Temptation & Testing, Promise & Fulfillment
                                                   - Harvie M. Conn & Manuel Ortiz

HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER ITS EARLY HISTORY, Babel the city had become Babylon the urban empire. The independent city had become a conquering political network of urban centers. Its long succession of rulers had carried out a policy of deliberate urbanization. Throughout their territories, cities had become for the Babylonians the instruments of administration and defense, and for their subjugated peoples the symbols of oppression and lost hopes.
To the Israelites now living in this urban diaspora God, through the prophet Jeremiah, outlined a different and surprising mission. "Seek the peace and the prosperity of the city to which I have called you into exile. Pray to the LORD for it, because if it prospers, you too will prosper" Ger 29:7).
False prophets had encouraged the exiles to see their captivity as temporary and to expect a quick deliverance Ger 29:8). Now the prophet gives them a new perspective on their exile and their mission among the Gen- tiles. Their seventy-year wait was to be more than a delay frustrated by false confidence Ger 29: 1 0). They were to seek the blessing, not the destruction of their enemies. God was calling them to be salt and light in the world of their oppressors.
Such seeking was to be more than a state of mind. It meant practicing what was promoted. To seek justice meant to do justice, to practice justice (Is 16:5). To seek the peace and good of the city meant to spend one's energies and activity in praying for its peace and blessing it by the doing of good works. Urban refugees were to be urban public benefactors.
God's promised blessing to the pilgrim from Ur was to be fulfilled again through the pilgrims in Babylon's cities: "all peoples on earth will be blessed through you" (Gen 12:3). And the focus of that blessing was to be the cities that barred their way home.
In this mission the exiles would be reminded again that their identity as the people of God was not dependent on those things they had seen as crucial in their past. The inviolability of Jerusalem Ger 26:6), the temple and its rituals Ger 7:4; 27: 16-1 7) were trappings that could disappear. But God's presence would accompany people faithful to his covenant, who- ever they might be and wherever they might gather to celebrate his grace.
Israel would one day return to the city of God, but not alone. With it would also come the Gentile nations "from the ends of the earth" Ger 16: 19). Partners in repentance, they too would be blessed by God as they gloried in him Ger 4:2). In the urban renewal work of the new covenant the foreigner also would serve the Lord as God and David as the restored king Ger 30:9). What had been the center of Jewish hopes would become a multinational gathering place for the tribute of the earth.
How did Israel move from exile in Egypt to exile in Babylon? How do we explain what seems to be a shift from God's particular love of Israel in the Torah to his universal concern for the world reflected in the prophets? How are these emphases in God's urban mission reflected in the urban mission of the people of God?

God's Urban Commission Unfulfilled
The connections between the exodus and the exile are rooted in Israel's response to the temptations of urban life in the Promised Land and to their understanding of Yahweh as their exclusive monarch and divine warrior. "If the Exodus shows God's power on behalf of Israel, the Exile displays God's power against Israel. The Exodus is an expression of God's grace; the Exile displays his judgment. In the Exodus event we witness God as Israel's warrior; in the Exile, he is Israel's enemy" (Longman and Reid 1995:52).
The exodus was a call to shape a new people marked by the holiness of God in their cities. The exile was God's response to their failure to dis- play that urban holiness. The exodus history placed the redeeming God in Israel's midst to be its city security (Ps 46:4-7). The exile marked God's departure from an apostate people who presumed on that presence Ger 7:4-7). The exodus redemption was the foundation for the planning and raising of the tabernacle (Ex 25-40), the tent dwelling place of the Lord (EX 40:34-38). In the exile judgment God's glory abandoned his city/temple (Ezek 9:3; 10:18; 11:23).
How do we explain these changes?
Israel's quest for a king. Before entry to the Promised Land, the
establishment of a monarchy in Israel had received divine sanction as permissible (Deut 17: 14). Depending on the kind of monarchy and socio-religious system that emerged, it would not be a threat to the theocratic rule of Yahweh. "If the king conformed to the spirit of the present provision, ruling under Jahweh and by the covenant law, he would actually enrich the Old Testament's symbolic prefiguration of the messianic reign" (Kline 1963b:97). .
To do so, the king was to be "one from among your own brothers" (Deut 17: 15). The issue was not pure blood or tribal connection; the king had to be one who would lead in servant loyalty to covenant. He was to be steeped in the Torah, a vassal not above the law of Yahweh but subject to it like others (Deut 17: 18-20). In his rule he was to exemplify it.
