First testament enthusiasm is contagious.
The Theology of
Jeremiah: The Book, the Man, the Message
John Goldingay
Publisher: IVP
Academic
Pages: 151
If nothing else,
John Goldingay deserves credit for writing a book titled, Do We
Need the New Testament? Letting the Old Testament Speak
for Itself (2015). Though I have never read it, I like how the
title flips the script, where it’s the new instead of the old that
is in question.
Solidifying
his esteem for these ancient writings Goldingay authored The
First Testament: A New Translation (2018), which I have been
using for my daily readings in that part of the Bible. The aim is to
give readers a sense of the Hebrew. I like the challenge of it not
being easier to read or understand.
Perhaps a little of
this philosophy transfers to The Theology of Jeremiah, which
includes his translation. He likens the writings to a “collection
of blogposts” more than a book. It’s helpful to keep this in mind
in relation to the organization of the “scroll”, his word for the
book of Jeremiah.
The scroll is not a
linear progression of events. The author has a forthcoming
commentary, The Book of Jeremiah, coming later this year,
which most likely will analyze the material line by line, going from
start to finish. The way the scroll was written, however, makes it
like a series of different scenes. Goldingay skips back and forth
like a movie that alternates between past and present to show how it
fits together.
It’s an expert
synthesis of the major themes and theology, drawing from the various
parts. To use the author’s analogy, it’s to provide a view of the
forest from the trees. It’s to explain why the forest might seem to
be full of examples of the same trees.
Being the scholar
that he is Goldingay draws from rather than reads into the text.
Application is helpful, but first of all it’s important to grasp
meaning, which is the focus in this book. There is only a judicious
use of application.
Part one analyzes
Jeremiah’s person, scroll, story and theme. Each theme emerges from
consecutive chapters, which include outlines. Jeremiah 11-13, for
example, focuses on the “covenant” between Yahweh and Israel.
Illustrative of his care in exegesis, Goldingay uses the word
“pledge” instead of covenant. Pledge has some overlap with the
word translated covenant “but isn’t the same.” “The pledge
meant their listening to what he said and acting on it” (35).
It’s something
that God imposed on Israel, and yet there are two sides to it. Judah
benefited from the relationship in return for surrendering its
independence. One of the initial benefits was God getting Israel out
of Egypt. Another, “Israel benefited again because Yahweh took them
into Canaan, a country with so much land for sheep and goats it
seemed to be flowing with milk, and so much land for orchards it
seemed to be flowing with syrup that was to be made from the fruit of
the trees (traditionally, translations speak of the land flowing with
honey, but fruit syrup is the sweetness the word usually denotes”
(36). I appreciate this small incidental that sheds light on a
familiar phrase.
In what initially
could raise eyebrows Goldingay goes on to say that “it might be
misleading to say that Yahweh was liberating Israel from Egypt. He
wasn’t granting their freedom … Yahweh was actually removing them
from service to one master so that they entered the service of
another master” (36). Unfortunately, too often God’s people have
to learn the hard way that it’s much better to serve God than some
other master.
Near the end of this
section readers find a distinction that can be easily overlooked.
“Was Yahweh’s pledge conditional? … Putting the question this
way causes more problems that it solves (as it does in human
relationships). Yahweh’s grace and commitment were not conditional,
but they did require a response of commitment, otherwise the
relationship wouldn’t work. Or we could say that Yahweh’s
promises were unconditioned but they were conditional” (37). This
is a good example of the nuance that Goldingay continually applies to
the text.
Towards the end of
the second section, which deals with Jeremiah’s theology, the
author surprises. In acknowledging the difficult of defining a
prophet, he makes reference to this ministry continuing “recurrently”
in the church over the centuries. It’s not clear what he means but
it made me wonder if he believes that there are people who function
as prophets today.
Some circles in
Christianity do recognize people as prophets. They are seen as part
of the five fold ministry referenced in Ephesians 4:11.
He does offer a
little clarification when he composes questions to ask “prophets or
purported prophets today.” In one of his best applications from the
life and ministry of Jeremiah, he sets a high standard, one that
might leave most weighed in the balance and found wanting.
Lastly, I appreciate
how Goldingay highlights apparent contradictions, only to show how
they hold together and can be respected despite the tension. In
relation to the destruction of Judah, “Did Yahweh intend total
destruction and then have a change of mind? Would the order of the
chapters rather imply that he intended incomplete destruction, then
changed his mind in favor of total destruction, then changed his mind
again and didn’t do it” (131).
The author points
out that at times Jeremiah appears to be hyperbolic. “In between
some of the qualified threats, Jeremiah has already observed to
Yahweh, ‘you finished them off’ (Jer 5:3), though he goes on,
‘but they refused to accept discipline,’ which indicates that
they still existed and that Jeremiah was being hyperbolic” (131).
Also, “If people
turn, then Yahweh can pardon and devastation can be averted (Jer
36:3). If there is no turning and devastation happens, there can be
compassion and pardon” (Jer 30:18, 31:34, 33:8). This kind of
analysis shows restraint. I appreciate someone who avoids reconciling
competing scenarios to achieve what might be an artificial resolve.
It’s why I like
reading Goldingay and would read any of his books. He may not always
be right but shows himself trustworthy.
