaking for God, however, he asserts that the Lord is not bound to preserve the temple at all costs in the face of the people’s flagrant disobedience. The prophet points to the shrine at Shiloh during the time of Samuel and Eli (1 Sam. 1–4) to say that God may send judgment even on a place of worship that bears his Name.2

In Deuteronomy 12:5, 11, God promised to choose a place from among the Israelite tribes “to put his Name … for his dwelling.” The site would be designated for animal sacrifice and certain other ritual acts of worship. It would be a place for pilgrimage—the only appropriate site for these endeavors, in contrast to the Canaanite inhabitants, who had many “high places” for sacrificial worship. Deuteronomy does not give the name of the place God would choose; that Jerusalem became the location, however, is clear from the dedicatory prayer of Solomon in 1 Kings 8:23–53. His prayer acknowledges that this house is for God’s Name (8:29, 44; cf. 8:20), yet that no temple encapsulates God, for not even the highest heavens can do that (8:27).

There was nothing magical about the temple in Jerusalem with respect to divine presence. The claim that God’s Name dwelt there was a metaphorical way of saying that God could be personally encountered at that site. It was a place of his choosing. At the same time, God recognizes that he is not tied to the structure or somehow bound irrevocably to its fate.

The prophet refers to the basic covenant stipulations in Jer. 7:9 as they are known in the Decalogue (Deut. 4:13). Moreover in Jeremiah 7:6 the prophet charges that Judah has oppressed the alien, the widow, and the orphan. Specifically cited in verse 9 are stealing, murder, adultery, and false witness. Each of these comes from the so-called second table of the law, where communal relations are regulated. Burning incense to Baal and following other gods, however, reflects the first commandment and its charge to “have no other gods before me.” Taken as a whole, the prophet charges that those attending temple service love neither God nor neighbor according to the standards of the Torah. Instead, they grasp at the magical properties of the temple in hopes that God will protect the city against the enemy.

7:16–34. Jeremiah reveals that God has commanded him not to intercede for the people (cf. 15:1–9). Why should Jeremiah intercede for the people when some of them have turned to the worship of the Queen of Heaven (cf. ch. 44)3 and other deities? Their trust is misplaced. Jeremiah is but one in a line of prophets whom God sent to his people, each of whom was rejected. The hardhearted people have refused to heed their warnings and announcements of judgment. Sacrifices are not acceptable when flagrant breaches of covenantal ethics are rampant.4 They are no more efficacious for a sinful, obdurate people than the temple will be in the day of assault by the enemy.

In a nearby valley nicknamed “Slaughter,” the Judeans participated in the horrifying rites of child sacrifice (cf. 19:1–15). Which valley near Jerusalem is an interesting question; probably it is the valley along the western and southern boundaries of the current “old city” known as the Wadi er Rababi. Topheth is a term of uncertain derivation, but it refers to a place where human sacrificial and cremation rituals took place. Some Judeans must have believed that they appeased the Lord by partaking in these rituals, since God protests through the prophet that he has not commanded such activities. Elsewhere these activities are associated with Baal and Molech (2 Kings 23:10; Jer. 19:5).5 Jerusalem itself will become a place of slaughter (like the nearby Topheth) because of her rejection of the Lord.

8:1–3. These words may have been appended to the sermon because they reflect the horror of manipulating and exposing human corpses. The Topheth rites in 7:30–34 apparently included sacrificial rites with corpses (of children). Without repentance, death will be the only future for Judah.

Bridging Contexts

BEHAVIORAL MATTERS. Although there is no one-to-one correspondence between ancient Israel and the church and the duties of each under the old and new covenants respectively, their common identity as God’s people means that the church should hear a word to Israel as instructive for its own life. Nevertheless, since there is no one-to-one correspondence, Christian interpreters are not forced to find exact parallels in behaviors to make Jeremiah 7 relevant. The question of corporate faithfulness in the life of faith can be (and should be!) asked from generation to generation.

To put the matter of interpretation in a broader biblical context, Jeremiah’s words about the need for Judah to change its behavior or lose its place in the land of promise are part of a much broader scriptural message about relating rightly to God. The “if-then” language of 7:3–7 is like that of the introductory address of God through Moses to the people at Sinai (Ex. 19:4–6): “If you … keep my covenant … then … you will be for me a kingdom of priests.” It is similar to the mandates of Jesus to “repent, for the kingdom of heaven is here” (Matt. 4:17), or “seek first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (6:33).