Unlike the city-state monarchies that Israel would encounter soon, the normal guarantees of royal power and self-reliance were to be avoided- the multiplication of horses, wives and wealth (Deut 17: 16-17). Lust for Pharaoh's famed horses and chariots (I Kings 10:28-29; Is 30:2) meant lustful reliance on military and political strength; Israel's reliance must remain on the Lord.
Proscription of the multiplication of wives was more than a judgment on sexual self-indulgence. Royal multiple marriages were political ploys, aimed at gaining security in a reliable social network of alliances. Solomon's fall would exemplify this (1 Kings 11: 1-6). The prohibition of wealth and gold alluded to the same temptation to self-security, the nor- mal way of being king among Israel's urban neighbors.
The path to monarchy was not a smooth one nor always faithfully followed by Israel. The jubilant keynote of the book of Joshua is its focus on the fulfillment of God's promise to give his people the land. As noted already, "the land" is defined in terms of the cities and their kings given to Israel in the "holy wars" of the conquering Yahweh. Jericho, Ai, the battle with the five kings of the Amorite cities Gosh 10: 1-28) are exemplars of gifts won by the divine warrior. Later, the book of Acts in the New Testament shows a similar pattern of conquest as the word of God continues its growing spread through the cities of the world (Acts 6:7; 9:31; 12:24; 16:5; 19:20; 28:31).
But the Promised Land's conquest was not complete, contrary to the
command of God (Deut 7:1-5; 20:16-18; 25:17-19). There were lands and cities yet to be possessed and occupied (Josh 13:1-7, 13; 15:53; 16:10; 17: 12). The same pattern continued following the death of Joshua, particularly among the tribes whose assigned territory was the north (Judg 1:22-36). Strategic urban centers like the Esdraelon valley and its cities (Judg 1:27-28), Gezer (Judg 1 :29), the cities of the northern plain (Judg 1 :31) and Jerusalem (Judg 1 :21) were unoccupied. The tribe of Dan was completely dispossessed (Judg 1:34).
In the religious and social order of those unoccupied cities, predicted the Lord, was Israel's temptation: "they will teach you to follow al1 the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the LORD your God" (Deut 20: 18). Idolatry with Canaan's fertility gods, intermarriage and violent injustice would accelerate the Canaanization of Israel's worship and life (Ps 106:34-40).
That temptation appeared early in Israel's conquest history. The lure of wealth and the taking of booty for victories won was a pattern of long standing in the city-states of the ancient Near East. Achan at Jericho (Josh 7: 1) yielded to it in violation of the covenant ban on the city (Josh 6:21). He had forgotten that the victory was won by God, not Israel. Later Saul, the first king of Israel, would forget it as well. Taking the flocks of the Amalekites as plunder and sparing their king, Agag (1 Sam 15:7-26), would seal Saul's doom as king.
In the book of judges, however, Israel's departure from covenant becomes even more apparent in the disunity of the tribes. "At no point were more than six tribes (Judg 5: 14-18) united to stave off an aggressor; usual1y one or two tribes were left to defend themselves as best they could" (Cundal1 1969-1970: 179).
Archaeological studies are apparently now going through a radical reexamination of earlier models. This, coupled with meager information from this period, makes research conclusions much more tentative than in the past O. Flanagan 1988:46, 112-16). But even the more skeptical studies of Canaanite society point to extrabiblical similarities that strongly paral1el Israel's disunity within its covenant structure.
The Amarna Letters portray Canaan between 1550 and 1200 B.C. "as a time of chaos, dissension, and selfish competition among heads of city- states vying for their own survival and the economic resources of their closest neighbors. Town is pitted against town, neighbor against neighbor. Tributes of agricultural products, trade taxes, women, and slave labor increase" a. Flanagan 1988: 193). Regional independence and autonomy become instability, disruption and expansionist aggression. Political and social systems are legitimized by belief in the divine right of local power. The resemblances with Israel during the time of the judges are too striking to be simply coincidence. Was syncretism affecting the people of God?
surely it shows its face at the Baal shrine of Gideon's father (Judg 6: 12) and in Gideon's action in making an ephod that led the people astray (Judg 8:27). Jephthah's rash vow that led to the sacrifice of his own daughter (Judg 11 :30-31) and the frailty of Nazirite 5amson's commitment to his vows point in the same direction.
