“They say, ‘If a man puts away his wife, and she goes from him, and becomes another man’s, should he return to her again?’ Wouldn’t that land be greatly polluted? But you have played the prostitute with many lovers; yet return again to me,” says Yahweh.
“Lift up your eyes to the bare heights, and see! Where have you not been lain with? You have sat waiting for them by the road, as an Arabian in the wilderness. You have polluted the land with your prostitution and with your wickedness. Therefore the showers have been withheld and there has been no latter rain; yet you have had a prostitute’s forehead and you refused to be ashamed. Will you not from this time cry to me, ‘My Father, you are the guide of my youth?’
“ ‘Will he retain his anger forever? Will he keep it to the end?’ Behold, you have spoken and have done evil things, and have had your way.”
Moreover, Yahweh said to me in the days of Josiah the king, “Have you seen that which backsliding Israel has done? She has gone up on every high mountain and under every green tree, and has played the prostitute there. I said after she had done all these things, ‘She will return to me;’ but she didn’t return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. I saw when, for this very cause, that backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a certificate of divorce, yet treacherous Judah, her sister, had no fear; but she also went and played the prostitute. Because she took her prostitution lightly, the land was polluted, and she committed adultery with stones and with wood. Yet for all this her treacherous sister, Judah, has not returned to me with her whole heart, but only in pretense,” says Yahweh.
Yahweh said to me, “Backsliding Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain On vv1–11 Many regard this verse as connected with the last,…
Many regard this verse as connected with the last, and thus read them connectedly, “God hates false confidences, because he says, “etc. But this seems not to me to be suitable; for Jeremiah brings before us here a new subject, — that God seeks to be reconciled to his people, according to what a husband does, who desires to receive into favor an unchaste wife, and is ready to grant her full pardon, and to take her again as a chaste and faithful wife. This verse, then, cannot be connected with the foregoing, in which, as we have seen, the people are condemned. The word לסמר lamer, means the same, as I think, as when we say in French, par maniere de dire, or as when it is commonly said, “Suppose a case.” For the Prophet does not here introduce God as the speaker, but lays before us a common subject, with this preface, לאמר, lamer, that is, “Be it so, that a man divorces his wife, and she becomes allied to another husband, can she again return to her first husband? This is not usually done; but I will surpass whatever kindness there may be among men, for I am ready to receive thee, provided thou wilt in future observe conjugal fidelity, and part with thy adulteries and adulterers.”
As to the main point, there is here no ambiguity: for God shews that he would be reconciled to the Jews, provided they proceeded not obstinately in their sinful courses. But in order to set forth more fully his mercy, he uses a comparison which must be a little more attentively considered. He had before said that he held the place of a husband, that the people occupied the station of a wife; and then he complained of the base perfidy of the people, who had forsaken him, and said that they had acted like a wife who, having despised her husband, prostituted herself to such adulterers as might happen to meet her: but he now adds, “Behold, if a man dismisses his wife, and she becomes the wife of another, he will never receive her again.” And this was forbidden by the law. “But I am ready, “he says, “to receive thee, though I had not given thee the usual divorce at my pleasure, as husbands are wont to do who repudiate their wives, when there is anything displeasing in them.” It is not a simple comparison, as many think; (I know not whether all think so, for I have not read any who seem to understand the true meaning;) for God does not simply compare himself to a husband who has repudiated his wife for adultery; but as I have already said, there are here two clauses. The Jews were then wont to divorce their wives even for slight causes, and for no cause at all.
Read full note →
Now, God speaks thus by Isaiah,
“Shew me the bill of your mother’s divorcement,” (Isaiah 50:1)
as though he had said, “I have not repudiated your mother.” For if any one then departed from his wife, the law compelled him to take some blame on himself; for what was the bill of divorcement? It was a testimony to the wife’s chastity; for if any one was found guilty of adultery, there was no need of divorcement, as it was a capital crime. (Leviticus 20:10; Deuteronomy 22:22.) Hence adulteresses were not usually divorced; but if any woman had conducted herself faithfully towards her husband, and he wished to repudiate her, the law constrained him to give her the bill of divorcement: “I repudiate this wife, not because she hath broken or violated the bond of marriage, but because her manners are not agreeable, because her beauty does not please me.” Thus the husbands were then commanded to take some of the blame on themselves. Hence the Lord says by Isaiah,
“Shew me the bill of your mother’s divorcement;”
as though he had said, “She has departed from me; she has broken the bond of marriage by her fornications; I am not then in fault for being alienated from you.”
God then does not mean in this place, that he had divorced the people; for this would have been wrong and unlawful, and could not have been consistent with the character of God. But as I have already said, there is here a twofold comparison. “Though a husband should fastidiously send away his wife, and she through his fault should be led to contract another marriage, and become the partner of another, as though in contempt of him, he could hardly ever bear that indignity, and become reconciled to her: but ye have not been repudiated by me, but are like a perfidious woman, who shamefully prostitutes herself to all whom she may meet with; and yet I am ready to receive you, and to forget all your base conduct.” We now then understand the import of the words.
In the second clause there is a comparison made from the less to the greater. For the return into favor would have been easier, if the repudiated wife had afterwards become acceptable to him, though she had become the wife of another; but when an adulteress finds her husband so willing of himself, and ready to grant free pardon, it is certainly an example not found among mortals. Thus we see that God, by an argument from the less to the greater, enhances his goodness towards the people, in order to render the Jews the less excusable for rejecting so pertinaciously a favor freely offered to them.
But it may be asked, why the Prophet says, By pollution shall not this land be polluted, or, through this? I shall speak first of the words, and then refer to the subject. Almost all give this version, “Is not that land by pollution polluted.” But I know not what sense we can elicit by such a rendering, except, it may be, that God compares a divorced wife to the land, or that he, by an abrupt transition, transfers to the land what he had said of a divorced wife, or rather that he explains the metaphor which had been used. If this sense be approved, then the copulative which follows must be rendered as a causative, which all have rendered adversatively, and rightly too, “But thou.” I then prefer to read ההיא, eeia, by itself, “by this;” that is, when a wife returns again to her first husband, after having married another; for the law, as we have said, forbad this; and the husband must have become an adulterer, if he took again the wife whom he had repudiated. Liberty was granted to women by divorce; not that divorce was by God allowed; but as the women were innocent, they were released, for God imputed the fault to the husbands. And when the repudiated wife married another man, this second marriage was considered legitimate. If, then, the first husband sought to recover the wife whom he had divorced, he violated the bond of the second marriage. For this reason, and according to this sense, the Prophet says, that the land would by this become polluted; as though he had said, “It is not lawful for husbands to take back their wives, however ready they may be to forgive them; but I require no other thing but your return to me.”
As to the words, we now see that the Prophet does not say without reason, “By this;” that is, when a woman unites herself to one man, and then to another, and afterwards returns to her first husband; for society would thus be torn asunder, and also the sacred bond of marriage, the main thing in the preservation of social order, would be broken.
It is added, But thou hast played the harlot with many companions What we have before observed is here confirmed, — that the people had been guilty, not only of one act of adultery, but that they were become like common strumpets, who prostitute themselves to all without any difference; and this is what will be presently stated. Those whom he calls companions or friends were rivals. He says, Yet return to me, saith Jehovah: by which he intimated, — “Pardon is ready for thee, provided thou repentest.”
An objection may, however, be here raised, — How could God do what he had forbidden in his law? The answer is obvious, — No other remedy could have been given to preserve order in society when men were allowed to repudiate their wives, except by adding this restraint, as a proof that God did not favor their levity and changeableness. It was thus necessary, for the interest of society, to punish such men as were too morose and rigid, by withholding from them the power of recovering the wives whom they had dismissed. It might otherwise have been, that one changed his love the third day, or in a month, or in a year, and demanded his wife. God then intended to put this restraint on divorce, so that no man, who had put away his wife, could take her again. But the case is very different as to God himself: it is therefore nothing strange that he claims for himself the right of being reconciled to the Jews on their repentance. It follows —
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 And I will not cast thee off, but receive…
And I will not cast thee off, but receive thee, according to my mercy.
According as it is written, Deut. 24:4.
Read full note →
If he take such one to wife again.
That is, with idols, and with them whom thou hast put thy confidence in.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv1–11 Jer 3:1 They say, If a man put away…
Jer 3:1 They say, If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? shall not that land be greatly polluted? but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; yet return again to me, saith the LORD.
Ver. 1. They say.] Vulgo dicitur, saith the Vulgate; Dicendo dicitur, say others. They say, and they say well, for they have good law for it. {Deu 24:4} But I am above law, saith God, and will deal with thee, not according to mine ordinary rule, but according to my prerogative. Thou shalt be a paradox to the Bible; for I will do that in favour of thee, which I have inhibited others in like case to do, and that scarce any man would do, though there were no law to inhibit it, as one here paraphraseth.
Read full note →
Shall not the land be greatly polluted?] Great sins do greatly pollute, that of adultery especially, for this is a heinous crime; yea, it is an iniquity to be punished by the judges. {Job 31:11}
But thou hast played the harlot; yet return to me.] Haec est Dei clementia insuperabilis; God’s mercy is matchless. No man, no god, would show mercy as he doth. {Mic 7:18 Mal 3:7 Zec 1:3} He followeth after those that run from him, as the sunbeams do the passenger that goeth from them; and as it is sweetly set forth by our Saviour in those three parables of the lost coin, the lost sheep, and the lost son. {Luk 15:3-32} Paul alloweth of Mark, {2Ti 4:11} though before he had refused him, {Act 15:38} and willeth others to entertain him. {Col 4:10-11} Let none despair that hath but a mind to return to God, from whom he hath deeply revolted. There is a natural Novatianism in the timorous conscience of convinced sinners, to doubt and question pardon for sins of apostasy and falling after repentance. But this need not be, we see here. Pernicious was Ahithophel’s counsel to Absalom, "Go in to thy father’s concubines"; this he judged such an injury as David would never put up; yet "return again to me, saith the Lord," and all shall be well between us.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv1–11 They say; or, Men use to say. If this,…
They say; or, Men use to say. If this, with the four following verses, belong to the former chapter, then it seems to express God’s condescension to them: q. d. Though if a woman forsake her husband, and be married to another man, the law will not permit him to receive her again; yet God would receive thee again upon thy returning to him; but thou choosest rather obstinately to adhere to thy other confidences, wherein thou shalt not prosper. But if we look upon them as beginning a new argument, then here God declares his readiness to receive them again upon their repentance, though it be very unusual for husbands so to do, when their wives have proved treacherous unto them, in betaking themselves to other husbands; and so this chapter may very well begin with such a proverbial speech, They say, or, Men use to say, or, It is commonly said. Put away his wife; or give her a bill of divorce, Deu 24:1. Shall he return unto her again? q. d. He cannot take her again, according to the law, Deu 24:1-4. Or rather, will a man do such a thing? If the law were not against it, would any man be so easily wrought upon as to take her again? No, certainly. It is an argument from the less to the greater, to set forth God’s great lenity towards them: q.d. If a husband should turn away his wife merely because he pleased her not, though she gave him no just cause, and she should bestow herself on another, he would not be reconciled to her, neither might he take her again; but you have gone a whoring from me, and sufficiently provoked me to reject and turn you off. I will dispense with my own law for your sakes, and will act by my prerogative; I am ready to be reconciled, to follow them that fly from me, as in the close of the verse, and Zec 1:3; Mat 3:7. God will pardon sins of apostacy, and falls after repentance.
Shall not that land be greatly polluted? Heb. in being profane be profaned. Would not so great a sin greatly pollute a state or nation? Lev 18:27,28. It must needs be polluted by such marriages to and fro, and promiscuous couplings, Deu 24:4.
Read full note →
With many lovers; not with one only, as being sufficient to make thee an adulteress, but a common strumpet, joining in fellowship with divers associates and companions, or many idols.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain On vv1, 6 These verses some make to belong to the sermon…
These verses some make to belong to the sermon in the foregoing chapter, and they open a door of hope to those who receive the conviction of the reproofs we had there; God wounds that he may heal. Now observe here,
I. How basely this people had forsaken God and gone a whoring from him. The charge runs very high here. 1. They had multiplied their idols and their idolatries. To have admitted one strange God among them would have been bad enough, but they were insatiable in their lustings after false worships: Thou hast played the harlot with many lovers, Jer 3:1. She had become a common prostitute to idols; not a foolish deity was set up in all the neighbourhood but the Jews would have it quickly. Where was a high place in the country but they had had an idol in it? Jer 3:2. Note, In repentance it is good to make sorrowful reflections upon the particular acts of sin we have been guilty of, and the several places and companies where it has been committed, that we may give glory to God and take shame to ourselves by a particular confession of it. 2. They had sought opportunity for their idolatries, and had sent about to enquire for new gods: In the high - ways hast thou sat for them, as Tamar when she put on the disguise of a harlot (Gen 38:14), and as the foolish woman, that sits to call passengers, who go right on their way, Pro 9:14, Pro 9:15. As the Arabian in the wilderness - the Arabian huckster (so some), that courts customers, or waits for the merchants to get a good bargain and forestal the market - or the Arabian thief (so others), that watches for his prey; so had they waited either to court new gods to come among them (the newer the better, and the more fond they were of them) or to court others to join with them in their idolatries. They were not only sinners, but Satans, not only traitors themselves, but tempters to others. 3. They had grown very impudent in sin. They not only polluted themselves, but their land, with their whoredoms and with their wickedness (Jer 3:2); for it was universal and unpunished, and so became a national sin. And yet (Jer 3:3), "Thou hadst a whore's forehead, a brazen face of thy own. Thou refusedst to be ashamed; thou didst enough to shame thee for ever, and yet wouldst not take shame to thyself." Blushing is the colour of virtue, or at least a relic of it; but those that are past shame (we say) are past hope. Those that have an adulterer's heart, if they indulge that, will come at length to have a whore's forehead, void of all shame and modesty. 4. They abounded in all manner of sin. They polluted the land not only with their whoredoms (that is, their idolatries), but with their wickedness, or malice (Jer 3:2), sins against the second table: for how can we think that those will be true to their neighbour that are false to their God? "Nay (Jer 3:5), thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldst, and wouldst have spoken and done worse if thou hadst known how; thy will was to do it, but thou lackedst opportunity." Note, Those are wicked indeed that sin to the utmost of their power, that never refuse to comply with a temptation because they should not, but because they cannot.
Read full note →
II. How gently God had corrected them for their sins. Instead of raining fire and brimstone upon them, because, like Sodom, they had avowed their sin and had gone after strange gods as Sodom after strange flesh, he only withheld the showers from them, and that only one part of the year: There has been no latter rain, which might serve as an intimation to them of their continual dependence upon God; when they had the former rain, that was no security to them for the latter, but they must still look up to God. But it had not this effect.
