BACKGROUND TO THE LAMENT OF JEREMIAH

History is mostly a series of cataclysmic, defining moments that begin a process of change in a people. They are course altering events; leaving behind who they had been and changing them into something they will become. The Book of Lamentations was not the first of its kind; it had been traditional for a lament to be written after a cataclysmic event. Several ancient examples have been discovered: Lamentation over the Destruction of Ur, Lamentation of Sumer and Ur and Lamentation over the Destruction of Nipper. The biblical Lament over the destruction of Judah was an inspired expression of this ancient genre. More important than the literary category, however, was the historical importance of the siege by the Babylonians, Israel’s captivity and the changes that captivity brought to them. The captivity became a crucible in which Judah’s penchant for idolatry was purged. The Jews as a unique, covenantal people were preserved.

By the sixth century BC, the Hebrews had a long history of rebellion against their God. Cycles of rebellion, retribution, repentance, and restoration marked the pre-exilic history of Israel/Judah. In most cases, God’s response to the rebellion of His people was to raise up nations against them until they sought Him again. Eventually, God chose not to preserve the northern kingdom of Israel and the ten tribes were relocated and assimilated into the Assyrian empire, lost to future history. The greatest danger to the remnant in Judah was the allure of foreign women. Through intermarriage, false gods were introduced. To preserve His people and to purge them of their idolatry, God sent an event so traumatic and so horrific that it forever changed what it meant to be a Jew. Judah was put through the fire of captivity and threatened with assimilation, she lost her taste for idolatry forever. God had given an ominous foreshadowing of this event when the Temple was dedicated. In 1 Kings 9:8-9, God had warned of what would happen if Judah pursued false gods:

“For this house, which is exalted, everyone who passes by it will be astonished and will hiss, and say, ‘Why has the Lord done this to this land and to this house?’ Then they will answer, ‘Because they forsook the Lord their God, who brought their fathers out of Egypt, and have embraced other gods, and worshipped them and served them; therefore the Lord has brought all this calamity on them.’” 1 Kings 9:8-9

Yet the warning was not heeded. Solomon himself allowed the high places of his foreign wives to exist. When King Manassa revived the child sacrifices to Molech, the judgment was sealed. Despite the reign of good kings who followed, the Lord declared that the sins of Manassa had never been cleansed. Therefore, out of Babylon to the east, God raised up the instrument of His judgment in the form of Nebuchadnezzar and the Chaldeans.

The Chaldeans had conquered the Assyrians, who had conquered Israel. God had used the Assyrians’ wicked intentions to judge Israel, and then He judged the Assyrians. Initially, Judah was made a vassal state and allowed their own succession of vassal kings. However, the Judeans rebelled and Nebuchadnezzar put down the rebellion and gave the throne to Zedekiah. Zedekiah ruled in his name and kept Judea in peace. But conspiring with Egypt, Zedekiah broke his covenant with his suzerain king. In 588 BC, the Chaldean army swept into Judea to put down the rebellion. Within weeks, Judah lay devastated; only three Judean cities remained: Jerusalem and the walled cities of Lachish and Azekia. The events that followed were horrendous and would change the Judeans forever. Azekia fell first; archaeologists have uncovered messages between Joash, the commander of Lachish, and Jerusalem. They were scratched on little pieces of pottery called ostraca (pottery shards) and carried by a messenger. One of the last dispatches discovered was the ominous message that Jerusalem was no longer receiving signals from Azekia. It reads, “Let my lord know that we are watching over the beacon of Lachish, according to the signals which my lord gave, for Azekah is not seen.”

Joash would have known that Nebuchadnezzar was on his way. When he got there, the Chaldean king was in no mood for another long siege. He put his engineers in charge of finding a way to quickly subdue the city. What his engineers did was to deforest the land for miles around the city. Every bit of brush, every tree, every olive grove was cut down and brought to the city walls. The wood was piled as high as a house around the entire circumference of the walls and then set on fire. For days, Lachish was an inferno. Day and night, the Chaldeans kept stoking the fire until the white-hot stones eventually burst and the walls caved in. The entire population was put to the sword. The most common artifact unearthed from Lachish are burnt olive pits, reminders of the vast olive groves that were used in the fire.