The closing five chapters of judges underline this near anarchy of the premonarchy period. Before the narrative of its two stories concludes, we have observed a breakdown of religious and social life and witness. The breakdown begins with idolatry (Judg 17:3-5) and moves on to include priestly irregularities (Judg 17: 1 0-13), syncretism (Judg 18: 17-26,30-31) and lawlessness (Judg 18:27-28), a col1apse of the social code reminiscent of the history of Sodom and Gomorrah (Judg 19), brutality (Judg 19:29-30), and intertribal warfare (Judg 21). Al1 of this within Israel itself! Linking these narratives is the plaintive repeated commentary "In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit" (Judg 17 :6; 18: 1; 19: 1; 21:25).
Evangelical scholarship still wrestles with the specific purpose behind these judgments and with the exact time they were written. Is the author constructing an apologetic for the Davidic monarchy (Cundall 1969- 1970: 178-81)? Is he reminding his people at some later date that the covenant ideal of Israel had been preserved through this period in spite of Israel (Dumbrel1 1983:30-32)?
Perhaps these two answers are not too divergent. Yahweh, the architect and achiever of Israel's victories, still displays his grace as he hears the cries of his oppressed people. He delivers them again and again through the judges. In spite of Israel's repeated covenant disobedience, the nation survives because of the mercy of God. And against that record of her disunity and apostasy, the Davidic monarchy comes as a model of God's continuing grace to his people.
Royal quest fulfilled in city and temple. Particularly in the rule of David the earlier metaphors of kingdom and covenant-mountain, city and house-come together. With David's enthronement the urban "house of the LORD" (PS 122: 1, 9) becomes the dynastic "house of David" (Ps 122:5; 2 Sam 7:5-12). The path along which God's covenant of grace has led Israel through the years takes us to the establishment of the throne of David (Ps 78:67-72). Unlike his judgment on Saul (1 Sam 13:13; 15:22-23), Yahweh will deal in unfailing mercy with David's house and kingdom (2 Sam 7:16).
Paral1el to that theme of God's choice of David as his anointed is his choice of Zion as his sanctuary (Ps 132:11-18; Is 14:32). The Lord, through his servant David, had completed the conquest of the urban enemies. And to the city David had brought the ark of the covenant, the symbol of God's deliverance from Egypt and his presence among his people. The divine warrior had come to "his dwelling place in Zion. There he broke the flashing arrows, the shields and the swords, the weapons of war" (Ps 76:1-2). Now that victorious warrior would make great the name of its human builder (2 Sam. 7:9).
Jerusalem as a royal centerpiece thus becomes a unique sign, a witness to Yahweh's work of gracious adoption. The city's pagan origins were never forgotten. Like an unwanted child aborted and abandoned, she lay dying in her own blood until the Lord came and called, "Live!" (Ezek 16:3-6). Naked, she was covered by God her lover (Ezek 16:7-9).
Jerusalem stood as a covenant testimony to the cities of the world of the unity and peace of God
(ps 122:6-9). lts past was marked by that unity. The writer of the royal history saw this. Immediately following his description of the coming together of all the tribes with Judah under David's rule (2 Sam 5: 1-5), he narrates the history of David's seizure of Jerusalem from the Jebusites (2 Sam 5:6-10).
At the core of that unity and peace was to be a centralization of worship. The portable tabernacle shrine of the wilderness wandering was to disappear when God chose one place in which to dwell (Deut 12:5). No longer would "everyone [do] as they saw fit" in any place they happened to be (Deut 12:8-14). The extended description of the construction of the temple (1 Kings 6-7) thus becomes a central focus in the building pro- gram of Solomon. It is not a blueprint for construction nor, as in the shrine cities of the ancient Near East, some localization of God's presence (1 Kings 8:22). The text is careful to point out that Yahweh's true dwelling place is heaven (1 Kings 8:30, 43, 49). The temple is to be a witness to God in stone, bronze and gold of his covenant faithfulness (1 Kings 8:22- 26), of his promise of forgiveness and mercy for the repentant and oppressed (1 Kings 8:29-40). And it is to be a witness to the nations of that same divine salvation. Solomon prays that the awe of its glory and grandeur will bring more than Israelites to worship. It is to be a missionary incentive that will draw one day "all the peoples of the earth" (1 Kings 8:41-43).