III. How justly God might have abandoned them utterly, and refused ever to receive them again, though they should return; this would have been but according to the known rule of divorces, Jer 3:1. They say (it is an adjudged case, nay, it is a case in which the law is very express, and it is what every body knows and speaks of, Deu 24:4), that if a woman be once put away for whoredom, and be joined to another man, her first husband shall never, upon any pretence whatsoever, take her again to be his wife; such playing fast and loose with the marriage-bond would be a horrid profanation of that ordinance and would greatly pollute that land. Observe, What the law says in this case - They say, that is, every one will say, and subscribe to the equity of the law in it; for every man finds something in himself that forbids him to entertain one that is another man's. And in like manner they had reason to expect that God would refuse ever to take them to be his people again, who had not only been joined to one strange god, but had played the harlot with many lovers. If we had to do with a man like ourselves, after such provocations as we have been guilty of, he would be implacable, and we might have despaired of his being reconciled to us.
IV. How graciously he not only invites them, but directs them, to return to him.
1. He encourages them to hope that they shall find favour with him, upon their repentance: "Thou thou hast been bad, yet return again to me," Jer 3:1. This implies a promise that he will receive them: "Return, and thou shalt be welcome." God has not tied himself by the laws which he made for us, nor has he the peevish resentment that men have; he will be more kind to Israel, for the sake of his covenant with them, than ever any injured husband was to an adulterous wife; for in receiving penitents, as much as in any thing, he is God and not man.
2. He therefore kindly expects that they will repent and return to him, and he directs them what to say to him (Jer 3:4): "Wilt thou not from this time cry unto me? Wilt not thou, who hast been in such relation to me, and on whom I have laid such obligations, wilt not thou cry to me? Though thou hast gone a whoring from me, yet, when thou findest the folly of it, surely thou wilt think of returning to me, now at least, now at last, in this thy day. Wilt thou not at this time, nay, wilt thou not from this time and forward, cry unto me? Whatever thou hast said or done hitherto, wilt thou not from this time apply to me? From this time of conviction and correction, now that thou hast been made to see thy sins (Jer 3:2) and to smart for them (Jer 3:3), wilt thou not now forsake them and return to me, saying, I will go and return to my first husband, for then it was better with me than now?" Hos 2:7. Or "from this time that thou hast had so kind an invitation to return, and assurance that thou shalt be well received: will not this grace of God overcome thee? Now that pardon is proclaimed wilt thou not come in and take the benefit of it? Surely thou wilt."
(1.) He expects that they will claim relation to God, as theirs: Wilt thou not cry unto me, My Father, thou art the guide of my youth? [1.] They will surely come towards him as a father, to beg his pardon for their undutiful behaviour to him (Father, I have sinned) and will hope to find in him the tender compassions of a father towards a returning prodigal. They will come to him as a father, to whom they will make their complaints, and in whom they will put their confidence for relief and succour. They will now own him as their father, and themselves fatherless without him; and therefore, hoping to find mercy with him (as those penitents, Hos 14:3), [2.] They will come to him as the guide of their youth, that is, as their husband, for so that relation is described, Mal 2:14. "Though thou hast gone after many lovers, surely thou wilt at length remember the love of thy espousals, and return to the husband of thy youth." Or it may be taken more generally: "As my Father, thou art the guide of my youth." Youth needs a guide. In our return to God we must thankfully remember that he was the guide of our youth in the way of comfort; and we must faithfully covenant that he shall be our guide henceforward in the way of duty, and that we will follow his guidance, and give up ourselves entirely to it, that in all doubtful cases we will be determined by our religion.
(2.) He expects that they will appeal to the mercy of God and crave the benefit of that mercy (Jer 3:5), that they will reason thus with themselves for their encouragement to return to him: "Will he reserve his anger for ever? Surely he will not, for he has proclaimed his name gracious and merciful." Repenting sinners may encourage themselves with this, that, though God chide, he will not always chide, though he be angry, he will not keep his anger to the end, but, though he cause grief, he will have compassion, and may thus plead for reconciliation. Some understand this as describing their hypocrisy, and the impudence of it: "Though thou hast a whore's forehead (Jer 3:3) and art still doing evil as thou canst (Jer 3:5), yet art thou not ever and anon crying to me, My Father?" Even when they were most addicted to idols they pretended a regard to God and his service and kept up the forms of godliness and devotion. It is a shameful thing for men thus to call God father, and yet to do the works of the devil (as the Jews, Joh 8:44), to call him the guide of their youth, and yet give up themselves to walk after the flesh, and to flatter themselves with the expectation that his anger shall have an end, while they are continually treasuring up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv1–11 They say, if a man put away his wife,....…
They say, if a man put away his wife,.... Or, "saying" (w); wherefore some connect those words with the last verse of the preceding chapter, as if they were a continuation of what the Lord had been there saying, that he would reject their confidences; so Kimchi; but they seem rather to begin a new section, or a paragraph, with what were commonly said among men, or in the law, and as the sense of that; that if a man divorced his wife upon any occasion,
and she go from him; departs from his house, and is separated from bed and board with him:
Read full note →
and become another man's, be married to another, as she might according to the law:
shall he return unto her again? take her to be his wife again; her latter husband not liking her, or being dead? no, he will not; he might not according to the law in Deu 24:4 and if there was no law respecting this, it can hardly be thought that he would, it being so contrary to nature, and to the order of civil society:
shall not that land be greatly polluted? either Judea, or any other, where such usages should obtain; for this, according to the law, was causing the land to sin, filling it with it, and making it liable to punishment for it; this being an abomination before the Lord. The Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, and Arabic versions, render it, "shall not that woman be defiled?" she is so by the latter husband; and that is a reason why she is not to be received by the former again, Deu 24:4,
but thou hast played the harlot with many lovers; or served many idols; the number of their gods having been according to the number of their cities, Jer 2:28,
yet return again to me, saith the Lord; by repentance, and doing their first works, worshipping and serving him as formerly; so the Targum,
"return now from this time to my worship, saith the Lord.''
The Vulgate Latin version adds, "and I will receive thee"; this is an instance of great grace in the Lord, and which is not to be found among men.
(w) "dicendo", Montanus, Vatablus, Janius & Tremellius.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10 God's forbearance with the idolatry of Judah, who is…
God's forbearance with the idolatry of Judah, who is worse than Israel, ver. 1-11. Both called to repent, with gospel promises, ver. 12-19. Misery by sin; salvation only of God, ver. 20-25.
Shall be - He cannot take her again according to the law, Deut. xxiv, 1-4. Yet I am ready to be reconciled to you. Polluted - Would not so great a sin greatly pollute a nation? Many - Not with one only, but many idols.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 The first five verses of this chapter allude to…
CHAPTER III
The first five verses of this chapter allude to the subject of
Read full note →
the last; and contain earnest exhortations to repentance, with
gracious promises of pardon, notwithstanding every aggravation
of guilt, 1-5.
At the sixth verse a new section of prophecy commences, opening
with a complaint against Judah for having exceeded in guilt her
sister Israel, already cast off for her idolatry, 6-11.
She is cast off, but not forever; for to this same Israel,
whose place of captivity (Assyria) lay to the north of Judea,
pardon is promised on her repentance, together with a
restoration to the Church of God, along with her sister Judah,
in the latter days, 12-20.
The prophet foretells the sorrow and repentance of the children
of Israel under the Gospel dispensation, 21.
God renews his gracious promises, 22;
and they again confess their sins. In this confession their not
deigning to name the idol Baal, the source of their calamities,
but calling him in the abstract shame, or a thing of shame, is
a nice touch of the perusal extremely beautiful and natural,
22-25.
NOTES ON CHAP. III
Verse 1. If a man put away his wife] It was ever understood, by the law and practice of the country, that if a woman were divorced by her husband, and became the wife of another man, the first husband could never take her again. Now Israel had been married unto the Lord; joined in solemn covenant to him to worship and serve him only. Israel turned from following him, and became idolatrous. On this ground, considering idolatry as a spiritual whoredom, and the precept and practice of the law to illustrate this case, Israel could never more be restored to the Divine favour: but God, this first husband, in the plenitude of his mercy, is willing to receive this adulterous spouse, if she will abandon her idolatries and return unto him. And this and the following chapters are spent in affectionate remonstrances and loving exhortations addressed to these sinful people, to make them sensible of their own sin, and God's tender mercy in offering to receive them again into favour.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 Jer 3:1. They say — That is, men use…
Jer 3:1. They say — That is, men use to say, If a man put away his wife — Or give her a bill of divorce, Deu 24:1; and she go from him — In consequence thereof; and become another man’s — Engage herself to another; shall he return unto her? — He cannot take her again according to the law, Deu 24:1-4. Or, rather, will a man do such a thing? If the law were not against it, would any man be inclined to take such a woman again? Certainly not. Such playing fast and loose with the marriage-bond would be a horrid profanation of that ordinance, and would greatly pollute the land. Thus they had reason to expect, that God would refuse ever to take them again to be his people, who had not only been joined to one strange god, but had played the harlot with many lovers. If we had to do with a man like ourselves, after such provocations as we have been guilty of, he would be implacable, and we might despair of his ever being reconciled to us again. But he is God and not man, and therefore he adds, Yet return again to me — Namely, forsaking all those other lovers; which invitation implies a promise, that he would receive them upon their repentance and reformation.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 They say - Or, That is to say. The…
They say - Or, That is to say. The prophet has completed his survey of Israel’s conduct, and draws the conclusion that as an adulterous wife could not be taken back by her husband, so Israel has forfeited her part in the covenant with God. Apparently the opening word, which literally means “to say,” only introduces the quotation in the margin.
Yet return again to me - Or, “and thinkest thou to return unto me!” The whole argument is not of mercy, but is the proof that after her repeated adulteries, Israel could not again take her place as wife. To think of returning to God, with the marriage-law unrepealed, was folly.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11 It. Hebrew, "a saying." Septuagint, "If," &c., Deuteronomy xxiv.…
It. Hebrew, "a saying." Septuagint, "If," &c., Deuteronomy xxiv. 1. (Haydock) --- Woman. Hebrew, "land." --- Lovers. Septuagint, "shepherds," (Calmet) seeking aid from idols and foreigners.
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain On v1 (Jeremiah 3-6)
THE SECOND DISCOURSE
(Jeremiah 3-6)
Read full note →
This discourse, according to Jer_3:6, belongs to the reign of Josiah, and moreover, according to Jer_3:4; Jer_3:10; Jer_4:1 to the period of his reformation, which occupied from the twelfth to the eighteenth year of his reign. (2Ch_34:3; 2Ch_34:8; 2Ch_35:19). Since Jeremiah began his ministry in the 13th year of Josiah, this discourse pertains to the period from the 13th to the 13th year of Josiah, consequently to the commencement of his ministry. Its position at the beginning of the book corresponds, therefore, entirely to the historical date of its composition.
The discourse falls into two main divisions and a conclusion. It may be arranged as follows:—
I. First Main Division ( Jer_3:1 to Jer_4:4)
The Call of Return, שׁוּב
1. Basis:—Notwithstanding Deu_24:1-4, a return is possible, Jer_3:1-5.
2. The call to return in the past, Jer_3:6-10.
3. The call to return in the future, Jer_3:11-25.
4. The call to return in the present, Jer_4:1-4.
II. Second Main Division ( Jer_4:5 to Jer_6:26)
Threatening of Punishment on Account of their Neglect to Return.
1. Description of the judgment to be expected, Jer_4:5-31.
2. Proof of its justice by an enumeration of causes, chap. 5.
3. Recapitulation, consisting of a combination of the call to return, the announcement of punishment, and the ground of punishment, Jer_6:1-26.
III. Conclusion.—Object And Effect Of The Discourse, ( Jer_6:27-30)
First Division ( Jer_3:1 to Jer_4:4)
The Call to Return, שׁוּב
1. Basis:—Notwithstanding Deu_24:1-4, a return is possible.
Jer_3:1-5
1 … . therefore, if a man dismiss his wife,
And she go from him and become another man’s,
Will he return to her again?
Would not such a land be desecrated?
But thou hast whored it with many paramours,
Yet return to me, saith Jehovah.
2 Raise thine eyes to the hills1 and see;
Where hast thou not been lain with?2
By the roads thou satest for them like an Arab in the desert,
And desecratedst the land by thy whoredom3 and wickedness.
3 And the showers were withheld,
And there came no latter rain:
But thou hadst the brow of a harlot,
And wouldst not be ashamed.
4 Hast thou not henceforth cried4 to me, my Father!
Thou, the companion of my youth!
5 Will he then everlastingly Mark , 5
And always bear a grudge?
Behold, thus didst thou speak,
And didst the evil and didst prevail.6
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
That these verses belong not to chapter 2 but to the following discourse, and indeed form its basis, is evident from the following reasons: 1. The fundamental thought of the previous strophe was that Israel had incurred misfortune not by Jehovah’s fault but by his own. 2. It is shown in Jer_3:6-11 that hitherto neither Israel nor Judah has been obedient to the call “return.” In Jer_3:12-25 it is shown that in the distant future they will obey this call; in Jeremiah 4-6. that if the people do not obey the call made to them now, in the present, they must expect severe punishment, to be inflicted by a people from the North. Since then the basis of the thought developed in Jer_3:1-5 is that the return of apostate Israel is brought into connection with the regulation of the Mosaic law, according to which a woman who had been divorced and married to another man, could not return to her former husband, it is manifest that Jer_3:1-5 attach themselves to what follows, and not to the previous section. That לֵאמֹר in Jer_3:1 does not militate against this, will be shown immediately, and that this strophe serves as the basis of what follows will be clear from the explanation of וְשׁוֹב.
