Hope In The Midst Of Wrath: Promises For Outsiders In Jeremiah 46–51

By Gary E. Yates

[Gary E. Yates is Professor of Biblical Studies/Old Testament and Director of the ThM Program, Liberty University School of Divinity, Lynchburg, Virginia.]

Abstract

The promise of a future and a restoration for certain foreign nations in Jeremiah’s oracles against the nations (Jer 46–51) offers hope in the midst of oracles of devastating judgment. The promise that God would “restore the fortunes” of Moab, Ammon, and Elam matches the promise given concerning Israel’s future restoration and reflects a larger emphasis in the book of Jeremiah on the leveling of God’s treatment of Israel and the nations. This study also examines reasons for the differences concerning these promises of restoration for the nations in the Septuagint and Hebrew texts of Jeremiah and reflects on how Jeremiah’s promises of hope for these nations relate to the larger prophetic message concerning the inclusion of the nations in the blessings of Israel’s future restoration and renewal.

* * *

Amy Kalmanofsky’s study of Jeremiah’s oracles against the nations (OAN; Jer 46–51) has characterized these texts as “revenge fantasies” against Judah’s enemies.[1] God’s judgment of proud and arrogant nations, particularly his retribution against those that have inflicted harm on Judah in the Babylonian crisis, is certainly the dominant theme of these oracles. At the same time, Yahweh and his prophet weep over the destruction of the nations (Jer 48:31–32, 36). In the Hebrew Masoretic Text, Jeremiah’s OAN also contain the promise of a future for Egypt after judgment (46:26) and three times assure that the Lord will “restore the fortunes” (שׁוב שׁבות/שׁבית) of specific nations following their judgment (Moab, 48:47; Ammon, 49:6; Elam, 49:39). Lalleman states that “it is hard to find a reason for these positive endings,” and it is particularly difficult to determine why this promise is given to some of the nations and not to others.[2] This same expression (שׁוב שׁבות/שׁבית) appears in Jeremiah and other prophetic books to refer to Israel’s restoration from exile.

Significant differences exist between the versions of the book of Jeremiah reflected in the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) and the Greek Septuagint (LXX), with the Septuagint version being shorter by roughly 15% and 2,700 words.[3] Jeremiah’s OAN appear at different places in the book in the MT and LXX (after 25:13 in LXX) and also have a different order and arrangement.[4] More importantly for this study, the statement concerning Egypt’s future is not found in LXX Jeremiah, and the promise of “restored fortunes” appears in only the oracle to Elam (LXX 25:19).

This study of the promise of restoration for these nations in MT Jeremiah’s OAN seeks to accomplish three goals: (1) demonstrate how these promises reflect the larger emphasis in the book of Jeremiah on the leveling of God’s treatment of Israel/Judah and the nations; (2) explore possible reasons for the differences between MT/LXX Jeremiah and why these promises are given only to certain nations; and (3) explain how these promises fit within the larger message of Jeremiah and the prophetic books as a whole concerning the destiny of the nations and their inclusion in the blessings of Israel’s future restoration. When read canonically, these promises of restoration to specific nations in Jeremiah can be applied typologically to other nations and are understood to be contingent upon how a particular nation responds to the Lord, his word, and his saving initiatives. A vibrant understanding of the prophetic message concerning Yahweh’s redemptive concern for the nations serves as an important reminder to the church of its mandate to make disciples of all peoples and also serves as a theological corrective to the escalating ethnic and racial tensions recently dominating news here in the United States.

“Restoring The Fortunes” And The Leveling Of Israel And The Nations In Jeremiah

In MT Jeremiah, Yahweh promises to “restore the fortunes” of Ammon (48:47), Moab (49:6), and Elam (49:39) following his judgment of these nations. Of the twenty-seven uses of the expression “restore the fortunes” in the Hebrew Bible, eleven are found in the book of Jeremiah. In 29:14, the Lord promises that this restoration will involve the return of the Jews to their homeland from various places of exile. This promise prepares for the more extensive portrayal of Israel’s future restoration in the Book of Consolation in chapters 30–33. Yahweh’s promises to “restore the fortunes” of Judah/Israel frame this section (30:3; 33:26), and the expression appears a total of eight times in this section of the book (additionally in 30:18; 31:23; 32:44; 33:7, 11, 26). This cognate accusative expression (“turn a turning”) conveys the sense “to bring about a restoration.”[5] In Jeremiah 30–33, it refers to Israel’s return to the land from exile and all of the blessings that accompany the return when Yahweh rebuilds his people “as they were at first” (33:7). The Lord would bring about the repopulation of the land, the rebuilding of the cities, and the return to normal activities that would cause the nation to thrive and prosper.[6] This “restoring of fortunes” would also include Israel’s covenantal restoration to Yahweh and the spiritual transformation of the people so that the conditions leading to exile would never again have to occur (cf. 31:16–20, 31–34; 32:38–41; 33:11).[7] By using שׁוב שׁבות/שׁבית to refer to the future restoration of foreign nations, the book of Jeremiah highlights a specific correspondence between Yahweh’s treatment of his people Israel and of these nations. What this restoration would involve for these nations is not specified by covenant promises and commitments as it is for Israel, but Yahweh is committed to restoration following judgment for these people as he is for Israel.