In addition to this covenant primacy given to the temple as the city- house of God, the writer of Chronicles in particular finds still another way to add to the urban glory of the Davidic line of succession. Writing in the postexilic period (2 Chron 36:22-23), he relies on the community's familiarity with the earlier written history and offers additional theological commentary. The commentary emphasizes the postschism city-building history as an indication of God's blessing on the Davidic succession.
In doing so the Chronicler is providing eschatological hope to an exiled people. "The path to freedom and to the amelioration of Judah's difficulties lay in seeking God and humbling oneself before him, while turning from that path could only lead to disaster" (Dillard 1987: 101-2).
"At a time when Israel was subject to the Persians, the Chronicler still cherished hopes of a restoration of Davidic rule, and he describes the glorious rule of David and Solomon [and their royal line of succession] in the past in terms of his hope for the future" (Dillard and Longman 1994: 175). He underlines that hope for the blessing of God in a past of urban expansion and restoration, in the strengthening of the security provided by city fortresses (1 Chron 11:5; 14:6-7; 16:6; 17:1-2, 12; 26:2, 6, 9-10; 27:3-4; 32:3-5, 29-30; 33:14; 34:10-13). In Chronicles urban building projects become signs of divine blessing, and wicked kings neither strengthen nor build or rebuild cities.
Israel's growing urban base was intended to be more than a system of administering land and people for the sake of a socioeconomic monopoly. Nor was its goal, as Gottwald has argued, a social experiment in egalitarianism over against hierarchical bureaucratic statism. "Israelitization" was a call to live under Torah in covenant with the only true God.

Theocratic Failure and the City
The history of the Davidic succession in Chronicles was a positive apologetic for temple and city. The larger scope of the books of Samuel and Kings points to the darker side of the introduction of monarchy and urban development.
Samuel heard this dark side with regret in the official appeal of the people of God: "Now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have" (1 Sam 8:5, 19-20). It was a rejection of the nation's divine election (Ex 19:5-6; Lev 20:26; Deut 7:6; 14:2; 1 Sam 12:22), of its unique covenant relationship with God (Deut 4:6-8) and, founded on it, the social institution of the theocracy (1 Sam 8:7-8; 10: 17-19).
More was at stake in the request than a simple rejection of the existent
judgeship, and more also than an isolated battle over gods. What was threatened was Israel's covenant identity and with it, its theocratic expression (Eslinger 1985:256-58). It was rebellion against covenant and the social values and social organization that flowed out of the covenant theocracy. It meant a reversion to pagan models of statecraft and rule, to be extended now by centralization past city-state to larger territorial borders (Mendenhall 1975:157-60)

The Lord's response to Israel's request was judgment as much as assent. Israel would taste the power of the city monarch it sought to emulate in the conscription of its sons and daughters (I Sam 8: II, 13). Its lands, its agricultural products, its servants and flocks would be taken (I Sam 8:14-17).
Israel's kings would be like the urban monarchs of the ancient Near East who claimed divine prerogatives and exercised power and control within the deity's domain. Taxation, conscription, royal luxury, slavery and the monopolizing power of armed force were the expressions of that regal authority. So it would be in the monarchy for which Israel now pled. Once more Israel would be reduced to a bondage like the one they had known in Egypt. They would cry out again as they had before Pharaoh (Deut 17:16; I Sam 8:18). "The royal apparatus designed to keep and enhance the land will cause Israel to lose it" (Brueggemann 1977:79)
The glorious height of the monarchy, as we have underlined, was with David and Solomon. But here too it begins its plunge-especially with Solomon. Other kings fell lower than he, but none from such a height.
At the dedication of the temple Solomon asks only for wisdom, and wisdom understood as discernment in administering justice (I Kings 3:9, I I). In response to that request for the justice that lies at the heart of the covenant, God adds the blessings of riches and honor (1 Kings 3: 13). "Those who honor me I will honor" (I Sam 2:30; cf. Ps 91:15; Is 43:4).
Gifts like honor in the ancient Near East were rewards commonly associated with covenant connection (Olyan 1996:202-4) In the reciprocity of suzerain and vassal, such a gift called for the exercise of vassal responsibility. That responsibility Solomon quickly forsakes. Solomon's urban accessions and city-building projects are part of the background against which his failure is played out.
The writer of Kings appears generally to commend the extension of the borders of Solomon's realm and their fortification through the rebuilding of garrison cities and cities for his chariots and his horses (I Kings 9: 15- 23; cf. 2 Chron 8: 1-6). But even as he does he also points to signs of decay.