Behavior matters are a powerful indicator that reveals the allegiances of the heart. The particulars of Jeremiah (lack of justice, polytheism, violation of the Decalogue) are not new instructions for Judah but central to the covenant relationship God has granted to them. Jesus readily acknowledges that the Ten Commandments indicate the proper way to life because they bring a person into relationship with God, who alone is the Author and Giver of life (Matt. 19:16–30; Mark 10:17–31; Luke 18:18–30).

False hopes about the temple. Jeremiah’s words about the false hopes associated with the temple (Jer. 7:4, 10) are also part of a much broader scriptural message about ways in which God reveals himself to his people and the corresponding ways in which worshipers should honor that self-revelation of God through worship and obedience. Through the tabernacle God mediated his presence with the Israelites during their desert wandering. The Lord who redeemed them also instructed them not to take the tabernacle for granted or violate its sanctity.

Solomon’s dedicatory prayer at the founding of the temple in Jerusalem (1 Kings 8; 2 Chron. 6) acknowledged the blessing that God’s Name was present through the temple (1 Kings 8:16–20, 29). The Lord of creation and history was personally present among his people to instruct them and to receive their praise. This holy and gracious presence of God’s Name did not mean that God was limited to the sphere of the temple or bound to its spatial limitations; on the contrary, even heaven, God’s “dwelling place” (1 Kings 8:27–30), cannot truly contain him. God “lives in unapproachable light” (1 Tim. 6:16) and cannot be seen or approached except when he accommodates himself to the limitations of human capacities of perception.

Jesus’ disciples spoke with wonder about the temple complex built by Herod the Great on the spot first purchased by David (Mark 13:1). Behind the continuity of centuries of worship on that sacred spot lay also the facts of temple destruction by the Babylonians and temple defilement by the forces of Antiochus Epiphanes (1 Macc. 1:11–61; cf. Dan. 11:14–35). Jesus’ reply that the great complex would be destroyed does not reflect hostility to the temple or denial of its divine role, but recognizes that the physical complex itself is dispensable. History would bring an end to the temple complex but not to the significance it represented.

Jesus himself overturned the tables of the moneychangers in the temple courtyards, proclaiming that his Father’s house would not be a “den of robbers” (Luke 19:45–46). That reference is to Jeremiah 7:11; it shows how Jesus had absorbed the thrust of Jeremiah’s temple sermon as an indictment of the people, whose actions violated the sanctity of the temple. Judgment on the temple was judgment on those for whom the temple’s purpose was perverted.

Jeremiah’s address presupposes the significance of the temple as a divine dwelling. He speaks words of judgment against those who view the temple in magical terms as God’s guarantee of their temporal security. John’s Gospel represents Jesus as God’s Word living among us (John 1:14) in language similar to the tabernacle (or temple) as God’s presence among Israel of old. Indeed, the temple—like all the Old Testament—bears witness to God’s approach in Jesus Christ (see John 2:14–22).

Other apostolic witnesses in the New Testament take up John’s recognition of Jesus as God’s temple. Both Paul and Peter proclaim the church as the body of Christ and the spiritual temple (Rom. 12:4–5; 1 Cor. 12:12, 27; Eph. 1:22–23; 2:19–22; 1 Peter 2:1–5). Individual Christians too are a temple of God’s dwelling (1 Cor. 6:19–20). Thus, the imperative to Christians to “honor God with your body” (6:20) reflects a concern similar to that of Jeremiah under the old covenant: Behavior matters, for through it God is either glorified or mocked.

Worship and sacrifice. Jeremiah’s temple address is also the occasion for words about worship and sacrifice. His criticism of polytheism has parallels in both Old and New Testaments. Polytheism is a religious response that fails to take seriously God’s claim for exclusive worship. The Decalogue is headed by the claim that God has redeemed a people from slavery, and its first command is the prohibition of having other gods.

The particulars of Jeremiah’s own critique (Queen of Heaven, other gods) show people who by their religious activities are trying to secure their fortunes in uncertain times. For them religion is the system by which they induce the gods to provide what they want. The criticism about sacrifices in Jer. 7:21–26 follows this line of critique as well. Sacrifices are not means in order to force God into a religion of compliance to the wish lists of worshipers, nor are they a substitute for a life of grateful obedience (cf. Isa. 1:10–17; Amos 5:21–26).