This motif of the leveling of Israel/Judah and the nations in terms of their standing before God and the correspondence between how God treats his own people and the nations permeates the book of Jeremiah.[8] The leveling of Israel/Judah and the nations is first hinted at in the prophet’s divine appointment to be a “prophet to the nations” (1:5). His words would affect the judgment (“uproot,” נתשׁ; “break down,” נתץ; “destroy,” אבד; and “overthrow,” הרס) and salvation (“build,” בנה; “plant,” נטע) of the nations and not just Israel/Judah (v. 10). Jeremiah’s call reflects that “his ministry to Judah is to be no different from his ministry to the other nations.”[9]

In the opening indictment of Judah as Yahweh’s unfaithful wife in chapter 2, Jeremiah portrays Judah in an unfavorable light compared to the nations with the rhetorical question “Has any nation changed its gods, even though they are no gods?” and the charge that Judah is the exception to the rule in the way that they had changed “their glory for that which does not profit” (v. 11). Judah had also not merely learned idolatry from other peoples; they had become proficient in its practice. They had as many gods as they had cities (v. 28; 11:13) and were exceptionally capable in teaching their spiritually promiscuous ways to others (2:33). When calling Judah to repent of its sinful ways, Jeremiah states that their turning to Yahweh would enable the nations to “bless themselves” and “glory” in Yahweh (4:1–2). Judah’s sin was causing the nations to miss the blessings promised in the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Gen 12:3; 18:18; 22:18; 26:4).[10]

Jeremiah 9:25–26 equates Judah with the pagan nations of Egypt, Ammon, Moab, and the distant Arab tribes. Judah placed great confidence in its special status as the chosen people of Yahweh, which was evidenced by the covenantal sign of circumcision. All of these nations, however, practiced some form of circumcision as well, and the reality was that without “circumcised hearts” (4:4) and “circumcised ears” (6:10) that produced obedience to the Lord, Judah was no better off than any of these other nations.

In Jeremiah 12:14–17, the prophet warns that Yahweh would “uproot” (נתשׁ) from their lands the neighboring nations that had assaulted Judah. In the process, Yahweh would also “uproot” (נתשׁ) Judah from these nations in order to bring his people back to their land. The future of Israel, however, is only briefly mentioned here, and the surprise element is the promise of restoration for these neighboring nations. After uprooting them, Yahweh would bring them back to their lands as well. The same divine “compassion” (רחם) that would cause the Lord to restore Israel (cf. 30:18; 31:20; 33:26) would also be extended to the nations. That the Lord extends this offer to Canaanite elements who had taught Israel to worship Baal reflects the wideness of his mercy. The restoration of these nations is conditioned on their response to the Lord (12:17). They would be included among Yahweh’s people as his worshipers if they faithfully swore by his name, but if they did not “listen to/obey” him, then they would be “uprooted” (נתשׁ) and destroyed. This passage clearly teaches that Yahweh’s treatment of his own people corresponds to and is consistent with his treatment of the nations.

Jeremiah 16:11–18 is another restoration text promising a second exodus for Israel (vv. 14–15) even after Yahweh has brought the judgment of exile on his people and has sent the nations against his people to catch them like prey. Remarkably, the mention of Judah’s idolatry leads the prophet to envision a time when the nations would acknowledge Yahweh and repudiate their own trust in worthless gods. The confession of the nations is strikingly similar to the confession that Jeremiah composes in 3:22–24 for the time when Israel would acknowledge that the gods they and their “fathers” (אבות) have trusted in are a “delusion” (שׁקר). The nations turning to Yahweh in 16:19 also confess, “Our fathers [אבות] have inherited nothing but lies [שׁקר].” Their characterization of their gods as being “worthless/of no profit” (אין בם מועיל) also recalls Jeremiah’s charge that Judah had followed “worthless” deities in 2:8, 11 (לא יעל). Ironically, this confession of the nations appears in a context in which Jeremiah has made two confessions for Judah’s sins that Yahweh has rejected (cf. 14:2–12; 14:13–15:1), but ultimately both Israel and the nations would come to recognize Yahweh after rejecting their idols and false gods.

The leveling of Yahweh’s dealings with the nations and Israel is further highlighted in Jeremiah 18:7–10. This passage offers the message that emerged from Jeremiah’s first visit to the potter in verses 1–6, which deals with the fate of Judah. Just as the potter reshaped the marred clay on his wheel, Yahweh was offering Judah one final opportunity to avoid judgment by turning to him in repentance. The prophet addresses the “men of Israel” in verse 6 by asking them to reflect on the Lord’s work as the potter, but the application of this symbolic action is not restricted to Judah. Yahweh offers to relent from judgment whenever any nation turns from its sinful ways. The converse is true as well. The Lord’s promises of blessing turn into judgment when nations do what is evil. Fretheim comments, “The way in which God acts toward Israel is not unique among the nations of the world. . . . Whether it is Israel or any other people, God will turn away from a judgment word upon human repentance, just as God will turn away from a promised blessing upon rejection of a divine word.”[11] After giving this universalizing principle, the prophet returns to the Judah-specific focus of his message and calls for the Lord’s people to turn from their sinful ways (v. 11). When they respond that it is hopeless and refuse to repent, it is the nations who are then asked if they have observed anything as contrary to nature as Judah forgetting Yahweh in order to worship idols (vv. 13–17).