Jer_3:1. … therefore: If a man dismiss his wife … yet return to me, saith Jehovah. The various explanations of לֵאמֹר may be divided into two classes. 1. The LXX. and the translations and commentaries which follow it, (of the later Comm. also Gulcherus in Symb. Hagan., Cl. 1, Fasc. 1) omit it altogether. The character of the LXX. renders it probable that this omission was founded not on MS. evidence, but in mere caprice. 2. It is connected with the preceding, viz., מָאַם, Jer_2:37, by Kimchi, Abarbanel, Luther, Bugenhagen, Œcolampadius, Vatable, Tremelli, Muenster, Starke, Maurer and Hitzig. It is opposed to this connection, (a) that the contents of this verse are as heterogeneous with the previous verse as they are homogeneous with the following, as already shown; (b) that לאמר is separated from מאס by a sentence, so that it would be intolerably harsh to connect them. 3. Most commentators explain it by the aid of an ellipsis before לֵאמֹר, supplying אָֽמְרוּ ,יֵשׁ לִי ,וַיּאמֶר י״ ,יֵאָמֵר; so the Vulgate and the Roman Catholic divines; also Raschi, Zwingli, Bullinger, Seb. Schmidt, De Wette, Rosenmueller, etc. But all these supplementations are arbitrary and unexampled. An idea, on which לֵאמֹר depends as a more particular definition, would no more be unexpressed in Hebrew, than one before “therefore” in English. To render this clear we have begun the translation of this verse thus “… therefore.” The passages Jos_22:11; Jdg_16:2; Isa_9:8; Isa_44:28 are indeed quoted as analogous. But in the passages in Joshua and Isaiah, the idea which serves as a point of support is not wanting, though only implied (comp. Naegelsb. § 95, e). The passage in Judges might be appealed to if a corruption of the text were not very much to be suspected. 3. Calvin and Venema seek to render לֵאמר in such a sense that it need not depend on the foregoing. Calvin translates indeed dicendo, but would take this in the sense of par manière de dire or of posito casu. Venema modifies this interpretation, rendering “if it is said,’ and regarding it as the antecedent to which “saith Jehovah” at the close of the verse, corresponds:—“If it is said, Will a man return? etc—yet saith Jehovah, thou hast been lewd, yet return to Me.” But leaving out of account that לאמר would then be superfluous, this absolute use of it is quite undemonstrable. 5. J. D. Michaelis, Ewald and Graf acknowledge that this isolated לֵאמר is a grammatical anomaly, and therefore declare the text to be corrupt. They assume that either before לאמר a formula like וַיְהִ דְּבַר י״ אֵלַי has dropped out, or that the date in Jer_3:6, after which לאמר contrary to rule, is wanting, should be transposed to this place. The latter would seem to be the most probable. [Henderson renders Further, which seems to be an evasion of the difficulty. The English Editor of Calvin suggests that לְ be rendered according to, “According to what is said,” but as Wordsworth notes, this phrase is the universal formula for introducing a message from God; and he therefore regards it as used by the prophet to intimate that what he is uttering is a quotation from the Law of the Lord. Cowles renders “Saying” and connects it with the preceding context. Blayney, “whilst thou sayest.” Noyes, “it is said.”—S. R. A.]—הן is here, as frequently, used in a hypothetical sense, comp. Exo_4:1; Exo_8:22; Lev_25:20; Isa_54:15. The following contains a partial verbal reference to Deu_24:1-4, where it is said, that a woman who has been divorced and married again, cannot when released from her second marriage by separation or death, again become the wife of her first husband, since this would be an abomination before the Lord, and increase the moral corruption of the land חַנֵף in an intransitive sense (comp. טָמֵאLev_18:25) as in Isa_24:5; Psa_106:38 = profanari, to be desecrated. The LXX. reads οὐ μιανvήσεται ἡ γυνἡ ἐκείνη; probably in connection with the previous translation μὴ ἀνηκάμΨει πρὸς αὐτόν; which change without doubt was intended to render this sentence accordant with the subsequent, application (return to me). The Syrohexapla translation however follows the Hebrew, and Grabe in his edition reads ἡ γῆ. So also Spohn. Both are certainly wrong.—זָנָה with accus. of the person is found also in Eze_16:28. Most of the ancients (with the exception of the LXX. ἀνέκαμπες, Ar. et revertereris?Theodor. ἐπανῄεις. Victor. Presb., πῶς ἐπιστρέφεις πρός με); render ושׁוֹב אלי as imperative; the moderns (Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit, Neumann, Graf) as interrogative. I decidedly regard the first as correct. As I have shown above it is the fundamental idea of the whole discourse that Israel is to return to his Lord. The adherents of the more recent interpretation also find themselves compelled, to avoid contradiction, to take the question not as a negation but as expressing wonder, which is not logically admissible; for why should the Lord wonder concerning that which, according to what follows, is His definite wish? The vau is therefore to be taken as adversative—“although in accordance with legal regulations, I ought, not to receive you, yet I say, Return to me.” The appeal to the passage in the law belongs to the domain rather of prophetic rhetoric than of morals; for the command refers to a physical relation, which does exist between Jehovah and His people. If however we interpret this relation spiritually, we prove too much, for every sin is spiritual adultery. When it was remarked above that this strophe forms the introductory basis of the discourse, it was meant that in this strophe, (a) an apparent hindrance, (b) a false presumption is removed which might stand in the way of a true return. The apparent hindrance is the legal regulation which is removed by an authoritative decree (Jer_3:1-3 a). The false presumption is that pseudo-conversion, which took place under Josiah, and which consisted in this, that the people sought to deceive themselves and others with fine words, which their deeds proved to be lies (Jer_3:3 b–5).
Jer_3:2. Raise thine eyes … and wickedness. These words furnish the actual proof of “thou hast played the harlot,” etc., Jer_3:1.—Hills. Comp. “high mountain,” Isa_13:2. Mons culmine planus, silva non contectus.
Jer_3:3. And the showers were withheld … wouldest not be ashamed. The first hemistich refutes the objection that Israel committed this wickedness unreproved, comp. Jer_2:30. The divine displeasure was rendered palpable by the withholding of the necessary rain (Jer_5:25; coll. Jer_4:18; Jer_2:19), but Israel refused to be brought by this chastisement to perceive, confess and repent of his sin. With the boldness of a harlot who not only does not confess that she has done wickedly, but does it besides as though she had a claim to the recognition of her services,—with such boldness does Israel speak in a confident and affectionate tone to the Lord, and even ventures on a gentle reproach for undeserved severity. While Jer_3:2 expresses a subordinate thought which merely defines more particularly a point in Jer_3:1, and to which Jer_3:3 a is attached as a corollary, Jer_3:4-5 express the second main thought of the strophe, to which Jer_3:3, b serves as a transition.
Jer_3:4. Hast thou not henceforth cried to me … the companion of my youth?—Henceforth appears to refer to the time when the people recognized the divine anger in the withholding of the rain, for then they at once became, at least in words, friendly and officious. But it is not equivalent to מֵאָז, from times of old. We are thus led to conjecture that the three facts, withholding of rain, hypocritical conversion of the people, and this prophecy, were contemporaneous. This is also confirmed by a comparison of the dates in Jer_1:2 and 2Ch_34:3. According to the latter passage Josiah began in the twelfth year of his reign “to purge Judah and Jerusalem,” while according to Jer_1:2, our prophet commenced his ministry in the 13th year of Josiah. Now, since according to Jer_3:6, the present discourse belongs at any rate to the time of Josiah, and from its position and contents, probably to the beginning of Jeremiah’s prophetic labors, the prophet doubtless, as Chr. B. Michaelis, Rosenmueller, Hitzig and Graf, have also perceived, describes in Jer_3:4-5 the conduct of the people in the time of Josiah’s reformation, to which there is also a very distinct allusion in Jer_3:10. The prophet, therefore, says henceforth, because really even at the time when he proclaimed this divine message, such voices were still heard from the midst of the people. We need not, therefore, render it in the sense of haud ita pridem, nor shall cry, in the future. On companion of my youth, comp. Pro_2:17.
Jer_3:5. Will he then everlastingly mark? … prevail. In these words of the first hemistich is a slight reproach. It is as though Israel’s misfortune was due to the pertinacious anger of Jehovah.—The sense of the second half of the verse is this:—the acts of the people are in contradiction to their words, that the latter were not honestly meant, but were false and deceptive. Observe the antithesis of saidst and didst. Comp. a similar want of uprightness on the part of the people, Jer_2:35.—וַתּוָּבֽלdidst prevail, is here used as in Jer_20:7; Jer_20:9. Comp. Gen_32:28; 1Sa_26:25; 1Ki_22:22. It is strange here that the preceding verbs do not appear to involve the idea of effort, as is the case in the other passages and as the meaning of יָכֹל (to be grown, to be able, to set through) seems to require. But leaving out of account that עֹשׂה and יכל following one another, seem to have a sort of proverbial character (comp. 1Sa_26:25), it is evident that the idea of a struggle lies at the basis of the antithesis mentioned, and didst prevail intimates that the struggle will be decided in favor of the evil.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. That a man live a second time with a woman whom he has divorced, and who has been the wife of another man, is regarded as an abomination which corrupts the land. In what does this abomination consist? Not that the woman has previously been the wife of another, for then a divorced woman is not permitted to marry the second time, and all marriages of widows would be an abomination. In this case then the abomination must consist in this, that the man takes back a woman who had first been his wife, but afterwards another’s. Not the series A+B+C, etc., is forbidden, but the series A+B+A. But why is this? Michaelis, (Mos. Rechte., 1 S. 241, 2), after his manner seeks the ratio legis in this, that if the re-marriage were permitted, the second husband’s life would not be safe, should the old love be revived, or that the chastity of the woman would not be safe, her feminine modesty not being easily able to resist the advances of one to whom she had formerly yielded. But this is superficial talk. The matter must lie deeper than this, and be founded in the laws of a higher corporeality, which are still far too little known to us. It is remarkable that according to the Koran (Sur. II., 226), a man is at liberty to take back a divorced wife only in case she has been in the meantime the wife of another man. Comp. Michaelis, Mos. Rechte., I. S. 237.
2. “Quodlibet igitur studendum unicuique est, ut evitetur peccatum sicut fornicatio, quia per peccatum quodlibet quædam cum aliqua creaturarum admittitur fornicatio, per quam membra Christi fiunt membra iniquitatis, duoque fiunt in carne una.” Ghislerus.
3. “How great is the goodness of God, when the sinner wilfully thrusts Him away from him, yet God receives him again into His favor when he truly repents! Eze_18:21-22.” Starke.
4. “Revertere ad me et mundaberis, reparaberis, si confundaris tibi et refundaris mihi,” Augustin. contra Faustum, I. 15, i. f.
5. “The feeling of need to call God Father and beseech Him to save, is not an infallible sign of true penitence, Isa_26:16.” Starke.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The mercy of God to sinners is,—1. On the one side endless (the prohibition of re-marriage with a former wife, who has been married to another,—the sinner is not dismissed, but is voluntarily apostate, sin is not a conjugal, but an adulterous relation,—still the Lord is ready to receive the sinner back); 2. On the other hand limited, in so far that it is connected strictly with the fulfilment of a condition (not a hypocritical return with fine words, but only sincere, earnest return, with fruits meet for repentance, can render us partakers of His grace).
Footnotes:
[1]Jer_3:2.—[Literally “bare heights” as Hitzig renders. Blayney incorrectly translates “open plains.”—S. R. A.]
[2]Jer_3:2.—לֹא שֻׁגַלְתְּ Per verecundiam the Masoretes always put for this the corresponding form from שָׁכַב Deu_28:30; Isa_13:16; Zec_14:2. [“A few MSS. and the Soncin. Edition also exhibit שֻׁכַבְתְּ. ”—Henderson].
[3]Jer_3:2.—זְנוּתֵיִךְ a plural formation like חֲנִיתִים, which occurs besides only in Num_14:33, analogous to תַּזְנוּתִים, frequent in Ezekiel, Jeremiah 16. (Jer_3:15; Jer_3:22, etc.), and Jeremiah 22. (Jer_3:7-8, etc.). Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 48, 4.
[4]Jer_3:4.—On the form קָרָאתִי and דָבָרְתִי, comp. rem. on Jer_2:20.
[5]Jer_3:5.—To יִנְטֹר and יִשְׁמֹר suppl. אַפוֹ. Comp. Jer_3:12; Psa_103:9.
[6]Jer_3:5.—On the form ותַּוּכלָ (for וַתּוּכְלִי.) Comp. Ewald, § 191 b. [Noyes translates this line, “but doest evil with all thy might,” but comp. Exeg. rem.—S. R. A.]
2. The call to return in the Past
Jer_3:6-10 7
6The Lord [Jehovah] said also unto me in the days of Josiah the king, Hast thou seen that which backsliding8 Israel hath done? She hath gone up upon every 7high mountain and under every green tree, and there hath played the harlot. And I said after she had done all these things, Turn thou unto me! But she returned not. And her treacherous sister [Faithless, her sister] Judah saw it.
8And I saw, when for all the causes whereby backsliding Israel committed adultery I had put her away, and given her a bill of divorce;9 yet her treacherous10 sister 9Judah feared not, but went and played the harlot also. And it came to pass11 through the lightness [correctly: cry] of her whoredom, that she defiled the land,12 10and committed adultery with stones and with stocks [wood]. And yet for [notwithstanding] all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not turned to me with her whole heart, but feignedly [hypocritically; lit. in falsehood] saith the Lord [Jehovah].
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The theme of this strophe is “Return unto Me” (Jer_3:7, comp. Jer_3:10). It is however shown how this call hitherto, in the past, has been heeded, or rather not heeded, by Israel and Judah. The main regard of the prophet is naturally directed to Judah. Israel serves only as a foil; on the background of the transgression of Israel, which should have served for a warning to Judah, the sin of the latter stands out still more glaringly.
Jer_3:6. And Jehovah … played the harlot. If as cannot be disputed there is a close connection between this strophe and the preceding, it is evident that this inscription is not in place. For it would indicate the beginning of a larger section, while here, on the contrary, there is intimate connection. The greater section begins at Jer_3:1. The isolated and puzzling לאמר requires a sentence before it, where then this inscription belongs. The reason of its transposition from Jer_3:1 may be, as Graf supposes, that Jer_3:10 contains an evident allusion to the reformation of Josiah. But he overlooks the fact that such an allusion is contained also in Jer_3:4-5.—Upon every high mountain. Comp. Jer_3:13; Jer_2:20.—ותזני. If this is not the 2d Pers. Fem., which would be possible only by a violent change of person, the formation is to be explained either according to the analogy of תִּשְֽׁקֹטִי (Jer_47:7) as an Aramaism (comp. Ewald, § 191, c, and Anm.) or according to the analogy of תֶּמְחִי (Jer_18:23) as a ־לה֞ formation with prominence of the radical Yod (comp. Ewald, § 224, c). Olshausen, (S. 510, Anm.) at once assumes an error.
Jer_3:7. And I said … sister Judah saw it. It is not necessary, with Graf and others to take וָאֹמַר in the sense of “I thought,” and תָּשׁוּב as 3d Pers., since the Lord not only thought, this but really said it to Israel. This “Return to Me” is the underlying theme of all prophetic admonition (Jer_31:20). In this passage it is emphatic. It points back to the Yet return to me in Jer_3:1, and with the following returned not represents the main thought of the section. In form תשׁוב is like תוכל in Jer_3:5—And Faithless, her sister Judah. To take בָּגוֹדָה as subst. abstr. corresponding to מְשוּבָה = faithlessness, would form a fine parallelism; but we should then expect בְּגוּדָה. The form קָטולwith firm a (בָּנוד even or בִּוודִה only here and in Jer_3:10) designates everywhere else only concreta. Comp. Ewald, § 152, 6. The position of the word and the absence of the article seem to intimate that it is intended for a proper name, and we have therefore written it with an initial capital.—The Keri וַתֵּרִא is unnecessary, וַתִּרְאֶה does not indeed occur elsewhere, but וַנִּרֵאְה does (1Sa_17:42; 2Ki_5:21; Job_42:16; Eze_18:14, Keri. 28); and וַנִּרְאְה (1Sa_10:14) leaving out of account the analogous forms of other verbs, ex. gr.וַתּֽעֲשְׂה, Jer_32:20; Jer_36:5; Jer_36:26, etc.—The question whether it is to be translated “and Judah saw it,” or whether the object seen is contained in the following sentence beginning with בִּי depends on the other, whether the following וָאֵרֶא is genuine and original.