Solomon's rebuilding activity uses conscripted slave labor (I Kings 9: 15), as he had done in the building of the temple (I Kings 5: 13-14). Later the northern tribes use this "harsh labor" and "heavy yoke" put upon them by Solomon as a reason for dividing the nation into two (I Kings 12:4).
Bypassing the divine ownership of the cities of the Promised Land, Solomon cedes twenty of them to Hiram of 1Yre. The writer of Kings describes it as done "either to satisfy an outstanding debt (I Kings 9: 11) or as payment for additional gold needed to complete the work (I Kings 9:14)" (Dillard 1987:62). By comparison, the negative response of Hiram (1 Kings 9:12-13) is deleted by the Chronicler, who also says that Hiram gave the cities to Solomon (2 Chron 8: 1-2). As we have indicated before, the Chronicler's account "is best understood as both preserving the image of Solomon and providing a less onerous sequel to Kings" (Dillard 1987:63). The Chronicler's theological airbrushing, however we ultimately harmonize it, only accentuates Solomon's weakness. From Pharaoh comes devastated Gezer as a wedding gift to Solomon for his daughter (1 Kings 9: 16). The connection of the gift of the city with Solomon's marriage outside the covenant would appear to be a preview act later condemned by the author (1 Kings 11: 1-6).
Behind all this is Solomon's desire to consolidate control of the kingdom through expansive urbanization. Earlier biblical references speak more frequently of a city's "daughters," "villages" or "surrounding areas" (benot, hatzer; cf. Num 21:25, 32; 32:42; Josh 13:23, 28; ] 5:32, 36, 41, 44- 47; 17:] ]; Judg 1] :26; 1 Chron 2:23). These, some argue, would appear to suggest that a premonarchy majority of the population lived "in villages surrounding the cities or spread out between them" (Ahlstrom 1982: 136). But from the time of the monarchy, there would be a new face to Israel's social structure. It was a "wave of new city foundations," largely replacing the previous village type of settlement (Y. Fritz 1995:76).
Fruits of failure. From a purely sociopolitical point of view, urbanization fit in well with the erection of the Israelite monarchy. City building was a royal enterprise in the ancient Near East generally and a useful political tool as well. It enabled the royal authority to bind together diverse populations and regions in a more unified community.
For Israel's monarchy that unification through urbanization could have served a more profound purpose. It could have provided another instrument for teaching the various peoples the way of the covenant. After all, unlike the territorial states now emerging in these days, Israel was a covenant state.
But monarchy and urbanization moved in other directions, as Samuel had prophesied. The failure of Israel to drive out all the Canaanites from the land reinforced its attraction to the urban idolatry of its neighbors. The centralization of worship before Yahweh (Deut 12) faded into royal obeisance both north and south before the rival shrines of the high places. Jeremiah eventually cried, "You have as many gods as you have towns, 0 Judah" (Jer 11:13).
This idolatry touched deeply the social life of God's people. Vast sums of money were needed to maintain the consumptive luxury of the monarchy and its extensive building program from Jerusalem to the borders of the state. From faith in God as the theocratic divine warrior the people of God turned instead to royal power exhibited in a standing army of men, chariots and horses (1 Kings 4:26; 9:22). Such a military retinue was characteristically associated with oppression and intimidation (cf. Ex 14:9,23; Deut 20:1; 2 Sam 15:1; 2 Kings 18:23; 23:11).
Rebuilt fortifications and garrisons placed at crucial places marked turning points away from the security that could be found only in Yahweh. And the division of the monarchy into northern and southern kingdoms only multiplied on both sides that drive to fortification (Na'aman 1981; pienaar 1981).
With the kings as exemplars not of justice and righteousness but of faithlessness, the cities built by the kings became political demonstrations of disobedience to God. In Jerusalem (1 Kings 11:7-8; 12:31-32) and Sam aria (1 Kings 16:24-26,32), Bethel (1 Kings 12:28-33) and Beersheba (Amos 5:5; 8: 14)-everywhere one could see worship on the high places, covenants with unbelieving Gentiles, marriage rituals of state mirroring the betrothal of God's people to Baal rather than Yahweh.