As Yahweh prepares and then acts to bring judgment against his unfaithful people, it becomes evident that Judah has forfeited the privileges of its status as his elect people. Although the Lord had protected and defended Jerusalem from its enemies (cf. Pss 46, 48, 76), he would now engage in holy war against the city and give the city into the hand of its attackers (Jer 21:3–10). Judah was under Babylonian hegemony like all of the nations, and the refusal of Judah’s leaders to submit to Babylon would bring about the nation’s destruction. In Jeremiah 25, the chapter summarizing the prophet’s messages of judgment in the first part of the book, the Lord announces that he will bring the Babylonian army against Judah “and all the surrounding nations” (v. 9). The placement of the oracles against the nations in LXX Jeremiah after 25:13, rather than at the end of the book as in MT Jeremiah, seems to further emphasize this connection between the judgment of Judah and the judgment of the nations. In 25:17–26, Jeremiah follows Yahweh’s command to dispense his intoxicating cup of wrath to all the nations, and the first nation on the list is Judah (v. 25). The extensive list of nations that follows in verses 17–26 indicates that Yahweh’s judgment will be “virtually worldwide.”[12] Finally, the tables will be turned, and judgment will fall on Babylon (“Sheshach”) herself for the crimes she has committed (v. 26).

In chapter 27, Jeremiah performs the sign act of wearing an animal yoke, signifying the submission of the nations to Babylon. The occasion of this message appears to have been the meeting in Jerusalem of a delegation of nations (Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon) to discuss the possibility of an anti-Babylonian coalition in 595/94 BC.[13] Jeremiah first announces to the assembled delegates the futility of resistance to Babylon, because Yahweh had granted Nebuchadnezzar as his “servant” temporary sovereignty over the nations (vv. 3–11). Any nation refusing to serve the king of Babylon would be destroyed. The leaders and peoples of these nations were not to listen to false prophets making empty promises to the contrary. This same message is then repeated to Zedekiah (vv. 12–15) and then to the priests and all of the people of Judah (vv. 16–22). Judah was to submit to the Babylonian yoke just like all other nations. Judah’s prophets encouraging resistance to Babylon or promising early release from Babylonian hegemony were as deceptive as the pagan prophets. The Lord emphatically declared that he had not sent them.

Jeremiah 26–45 contains a number of narrative accounts of Judah’s rejection of the prophetic word spoken by Jeremiah. The recurring charge is that the kings, royal officials, prophets, priests, and people of Judah did not “listen to/obey” the word of Yahweh (cf. 37:1–2). Positive responses to the prophetic word are limited, but one of those positive responses came from a Cushite palace official named Ebed-melech.[14] When the royal officials and military officers convinced Zedekiah to have Jeremiah thrown into an abandoned cistern and left to die, it was Ebed-melech who spoke up at great risk to his own safety and convinced the king to rescue the prophet (38:1–13). Consequently, Ebed-melech received from God the same promise given to Jeremiah’s faithful scribe, Baruch, that his life would be preserved and given to him “as a prize of war” (39:18; 45:5).[15] It was a serious indictment of Judah that a foreigner was more responsive to the prophetic word than the overwhelming majority of the Lord’s own people. Even the Babylonians acknowledged the truthfulness of Jeremiah’s message, and the commander Nebuzaradan spoke like a disciple of Jeremiah in his understanding of why the Babylonians took the city of Jerusalem (40:2–3). The Babylonians also released Jeremiah from the imprisonment that his own people had imposed upon him (40:4–6).

The equating of Judah and the nations reaches its culmination with the judgment of the Jews who flee to Egypt against Jeremiah’s counsel to remain in their land and submit to the Babylonians (chs. 43–44). The journey to Egypt that Jeremiah was forced to take with the Judean contingent under the military commander Johanan represents both a reversal of the Exodus that was central to how Yahweh had formed the nation of Israel and the fulfillment of the ultimate curse that Moses had warned of in Deuteronomy 28:69. The Jews in Egypt by their own words severed their covenant relationship with Yahweh. They attributed the destruction of their nation to the Yahwistic reforms of Josiah that had prevented them from carrying out their pagan rituals (Jer 44:16–19). In contrast to their protests of innocence concerning idolatrous unfaithfulness to Yahweh in Jeremiah’s opening indictment (2:23), the people defiantly declared that they would “not listen to/obey” the prophetic word (44:16) and that they would carry out their vows to make offerings to the pagan gods (44:17, 25–26). There was nothing left but for the Lord to disavow his relationship with this idolatrous segment of his people (44:11–14, 26–29). The Lord would hand over the Egyptian Pharaoh Hophra to Nebuchadnezzar just as he had done with Zedekiah (44:30), meaning that flight to Egypt provided no escape from divine judgment for these rebellious Jewish refugees.