Jer_3:8, (And I saw) … played the harlot also. The construction: “I saw, that I, because she played the harlot, had dismissed Israel, and I gave her a bill of divorce, and Judah feared not,” is not so devoid of meaning, as Graf supposes, if we change the paratactic mode of expression into the syntactic. The main object of saw is feared not. All that lies between has the force of a parenthetical clause of adversative signification: “And I saw, that, although I had dismissed Israel, and given her a bill of divorce, yet Judah feared not.” Comp. Naegelsb.Gr., § 111, 1, Anm. But at all events the connection of verses 7 and 8 is interrupted in a very awkward way by And I saw. Verse 7 concludes in this way, that Judah had seen how Israel had not returned at the call of Jehovah, and then Jer_3:8 designates as the object of the divine seeing what, according to the conclusion of the whole course of thought, Jer_3:8 b, 9, 10, must be the object seen by Judah. For the prophet draws a parallel between the behaviour of Israel and of Judah. Israel, first apostate, is called to repent, but returns not and is rejected. Judah sees this and—also does not return. It is evidently in this connection very essential that Judah should have perceived not only the impenitence of Israel, but also the punishment he thus incurred The very sight of this destructive judgment should have brought Judah to sincere repentance Judah’s seeing the impenitence. but not the judgment, the latter being ascribed to the Lord, introduces an inappropriate element into the connection, although we cannot say that an incorrect idea would be thus originated. If however we omit the words, and I saw. we have a perfectly clear and satisfactory connection The critical authorities indeed give no safe support to its rejection. Only Jerome omits the word, but whether on MS. evidence, may be questioned. He is followed by Luther in his translation, and Gulcher. Symb. Hag., Cl. 1 Fasc. 1. The LXX. Chaldee and Arabic versions certainly found it in their copies of the original But the Syriac appears to have read יתרא, the same word twice, and this Ewald regards as the correct reading.—If וארא is an error it is at any rate a very ancient one. According to the rule of preferring the more difficult reading, it is certainly safer to retain it, although it is easy to conceive a reason for its insertion. If we strike it out, the words “her sister Judah saw” belong to the following sentence, and the second hemistich of Jer_3:7 consists merely of the words “But she returned not.” The brevity of this clause may have been the occasion of connecting the words “and Faithless,” etc., with Jer_3:7, but then it became necessary to introduce a verb in the beginning of Jer_3:8, as וארא or ותרא.—For all the causes. רֹּל before אֹדות and אשׁר after it, are found here only. Elsewhere אֹדות is always connected with a following genitive (Gen_21:11; Gen_21:25; Gen_26:32. Exo_18:8) or with suffixes (Jos_14:6) רֹּל expresses the multitude of the adulteries (hence Graf suitably translates “alldieweilen” = for all the causes). אשׁר is rendered necessary to the connection of אֹדוֹת with a finite verb. As a relative particle in the widest sense, (Comp. Naegelsb.Gr., § 80, 1) it involves here the meaning of eo quod, thereby that, (on the ground of all the occasions that have been afforded thereby, that, etc.)
Jer_3:9. And it came to pass … with wood. קל is elsewhere always written plene. On account of this unusual defective manner of writing the ancient translations seem to have derived the word from קלל; for the Vulgate translates “facilitate fornicationis suæ contaminavit terram; LXX. καὶ ἐγένετο εἰς οὐδὲν ἡ πορνεία αύτης. Arab., “fuit fornicatio ejus cum nihilo;” Chald. “levia videbantur idola in oculis ejus.”—But this defective manner of writing is not a sufficient reason for departing from the primary meaning (comp. Gen_27:22), nor is this in itself doubtful. Only we must not take קל in the sense of “report” (Gen_45:16), but the prophet means to say that so far as the land extends, so far also whoredom with idols, as a heaven-crying sin, defiles the land (comp. Gen_4:10). It may not be objected to this, that the cry for the vengeance of heaven does not defile the land, for this cry is not an immediate, but a mediate provocation of the divine justice; that is, by their very impudent appearance (this is their cry), their sin challenges the justice of God.—As to the construction with the accusative, we need neither to read וַתַּֽחֲנֵף with Ewald, nor to strike out אֶת with Graf. For the intransitive verb may be taken in a passive sense, and accordingly, as the passive, may have an accusative of the proximate object which may be regarded as dependent on an ideal transitive, חָנֵף is to be desecrated (comp. Fuerst), therefore properly rendered et profanatum est terram. This profanatum est is, however, properly no more than profanare in a passive-perfect statement; et factum est profanare terram. Comp. אַל יֵרַע אֶת־הַדָּבָר (2Sa_11:25; coll. 1Sa_8:6 : See Naegelsb.Gr., § 69, Anm. 1; § 100, 2.) Certainly תֶּחֱנַף הָאָרֶץ may also be said (Psa_106:38.)
Jer_3:10. Further, notwithstanding all this … but hypocritically, saith Jehovah.—If we should refer the words “Further,” etc., to what immediately precedes, they would retain no meaning, for it is absurd to say that Judah in spite of her idolatry had yet not repented. They refer rather to Jer_3:8, a, where it was said that the Lord had repudiated Israel. On this account a double accusative thought is added; (1) “feared not,” etc., Jer_3:8 b.; (2) “notwithstanding all this,” Jer_3:10. Although Judah had witnessed the punishment of Israel, she did two things; first, she continued the whoredom of idolatry, and then sought to appease Jehovah by a hypocritical conversion, by which the prophet apparently alludes to the reformation of Josiah, which was entered on in earnest by the king, but not by the people.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. God in His judgments has in view not merely those who are primarily affected by them, but those who witness them also. If the latter do not allow themselves thus to be warned, their guilt increases just in the proportion that the judgment might have been an impulse and a help to repentance. Comp. 2Ki_17:18; Pro_28:14; 1Co_10:6; 1Co_10:11; 2Pe_2:4-6, (ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβεῖν τεθεικώς, Jer_3:6.)
2. “Blessed is he who is rendered wise by the losses of others.” Cramer. Comp. Jer_18:5-8; Zec_1:3.
3. Ghislerus remarks that the present passage has been frequently interpreted allegorically. Thus the Abbot Joachim de Flore (ob. 1202, Commentary on Jeremiah, printed at Venice, 1525, and Cologne, 1577), interprets it of the Greek and Roman church (comp. Herzog’s Real-Enc., VI. S., 713). Nicolaus de Lyra interpreted it of the rich monastic orders, and the mendicant friars; Cardinal Hugo (de St. Caro, one of the inquisitors of the Abbot Joachim, ob. 1263), of the “illiterati et sæculares pravi,” and of the “improbi religiosorum et clericorum et literatorum.”
4. Origen also treats of this passage (Jer_3:6-10) in his fourth homily on Jeremiah (in Jerome it is the fourteenth). He understands by Israel, the whole Jewish people, and by Judah, the Gentile church which, in spite of the judgments inflicted on Israel before their eyes, had in the course of time fallen into many sins and errors.
5. Ephrem Syrus emphasizes the encouragement contained in Jer_3:7 (“Return to me”), when he says (Tom. 1. In threnis de div. retributione, according to Ghisler.), “O miseranda anima quousque torpescis et de salute animum despondes? Quam veniam in die judicii assequeris, quum salvator per prophetam exclamet dicens: ad me revertere!”
6. On Jer_3:10. Though the reform of Josiah was only a pseudo-revival, it furnishes us with the means of judging how deep a genuine revival must go. If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee (Mat_5:29; Mat_18:8-9; Mar_9:43-48).
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1. The severity and the goodness of God in His dealings with the Jewish nation (Rom_11:22): (1) His severity in His judgments upon Israel; (2) His goodness in His constantly repeated invitations to return (Jer_3:7.)
2. The difference between false and true repentance. (1) False repentance; (a) its ground—servile fear; (b) its effect—external reform. (2) True repentance; (a) its ground—love to God; (b) its effect—honest fruits of sanctification.
Footnotes:
[7][As this passage presents no signs of poetry I have followed Blayney, Noyes, and Henderson in giving it the form of prose. Umbreit prints it in parallelisms, while Wordsworth renders not only these verses but the whole chapter as prose.—S. R. A.]
[8]Jer_3:6.—מְשֻׁבָה rejection, revolt, apostacy, the abstract for the concrete; comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 19, 1. The word in this sense is peculiar to this chapter; comp. Jer_8:11-12. Comp. also Jer_8:5.
[9]Jer_3:8.—כְּדיתְתֶיהָ. The plural here only, comp. Deu_24:1; Deu_24:3; Isa_50:1.
[10]Jer_3:8.—בֹּגֵדָה is related to בָּגוֹדָה as שׁוֹבָב (Jer_3:14; Jer_3:22) to מְשֻׁבָה. On the form comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 47, 1; Ewald, § 188, b.
[11]Jer_3:9.—וְהָיָה here as in 1Sa_13:22; 1Sa_25:20, and elsewhere, stands for וַיְהִי. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 88, 7, Anm.
[12]Jer_3:9.—וַתֶּחֱנַף אֶת־הָאֶרֶץ, a frequent paratactic construction. Comp. וּפִּיַלגְשׁוֹ וַתֵלֶד, Gen_22:24. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 87, 7; § 111, 1 b.
3. The call to Return in the Future (Jer_3:11-25)
a. How and whom God will call
Jer_3:11-17
11 And Jehovah said to me, Apostasy Israel
Has justified her soul before Faithless Judah.
12 Go and cry these words to the north, and say,
Return13 Apostasy Israel, saith Jehovah.
I will not lower my face14 against you,
For I am merciful, saith Jehovah,
I do not bear a grudge for ever.15
13 Only acknowledge thy sin,
That thou hast transgressed against the Lord thy God,
And hast run hither and thither to the strangers under every green tree,
And ye have not heeded my voice, saith Jehovah.
14 Return, apostate children, saith Jehovah,
For I am your husband16 and take you one from a city,
And two from a tribe and bring you towards Zion.
15 And give you pastors after my heart,
And they shall pasture you with understanding17 and judgment.18
16 And it shall come to pass, when ye shall multiply,
And spread in the land in those days, saith Jehovah,
It will no more be said, Ark of the covenant of Jehovah!
And it will no more come to mind,19
Nor will they remember it or esteem it;
Also they will not make it again.
17 At that time Jerusalem will be called Jehovah’s throne,
And all the nations shall gather to it,
To the name of Jehovah, to Jerusalem,
And will no more follow the perverseness of their evil heart.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The purport of this and the following strophe points evidently to the future. We find the call שִוּבָה ,שׁוּבוּ here also, addressed in the first instance to the Israel of the ten tribes, then to the whole people; but he who calls has the consciousness, that no longer, as hitherto, is he preaching to deaf ears. The times are changed. Israel repents, and a period opens before him of unanticipated outward and spiritual glory. The prophet comprises in his view first the past and the future, then the present, for the same reason that he treats of the present so much more at length; he has the present Israel most at heart; it is his object to subordinate the Past and the Future as means. Before, therefore, he enters in detail into the present condition of things, he seeks by brief and significant intimations concerning the past and future, to make an impression on the hearts of his hearers.
Jer_3:11. And Jehovah … Judah. It results from the preceding section that Judah, besides the aids afforded by the temple and the legitimate royalty, had also the example of Israel before her as a powerful impulse to amendment. The consequence of leaving these advantages unemployed, is that Israel appears more righteous than Judah. Comp. Eze_16:51-52, the reverse of the expression, κατακρίνειν, Mat_12:41, coll. 3:27. This point, favorable to Israel, serves the prophet as a point of support for a consolatory prophecy which is addressed primarily to Israel.
Jer_3:12. Go and cry these words towards the north … I do not bear a grudge for ever.—Go and cry, comp. Jer_2:2.—Towards the north. Comp. Jer_3:18. The prophet is to cry towards the north because Israel was carried captive into Assyria, towards the north. Comp. Jer_16:15; Jer_23:8; Jer_31:8.—Lower my face, comp. Gen_4:5-6. The expression denotes that lowering of the countenance, which is accompanied by the look which Homer portrays in the expression ὑπόδρα ἱδών.—Bear a grudge, comp. Jer_3:5.
Jer_3:13. Only acknowledge … heeded my voice. The only condition of the grace promised in Jer_3:12 is acknowledgment of sin. The prophet of course means that fruitful acknowledgment which includes corresponding action, comp. Luk_12:10-11.—ותפּזרי, comp. Jer_2:23; Jer_2:25; Jer_2:36 (תֵּזְלִי) [lit. scattered (thy ways)].
Jer_3:14. Return … towards Zion. The old call in a new form. No longer Apostasy Israel is addressed (so Israel alone is called, comp. Jer_3:6), but apostate children. This not only sounds more comprehensive, but seems besides in Jer_3:22, to be the common designation of both halves of the people. Observe further, that the following strophe, Jer_3:18, begins at once with the declaration that Judah and Israel would come together. This seems to be the performance of the command given them in Jer_3:14. Finally in Jer_3:14; Jer_3:17, the possession of Zion and Jerusalem is spoken of. Should Judah be excluded from this possession? Evidently then the prophet in Jer_3:11-13, turns first to Israel, who had the preference, because less was given him; but, although he does not expressly name Judah, wishing to excite her to emulation by the promise of salvation apparently addressed to Israel alone (comp. παραξηλοὺν, Rom_11:14), yet in substance the pictures of the two kingdoms in the prophetic perspective, pass imperceptibly into one another, Jer_3:14-17. This strophe is thus preliminary to the following, in which the union of Israel and Judah is the fundamental idea.—For I am your husband, etc., בָּעַל (as verb. denom. = to be Lord, possessor, especially a spouse, to take a wife), is certainly elsewhere construed with an accusative (Isa_26:13; Isa_54:1; Isa_62:4), or with לְ (1Ch_4:22). But the construction with בְּ is possible, because the verbs of ruling (comp. Gen_3:16; Deu_15:6; Jdg_8:22) are thus connected. The explanation of Kimchi, Schleussner, Schnurrer and others, who would take בָּעַל here as in Jer_31:32, according to the doubtful analogy of the Arabic (See Hengstenberg, Christol., II., S. 416), in the meaning “to be disgusted, to disdain,” is admissible neither here nor in Jer_31:32 (vide ad loc), and the less in this place, that we are obliged to take כִּי in the sense of although. It is also grammatically incorrect to take בָּעַלְתִּי in the sense of the future, as some do, following the example of the LXX. (κατακυριεύσω ὑμῶν). Rather does the Lord ground His promise of blessing on the fact that He is Israel’s husband, and has never ceased and never will cease to be so. Comp. the remarks on Jer_2:1-3.—One from a city, etc.Eichhorn, Ewald, Graf understand this: “and even if so few fulfil the condition of true return,” (named in Jer_3:13). But to the ear it would then be definitely stated that only a few would return. We should then also expect the antithesis of בֵית אָבוֹת ,מַטֶּה or שֵׁבֶט. The expressions city and tribe (comp. Gen_10:5; Gen_12:3; Psa_22:28; Psa_96:7), intimate rather that the prophet has the cities and tribes of the heathen in view. He would evidently indicate the great scattering of Israel, cast out among the heathen, and would say that great as this scattering was, if ex. gr., there were only one Jew in a city, or only two in a whole nation; yet these members of the holy family, almost vanishing amid the mass of the heathen should not be forgotten. Thus also Kimchi and Rosenmueller. [Noyes and Henderson.]