Against this background, apostasy also becomes urban injustice. The gulf between rich and poor grows. Land is accumulated by the wealthy (Is 5:8), and farmers become landless tenants in debt to pitiless creditors (Amos 2:6-8; 8:4-6). The covenant scandal of the city becomes the exploitation of the poor and helpless (Ps 9: 12; 103:6), the sign of covenant obedience their rescue (Ps 72:12-14; Mic 6:8). Yahweh "defends the cause of the fatherless and the widow, and loves the alien, giving him food and clothing. And you are to love those who are aliens, for you yourselves were aliens in Egypt" (Deut 10:18; cf. Ps 12:5).
Repeatedly the prophets speak out against the rich who speculate and defraud (Hos 12:7): "They covet fields and seize them, and houses, and take them. They defraud a man of his home, a fellowman of his inheritance" (Mic 2:2). Bribery is condemned (Mic 3: 11; 7:3), not simply because it is dishonest but because it closes the eyes of the rulers and judges to the needs of the poor (Ex 23:8; Is 1 :23).
Righteousness expressed in justice thus becomes "the indispensable qualification for worship-no justice, no acceptable public worship" (Mays 1983:7). The functional criterion of a just society is found in the treatment of the poor and weak (Is 3: 14-15).
Underlining the covenant connections in all this, the vocabulary of the Old Testament transforms key sociological terms into theological categories as well. Words like poor, humble, needy, godly, rjghteous and those who trust in God become virtual synonyms (Ps 86: 1; 109:22-25; 140:12-13). The poor are Yahweh's "afflicted people" (Ps 74:19; 149:4).
Similarly, the contrast between the poor and the rich becomes a contrast between the poor and the unrighteous (Ps 10:2; 68:5-6; 146:9; 147:6; Is 32:7-8). To maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed, to rescue the weak and needy, is to "deliver them from the hand of the wicked" (Ps 82:4).
The rejection of God means the rejection of the poor (Coggins 1987: I 1- 14; Gowan 1987:341-53). "Not wealth and luxury in themselves the prophets attack. Of social burdens, such as heavy taxation and cruel exactions they do not even speak, but to the reflex indignity offered through social maltreatment to Jehovah in the persons of his people" (VOS 1948:296).
Judgment and promise. God gave the cities to his people as a covenant gift. They were signs of God's grace in the present, their walls signs of God's security for the future.
But as their passion for Yahweh fades in their passion for wealth, as the place of the divine warrior is usurped by horses and chariots, these same cities taste the jealousy of God (Is 2:6-11). The cities will no longer share in the glory of the king of kings; "the LORD alone will be exalted in that day."
The cities will be burned with fire (Is 1:7), their highways deserted (Is 33:8), desolate in their ruin (Is 24: 1 0). Even outside the people of God, none will escape the day of the Lord. Damascus will become a heap of stones (Is 17: 1). The fortified city will disappear from Ephraim (Is 17:3).
God will stir up the cities of Egypt in an orgy of mutual self-destruction (Is 17:2). Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, will be plundered and carried away into exile (Nahum 2:6-10). And preeminently Babylon, "the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians' pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah" (Is 13: 19; cf. Jer 50:35-38; 51 :44-58).
The strongest language of the prophets, however, is reserved for Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom, and particularly for Jerusalem. "As my hand seized the kingdoms of the idols, kingdoms whose images excelled those of Jerusalem and Samaria shall I not deal with Jerusalem and her images as I dealt with Samaria and her idols?" (Is 10:10-11).
For the prophet Micah:

Samaria is described as "Rebellion" par excellence, the concrete symbol of Jacob's sinful stance, and Jerusalem is merely the "high place" (1:5 in Hebrew text) of Judah. With allusion to the fertility cults of the north Micah sees the wealth of Samaria as "the price given to a prostitute" (1:7), and the cities filled with illegal seizure of property (2: I), "skinning" the poor (3:2ff), and the cultivation of prophets who proclaim peace when their mouths are full (2:6; 3:5). The cities are pervaded with evil since in them dwell the responsible leaders "who build Zion with blood and Jerusalem with wrong" (3: 10). There is no alternative but that both Samaria and Jerusalem become twisted heaps of ruin (1:6; 3:12). (Skiba 1976:41)

Why does God judge the city that he has designated as his dwelling place? Nowhere is Jerusalem judged because it is a city, nor is its condemnation exclusively because of idolatry. Isaiah points to the bloody hands that offer up the ritual sacrifices (Is 1: 15-1 7), a city once "full of justice" and now a "companion of thieves" (Is 1 :23). Jeremiah sees streets without a single person "who deals honestly and seeks the truth" Ger 5: 1-2), burnt offerings without obedience Ger 7:21-23), city walls that protect oppression, violence and destruction Ger 6:6-7). Chosen as instruments of divine judgment are the nations that were to witness Israel's covenant life of obedience. In keeping with the role of the witness (Deut 17: 7), they serve also as the executors of judgment for covenant violation.