The leveling of Israel with the nations is especially pronounced in Jeremiah’s OAN. Like Zion, various nations are referred to as “daughter” (46:11, 24; 49:4; 50:42; 51:33), indicating some type of relationship with Yahweh and his concern for them even as he brings judgment upon them.[16] Lee notes the following correspondences between the judgments of Judah and the nations:

1. Judah and these nations experience exile (13:19; cf. 46:19, 26; 48:9; 49:3, 19–21).
2. Nebuchadnezzar is the primary agent of judgment for Judah and these nations (21:2; cf. 46:2; 49:28, 36).
3. The pain of Judah and these nations is like that of a woman in labor (4:31; 13:21–22; 30:6; cf. 48:40–41; 49:22, 24; 50:43).
4. The lands of Judah and these nations are turned into a “waste” (שׁמה) (2:15; 4:7; 25:11; cf. 48:9; 49:13, 17; 50:3, 23; 51:29, 37, 41).
5. Yahweh weeps and mourns over the destruction caused by the judgment meted out against Judah and these nations (9:10; 14:17–18; cf. 48:31).[17]

Other correspondences include that: (1) both Judah and Egypt would experience “terror on every side” (מגוֹר מסביב) (6:25; 46:5); (2) both Judah and Babylon would become a “haunt of jackals” (9:10; 51:3); and (3) both Judah and Moab would experience “great destruction” (שׁבר גדוֹל) (4:6; 48:3).[18] There would be no “healing” (רפא) or “balm” (צרי) for the incurable wounds of Judah, Egypt, and Babylon (8:22; 10:19; 30:13; 46:11; 51:8–9). The oracle containing the first reference to Daughter Babylon in 50:41–43 duplicates the earlier message against Daughter Zion in 6:22–24. An oracle describing the impending defeat of Babylon in 51:27–33 also recalls earlier warnings of a military assault on Judah and Jerusalem.[19]

Critical scholarship has tended to view the promises of restoration for the nations in Jeremiah’s OAN as secondary additions from the Persian period.[20] Nevertheless, the correspondence of God’s treatment of Israel/Judah and the nations throughout the book of Jeremiah suggests that these prophecies were original to Jeremiah himself.[21] The book of Jeremiah opens with the appointment of Jeremiah to bring judgment and salvation to “nations and kingdoms” (1:10), so it is only natural that the promises concerning the restoration of Israel in the final section of the book (46:27; 49:2; 50:4–5, 19, 28, 34; 51:10) should produce corresponding promises of restoration for the nations. Lee notes, “As both Judah and the nations suffer through the pains of destruction and exile, so they shall also come to rejoice in the blessings of the Lord.”[22]

The placement of the oracle against Babylon in chapters 50–51 in MT Jeremiah would also enhance the significance of the restoration promises to the other nations in chapters 46–49. In LXX Jeremiah, the oracle against Babylon is in the third position of the nine OAN, but it has the ninth and final position in MT Jeremiah. In light of the overall correspondence between the experiences of Israel/Judah and the nations, the judgment of Babylon that offers hope for Israel’s future restoration (50:4–5, 19, 28, 33–34; 51:24, 35–36, 50–51) seems to offer the same possibility of a more permanent restoration for the nations. Additionally, MT Jeremiah 25:18–25 (material immediately following the OAN in LXX Jeremiah) reflects the following order of judgment for the nations as they drink the cup of Yahweh’s wrath: Judah (25:18), the nations (25:19–25), and finally Babylon (25:26).[23] The statement concerning Babylon (referred to by the cryptic name Sheshach) in 25:26 of MT Jeremiah does not appear in LXX Jeremiah. In MT Jeremiah, the judgment of Babylon serves as the turning of the tables that would enable the return and restoration of Israel. As Stulman explains, “Yahweh must take drastic measures. To expedite justice and to liberate Judah (50:8–10), Yahweh must dispose of proud Babylon and its belligerent ruler once and for all.”[24] In light of how the fate of Judah is tied with that of other nations in Jeremiah, the fall of Babylon seems to offer to these nations the possibility of lasting restoration as well. McConville states that there is “a satisfying symmetry in the involvement of the nations with Judah in her redemption, following their involvement with her in her discomfiture at Babylon’s hands.”[25]