Jer_3:15. And give you pastors … understanding and judgment. The promise that Israel shall be gathered out of his dispersion (Jer_3:14) contains an allusion to the final period, and this point is now brought out more clearly. Pastors after God’s heart can be those only, who are no longer as hitherto (comp. Hos_8:4), governed inwardly or outwardly by the spirit of the world, but who allow themselves to be guided by the Spirit of God alone, and are therefore fit instruments for the realization of God’s kingdom upon earth. There is here an unmistakable allusion to David, the man after God’s own heart (1Sa_13:14; Act_13:22), and at the same time the representative of the idea of God’s kingdom in its earthly realization (2 Samuel 7), as well as to Solomon, who next after David, prayed for and received wisdom and judgment from God (2Ch_1:10-11). The explanation of the older commentators, who understand by the pastors, Zerubbabel, Joshua, Ezra, or the Apostles and their successors, may have this much of truth in it that the return under Zerubbabel or the Christian Church may be numbered among the beginnings of the fulfillment of this promise. At any rate we must understand spiritual as well as worldly pastors (ποιμένες λαῶν). Comp. Jer_10:21; Jer_23:4; Eze_34:23; Joh_10:1.
Jer_3:16-17. And it shall come to pass … evil heart. These verses portray in a few but expressive traits the character of that future epoch. Its characteristic feature will be this, that in the place of a merely representative there will be a real and therefore, extensively and intensively, an infinitely active presence of God. The pastors of understanding and judgment will bring about a period of prosperity to which it is an essential element, that Israel from the little heap, which according to Jer_3:14 it will be on its return to the land, will become as to numbers a respectable nation. Comp. Jer_23:3-4; Isa_49:18-21; Isa_54:1-3. As in the beginning of the human race, as the basis of all further steps towards the attainment of its destiny, the command was given to be fruitful and multiply (פְרוּ וּרְבוּ, Gen_1:28; Gen_9:1), of which we are reminded by the sound of the words here (תרבו ופריתם), and as the family of Jacob in Egypt had first to develop into a great people before it could be the receptacle of the fundamental revelation of the kingdom, so according to this passage the Israel of the future is first to become numerous, in order to be fitted for the concluding and perfected revelation of the kingdom.—In those days. Though connected with the preceding by the accents, which make a pause at נְאֻם יְהוָֹה, these words belong, at any rate in meaning to it will no more be said. They correspond to כּי as tum to a previous quando.—Ark, etc., is not the accusative of the object dependent on say, but an exclamation; and the latter word, therefore, is not to name, to mention, but to say, to speak. The word “ark of the covenant” will no more be heard, because the thing itself and every thought of it will have disappeared. The ark will not be an object of desire or remembrance. In consequence of this it will no more be looked for or sought, as something that is missed (1Sa_20:6; 1Sa_25:15; Isa_34:16; 1Ch_13:3) and still less prepared anew.—Will not make it. Luther: they will no longer sacrifice there, but עָשָׂה, occurs in this meaning without an object-accusative only at a very late period (2Ki_17:32), and it is not credible that the prophet should designate this important idea by an expression so easily misunderstood. The Chaldee, Raschi, Grotius and others render “and it shall no more take place,” but they differ among themselves in reference to what shall no more take place. They thus resort to arbitrary supplementations (the taking of the ark into battle 1Sa_4:11; ea quæ nunc in bello fieri solent; the previously stated). The only natural subject is ark.—Jehovah’s throne. The period when the ark is lacking, described in Jer_3:16, does not represent a retrograde but a progressive interval. What the ark has hitherto been to Jerusalem (Exo_25:18-22; Num_7:89; Psa_80:2; Psa_99:1) Jerusalem is now to be in relation to the nations. All Jerusalem is now to be the throne of the Lord. The prophet’s glance penetrates to the remotest distance, without distinguishing the progressive stages into which the final period itself is divided. While thus this prophecy on one hand reminds us of Micah 4 (coll. Isa_2:2 sqq.; Zec_8:20; Jer_31:6. Comp. Casp.Micah der Morasth. S. 453), on the other hand it reminds us of Revelation 21—The declaration of this passage that Jerusalem itself will be the throne of God is covered by the declaration of the Apocalypse that the New Jerusalem will be the tabernacle of God with men (Jer_21:3) as the earth was in the beginning (Genesis 3), and as the glory of Melchisedek consists in his being the representative of that original relation to God. Comp. the article in Herzog, Real-Enc. on Melchisedek, IX., S. 303. Comp. also Eze_48:35; Joel 4:17. The correspondence of the Jerusalem of this passage with the New Jerusalem is further intimated by what is said in “Rev_21:22-23, that the latter will have no temple, neither sun nor moon, but all these the Lord Himself will be to it. The analogy of this declaration with that in Jeremiah concerning the absence of the ark is strikingly evident. Comp. Tholuck, Die Propheten und ihre Weiss. S. 154 and 194.—This analogy is finally confirmed by the declaration that all the heathen will assemble in the name of God at Jerusalem, for a similar declaration is made in Revelation, on the basis of many prophetic passages (Isaiah 60; Isa_66:18 sqq.; Zec_14:16; Zep_3:9-10; comp. Rom_9:24-26; Rom_10:18-20) of the New Jerusalem in Rev_21:24; Rev_21:26.—To the name. The expression is supported by the passages Exo_20:21; Deu_12:5; Deu_12:11 : coll. 1Ki_8:16 sqq.; 2Ch_6:5 sqq., where even the first earthly sanctuary is designated as the residence of the name of Jehovah. As the preposition אֵל designates the direction in space, so לְ before שֵׁם designates the object of the coming; to Jerusalem, however, cannot be the bare repetition of the idea in it (Hitzig) any more than the addition of a later hand, for it renders the sense more difficult, instead of more easy, on which account the absence of the word in the LXX and the Syriac is evidently due to the critics. We can regard it only with Hengstenberg as the more exact definition of לְשֵׁם י׳, before which אשר is to be supplied. It has then a causative sense; not Jerusalem is the object of the assembling of the nations, but the name of the Lord, which belongs to Jerusalem, and Jerusalem only in so far as the name of the Lord was inseparably connected with it.—And will no more follow, etc. The expression שְׁרִרוּת לִבָּם is found on the basis of Deu_29:18, also in Psa_81:13, and in Jer_7:24; Jer_9:13; Jer_11:8; Jer_13:10; Jer_16:12; Jer_18:12; Jer_23:17—in all these places of Israel. It has nothing in itself which requires this limitation, it may therefore be used also in a wider sense, so that the heathen, in so far as Jerusalem is also their centre, may be reckoned together with Israel. All then, Israel and the heathen, will finally lose their stony heart and receive a heart soft and filled with the Spirit (Eze_11:19; Eze_36:26), and not outwardly only but with the whole heart will they be subject to the Lord and His kingdom.—If we once more look over this strophe we are struck above all by the sublimely rapt progress of the prophet’s discourse from the circumstances of the present to the remotest future. The prophet proceeds from the comparison of the Judah of the present with the Israel in a certain sense belonging already to the past. This comparison issues favorably to Israel. Thus a prophecy is called forth which sets in prospect before Israel the highest material and spiritual prosperity. With this two questions are connected. Since the realization of this prosperity is connected with the condition of Israel’s conversion, the question arises, Will this conversion take place? and when? The prophetic gaze can in the inconceivably distant ages perceive no element of religious or political restoration in the Israel of the ten tribes, as these are in fact unknown even to the present day. It must then be reserved for the final period (אַֽחֲרִית הַיָּמִיםMic_4:1) to bring back the lost ten tribes to the light,—the light of knowledge and of salvation. But here another question also arises, Will not Judah also participate in this light of knowledge and salvation? These two questions then: What will become of Judah? and How is it as to the conversion required in Jer_3:13? still wait for a solution. We may indeed read this solution from Jer_3:14 between the lines. But the sublime haste of the prophet’s flight hindered him from giving it in express words; he adds it therefore in the following strophe.
(Special dissertations on this passage by Loscanus, Frankfort, 1720; Zickler, Jena, 1747; Frischmuth, Jena).
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. [“Here is a great deal of Gospel in these verses, both that which was always gospel, God’s readiness to pardon sin, and to receive and entertain returning, repenting sinners, and those blessings which were in a special manner reserved for gospel-times, the forming and founding of the gospel-church by bringing into it the children of God that were scattered abroad, the superseding of the ceremonial law, and the uniting of Jews and Gentiles, typified by the uniting of Israel and Judah in their return out of captivity.” Henry.—S. R. A.]
Footnotes:
[13][Jer_3:11.—Blayney, Noyes and Henderson, render Jer_3:11-12 as prose.—S. R. A.]
[14][Jer_3:12.—Henderson renders: I will not continue to frown upon you.—Noyes: I will not turn a frowning face upon you.—S. R. A].
[15]Jer_3:12.—שׁובה, apart from the assonant מְשֻׁבָה the paragogic He is never attached to forms with vowel terminations. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr. § 23, Anm. 5
[16][Jer_3:14.—Hitzig, Umbreit and others, translate “lord, master.” Henderson and Noyes follow De Wette, Gesenius and others in rendering “I have rejected you;” Noyes also renders, “yet will I receive you again.”—S. R. A.].
[17]Jer_3:15.—דִּעָה nom. verbale. Comp. Exo_2:4; Isa_11:9; Isa_28:9.
[18]Jer_3:15.—הָשִׂכֵּיל Inf. abs., with substantive meaning as Pro_1:3; Pro_21:16; Dan_1:17. On the acc. adverb. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 70, k.
[19]Jer_3:16.—זכר. The Kal with בְ here only, the Hiphil is so construed in Psa_20:8; Amo_6:10; Isa_48:1, analogously to the construction of verba sentiendi with בְ Comp. Naegelsb. Gr., § 112, 5, a. On יַֽעֲלֶה עַל־לֵב. Comp. Jer_51:50; Isa_65:17.
b. Supplement of the preceding, stating more exactly who is called and how the call is received
Jer_3:18-25
18 In that day the house of Judah and the house of Israel shall walk together,
And shall come with each other from the north country
Into the land which I have given your fathers for an inheritance.
19 And I said: How will I put thee among the children,
And give thee a pleasant land,
The most glorious inheritance among the nations!
And further I said, My Father thou wilt call me,20
And wilt not turn away behind me.
20 But! Was ever a woman faithless to her lover,
So were you faithless towards me,
O house of Israel, saith Jehovah.
21 A cry is heard on the hills,
The weeping supplication of the children of Israel;
That they have perverted their way,
Have forgotten Jehovah, their God.
22 Return, ye apostate children,
I will heal21 your apostasies!
Behold, we come22 to thee,
For thou art Jehovah, our God.
23 As certainly as hills are false,
Mountains an empty sound,23
So certain is the salvation of Israel
With Jehovah our God.
24 Shame however hath devoured the gains of our fathers from our youth,
Their sheep and their oxen,
Their sons and their daughters.
25 Let us lie in our shame,
And our disgrace cover us,
That we have sinned against Jehovah our God,
We and our fathers from our youth to this day,
And have not heeded the voice of Jehovah our God.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
This strophe evidently consists of two parts, of which the first (Jer_3:18-19) treats of the participation of Judah in the prosperity promised to Israel, the second (Jer_3:20-25) of the conversion of both as one which satisfies all demands.
Jer_3:18. In that day an inheritance. Reference to the last strophe. Comp. at that time Jer_3:17.—together, in the sense of heaping so that those are designated as upon one another, of whom we should speak as together, with each other, is frequent: Gen_28:9; Gen_32:12; Exo_12:9; Exo_35:22; Amo_3:15; Job_38:32. We see also that עַל is to be regarded as a preposition from the following sentences where their coming in company is manifestly the result of their meeting together. The promise of a reunion of the exiles from Judah and Jerusalem, and their return in company to the land of their fathers is found also,—to mention only the principal passages, in Hos_2:2; Isa_11:11; Isaiah 30. and Isaiah 31; Isa_50:4-5; Eze_37:15-17.—It forms an essential element in the glorious picture of the future, which prophecy presents by the announcement of a glorious restoration of Israel to Canaan after long humiliation and dispersion. To the original passages Lev_26:42-45; Deu_30:1-10; Deu_32:36-43 follows a long series of prophetic declarations, of which the most important are Psalms 72.; Isa_2:2 to Isa_4:6; Isa_4:2-6; Isa_9:1-6; Chap. 24. sqq; 60. sqq; Jer_29:10-14; Jer_30:-24.; Eze_34:23-25; Joel 4:16; Amo_9:8; Oba_1:17-21; Mic_4:5; Zep_3:14-20; Zec_2:4, sqq. Zec_8:7 sqq; Zec_9:9 sqq. Zec_10:8 sqq—Comp. Auberlen, der proph. Daniel, S. 391 sqq.—Hebart, The Second Visible Coming of Christ, (Die Zweite, etc. Erlangen. 1850. S. 70, 84, etc.)