Only Jerusalem remained. The city was protected by valleys on the three sides. Her walls were strong and there weren’t enough trees to repeat the inferno of Lachish. Therefore, the city lay under siege for eighteen months. The horrors of a siege are nearly inconceivable; a siege is a slow agonizing death of starvation and disease. Its victims are not armies, they are families and children; they are the young and the old. As the months passed by, the situation inside the city degenerated to the point that Jeremiah depicts the people as little more than the walking dead. Even as mothers consumed their own children, Zedekiah continued to look in vain to Egypt instead of God. To the end, Judah continued to play the harlot with other nations. Yet Egypt never came and in the summer of 586 BC, the Chaldeans finally breached the walls and the city fell. Zedekiah, who escaped during the night, was captured near Jericho and was brought before Nebuchadnezzar as a covenant breaker. He was forced to watch his sons being put to death before he had his own eyes plucked out—the typical Babylonian punishment for treason. In shame, the 400-year reign of the family of David came to end. “All over the land would be desolateness and stillness…keeping a long-neglected silent Sabbath unto God.”

The judgment that God placed upon Judah would forever alter these people. Scripture itself does not hold anything back from the depiction of its horrors. Jeremiah reminded his readers of the fulfilled warning to Solomon referenced earlier:

“All those who pass by clap their hands at you; they hiss and shake their heads at the daughter of Jerusalem. Is this the city that is called the perfection of beauty? The joy of the whole earth? All your enemies have opened their mouth against you. They hiss and gnash their teeth; they say we have swallowed her up. Surely this is the day we have waited for, we have found it, and we have seen it.” Lamentations 2:14-16

Here was an event that no Jew was going to forget, for God would not allow them to forget it through the inspired narrative of Jeremiah. In his lament, Jeremiah captured the images of a people who were ravaged by their own sins. From the depths of his heart, Jeremiah observes and records a scene of horror. Summarizing the verses:

“My eyes fill with tears, my heart is troubled, my bile is poured on the ground because of the destruction of the daughter of my people. Because the children and the infants faint in the street. They say to their mothers where is grain and wine as they swoon like the wounded in the streets of the city. As their life is poured out in their mother’s bosom. See O Lord and consider to whom have you done this. Should the woman eat their offspring? The children they have cuddled? Should the priest and the prophet be slain in the Sanctuary of the Lord? Young and old lie on the ground in the streets. My virgins and my young men have fallen by the sword. You have slain them in the day of your anger; you have slaughtered and have not pitied. The tongue of the infants clings to the roof of its mouth for thirst. The young children ask for bread but no one breaks it for them. Now their appearance is blacker than soot. They go unrecognized in the streets, their skin clings to their bones it has become dry as wood. Those slain by the sword are better off than those who die of hunger. For these pine away stricken by lack of the fruits of the field. The hands of the compassionate women have cooked their own children. They became food for them in the destruction of the daughter of my people.” ff. Lamentations chapters 1-4.

Faced with such destruction, Jeremiah makes it clear that the catastrophe was not happenstance but was the judgment of God upon the sins of Judah. Matthew Henry comments on these verses that while the Chaldeans may be the instruments, “God is the author of all these troubles; it is the Lord that has afflicted her and He has done it as a righteous judge for she has sinned.”

Yet in the midst of judgment, Jeremiah recalls the mercy of the Lord. Judah was not consumed; “I have hope through the Lord’s mercies we are not consumed because his compassion fails not. They are new every morning; great is thy faithfulness. The Lord is my portion says my soul, for I hope in Him.” In many churches, these verses are a popular chorus; yet the context is often forgotten. Ultimately, the message that God was sending Judah was not lost on Jeremiah: “Is it not from the mouth of the most high that woe and well being proceed? Why should a man complain for the punishment of his sins?” Jeremiah knew that those who were devastating his nation were merely an instrument. God would enforce His judgment upon His people; yet this was not an arbitrary act of God, but would ultimately preserve them as a covenant people.