“Restoring The Fortunes”: Accounting For The Differences In MT/LXX Jeremiah

As already noted, the promise concerning the future of Egypt in MT Jeremiah (46:26) does not appear in the LXX, and MT Jeremiah contains three promises that Yahweh would “restore the fortunes” of Ammon, Moab, and Elam (48:47; 49:6, 39), while the LXX speaks only of the restoration of Elam (25:19). While one could posit a random expansion or perhaps an expansion to reflect later historical realities, there seems to be a more viable theological explanation for the differences between LXX and MT Jeremiah. If the consensus view is correct that LXX Jeremiah is the earlier version of these OAN, then the most plausible explanation for the additional restoration promises in MT Jeremiah is that the promise to Elam in the LXX was read typologically so that what was true of this one nation was applied to others.[26] One key feature that the nations of Egypt, Ammon, and Moab, which were promised restoration, seem to share with Israel is that all of them experienced exile (cf. 46:19; 48:7, 11, 46; 49:3).[27] Yahweh also stated that he would bring upon Elam “the four winds” and that he would “scatter them to all those winds, and there shall be no nation to which those driven out of Elam shall not come” (49:36). Thus, the promise of restoration to these specific nations provides another example of correspondence with the experiences of Israel/Judah. Allen explains, “For Judah, the judgment of deportation was the necessary condition of restoration, and so it would be for these nations.”[28]

In the Jeremiah tradition, the promise of Elam’s restoration is typologically applied to Moab and Ammon. Similarly, the judgment and salvation of the nations in Jeremiah’s OAN can be typologically applied to all nations. The historical nations from the days of the prophets serve as archetypes of how God relates to all nations. In this way, prophetic oracles concerning ancient nations in geographical proximity to ancient Israel have contemporary relevance and application because they reflect how and why God judges and blesses all nations and peoples.[29] The promise of restoration for Elam, Moab, and Ammon in Jeremiah’s OAN is thus representative and typological of how God judges and saves the nations in the same way that he judges and saves his own people Israel.

The variation between nations promised restoration and those that are not in Jeremiah’s OAN may simply reflect the reality that God’s dealings with the nations “are not uniform” and that “each one is treated on an individual basis.”[30] The variation in the occurrence of the restoration formula in LXX/MT Jeremiah further suggests that the primary purpose of these promises was not to make explicit predictions of a future for some nations (and not for others). Dearman explains that the oracles concerning specific nations in the prophets “are not to be read as blueprints for international events to come in the late seventh/early sixth centuries B.C. any more than they are to be read as blueprints for the twenty-first century A.D.”[31] Jeremiah’s OAN announced that Yahweh would use Babylon to judge Judah and the nations and that he would also judge the nations in bringing about Israel’s restoration. Yahweh certainly could make an end of all nations and would do whatever was necessary to restore his people Israel, but the larger message of Jeremiah reflects that any nation could avoid judgment if exhibiting genuine repentance and faith (cf. Jer 12:14–17; 16:19–20; 18:7–10).[32] Goldingay notes, “Yhwh can speak as if the nations’ fate is sealed, but actually, like Israel’s, the nations’ destiny depends on the choices they make.”[33] Ultimately, the manner in which the prophets envision both judgment and salvation for individual nations facilitates in part the transition to the new covenant era in which the people of God is not a national entity but rather consists of individuals from among the nations who respond in repentance and faith to the gospel.[34]

Jeremiah’s Message For The Nations And The Prophetic Canon

Even if Jeremiah’s original prophecies of continued existence and “restored fortunes” for Egypt, Moab, Ammon, and Elam were short-term in focus and implied nothing more than continued existence beyond their decimation at the hands of Babylon, these promises imply the possibility of something more in their present literary context in MT Jeremiah and the larger prophetic canon.[35] These promises have become a part of the larger “words of Jeremiah” (1:1) and should be read in light of the more expansive promises concerning the inclusion of the nations in the blessings of Israel’s future restoration (cf. 3:17; 4:2; 12:14–17; 18:7–8).

The correspondence of God’s dealings with Israel and the nations reflected in Jeremiah is also prominent in texts throughout the prophetic corpus dealing with the repentance and restoration of the nations. Both the pagan sailors in Jonah 1 and the Ninevites in Jonah 3 are responsive to Yahweh’s prophet in ways that are generally not true of Israel and Judah at large.[36] The sailors could respond to Yahweh in the same manner as faithful Israelites in their confession of his sovereignty (Jonah 1:14; cf. Pss 115:3; 135:6) and in their offering of sacrifices and making of vows (Jonah 1:16; cf. Ps 66:13–16). The manner in which God relents (נחם) in response to the “turning” (שׁוב) of the Ninevites reflects the working out of the principle of Jeremiah 18:7–10 that had not elicited a positive response from Jeremiah’s audience.[37] Within the Book of the Twelve, the Ninevites with their fasting and prayers in Jonah 3:5–10 make the kind of response to Yahweh that was expected of Judah by the prophet Joel (cf. Joel 2:12–17).[38] Despite their less-than-perfect response, Goswell argues that the repentance of the Ninevites in Jonah 3 “anticipates the end-time salvation of the nations.”[39]

Numerous prophetic texts anticipate the future restoration and repentance of the nations. Nations will be a part of the people of God and will even join themselves to the people and tribes of Israel (Isa 19:18–25; Zech 2:11; 9:7). Cultic worship of Yahweh will occur outside the land of Israel (Isa 18:18, 21; Mal 1:11).[40] The nations will also make pilgrimage to worship Yahweh at Zion along with the people of Israel (Isa 2:2–4; 56:3–7; Mic 4:1–4; Zech 8:20–23; 14:16). Yawheh will show grace to the surviving “remnants” (שׁאר/שׁארית) of various peoples (Amos 9:12; Zech 9:7; 14:7).