Jer_3:19. And I said … behind me. If above, in the concluding remark on the preceding strophe, we have correctly denned its relation to Jer_3:18-25, it follows that Jer_3:18 does not belong to the foregoing, and that Jer_3:19-20 are not connected as thesis and antithesis, as most modern commentators would have it. The reasons for this view are the following: (1) Jer_3:18 seems then entirely isolated. Graf says: “Only in passing is a glance cast in this verse at the final destiny of Judah.” But the destiny of Judah demands more than a passing glance. Either an elucidation concerning the fate of Judah must be interwoven with the contents of the preceding discourse, or Judah must be spoken of in appropriate measure in a special section. (2) According to the view which I combat, there is a hiatus between Jer_3:18-19. With Jer_3:19, the discourse proceeds to an entirely new subject, the relation of which to the preceding can be designated neither by a separative nor by a connective particle. The Vau before אנכי accordingly appears not only superfluous, but interruptive. (3) If Jer_3:19-20 are so connected that the former declares the expectation cherished by Jehovah, the latter the sad non-fulfilment of this expectation, the discourse makes a spring from Jer_3:20 to Jer_3:21 which could not be more abrupt. No one would then expect the delightful continuation of the discourse after Jer_3:20. Suddenly and without preparation we are met by the description of Israel’s penitence. In short, verses 19 and 20 do not then at all agree with what follows, and since they are equally severed from what precedes, they appear to be a wholly needless and interruptive interpolation. It will therefore be correct to attach Jer_3:19 closely to Jer_3:18, as a short but satisfactory description of the condition of the entire Israelitish people after their return to the land of their fathers. In the form of an objection, which is subsequently removed, Jer_3:20 then forms an appropriate transition to the second subject, concerning which, as remarked above, the prophet had to pronounce in this strophe. The emphatic אנבי, “I,” on the one hand forms an antithesis to Israel and Judah in Jer_3:18, and on the other brings out the importance of the promise here given—Not a man, but I, Jehovah, declare this. אמרתי is neither future, as ex. gr.Seb. Schmidt supposes, nor is it a narrative preterite, so as to refer to a definite event in the past, as ex. gr., Abarbanel reads, referring it to the exodus from Egypt. It simply presents this declaration of God as an accomplished fact. It asserts that there is a divine decree of the afterwards designated import. But thus this import is absolutely guaranteed, for the Lord’s word is true, and what He says is certain (Psa_33:4). The strange addition, γένοιτο κύριε, which the LXX. make after καὶ ἐγὼ εἶπα, may be explained by the circumstance, as we may gather from Theodoret, that they understood אנכי not of God but of the prophet, and since I put thee among the children could not possibly be uttered by the prophet, they supplied him with words ex propriis.—The explanation of this expression of reception-among the children, agrees well with that view of the connection which has been rejected by us, although it is still strange even according to this view, that Jer_3:20 should pass over to another picture. We should expect that the Israelites, in view of the gracious purpose of God expressed in Jer_3:19, would be designated as disobedient children (comp. Isa_1:2), and not as a faithless spouse. We render the expression with the Chaldee, Bugenhagen, Luther, Clarius, Grotius, Schmidt, Venema, Hitzig in the sense of bestowing a rich paternal benediction. On the importance of such benediction, compare the remarks on Jer_3:16; Kueper (S. 9,) calls this a benedictio vere theocratica. Israel and Judah, according to Jer_3:14, having returned in small numbers must before all become a numerous people. The promise in Jer_3:16, made primarily to Israel, is here presented to the view of both.—Venema mentions, that they say also in Dutch, jemant in kinderen setten. Comp שִׁית בְּיֵשַׁעin salute ponere, Psa_12:6.—a pleasant land. Comp. Psa_106:24; Zec_7:14.—a most glorious inheritance. It is a question whether to derive צבאות from צבא or from צבי. Both are grammatically possible. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr. S. 106; Olshausen, § 145, 6; Ewald, § 186 e; § 55, e. Comp. צְבָאִים (Gazelles) 1Ch_12:8; and צְבָאוֹת (in the same meaning) Son_2:7; Son_3:5.—It is of no account, that the form occurs elsewhere only as St. constr. from צָבָא (Exo_12:41; 1Ki_2:5), and that צְבִי in the sense of decus does not occur elsewhere in the plural, since for the sake of a play upon words the prophet might employ an unusual expression. The juxtaposition of the singular and plural to form a climax, is also, as is well known, not infrequent; Ecc_1:2; Eze_16:7. Comp. Naegelsb. Gr. § 61, 3. The decision is the more difficult since the meaning in both cases is the same (Maurer). Most commentators preferring the more normal form decide in favor of the derivation from צָבָא. Yet I would prefer the derivation from צבי. Since the juxtaposition of צבי צבאות seems more pregnant and forcible than the flat and tautological צבאות גוים. Besides which the Holy Land is elsewhere called ארץ צבי, Eze_20:6; Eze_20:15; Dan_11:16; Dan_11:41.—ואמר we translate: “And further I said,” for from the first divine decree flows a second of this import, that Israel will not only receive but show himself worthy of receiving. That which Israel spoke before (Jer_3:4) in hypocritical pretence, will be presented in the future, which the Prophet has in view, in glorious reality.
Jer_3:20. But! Was ever woman faithless to her lover? … O house of Israel! saith Jehovah. In these words the Lord Himself raises a protest against the promise given to Judah and Israel in verses 18 and 19. How shall such glory be imparted to this people, who have hitherto been distinguished only for their infidelity? אכן is taken by many, ex. gr.Fuerst (Handwb. s. v.) Ewald, (Lehrb. S. 273,) in a relative signification=so as, entirely so as. But there is no example of this meaning and it is not necessary that there should be here a particle of contingency or comparison. (Comp. Isa_55:9; coll. Jer_3:10-11). We therefore take אָכֵן (which like אַךְ may from the meaning “tantum, only” obtain an affirmative as well as a restrictive sense) here=but, however, which meaning it undoubtedly has in Psa_31:23; Psa_82:7; Isa_49:4; Zep_3:7. Since the prophet in this strophe has in view the period of re-united Israel, Israel or house of Israel is to be taken in these verses to 4, 2, not in the restricted sense of Jer_3:6 sqq. but in the wider sense mentioned. (Comp. Isa_1:3, etc.)
Jer_3:21. A cry is heard on the hills ….forgotten Jehovah, their God. With dramatic vividness the penitent people are now brought forward to refute the exception taken in Jer_3:20, in such a way that Jer_3:21 designates their appearance in general outlines, Jer_3:22 the call to the people to repent, repeated from Jer_3:14; and in the following verses it is shown by the verba ipsissima of the people, how they responded to this call.—On the hills. These high places which had formerly been the seats of wickedness (see Jer_3:2) are now the scenes of penitence, comp. Jer_7:29.
Jer_3:22. Return, ye apostate children … for thou art Jehovah, our God. The same call as in Jer_3:14, from which we see that this passage is closely connected with that. The question; Will the people respond to the call? there obtruded itself. Here it is satisfactorily answered. It might be asked why the words “Return, etc,” do not come before Jer_3:21. But this verse is only to describe the disposition of the people towards repentance, their general penitence. Israel was indeed formerly “faithless” (Jer_3:20), but now they acknowledge their sin and are able to obey the call, should it again be heard as before (ver 22, a) in a manner well-pleasing to God. (Jer_3:22, b–25)—I will heal, etc. The thought is from Hos_14:5. In the connection of heal with the plural it seems to be implied that the Lord will both pardon the single acts, and remove the evil root.
Jer_3:23. As certainly as the hills are false … Jehovah, our God. Without Dagesh forteמִגְבָעוֹת would mean the priests’ caps, since the word occurs in this sense only; Exo_29:9; Exo_28:40; Exo_39:28; Lev_8:13. But what have these to do here? The Masoretes have therefore punctuated the ג with Dag. forte., in order thus to secure the meaning of “hills.” Now the explanation of the מן prepares new difficulties. The ancient translators ignore this מן altogether, and yet take the rest in the sense of colles. The later commentators (if they do not with Lud. de Dieu take הָרִים=offerre i.e. victimas) either supply מִן before חָרִים or alter הָמוֹן into הֲמוֹן Besides this they differ very widely in determining the meaning of הָמוֹן.—It seems to me that the prophet understood the word מגבעות in the sense of “hills,” and chose it for the sake of its secondary meaning. Although the word occurs in the Old Testament only in the sense of “priests’ caps,” yet, “hills” was the original meaning from which the other was developed, the word being transferred on account of the hill-like shape of the caps. Now as ex. gr. the word for weapon in German (Gewehr) has gradually assumed the meaning of musket, but might be used in its original and more general sense in a manner intelligible to every German, so here the prophet has employed a word restricted by usage to a special meaning, in its original signification in such a way that at the same time he intended an allusion to the secondary sense. Not the hills are the deceivers, but the priests, of whom Elijah on this account slew a great number (1Ki_18:40). In הָמוֹן which means tumult, strepitus, there may be an allusion to the bacchanalian noise of the unchaste idol-worship. Comp. Amo_5:23—לַשֶׁקֶר like לֵשָׁוְא has become an adverb and signifies false, deceptive, useless. (Levit. 5:24; Lev_19:12; 1Sa_25:21; Jer_5:2; Jer_7:9; Jer_8:8; Jer_27:15; Zec_5:4; Mal_3:5). אָכֵן is taken by the commentators both times in the affirmative sense (Jer_4:10; Jer_8:8). It appears to me that this doubling includes also the idea of reciprocal relation (comp. כְּעַל־כְּעַל ,כֹּה־כֹּה): as certainly as the hills are vanity and nothing, so certainly is Israel’s salvation in Jehovah, their God.
Jer_3:24. Shame however … their sons and their daughters. Not merely as vanity and nothing, but as positively injurious are the idols opposed to the real saving power of Jehovah. The Vau at the beginning of this verse corresponds especially to the last clause of Jer_3:23, as containing the main thought, and is accordingly adversative=however. הבשׁת. From 11, 13; Hos_9:10 we see that בשׁת is here placed in parallelism with בעל. Kimchi remarks that in ancient names composed with בשת the place of this word is afterwards supplied by בעל. Hence for אישׁ־בשׁת2Sa_2:8; אֶשִׁבַּעַל1Ch_8:33. For יְרֻבַּצּלJdg_6:32יְרבּשֶׁת2Sa_11:21. From all this we see that the abstract בשׁת is to be regarded primarily as an ironical synonym of בעל, the chief deity. From what, however, is ascribed in this passage to בשׁת the prophet cannot have had merely Baal in mind but also the other idols. All these have from the youth not of the speaker, but of the people generally (comp. the golden calf, Exodus 32, and Baal Peor, Numbers 25), devoured the substance of the fathers, in part immediately by sacrifices which were not due to them as to the Lord, in part mediately by the judgments which such apostasy brought upon the people.
Jer_3:25. Let us lie … the voice of Jehovah, our God. As Jer_3:22-24 contain acknowledgment and confession, so Jer_3:25 contains shame and sorrow. As the penitent seats himself in dust and ashes (Job_42:6; Dan_9:3), so they casting themselves down in the feeling of their shame, would lie before the Lord, and as the penitent clothes himself in sackcloth (1Ki_21:27 : 2Ki_6:30; 2Ki_19:1-2,) or veils his face (Exo_3:6; 2Sa_15:30), so would they, deeply feeling their disgrace, hide their countenance before the Lord (comp. the publican, Luk_18:13). The entire guilt which the people had incurred from their youth up (Jer_2:2; Hos_11:1) is according to the scale of Psa_32:5, to be expiated.
Footnotes:
[20]Jer_3:19.—The Masoretes would read תקראי and תשׁובי on account of אֲשׁיתֵךְ and לָךְ, but unnecessarily. [“The Keri are found in the text of upwards of thirty MSS., and in some of the earlier editions, and would seem to deserve the preference, on the ground of אָנִי in the singular occurring immediately before. The LXX, Arab., and Syr., however, have read תִּקְרְאוּ the present textual reading.” Henderson.—S. R. A.]
[21]Jer_3:22.—On the exchange of the forms לא׳ and לה׳ comp. Ewald, § 142, c; 198, b; Olshausen, § 233.—In reference to רפא and רפה comp. Jer_6:14, coll. Jer_8:11; Jer_19:11; Jer_51:9. The Masoretes approve of the Chethibh here, while they correct it in Jer_19:11, because here the vowel pronunciation is correct (1 Pers. with He parag.) but not in Jer_19:11.
[22]Jer_3:22.—אָתָנוּ instead of אָתָאנוּ (Comp. Naegelsb. Gr. § 10, 11, Anm. from אָתָא comp. Isa_21:12), and this instead of אָתִינוּ; comp. Olshausen, § 233 b; Ewald, § 198, b.
[23]Jer_3:23.—[“On the authority of thirty-six MSS. and others in the margin, two early editions, the LXX., Arab., Hexaplar, Syr., the Peshito, Aq., Symn., Vulg. הָמוֹן should be pointed הִַמוֹן in the construct.” Henderson. In the rendering Henderson and Noyes follow the A. V.; Blayney has “Surely hills are lies, the tumult of mountains;” Hitzig, “for a deception from the hills is the host of mountains;” Umbreit, “Verily! a lie is become from the hills, the tumult of the mountains.”—S. R. A.]
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL
1. On Jer_3:21. Although Paul in Gal_6:4-5, says that every one should prove his own work, that he may have praise in himself and not in another, and that every one will have his own burden, yet we read on the other hand that the people of Nineveh and the Queen of Sheba will in the day of judgment condemn the γενεά of Christ’s contemporaries (Mat_12:41-42; comp. Jer 3:27, 11, 21, etc.). The apparent contradiction is dispelled when we consider that Paul in the Epistle to the Galatians urges the absolute standard against those who desire to find in the faults of others a mantle for their own, that is, that every one will be judged above all and essentially according to that which he is in and of himself. Christ Himself, however, in the passages cited applies the relative standard to those who, in the blindness of their pride, believe themselves beyond comparison better than all others. To these it is said that a comparison may certainly be made, but that it will result to their disadvantage, since the guilt which they have incurred, notwithstanding the most favorable circumstances, will serve for a ground of mitigation for others, who have sinned in less favorable circumstances, (ἀνεκτότερον ἕσται, Mat_11:22; Mat_11:24).
2. “Erubesce Sidon, ait mare. Quasi enim per vocem maris ad verecundian Sidon adducitur, quando per comparationem vitæ sæcularium atque in hoc mundo fluctuantium ejus, qui munitus et quasi stabilis cernitur, vita reprobatur.” Gregor M. in Isidor. Hisp. Vide Ghisler. S. 289.
3. On Jer_3:12-13. The grace of God is an open door to every one who knocks with the finger of penitence, 1Jn_1:8-10. “Erranti medicina confessio—Cessat vindicta divina, si confessio præcurrat humana.” Ambros.
4. Ghislerus. “Deus sol hominis et homo sol Dei. Quod Deus sit sol hominis, indicatur eo, quod peccatores metaphora designati sint aquilonis. Ut enim ab aguilone sol sensibilis, ita a peccatoribus Deus, sol justitiæ longe est. Quod antem homo quodammodo sit et Dei sol, indicat ipsemet Deus, dum ait: revertere aversatrix Israel et non avertam faciem meam a vobis (Vulg.). Significat enim ad hominem se habere ut heliotropium ad solem; convertente homine se ad Deum, convertit statim et se Deus ad illum; eoque non se avertente, nec Deus faciem suam ab illo avertit.”