A month later, in August of 586 BC, the captain of Nebuchadnezzar’s guard put the Temple to the flames. The walls were torn down and the city was left desolate. Thousands of Hebrews began an 800-mile forced march to Babylon and into captivity. Most of these were craftsman and the aristocracy. The poorest of the people were given land in Palestine and left to meek out whatever existence they could find. Just like the ten tribes of the northern kingdom of Israel, they soon melded into the people around them. The resulting mixture of races melded together with those who would become the Samaritans.

The once great people of God became a nation of refugees; the most privileged of peoples suffered one of the most severe punishments. But surrounded by the depraved paganism of Babylon, the Hebrews built hedges around their culture and left behind their flirtations with foreign gods. The Jews preserved their identity; instead of assimilating, they mourned for Zion. A psalm from the exile says that “by the waters of Babylon they sat down and wept, when they remembered thee, O Zion” . In Spurgeon’s commentary on this passage, he captured the longing despair for the Land: “They sat in silence; they remembered in silence; they wept in silence.”

At the end of the captivity, the Jews who returned to Jerusalem were profoundly different than the Hebrews who had left. In the larger picture, John Sailhammer’s commentary on Genesis describes a continuing theme of judgment and restoration within the recurring expulsions and returns to Canaan. He believes that Eden and Canaan are in the same location and when Adam was driven east, it was towards what would become Babel (Babylon). Therefore the expulsion from Canaan in 586 BC mirrors the expulsion from the Garden; just as the return from Babylon mirrors the return to the land by Abraham . A similar model sees Israel being sent to Abraham’s Ur (Babylon) as “a husband sends his unsatisfactory wife “back home” . Whatever the model, it was this final return that prepared the world for the coming of the Messiah.

The fate of Jerusalem in 586BC should server as a constant reminder of the holiness of God and of His sovereign, superintending chastisement. But as Jeremiah insists, God’s people must persevere through trusting His faithfulness. In Calvin’s exposition of Lamentations 3:24, he writes, “The prophet intimates in this verse that we cannot stand firm in adversities, except we be content with God alone and His favor, for as soon as we depart from him, any adversity that may happen to us will cause our faith to fail. It is then the only true foundation of patience and hope to trust in God alone.”

Even in the midst of the temporal judgment of sin, God’s good purpose of grace towards His people will stand.

Introduction

Hello, my name is Jason Bader. I was born and raised in Ft. Worth, Texas and is my current residence. I am an only child, which is probably a good thing for my parents because I am sure just one of me is enough to keep them busy. I was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes when I was twelve, took four to five shots a day before I started on the pump. I love classic hymns such as A Mighty Fortress is our God and oldies rock like The Beatles. My main interests are philosophy, theology, history, literature, and playing the guitar. I am a Christian, was born into a Christian family with a Calvinistic theological perspective. I love having philosophical and theological discussions, but I mostly enjoy apologizing (making a defense) for the Christian faith not only as a legitimate worldview, but also as the worldview that matches reality the closest. That pretty much covers it; hope you enjoy reading my thoughts and perspectives. God bless.

Reformed Epistemology

For years Christian apologists have fought the good fight for the existence of God under a burden of proof given by their opponents. While creating rational defenses for the existence of God (positive apologetics) has had a rich history, it does have some weaknesses that have been exposed. The criteria that the skeptics have demanded is that in order for any belief system to be considered “rational” it must live up to the “standard” that one must have sufficient evidence before it can be justly believed. The Christian philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, has attempted to demonstrate that one does not need to “prove” God’s existence in order for that belief to be considered rational. What is the problem with positive apologetics? Alvin Plantinga (basing his work upon the writings of Herman Bavinck) gives us three reasons why natural theology simply doesn’t work:

Reason 1:Although insightful, the theistic arguments tend to presume what they attemptto prove. The proofs are claimed to lead us to God; however, these arguments do not actually lead us to the definition usually assumed of God. Perhaps they can lead us to a Prime Mover, but they certainly do not lead us to an omni-benevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-present Christian understanding of God. Most evidential arguments presume that the God of Scripture is the arrived at Prime Mover instead of proving it. Natural theology only tends to exert an influence on people who are open to believing God already. Therefore, the proofs serve to give a final push towards the direction someone is already heading, instead of overthrowing firm convictions.

Reason 2: Scripture is clear that our faith is not based on evidence, as that woulddefeat the nature of faith: Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see”. Scripture never tries to prove the God it is writing about; rather, it assumes that He is. The starting point for the Scriptures is that God exists and works from there. There are no scriptural models of rational proofs for the existence of God. Therefore, positive apologetics and natural theology is claimed by some to be technically unbiblical. Plantinga suggests that instead of basing our faith on the foundations of the naturalist’s demand for evidence, the Christian should assume that God exists and work from there. He will then seek to demonstrate that the Christian can still be rational despite a lack of “proof.”

Reason 3: Finally, Plantinga demonstrates by example that positive apologetics beingplaced under the burden of evidence is unwarranted. There are numerous examples of things we believe in without proof. For example: we have no proof the past ever existed, that there are other minds (people who think like we think), or even of an external world. These notions are presumptions of reality, despite the fact that we have no evidence for them. The skeptic answers that such beliefs are believed in simply because there is no reason to believe in any other theory(ies). However, this does not constitute evidence; these remain presuppositions. The point is that belief in these examples is not criticized for being irrational, even when there is no evidence for them. Why should the theist be considered irrational for believing in God when it meets that same level as these universally held beliefs; that is, without proof either?

As strength to one’s faith, the proofs serve a purpose; however, to base belief in God entirely upon natural proofs seems to do Him an injustice. We have a deep, personal relationship with God, one that is deeper than the relationships we have with fellow humans -- romantic or otherwise. When we consider that have no proof for the existence of other minds, perhaps there should be an insistence that we believe in our spouses on rational proofs; a rather unromantic notion. It would be rather analytic at best to believe in your wife on the basis of rational proofs. The same can be said of God. We believe in Him because He is there and we have faith that He loves us instead of believing in the cold, impersonal, deistic god that the natural “proofs” appear to yield.

Those whose faith is guided by natural proofs might find their faith (or at least as they understand their faith) threatened as “evidences” come and go, whether they are true or false. Certainly Copernicus was such a threat to one understanding of faith; evolution is also a threat to another understanding. Any theory as to the origins of the universe could threaten the faith of those who believe on the basis of proofs. And the evidences may ultimately prove false, such as the fleeting claims of spontaneous generation.

Philosophically, after Kant wrote his critiques on the Thomistic proofs generations of believers found their faith weakened and shaken because of reliance upon evidences. Plantinga argues that such reliance is unnecessary, especially in light of the overwhelming universality of the belief in God.

Calvin made an important point that humanity has within itself an innate “awareness of the divine.” God has revealed Himself in the minds of all men through nature; this revelation is repressed in man by the sensual effects of sin but remains nonetheless. Therefore, men naturally think metaphysically and towards the divine. It is simply that some people repress the revelation of God better than others.

This provides a starting point for Plantinga’s defense of the rationality of belief in God. Although we have acknowledged the problems with the classical arguments, we must continue to defend against the charge of an irrational belief system. Plantinga seeks to do this by justifying belief in God without evidence.

As background, there are two types of belief: basic belief and non-basic belief. The former is a belief that does not have another belief as its foundation. Plantinga calls such a belief as “properly basic”. The latter is a belief that rests upon other beliefs as foundational. What Plantinga will attempt to show is that belief in God can be considered to be properly basic.