In the same way that Yahweh’s saving initiatives would prompt and accompany Israel’s final restoration, he would also act to prompt repentance and spiritual transformation among the nations. Yahweh would make himself known to the Egyptians so that they would worship him (Isa 19:21). The Egyptians would have their own Exodus-like experience when Yahweh provided a savior to deliver them from their oppressors (19:20) and when he “struck” (נגע) them in a positive way as a reversal of the judgments of the plagues (19:22). He would “heal” Egypt just as he would Israel (Hos 14:4; Jer 30:17; 33:6).[41] Yahweh would purify the speech of the peoples (perhaps a reversal of Babel) so that they would “call upon the name of Yahweh” (Zeph 3:9), the same effect of Yahweh pouring out his Spirit on all of the people of Israel in Joel 2:28–32.[42] The Lord’s judgments would have the same purging effect on the “remnant” of the nations as upon the purified remnant of Israel that would emerge in Israel’s future restoration (Zech 9:7; 14:7). Despite these divine initiatives, a contrast still remains even in eschatological texts between nations that go up to Zion to worship Yahweh and those that refuse to submit to him (cf. Isa 66:18–24; Ezek 44:6–9; Zech 14:6–9). As Allen notes, even with the future restoration of Israel and the nations, there is “an open-ended human accountability” that “presents a disturbing conclusion” to the working out of salvation history.[43]

Conclusion

The limited hope for the nations expressed in the restoration promises of Jeremiah’s OAN is expanded in the book of Jeremiah and the larger prophetic canon. The book of Jeremiah makes a significant contribution to the growing awareness in the prophetic literature that Yahweh’s relationship with the nations corresponds to his relationship with the people of Israel. Jeremiah’s promise that God would “restore the fortunes” of foreign nations offers hope in the midst of judgment and reflects that the goal of salvation history is the formation of the people of God “from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages” (Rev 7:9).