The child sacrifices at the Topheth are a particular case of misunderstanding the significance of sacrificial ritual. The ancient world considered the offering of a child to a deity as a supremely religious act, since it gave to the deity, the author of life, what was most precious to the worshiper (cf. Mic. 6:6–8). But God did not require such a sacrifice of Abraham (Gen. 22) or of the Exodus generation (Ex. 13:2, 11–15). In those cases God provided an effectual substitute.

Contemporary Significance

THEOLOGY MATTERS. To hear Jeremiah’s address today means to hear it through Jesus Christ, his gospel of forgiveness, and new life offered through him. In Jeremiah’s day, the mantra of “the temple of the LORD” (Jer. 7:4) meant false reliance on the temple as God’s guarantee of deliverance to the people of Judah. Can such words uncover modern tendencies to equate the visible church and participation in it with true service to God?

Jeremiah’s address assumes a doctrine of Israel as God’s people who assemble for worship and depart for service. Similarly, worship of God is the reason for Christian assembling, and service to him in word and deed is its goal. The temple was an institution by which God made himself present and known among the people. The church is an institution by which God makes himself present in the world and known among the nations.

One hears today the phrase that “theology matters.” Its proponents believe that the visible church suffers from a lack of clarity about the uniqueness of the gospel, a diminished sense of authority for the classical tenets of the faith, and an overreliance on individualism and human experience as keys to Christian identity. Jeremiah denied that the popular expressions of sacrifice were an adequate indication of how individual Judeans or the nation as a whole should relate to God. The sacrificial system was one of God’s gifts to be used by the people to maintain a relationship with God, though sacrifice was not a substitute for the relationship itself.

Theology does matter, not because God insists on a rigid intellectual system, but because unless we understand who God is, we will be in basic error about everything else that is ultimately important. The church will not save anyone (nor did the temple or animal sacrifice); it is a means to a goal, not the end itself. Understood correctly it is a means to know God and be rightly related to him.

One consequence of Jeremiah’s address is the acknowledgment that the temple is not defined adequately as a building. Its theological significance resides in the Lord, whom it represents and reveals. Christians may legitimately draw positive or negative conclusions from this significance, depending on the nature of the church and the particulars of the Christian life that need to be addressed. God can give (and has given) the faithless institutions of his people over to judgment. God has no need to protect a lifeless institution (as if his own security were under threat); yet the gates of hell themselves will not prevail against the church that confesses Christ as Lord.

Jeremiah’s address means not only that “theology matters,” but that it matters in the practical applications of the Christian life. His indictment of the immorality of the people illustrates the old adage that “I may not believe everything you say, but I believe everything you do.” Behavior matters for it is a key to a person’s or an institution’s allegiance. Christian ethics, like the social institutions and actions of Jeremiah’s day, are a means to an end: to worship and serve the living God.

Child sacrifice. The Topheth sacrifices of Jeremiah’s day present the most intriguing illustration of the confession that “theology matters” as well as a graphic way of underscoring the radical uniqueness of the gospel. As noted above, child sacrifice was a supremely religious act. Specific reasons to sacrifice a child varied from extreme threat to the family to extreme devotion on the part of the parents. Jeremiah insists that God has not required this slaughter, either to get his attention or to demonstrate one’s piety. Religious longing and commitment do not inherently result in good things. Such sentiments require instruction in the truth of God. This is a crucial point in an era where feelings and good intentions tend to be what really matter. Religious affections and longings need to be channeled in a proper direction. Pastors and the witness of faithful generations are vital to the cause of instruction in Christian practices.

In a Christological vein, the Topheth sacrifices remind readers that what God did not require of his people he provided in the death of his own Son. If the Topheth sacrifices gave occasion for God’s insistence that he does not require the sacrifice of children either to please or appease him, then the death of Jesus Christ is the occasion where God replies back through the supremely sacrificial act of a self-offering for sin. In their misguided zeal, people who frequented the Topheth hoped to avert disaster and gain life for themselves and their families. In the death of Jesus, Christians meet God’s own zeal to judge iniquity and his ardent desire to provide life for the lost.