Assyria's hand sweeps away the ten northern tribes. In memorial to
the forgotten poor of the southern kingdom and the neglected cycle of Sabbath years that could have been their salvation, the Babylonian empire sends Jerusalem and the remaining tribes into exile. The land finally enjoys its Sabbath rest. "All the time of its desolation it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of the word of the LORD" (2 Chron 36:21).
But judgment is not irreversible. The prophets also speak of a coming day of the Lord when "the poor will eat and be satisfied; they who seek the LORD will praise him" (Ps 22:26). Solomon, the bringer of much oppression, sees a future when God "will deliver the needy who cry out, the afflicted who have no one to help. He will take pity on the weak and needy and save the needy from death" (Ps 72:12-13).
This kingdom reversal of the place of the poor already suggests an urban renewal of a new kind. And other prophetic emphases underline the difference. The restoration will not be nationwide. It will focus on a righteous remnant (Amos 5: 15; Rom 11: 1-5), a "smaller group who were in practice what the whole community was in theory, who took seriously the obligations of the covenant and endeavoured to carry them into effect" (Bruce 1968:57).
Without these "consecrated ones" (Ps 50:5), these few survivors, the cities would have been like Sodom and Gomorrah (Is 1 :9). With them God preserves his promise of an unbroken Davidic succession and the continued existence of a true Israel. The saved remnant becomes the saving remnant; "not all who are descended from Israel are Israel" (Rom 9:6).
The term poor and its related images in fact become synonyms for that remnant of Israel who will in that day "return to the Mighty God" (Is 10:20-21). In the sociopolitical context of Israel terms like the meek and the humble suggest the oppressed, those who suffer under the power of injustice. And more besides. The meek are at the same time those who remain faithful to God and expect their salvation from his kingdom alone (Ridderbos 1962: 188-89). Their distress, and their faith in the midst of distress, is a title to God's love (PS 19:28; 34:5-11).
In this restoration Jerusalem will be reborn. "The LORD builds up Jerusalem; he gathers the exiles of Israel" (Ps 147 :2). "The delight of donkeys, a pasture for flocks" (Is 32: 14) will be called "Sought After, the City No Longer Deserted" (Is 62: 12). God will return to Jerusalem with mercy. And that divine urban renewal blessing will overflow into Yahweh's other cities also (Zech 1: 17). "God will save Zion and rebuild the cities of Judah" (PS 69:35).
Even in these promises there are hints of radical changes in the coming Jerusalem as a restored center of worship. Foreigners and eunuchs will no longer be barred from entrance into temple worship. God's house "will be called a house of prayer for all nations" (Is 56:3-7; Mk 11: 15-17).
The restoration of Zion will encompass the peoples of the earth. In the darkness that covers the earth, Zion will become a beacon that attracts the world to the glory of God displayed in it. Nations will be drawn to Zion's light, kings to the brightness of its dawn (IS 60:3). "Many nations will be joined to the LORD in that day and will become my people" (Zech 2:11). This universalism "is not an ideological abstraction. It is an invitation, addressed to the whole world, to sit at the banquet of the Covenant, to become heirs of the promises made to the Fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed forever" (LeGrand 1990:27). It is the universal- ism of salvation to be offered now to all the cities and peoples of the earth.
The invitation often is described in political or geographical categories.Isaiah pictures it in terms of the customary tribute offered to Zion by conquered nations (Is 60:5-6). Ezekiel sees the restored boundaries of the Messiah's land incorporating Syrian Damascus (Ezek 47:6-18; 48:1). And along with native-born Israelites, these aliens will share in the inheritance of the tribes (Ezek 47:22-23).