Notes

1. Amy Kalmanofsky, “ ‘As She Did, Do to Her!’: Jeremiah’s OAN as Revenge Fantasies,” in Concerning the Nations: Essays on the Oracles against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies, ed. A. Mein, E. K. Holt, and H. C. P. Kim (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016), 109–27.
2. Hetty Lalleman, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, new ed. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2013), 56.
3. The approach taken here is to see both LXX and MT Jeremiah as “canonical texts,” with MT Jeremiah simply containing a fuller reflection on the message and ministry of Jeremiah. Regarding the expansionistic tendencies of MT Jeremiah in general and the likelihood that LXX Jeremiah reflects an earlier stage of the textual tradition of the book, see J. Gerald Jansen, Studies in the Text of Jeremiah, Harvard Semitic Monographs (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973); and Emmanuel Tov, “Some Aspects of the Textual and Literary History of the Book of Jeremiah,” in Livre de Jérémie: Le prophète et son milieu, les oracles et leur transmission, ed. P.-M. Bogaert, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (Leuven: Peeters, 1981), 145–67. No arguments prohibit seeing most of the material in both versions as originating from Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch, even if redactional activity continued for a significant time after the prophet’s death. See further, Tremper Longman III and Raymond B. Dillard, An Introduction to the Old Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 330–31; Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 1–20: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 92–101; and John Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 33–50.
4. The order of the OAN in LXX Jeremiah is as follows: Elam, Egypt, Babylon, Philistia, Edom, Ammon, Kedar, Damascus, and Moab. In contrast, the order found in MT Jeremiah is: Egypt (ch. 46), Philistia (ch. 47), Moab (ch. 48), Ammon (49:1–6), Edom (49:7–22), Damascus (49:23–27), Kedar and Hazor (49:28–33), Elam (49:34–39), and Babylon (chs. 50–51). On the reasons for seeing the placement and order of the OAN in LXX Jeremiah as reflecting an earlier tradition than MT Jeremiah, see Kwon Moon Chae, “Redactional Intentions of MT Jeremiah Concerning the Oracles against the Nations,” Journal of Biblical Literature 134 (2015): 577–93. The placement of the OAN between LXX Jeremiah 25:15 and 32:1 provides the more likely context for the OAN in that they occur before and after passages dealing with Yahweh’s judgment of the nations (25:1–13: a judgment oracle against Jerusalem and the nations; and 32:1–24 [MT Jer 25:15–38] portraying the cup of Yahweh’s wrath against the nations). The placement of the OAN in the middle of the book also corresponds to their placement in Isaiah (chs. 13–23) and Ezekiel (chs. 25–32). Regarding the order of the individual oracles, the LXX arrangement seems earlier in that it is more difficult to explain, while the MT oracles are arranged in a roughly geographical order and generally correspond to the order of the nations in the cup of wrath oracle that follows in MT Jeremiah 25:15–38.
5. J. A. Thompson and Elmer A Martens, “שׁוּב,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 4:58–59. See also William L. Holladay, Jeremiah 2: A Commentary on the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah Chapters 26–52, Hermeneia (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989), 142. The corresponding Aramaic expression השׁבשׁיבת in the Sefire Treaty (3.24) has the meaning of “render a restoration,” referring to the giving back of lost property. The KJV and earlier commentators connected שׁבות/שׁבית with the noun for “captivity.”
6. The majority of the uses of this expression in the Old Testament refer to the restoration of Israel/Judah from the conditions of exile (cf. Lam 2; 14; Ezek 39:25; Hos 6:11; Joel 3:1; Amos 9:14; Zeph 2:7; 3:20). Holladay (Jeremiah 2, 142) notes that the occurrence of the phrase in Hosea 6:11 indicates that “there is no reason why Jrm cannot have used it” (Amos 9:14 is generally viewed as a later redactional addition). In Pss 85:2; 126:1–4, Yahweh’s past acts of “restoring the fortunes” of his people are the basis for present petitions that he now do the same. The use of “restore the fortunes” in Job 42:10 helps to demonstrate its meaning in that it refers to the restoration of the wealth, status, and family that Job had lost as a result of the calamities that had come into his life.
7. Thompson and Martens, “שוּב,” 4:59. For the restoration of Israel as a continuing and future hope in the New Testament, see Luke 1:54–55; 21:24; Acts 3:17–26; Romans 9–11 (esp. 9:4–5; 11:12, 24–31). For discussion of this hope, see Gerald R. McDermott, ed., The New Christian Zionism: Fresh Perspectives on Israel and the Land (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2016), 79–196; Darrell L. Bock and Mitch Glaser, eds., The People, the Land, and the Future of Israel: Israel and the Jewish People in the Plan of God (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2014), 87–149; Richard Bauckham, “The Restoration of Israel in Luke-Acts,” in The Jewish World around the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2008), 325–70.
8. Kevin J. Youngblood, “Beyond Deuteronomism: Jeremiah’s Unique Theological Contribution” (paper presented at Lipscomb University, 2009), 6–14.
9. Ibid., 6.
10. Christopher J. H. Wright, The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2006), 240–41.
11. Terence E. Fretheim, Jeremiah, Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary (Macon, GA: Smyth & Helwys, 2002), 272.
12. Robert B. Chisholm Jr., Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002),186.
13. Steven Voth, “Jeremiah,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, vol. 4 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 294.
14. For a more extended discussion of the significance of this figure, see J. Daniel Hays, From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race, New Studies in Biblical Theology (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2003), 130–38.
15. Ibid., 137. Hays further suggests that Ebed-melech can possibly be viewed as a representative figure for “the Black nation of Cush” or even “all Black Africa” and “all Gentiles who trust in God.”
16. John Goldingay, Old Testament Theology 2: Israel’s Faith (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2006), 827.
17. Peter Y. Lee, “Jeremiah,” in A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the Old Testament: The Gospel Promised, ed. Miles V. Van Pelt (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 298.
18. Kalmanofsky, “ ‘As She Did, Do to Her!,’ ” 114.