5. On Jer_3:14. “God in proof of his mercy keeps his covenant, which men have broken by their sins, as strictly and securely, as though they had never broken it. Eze_18:22.” Starke.
6. On Jer_3:15. Donatur, fato non decidit arbore mysta.
A teacher true never falls from a tree,
But comes by divine authority.
M. G. Albrecht. Hierarch. Eccl. Cap. 10.
7. On Jer_3:16. “The ceremonial law and custom must have an end, and the ark of the covenant, as only a shadow of good things to come, must also cease to be (Heb_10:1). It is therefore only a rabbinical fiction, that people still derive consolation from the second book of Maccabees (Jer_2:5), as though the ark of the covenant were somewhere in a mountain and would eventually be found, for the true ark of the covenant, which is found again, is Jesus Christ, the true Messiah typified by the Ark.” Cramer. The manner in which Jeremiah here speaks of the ark of the covenant is moreover so extraordinary that we may apply to it the words of Mat_16:17. Flesh and blood have not revealed it unto thee, but my Father in heaven. The ark at that time in the reign of Josiah was again regarded with the greatest reverence (comp. 2Ch_35:3; III. Ezr_1:3-4). What a divinely lofty and distant view must the prophet have had to be able to treat the ark as he here does, as something of small account!
8. The view that this prophecy was fulfilled by the return under Zerubbabel and Ezra is opposed by the fact (1), that not even the whole of Judah, not to speak of the whole of Israel then returned (of the latter a few at most: comp. Herzog Real-Enc. XIV. S. 773; I. S. 651); (2), that not even Judah had then returned to the Lord, not to speak of the conversion of the heathen. Its fulfilment by the founding of the Christian church is contradicted by the fact, (1) that the reunion of Judah and Israel had not yet taken place, the latter people must still be regarded as unknown (comp. Herzog, Real-Enc. I. S. 651; XVII. S. 284): (2) that Israel in general has rejected the Lord and refused to enter the Christian church (comp. Rom. chap. 11–12): (3) that the heathen have indeed begun to turn to the name of the Lord and to the Jerusalem that is above (Gal_4:26), but that this has taken place neither in such measure nor in such a manner that we can recognize in it the complete fulfilment of that which this passage declares of the conversion of all nations and the removal of their hardness of heart. We must therefore still wait for the complete fulfilment of this prophecy. The argument of Bertheau in his essay, “The Old Testament prophecies of Israel’s imperial glory in his own land,” (“Die Alttest., Weiss, etc.” In Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. IV. 2, 4; V. 3,) which he urges from the point of view that many prophecies remain unfulfilled, because men on their part have not fulfilled the required conditions, is not applicable here, for in Jer_3:20, sqq., it is expressly said that Israel will comply most satisfactorily with the single condition imposed by the Lord, (Jer_3:13).
9. On Jer_3:18-19. As the separation of the kingdom of Israel from the kingdom of Judah may be regarded as the type of the denominational divisions in Christendom, so the reunion here promised may be regarded as a type of all true union. This must always rest on a double, negative and positive, basis: (1) on the fundamental return of both from the false ground on which they have been standing (typified by the common exit of both tribes from the north country, the land of captivity): (2) on unreserved sincere devotion to the Lord, who is for both the only source of life and truth, (typified in the words “My father, wilt thou call me, etc.” Jer_3:19). The result of this will be a condition of glorious prosperity in the church (typified in the first clause of Jer_3:19).
10. On Jer_3:20-25. The peculiarities of true penitence meet us plainly in this section: it proceeds from the inmost heart (the weeping supplication of the people, Jer_3:21, as well as their deep shame evince this, Jer_3:25). It is free from all false penitence, which proceeds merely from the feeling of the disadvantageous consequences of wickedness. Its principle is rather sorrow at having grieved God by the rejection of His holy love. This is intimated by the second clause of Jer_3:21. True penitence, finally, is made known by the honest fruits of repentance. These are here set forth in the words “I will heal your apostasies” Jer_3:22, and by the detestation of evil, and yearning for the Lord, which are expressed in Jer_3:24-25.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
1. On Jer_3:11. “To what reflections should the declaration of Scripture give rise, that the divine judgment is determined by the comparison of men with each other? 1. We should reflect that it is impossible for us to institute this comparison with perfect justice ourselves. 2. We should therefore draw from comparison with others occasion neither for despair nor false comfort. 3. We should rather allow this comparison to be a motive to severe self-discipline.
2. On Jer_3:12. Reformation sermon by Lohe (7 Predigten. Nürnberg, 1834, S. 49). 1. The reformation was a return; 2. a return is necessary now; 3. it is now possible.
3. On verses 12 and 13, God’s call to repentance, (a) its ground (I am merciful); (b) its object (to obtain grace): (c) its condition (acknowledge thy sin).
4. On Jer_3:15. (Text for an installation sermon). The evangelical pastorate; (a) its standard, (after my heart); (b) its task, (to feed them with doctrine and wisdom).
5. On Jer_3:16-17. The true worship of God. (Joh_4:21-24). 1. It is not connected with any outward forms or ceremonies. 2. It consists, (a) in the direction of the inmost heart to God (assembling at the throne of the Lord), (b) in the evidence of this direction of the heart in a holy walk (to walk no more according to the thoughts of the wicked heart).
6. On Jer_3:18-19. The conditions of true union, 1. common return from sin and error (Judah and Israel come together from the north), 2. common return to the source of life and truth (the inheritance of the fathers—dear father!—will not depart from me).
7. On Jer_3:21-22. How does a nation worthily keep the yearly fast? 1. When it humbles itself before God in hearty repentance of its sins. 2. When it believingly hears the call of the Father of eternal grace. 3. When it heartily returns to the Lord, its God.—From an anon, sermon.
8. Jer_3:21-25 (Text for a penitential discourse) True repentance. 1. Its form (crying and weeping, Jer_3:21). 2. Its subject—primary, forgetting God (Jer_3:21) and sinning against Him (Jer_3:25)—secondary, the destruction come upon us in consequence of the deception of sin, (Jer_3:23, sqq.). 3. Its object (salvation in God).—Comp. the fifth homily of Origen on Jer_3:21 to Jer_4:8.—On Jer_3:22. Comp. the Confirmation Sermon of Dr. F. Arndt in his work, “The Christian’s pilgrimage through Life” (“Der Christen Pilgerfahrt,” etc. Halle, 1865) on the subject. “The gracious hours of life at and after confirmation.”
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv2–11 high places--the scene of idolatries which were spiritual adulteries.
high places--the scene of idolatries which were spiritual adulteries.
In . . . ways . . . sat for them--watching for lovers like a prostitute (Gen 38:14, Gen 38:21; Pro 7:12; Pro 23:28; Eze 16:24-25), and like an Arab who lies in wait for travellers. The Arabs of the desert, east and south of Palestine, are still notorious as robbers.
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv1–11 ISRAEL’S SIN AND PUNISHMENT, Jer_3:1-5.
ISRAEL’S SIN AND PUNISHMENT, Jer_3:1-5.
1. They say — Hebrew, to say. This harsh and unusual use of the infinitive has been to interpreters a source of perplexity. Does it mark the beginning of a new discourse, or is it a continuation of the preceding? The former, say Nagelsbach and Ewald; the latter, say Hitzig, Keil, and a majority of the best expositors. And inasmuch as we have at verse six the formal marking of a new discourse, this latter view is clearly to be preferred. And so this infinitive is not to be construed as an initial form, with Jerome, R. Payne Smith, and many others; but as in direct and close dependence on the preceding chapter, thus: “The Lord hath rejected thy confidences”… saying, etc.
Read full note →
Shall he return unto her again — A man who had put away his wife was forbidden to take her again if, in the interval, she had been married to another. Deu_24:1-4.
Yet return… to me — Most expositors regard the verb here as an infinitive and the sentence as a question: Will ye return to me? but there is no conclusive reason for this. In the Authorized Version we have a very satisfactory rendering of the Hebrew, and a most impressive illustration of the truth that God’s ways are not as our ways. His wonderful mercy is superior to all human obstructions. Great as is man’s sin, it is not so great as God’s mercy. With this view of the passage agree the Syriac and Vulgate Versions and the Targum.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 Ch. Jer_3:1-5. Israel’s faithlessness towards her Spouse
Ch. Jer_3:1-5. Israel’s faithlessness towards her Spouse
1. They say] The Hebrew is simply saying. Either the opening words of Jer_3:6 have been displaced and should stand here, or a similar introductory clause has accidentally dropped out. The connexion of thought is: the Lord refuses to recognise either Egypt or Assyria as the lawful spouse of His people, at the same time saying that as they have chosen to forsake Him for them, He will act in accordance with the law of divorce and will refuse to receive Israel again.
Read full note →
shall he return unto her again?] According to Deu_24:1-4, when a woman left her husband in accordance with a bill of divorce and was married to another, even a bill of divorce given her by her new husband did not enable the former one to take her back. As the illustration applies to Israel’s return to Jehovah, not His to her, there is something to be said for the LXX’s reading, viz. Shall she indeed return to him? The form of the MT. has been accounted for as a reference to Deut. as above, although we cannot say that the Deuteronomic code on the matter was as yet in operation. Moreover the case contemplated in that passage is one of divorce, and Israel had not been divorced. In the time of Saul the marriage of a divorced woman to a second husband did not preclude her from returning to the former one (see 1Sa_25:44; 2Sa_3:14 f.). The prophet, however, may be here thinking of the contraction of an illegitimate union by a divorced woman. “His argument is apparently this: If a man divorces his wife and she lives with another man, how can her first husband take her back, defiled as she is for him? But Judah’s case is still worse, for she has not been divorced, and has contracted an adulterous union not with one lover but with many.” Pe.
yet return] and thinkest thou to return (as mg.). An expression of surprise. It is impossible surely to play fast and loose with God in such a matter—a thing forbidden even in human affairs.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv1–11 (1) The parable of the guilty wife who is…
III.
(1) The parable of the guilty wife who is condemned in spite of all her denials is carried out to its logical results.
Read full note →
They say.—Better, So to speak, as introducing a new application of the figure. The direct reference is to Deu_24:4, which forbade the return to the past husband as an abomination, a law which the recent discovery of the Book of the Law (2Ki_22:10-11) had probably brought into prominence. But there is also an obvious allusion to the like imagery in Hosea. There the prophet had done, literally or in parable, what the law had forbidden (Hos_2:16; Hos_3:3), and so had held out the possibility of return and the hope of pardon. Jeremiah has to play a sterner part. and to make the apostate adulteress at least feel that she had sinned too deeply to have any claims to forgiveness. It might seem as if Jehovah could not now return to the love of His espousals, and make her what she once had been.
Yet return again to me, saith the Lord.—The words sound in the English like a gracious invitation, and—in spite of the authority of many interpreters who take it as an indignant exclamation, and return to me! an invitation given in irony, and so equivalent to rejection, as though that return were out of the question—it must, I think, be so taken. The prophet has, as we have seen, the history of Hosea in his mind, where there had been such a call to return (Hos_2:19; Hos_3:3), and actually refers to it and repeats it in Jer_3:7; Jer_3:12; Jer_3:14. It surely implies a want of insight into the character of Jeremiah to suppose that he ever came before men as proclaiming an irrevocable condemnation, excluding the possibility of repentance.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 That this chapter (to which the first four verses…
That this chapter (to which the first four verses of Jer 4 ought to have been attached) belongs to the time of Josiah seems to be proved by ver. 6, and the years immediately following the reformation are not obscurely referred to in vers. 4, 10. Naegelsbach gives a striking distribution of its contents. The general subject is a call to "return." First, the prophet shows that, in spite of Deu_24:1, etc., a return is possible (vers. 1-5). Then he describes successively an invitation already uttered in the past, and its sad results (vers. 6-10), and the call which will, with a happier issue, be sounded in the future (vers. 11-25); this is followed by an earnest exhortation, addressed first to Israel and then to Judah. (Jer_4:1-4)
They say, etc.; as the margin of Authorized Version correctly states, the Hebrew simply has "saying." Various ingenious attempts have been made to explain this. Hitzig, for instance, followed by Dr. Payne Smith, thinks that "saying" may be an unusual equivalent for "that is to say," "for example," or the like; while the Vulgate and Rashi, followed by De Wette and Rosenm assume an ellipsis, and render, "It is commonly said," or "I might say." But far the most natural way is to suppose that "saying" is a fragment of the superscription of the prophecy, the remainder of which has been accidentally placed in ver. 6, and that we should read, "And the word of the Lord came unto me in the days of Josiah the king, saying." So J. D. Michaelis, Ewald, Graf, Naegelsbach. If a man put away his wife. The argument is founded on the law of Deu_24:1-4, which forbade an Israelite who had divorced his wife to take her again, if in the interval she had been married to another. The Jews had broken a still more sacred tie, not once only, but repeatedly; they worshipped "gods many and lords many;" so that they had no longer any claim on Jehovah in virtue of his "covenant" with his people. Shall he return, etc.? rather, Ought he to return? The force of the term is potential (comp. Authorized Version of Gen_34:7, "which thing ought not to be done"). Shall not in the next clause is rather would not. Yet return again to me. So Peshito, Targum, Vulgate, and the view may seem to be confirmed by the invitations in vers. 12, 14, 22. But as it is obviously inconsistent with the argument of the verse, and as the verb may equally well be the infinitive or the imperative, most recent commentators render, "And thinkest thou to return to me?" (literally, and returning to me! implying that the very idea is inconceivable). Probably Jeremiah was aware that many of the Jews were dissatisfied with the religious condition of the nation (comp. ver. 4).
Read full note →
HOMILIES BY D. YOUNG Ver. 1. The offer of a great forgiveness.
I CONSIDER THE ILLUSTRATION BY WHICH IS SHOWN THE EXTENT OF JEHOVAH"S MERCY TO THE LOST, By an illustration drawn from the power allowed to the Israelite husband, Jehovah shows how great is his spirit of mercy and his desire that the deserting wife, so terribly described in the preceding chapter, should return. The reference is evidently to Deu_24:1-4. There the husband is invested with an authority which almost seems arbitrary, although from Numbers 5 it also appears that an accused wife had a right of appeal to ordeal, which ordeal would infallibly certify either innocence or guilt. The essential point here, however, lies in this, that there was an ordained inability for the wife to return to her first husband. The marriage tie, in spite of all the apparent facility of divorce, was not a thing to play fast and loose with. The way of departure might seem comparatively easy, but the way of return was altogether hedged up. We behold a curious mixture of indulgence and severityindulgence for a time because of the hardness of the people"s hearts; severity, in order that society might be kept together at all. For a husband to take back such a wife was ordained a ceremonial pollution, which needed to be cleansed away. But if such a return was impossible, still more evidently impossible was the return of one who had lived as a harlot. Yet thus did Israel, once the loving, devoted spouse, (Jer_2:1) now appear to Jehovah. Her life of desertion from Jehovah is described as one continuous, shameless exhibition of the harlot"s lust. And it is just in the light of all this terrible impurity that the word comes to her, "Return again to me, saith the Lord.