Naturalists have for many years been allowed the privilege of determining the proper criteria for determining what may be considered rational. Often this takes the form of strong rationalism or strong foundationalism. Ironically, they have not had a good history of creating such criteria. None of the standards of rationality proposed to date avoid being self-contradicting. The criteria can not live up to itself. For example, criterion based upon a purely empirical standard of knowledge fails because the criterion itself cannot be empirically proven.

This begs the question: “Why must the skeptic be the only one who is qualified to create an epistemic criterion?” Plantinga denies that they should be and has offered his own.

As noted earlier, our noetic structure (the structure that contains and categorizes all of our beliefs) contain both basic and non-basic beliefs. Everyone has a noetic structure; meaning that everyone has a set of basic beliefs not founded upon any more basic belief. If basic beliefs can be legitimately presupposed, then there should be no reason why the belief in God cannot be considered to be properly basic.

However, there is an objection. On the surface it seems as though the gates would then be wide open for any system of belief whatsoever. It might be called “scientific” or “religious”, but it may just be stupidity – yet still be defended as rational. The question now that begs to be answered is: “How do we maintain the Christian belief in God without proofs and still be considered rational, all the while denying beliefs that lean towards the ridiculous?”

Famous skeptics have presented this objection using various examples. David Hume compared believing in God to believing that there is a flying tea cup orbiting Mars. Richard Dawkins popularly compared religious belief to believing in what he called the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Alvin Plantinga calls this category of objection the Great Pumpkin Objection (a reference to the Peanuts character Linus’ belief that the Great Pumpkin returns every Halloween). What is being said here is that if one may believe without proof, then any bizarre thing may be believed in!

Plantinga’s response seems to blend presuppositional apologetics with an argument from universality. The skeptics’ epistemic criterion has already been shown to be self-defeating. Do we then consider them to be irrational? No; because it perfectly within their epistemic right to have a presupposition that the universe is a closed system. Accordingly, is the Christian irrational for not having evidences by which his beliefs may be justified? No; he too is well within his epistemic right to believe in an open universe with God as its keeper. Ultimately, it becomes a question of presuppositions.

However, may then an individual who believes in the Great Pumpkin also be considered rational? The answer should be negative because a belief in a flying, sentient pumpkin lacks sufficient testimony in the human experience. The main difference between faith in God and faith in voodoo, the Great Pumpkin, the tea cup orbiting around Mars, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster is that none of these latter things are believed universally or held in common history. On the other hand, belief in deity has always existed.

Atheism occurs in individuals and is a minority opinion. No culture has ever been uncovered that had an atheistic foundation. Theism has always existed. Is the rational human being a novelty that was birthed during the Enlightenment? Should we consider a Plato or an Aristotle to be irrational for defending a belief in God? In light of anthropology and history, if anyone should answer the charge of irrationality it should be the skeptic. A popular illustration is given in this analogy: Let’s say a group of twenty people were sitting in a circle. If nineteen of those people believed that a chair was sitting in the middle of the circle, what should they think of the one who asked “what chair?”? Who should be considered irrational? The burden of proof rests with the person who does not see the chair, not the nineteen people who agree in the reality of the chair in the middle the circle. Applied to the question of belief in God, atheism has always been the minority opinion; and is in fact a relatively new and novel presupposition.

The skeptics are those who are denying the existence of the chair in a room full of those who affirm that there is a chair; and yet the gavel has been given to the skeptic to rule upon what is rational and what is gabble. The Christian should be under no such burden of proof.

Plantinga has shown that one may believe in God without fear of criticism. The skeptic has a criterion of rationality that is self-defeating; therefore, it is just as much founded on a presupposition of faith as the Christian. And here is where evidences can play a proper role. Positive apologetics do not need to be abandoned. Once belief and non-belief can be shown to be equally based upon presupposition, positive apologetics can be brought to bear to demonstrate the superiority of the Christian presupposition of belief in God. The burden is no longer under a false standard of empirical evidences but in the reasonability of the theistic explanation for reality.