At the same time, the political language is interwoven with that of worship. The tribute becomes offerings for worship at the altar (Is 60: 7 -8), brought "to the honor of the LORD." The coming of the nations to Jerusalem is for instruction in the way of the Lord (Is 2:3; Mic 4:2). To call this universalism "missionary" would be to use language that is anachronistic and overly strong. Zion's mission

is not a campaign to convert the pagans. It consists rather in testimony rendered "in the sight of all the nations" (lsa. 52: 10) by the mighty arm of God stretched forth in behalf of his people and assuring their salvation. . . . The "light of the nations" is not a teaching transmitted by human missionaries. It is the power of God manifested to the entire world through Israel. (LeGrand 1990:20)

Above all else, one feature transforms this description of urban renewal. At its heart will be the coming of David's greater son, the Messiah. The Spirit of the sovereign Lord will rest upon him, and the ancient ruins will be rebuilt, the places long devastated repaired; "they will renew the ruined cities that have been devastated for generations" (Is 61:1, 4). With his coming the tent of childless Zion will be filled with her descendants, who "will dispossess nations and settle in their desolate cities" (Is 54: I -3; cf. Amos 9: 12; Acts 15: 17).
Through the Messiah's anointed rule there will be justice for the poor (Is 11 :4), saving judgment with righteousness for God's afflicted ones (Ps 72:2). The Lord himself will come to plead the case of the poor and take the life of those who rob them (Prov 22:22-23; 23: 10-11). He will participate in their oppression by bearing it for them. He will be oppressed and afflicted, yet he will not open his mouth (Is 53:7). As the poor are despised, so will the Messiah-servant be despised-forsaken by all, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief (Is 53:3).

God's Urban Commission Fulfilled
Six hundred years after God's call through Jeremiah to seek the peace of the city (Jer 29:7), the fuller significance of the words of Jeremiah would begin to unfold in history. His prophecies to the exiles were filled with many themes-the raising up of David and the Davidic line, future blessing for Israel in God's shalom peace, Gentiles sharing in those blessings, cities tasting the fruits of Israel's good works.
In the city of David a royal child would be born, and the threads of promise would begin to form a divine tapestry of fulfillment. In the temple a widowed prophet named Anna would see in that child's coming the restoration of the ruined city, "the redemption of Jerusalem" (Lk 2:38; Is 52:9). In the same temple courts righteous Simeon would hold the child in his arms, staring at God's glory-giving salvation, "a light for revelation to the Gentiles" (Lk 2:32; Is 60:3). Simeon, Israel and the nations would wait in exile no longer; the messianic day of consolation had come at last in Jesus (Lk 2:25).
Jesus' healing miracles would remind multitudes of the coming of the Son of David (Mt 12:22-23; 20:30). Even the Gentiles would see in his divine power that of David's greater son (Mt 15:22). The crowds would hail his coronation path to Jerusalem with hallelujah exclamations of praise to him as the Son of David (Mt 21:8-9). And the high priest would convict him of blasphemy for his taking that title for himself (Mt 26:63- 65).
Jeremiah's disparaging of a temple-centered faith would be expanded to a message of temple displacement. Jesus' redemptive ministry would signal the coming of One greater than the temple (Mt 12:6). His act of temple cleansing at the beginning of his ministry would be done with the authoritative zeal of the Messiah an 2: 14-17). And in that enacted parable his disciples would eventually see in the resurrected Christ God's temple alternative an 2: 19-22).
In all this the prophetic urban dimension is not lost. The promised Savior does not stand apart from the city. Jesus' widening proclamation of God's redemptive kingdom come in himself cannot be restricted to one place; he must preach the good news "to the other cities also" (Lk 4:43 NKJV). "To every city and place where he himself was about to go" he sends in advance his envoys (Lk 10: 1 NKJV). They are to function as benefactors, healing the sick and proclaiming the presence of God's kingdom reign of grace in Jesus (Lk 10:8-9). This urban embassy resembles "a rhetorical dress rehearsal for [Luke's] description in Acts of the church's worldwide mission" (Danker 1976: 16).
Eight hundred years before, God had invited his herald to bring good
news to Jerusalem and to the cities of Judah. The long night of sin and warfare was to end. And the messenger's voice on the mountain summed it up: "Here is your God!" (Is 40:9).
In Jesus that announcement to the cities becomes reality. In Jesus the
covenant is renewed, the law and the prophets are fulfilled, justice and righteousness are incarnated, salvation becomes more than promise, the perfect sacrifice for sin is offered. The kingdom of God comes in the per- son of the King, the jubilee year of God begins, the poor are lifted up, the cities hear the good news, and God inaugurates his time of urban restoration.