19. The blowing of the “trumpet” (שׁוֹפר, 4:5, 19, 21; 6:1), raising of the “standard” (נס, 4:6), and the call for the troops “to consecrate/prepare” (קדשׁו, 6:4) themselves for war against Babylon previously sounded the call for an attack on Judah. According to 51:29, the land would “quake” (רעשׁ, cf. 4:24; 8:16; 10:10; 49:21) and “tremble” (חול, cf. 23:19; 30:23) during the siege of Babylon, as it did when Yahweh led his armies against Judah.
20. See W. Rudolph, Jeremia, Handbuch zum Alten Testament (Tübingen: Mohr, 1947), 249, 255, 280, 282; Robert P. Carroll, Jeremiah: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986), 793; Ronald E. Clements, Jeremiah, Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1989), 255–56; and William McKane, Jeremiah 2:26–52, International Critical Commentary (New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2000), 1200–1, 1212, 1248. These expanded promises are viewed as either affirming a more universalistic perspective or trying to account for why these nations still existed.
21. Thompson states that these promises of restoration are not developed enough in Jeremiah to provide clear evidence as to when or how they might have originated (The Book of Jeremiah, 729). J. G. McConville argues that “there is no compelling reason” for denying these promises of restoration to the original OAN in Jeremiah’s preaching, because the promise of Elam’s restoration appears in both the LXX (25:19) and MT (40:39) versions of Jeremiah and because of the more general promises of restoration and blessing for the nations in Jeremiah (cf. 3:17; 12:15–16; 16:19). He further notes that similar surprise elements appear in other prophetic OAN (as in Amos 1–2). J. G. McConville, Judgment and Promise: An Interpretation of the Book of Jeremiah (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1993), 145. Lundbom notes that the promises for the nations are generally viewed as add-ons, but he argues that they may represent genuine prophecies of Jeremiah in light of the fact that Mesopotamian city laments often contain a word about the city’s future restoration. Jack R. Lundbom, Jeremiah 37–52, Anchor Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 226, 311, 324, 363.
22. Lee, “Jeremiah,” 299.
23. Chae, “Redactional Intentions of MT Jeremiah,” 591. The statement concerning Babylon in 25:26 of MT Jeremiah does not appear in LXX Jeremiah. “Sheshach” also appears as a term for Babylon in MT Jeremiah 51:46, a verse which also does not appear in LXX. The use of “Sheshach” for Babylon is a type of code called “atbash,” which interchanges corresponding letters in the Hebrew alphabet by reading the alphabet in reverse order. See Voth, “Jeremiah,” 292.
24. Louis Stulman, Jeremiah, Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries (Nashville: Abingdon, 2005), 351.
25. McConville, Judgment and Promise, 145.
26. Leslie C. Allen, Jeremiah: A Commentary, Old Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008), 468, 501–2. Allen further notes that without this explanation, it is “otherwise strange” that this promise of restoration would be given only to this distant people (501). The promise concerning Egypt in MT Jeremiah 46:26 was likely generated by the promise to Israel in 46:27, though its omission in the LXX could possibly be explained by homoioarkton caused by the repetition of waw with ואחרי-כן and ואתה at the beginning of 46:27.
27. Ibid., 468.
28. Ibid.
29. In the prophetic oracle of Isaiah 19:18–25, promising that Egypt, Assyria, and Israel would be united as the three peoples of God in the era of restoration, Egypt and Assyria, as contemporary major powers represent the powerful nations that will submit to God in the eschatological kingdom (cf. Isa 2:2–4). See Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets, 59. Chisholm provides a similar reading of the prophecy of Sodom’s restoration in Ezekiel 16:50–55 and views long-destroyed Samaria as typological and representative of other sinful nations and peoples that would be included in the blessings of Israel’s restoration (252). The archetypal role of historical nations is also reflected in prophetic judgment oracles. Isaiah 24–27 (the Little Apocalypse) focuses on the final judgment of all the earth (24:1–5), and the judgment of Moab’s pride in 25:10–12 becomes representative of God’s judgment of all proud nations (cf. 2:11–22). Edom, because of its proximity to Israel and its long history of conflict with Israel and Judah, often assumes the role of archetypal representative for the eschatological enemies of God and his people (cf. 34; 63:1–6; Ezek 35; Obad 10–18). Shalom Paul even notes that Edom is identified with the Roman Empire in later rabbinical literature. Shalom Paul, Isaiah 40–66: Translation and Commentary, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2012), 561.
30. Julie Woods, Jeremiah 48 as Christian Scripture, Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011), 48–49.
31. J. Andrew Dearman, Jeremiah and Lamentations, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 373.
32. Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 2:818–20.
33. Ibid., 2:818–19.
34. While personal response to the gospel is the basis of an individual’s relationship with God, the permanence of the Noahic covenant and its restraints on bloodshed and violence also mandate continuing and even eschatological judgment of the nations of the earth (cf. Gen 9:5–11; Isa 24:1–5). For fuller discussion of the theological significance of the Noahic covenant, see Jeffrey J. Niehaus, Biblical Theology, vol. 1, The Common Grace Covenants (Wooster, OH: Weaver, 2014), 185–246.
35. The prophecy concerning Tyre in Isaiah 23:17–18 is an explicit example of such a short-term restoration promise. Tyre would be restored from a time of military setback “after seventy years” and would immediately return to its former ways.
36. Daniel C. Timmer, “The Twelve,” in A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the Old Testament: The Gospel Promised, ed. Miles V. Van Pelt (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 333.
37. See Gary E. Yates, “The ‘Weeping Prophet’ and ‘Pouting Prophet’ in Dialogue: Intertextual Connections between Jeremiah and Jonah,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 59 (2016): 227–28.
38. For a listing of the parallels between the two texts, see Richard Alan Fuhr and Gary E. Yates, The Message of the Twelve: Hearing the Voice of the Minor Prophets (Nashville: B&H, 2016), 50.
39. Gregory Goswell, “Jonah among the Twelve Prophets,” Journal of Biblical Literature 135 (2016): 293.
40. Contrast 2 Kings 5:17–18, where Naaman requests that he be given loads of dirt from the land of Israel so that he can present burnt offerings to Yahweh in his land.
41. For further discussion of Yahweh’s transformative work on behalf of Egypt in this passage, see Goldingay, Old Testament Theology, 2:827–28.
42. Timmer notes conceptual parallels to Isaiah 6:5, where Yahweh cleanses Isaiah’s lips with the burning coal from the altar, and Hosea 2:17, where Yahweh promises to remove the name of Baal from Israel’s lips (“The Twelve,” 337).
43. Allen, Jeremiah, 155.