Jeremiah;- The lost sacred vessels (ch27)

Jeremiah was wearing his yoke through the streets of Jerusalem, as a visual expression of the message that the nation should remain in submission to Babylon.

But his opponents offered a positive counter-message. Nebuchadnezzar had just taken away Coniah and the leaders of Jerusalem in the first stage of the exile of Jerusalem. His booty included many of the sacred vessels of the temple. He had left behind heavier bronze items like the pillars and the sea. The “sea” was especially made in Solomon’s time (1 Kings ch7); a round bowl with a diameter of ten cubits, resting upon twelve bronze oxen.

He seems to have left them the ark, as well, since the loss of the ark at this point would have been mentioned. But the most likely fate of the ark is that he took it away later, after the final siege. It was normal practice in the ancient world to annex the gods of captured cities, to finalise the conquest. The cities of Mesopotamia had been dong it to each other for centuries.

The popular prophets are going around saying that the sacred vessels would “shortly” be returning (ch27 v16), reinforcing their basic message that Jerusalem should not serve the king of Babylon. If these prophets really think they have contact with God, they should be spending their time in intercession to prevent Nebuchadnezzar from taking away the rest of the vessels. For Jeremiah’s own message from the Lord of hosts is that the king of Babylon will come back and take away all the rest. Though a promise is added in the last verse of the chapter that they will be brought back in the end, when the Lord gives his attention to them. As we know from history, Jeremiah was the one who was proved right on this point.

In the fifth month of the same year (the fourth year of Zedekiah), there was an arranged confrontation (ch28) between Jeremiah and his leading opponent, Hananiah son of Azzur, the prophet from Gibeon. The scene had been set in the house of the Lord, in the presence of the priests and all the people. This was not neutral ground. More like a Presidential debate moderated by CNN. Jeremiah was in hostile territory and would need to tread very carefully.

Hananiah was allowed to speak first, and gave his message as a word from the Lord of hosts. “I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon”. Within two years, the Lord would bring back the lost vessels, and would also bring back the exiled king and all the leaders who were exiled with him. We learnt in the previous chapter how the envoys of the local kings were gathering in Jerusalem, probably conspiring in rebellion. The priestly party were evidently expecting this rebellion to be successful in the summer campaign season of the coming year. Once again, we must hope that Babylonian spies were not on the alert.

Then Jeremiah was allowed to give his answer. We must remember that Jeremiah was obliged to choose his words with care in this hostile environment. He cannot attack his antagonist directly, as he would have done in the open streets. Any criticism must be oblique.

He begins with a pious prayer (v6) that this hopeful expectation might be fulfilled. He will not deny that it would be desirable.

Then there is a reminder (v8) that the prophets of ancient times, preceding both Hananiah and himself, were accustomed to preach war, famine, and pestilence against “many countries and great kingdoms”. In other words, Jeremiah’s style of prophecy was the norm, not the exception.

“As for the prophet who prophecies peace, when the word of that prophet comes to pass, then it will be known that the Lord has truly sent that prophet” (v9).
This really is the most diplomatic way possible of calling a man a liar.
It is interesting to compare the blunter approach of Micaiah son of Imlah, in his impromptu debate in the presence of Ahab;
www.abovetopsecret.com...
While Stephen was similarly oblique when he spoke to his own hostile audience in Jerusalem.;
www.abovetopsecret.com...
In some ways, Jeremiah’s predicament was closer to the “trial” scene of Stephen than to the “policy debate” scene of Micaiah.

Hananiah had probably prepared his rebuttal in advance. It took the form of walking across to Jeremiah and physically breaking the yoke laid across his shoulders. “EVEN SO will I break the yoke of the king of Babylon”. Jeremiah’s visual message had been defeated visually. It must have looked conclusive. Jeremiah had no prepared response, so he went away.

The answer came to him later, as it usually does. He sent a message to Hananiah declaring that the Lord would replace the wooden yoke with iron bars. And Jeremiah would probably have given a lot to have thought, in advance, of hiding an iron rod within that wooden structure.

There was also a personal message. The Lord had not sent Hananiah, who was making the people trust in a lie. Therefore the Lord would remove him, because he had uttered rebellion against the Lord. Hananiah died within two months.

Jeremiah and Ezekiel pioneered what today is called being a 'performance artist'

the officials honored prophets that told them what they wanted to hear.
Timothy was warned that people would reject sound doctrine to have their ears tickled.
old and new testament agree.

thanks for post Disraeli

a reply to: ElGoobero
Actually I think the practice is much older than that. Even the false prophets were doing it. When Ahab was considering attacking the Syrians, Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah "made for himself horns of iron and said; Thus says the Lord, with these you shall push the Syrians until they are destroyed" (1 Kings ch22 v11). I'm sure that the iron horns were tied on his head, and a mock charge wearing them was part of the act.
Another example is Hosea being instructed to marry a harlot.