II CONSIDER HOW IT COMES THAT GOD CAN ADDRESS SUCH AN INVITATION. It is the old story of God"s power to do things which man, however loving and merciful he may be in disposition, finds to be quite beyond his reach. Man, with the best intentions, with the most sympathetic heart, is limited in his resources to the outcast by the necessities of human society. To put one who has been a habitual thief in a position of serious trust, is a thing so hard as to be practically impossible. The victims of vicious inclinations may be deeply pitied, and yet the moment one tries to give them any large measure of help, the claims of others somehow come in to forbid. But God, as he rises far above man in his love and mercy and insight into the sinning human heart, so he rises if one may thus put it higher still in his power to give an amply sufficient help. God can bring back into the privileges and possibilities belonging to his Church, he can bring under all the penetrating potencies of his grace, the very worst apostate. What creature can be thought of more defiled than the harlot? Human reclaiming agencies can do nothing to serve her or save her, except as they put in their forefront the loving-kindness of God in Christ Jesus. It is well for us when we have to consider the impure, the degraded, the despairing slaves of vice, to consider also these encouraging words of God, "Return to me." Think much of him who spoke them, and then of the sort of people to whom they were spoken. Those who are most of all suffering in social outlawry may read all the horrible descriptions of abandonment to impurity found not only in this prophet but in others, and then say with the most joyful hope, "If Israel, being such, was pressed to return, I also may return." Hosea gives the appropriate words for such, "I will go and return to my first husband; for then was it better with me than. (Hos_2:7) And to keep up the "figure, what will the end of such a Divine invitation and such a human resolution be? It is found in Revelation 21, where we read the following request, "Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb"s wife." The first Israel sank into an indescribable shame; the second Israel will rise into an indescribable glory. Y.
HOMILIES BY S. CONWAY Vers. 1-5. Sin Law Grace.
We have here represented to as
I SIN IN ITS MOST AWFUL FORM. It was the sin of idolatry. This was especially grievous in the sight of God, since Israel was designed to give light to all other nations. They were raised up for the very purpose that through them the knowledge of God might flow forth to the whole world. The destinies of humanity depended on them. Hence if the light that was in them were darkness, "how great," etc.! Their corruption was the poisoning of the fountain, which would render deadly all its streams. Hence it is that this sin is so commonly represented in the prophetic writings under the images of harlotry and adultery crimes which, when found in any belonging to him, the Israelite would most fiercely resent. By the nature and measure of their own hatred for such outrages on the purity of their home life, would God have them understand somewhat of the nature and measure of his hatred of that idolatry into which as a nation they had fallen, and against which God"s prophets were forever uttering their earnest protest. And to aggravate their wickedness, they had been guilty thereof again and again (ver. 1). They had become lost to all sense of shame in regard to it (vers. 2, 3). They had not waited to be tempted and persuaded, but had gone after their sin, greedily, seeking it rather than it them (ver. 2). They had persisted until the land was polluted by their sin (ver. 3). They had become so hardened that God"s corrections failed to produce any result save to make them more brazen-faced in their wickedness than before (ver. 3). And they had gone on to this degree of criminality that they dared to mock God with mere lip service (vers. 4, 5). "Ay, and from this time forward thou criest to me, My Father, the Friend of my youth art thou. Will he always bear a grudge and keep it up forever? Behold thou speakest thus and doest wickedness and carriest it out" (Keil"s translation). Corruptio optimi pessima est. The sin of such as Israel-and we are such, raised up, qualified, designed to be the means of vast blessing to others, as is God"s purpose with his Church, is more aggravated and assumes forms more terrible than is possible to others.
II LAW IN ITS MOST RIGHTEOUS UTTERANCE. (Ver. 1; cf. Deu_24:4) They say;" it was a well-known fact that the Law would not hear of the forgiveness and restoration of those who had sinned in the manner Israel had. Such leniency would open the door wide to the most glaring iniquity. "Plato, Plato," said Socrates, "I do not see how God can forgive sin." Sin once committed becomes a fact. Facts have their necessary, immutable and eternal consequences, which only by a miracle can be set aside or escaped. (See sermon by Rev. T. Binney, on "The Law our Schoolmaster," etc.; also J Cook, of Boston, "Monday Lectures" "The Atonement") There is no gospel for the sinner anywhere outside the gospel. The Law, as here, binds the wrongdoer to the inevitable issues of his own wrong-doing. Forgiveness and restoration are simply impossible. But note
III GRACE IN ITS MOST MARVELLOUS MANIFESTATION. Ver. 1, "Yet return again to me, saith the Lord." There is doubt as to the meaning of this; some read it (see exegesis) as a question to which a negative answer is required. But the whole tone and intent of the chapter (ver. 12) uphold the gracious meaning which belongs to the words as they stand and which we therefore accept. But if righteous Law forbids the sinner"s return, how can grace invite such return? The elder son in the parable was much scandalized at the father"s welcome of his prodigal younger brother. It did seem to be an improper thing to do. The practical reply to all such objections-and they have never ceased to be urged in all ages of the Church is to point to actual facts. What has been the result of the belief of God"s wondrous grace? Has a scriptural faith been proved to foster a sinful life? Are they who humbly rest on God"s grace in Christ the licentious, the ungodly, the profane? The Evangelical Church can fearlessly press questions like these. And if it be asked what is the philosophy of this? how is it that what seems likely to produce such ill, in fact does not? the answer is, that when the sinner comes in contrition and faith to the cross of the Lord Jesus Christ, the new life, the gift of regeneration, which is ever in connection with the cross, is given to him. He is started on a new career, on which he is certain to make progress, slow it may be, but sure nevertheless. And as day by day he repairs again to that same Savior, the powers of the new life are replenished and renewed, and so, instead of the full free forgiveness which, when he returned to God, was bestowed upon him, causing him to take encouragement to live on in sin, it has wrought in him a holy-hatred of it, and led him to turn from it more and more. No, the wondrous grace of God, which is told of in this word, "Yet return again to me," does not make void the Law, but it establishes the Law. C. (cf. Rom_8:1)
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv1, 4, 5, 6 Return again to Me, saith the Lord.
Jer_3:1-5
Return again to Me, saith the Lord.
Read full note →
The backslider invited to return
We have here a wonderful display of Gods character: forbearance, pity, and love.
I. What is inferred. A departure from God.
1. The life of an ungodly man is one long departure from God. Every step he takes leads him farther away.
2. What departures we find even in the holiest and best! Secret neglects. Seductions in daily avocations and companions. Tampering with sin.
II. What is declared. A returning to God as a promising God, as a forgiving God, as our God and Father in Christ Jesus, in real humiliation of spirit before Him; for whoso confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall have mercy. Observe, the return is not a mere turning away from sin; it is finding the way back again to God. The very fruit and work of the blessed Spirit.
III. What is displayed. Touching tenderness.
1. God Himself speaks.
2. He points to the Cross. (J. H. Evans, M. A.)
Return to God
1. Let Christian believers behold in these words with whom it is that they have to do. There have been times when the Lord made you rejoice before Him--when your fellowship with Him was delight. And so He would have had you to continue. But your joy changed into sorrow, your light was quenched in darkness; not because you were forsaken, but because you forsook. You did evil in the sight of the Lord, and He delivered you into the hands of the Philistines. But He did not forsake you utterly, nor cast you off forever. He brought you back, and restored to you the joy of His salvation. Soon you forgot it all. You did evil again in His sight. He departed from you, and you were carried captive by your enemies. In the land of Babylon you wept, and hung your tuneless harps upon the willows, for you could not sing the Lords song in a strange land! You remembered Zion, and eagerly longed that your captivity might come to an end. And the Lord ended your captivity and brought you back. Yet, notwithstanding all your sad experiences, you have again and again forgotten and forsaken Him. What should be your feelings when you think of these things? Should there be any sorrow like unto your sorrow? Yet be not afraid; conclude not that your sins must of necessity have separated forever between you and God; say not that for you there is no hope in Israel, and no place left for repentance. Had you to do with man it might be so. Were you to be dealt with as you have sinned, It could not but be so. But the Lord God is merciful and gracious, His love continues as strong as ever. He cannot bear to give you up. He compassionates your weakness. He laments your folly.
2. Let those who are still in the gall of bitterness--alienated from the life of God, through the ignorance that is in them, be assured that this language is addressed even to them. You are His, although you are now strangers and foreigners; for His hand did form you, and you were not designed to be His enemies. You have chosen to be so; but all the enmity is on your side. Your enemy He has never been; nor is He now your enemy! He is emphatically the friend of sinners. (R. J. Johnstone, M. A.)
Backsliding process
A church is sometimes astounded by the fall of some professor in it: this is the fruit, not the seed or the beginning of backsliding. So a man is laid on a sick bed, but the disorder has only now arrived at its crisis; it has for some time been working in his system, and has at length burst out and laid him low. So the sin of departing from God and secretly declining has been going on while the profession has still been maintained; the process of backsliding has been working silently yet surely until a temptation has at last opened the way for its bursting forth, to the scandal of Gods people and true religion. In the sight of God the man was fallen before, we only now have first discovered it. (H. G. Salter.)
Therefore the showers have been withholden.
God inflicting punishment on those who turn away from Him
If God is immanent in the universe, not a Deity immeasurable distances away from His creation; if without Him it could not hold together for a moment, there is nothing unreasonable in the thought that He should sometimes show resentment at the spirit of evil, indicate some emotion at least in the presence of ingratitude. We do the sage ourselves. Parents sometimes give children to feel that the penalty of ill-behaviour is the withdrawment of a privilege, the abbreviation of a holiday, the suspension of a pleasure. Sometimes by deprivation God inflicts punishment upon those who turn away from Him. In this case the penalty was one of deprivation--the showers had been withholden. Sometimes the penalty is positive, and there are too many showers. God drowns the world that denies Him. He does not withhold the showers for want of water; the debt, go is always ready: the river of God is full of water. It may be unscientific and ignorant to think that God interferes with nature, but it stands to our highest reason as a probable truth. If He made it, He may interfere with it; if He constructed it, He may sometimes wind it up, visit it, operate upon it, assert His eternal proprietorship. If the great landlord allows us to walk through his fields freely and joyously, he may sometimes, say, once in twenty-one years, put up a fence or a boundary, which being interpreted means, This path is mine, not yours; the boundary will be taken down again tomorrow, but it is here today to signify that you have acquired no rights by constant use. It is not an unnatural intervention, nor do we see that it is an unreasonable intervention on the part of God if we deny Him, neglect Him, scorn Him, operate wholly against the spirit of His holiness, that He should now and again withhold the shower, or send such deluges upon the earth as shall wash away our seed and make a desert of our garden. (J. Parker, D. D.)
The chief cause of calamities
Great honour has always been paid by all nations to their supposed gods, and it has always been reckoned a crime to rob them of the glory of which they were supposed to be so jealous. One of the Greek comedians in a stage play asks this question, Who was the wicked author of the vines being blasted by the frost? And he gives the answer, He who gave the honours of the gods to men. This heathen writer teaches us a lesson when we fail to trace our trials to the first cause. Who shall say that some dishonour of the name of God may not be the cause of our afflictions? Sorrow does not come out of the dust. The seeds of disease are not driven about recklessly. The lightning does not strike by chance. There are reasons for what seems evil which we cannot trace, and perhaps one of the chief causes of the calamities which befall men may be found in their want of regard for the honour and glory of the Divine Name. (Quiver.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Expositor's Bible 1887 · Public Domain On v6 Jer_3:6-25; Jer_4:1-2
CHAPTER III
ISRAEL AND JUDAH: A CONTRAST
Read full note →
Jer_3:6-25; Jer_4:1-2
THE first address of our prophet was throughout of a sombre cast, and the darkness of its close was not relieved by a single ray of hope. It was essentially a comminatory discourse, the purpose of it being to rouse a sinful nation to the sense of its peril, by a faithful picture of its actual condition, which was so different from what it was popularly supposed to be. The veil is torn aside; the real relations between Israel and his God are exposed to view; and it is seen that the inevitable goal of persistence in the course which has brought partial disasters in the past, is certain destruction in the imminent future. It is implied, but not said, that the only thing that can save the nation is a complete reversal of policies hitherto pursued, in Church and State and private life; and it is apparently taken for granted that the thing implied is no longer possible. The last word of the discourse was: "Thou hast purposed and performed the evils, and thou hast conquered." {Jer_3:5} The address before us forms a striking contrast to this dark picture. It opens a door of hope for the penitent. The heart of the prophet cannot rest in the thought of the utter rejection of his people; the harsh and dreary announcement that his peoples woes are self-caused cannot be his last word. "His anger was only love provoked to distraction; here it has come to itself again," and holds out an offer of grace first to that part of the whole nation which needs it most, the fallen kingdom of Ephraim, and then to the entire people. The all Israel of the former discourse is here divided into its two sections, which are contrasted with each other, and then again considered as a united nation. This feature distinguishes the piece from that which begins Jer_4:3, and which is addressed to Judah and Jerusalem rather than to Israel and Judah, like the one before us. An outline of the discourse may be given thus. It is shown that Judah has not taken warning by Iahvahs rejection of the sister kingdom (Jer_3:6-10); and that Ephraim may be pronounced less guilty than Judah, seeing that she had witnessed no such signal example of the Divine vengeance on hardened apostasy. She is, therefore, invited to repent and return to her alienated God, which will involve a return from exile to her own land; and the promise is given of the reunion of the two peoples in a restored theocracy, having its centre in Mount Zion (Jer_3:11-19). All Israel has rebelled against God; but the prophet hears the cry of universal penitence and supplication ascending to heaven; and Iahvahs gracious answer of acceptance. {Jer_3:20-25; Jer_4:1-2}
The opening section depicts the sin which had brought ruin on Israel, and Judahs readiness in following her example, and refusal to take warning by her fate. This twofold sin is aggravated by an insincere repentance. "And Iahvah said unto me, in the days of Josiah the king, Sawest thou what the Turncoat or Recreant Israel did? she would go up every high hill, and under every evergreen tree, and play the harlot there. And methought that after doing all this she would return to Me; but she returned not; and the Traitress, her sister Judah saw it." And I saw that when for the very reason that she, the Turncoat Israel, had committed adultery, I had put her away, and given her her bill of divorce, the Traitress Judah, her sister, was not afraid, but she too went off and played the harlot. And so, through the cry {cf. Gen_4:10; Gen_18:20 sq.} of her harlotry (or defect through her manifold or abounding harlotry) she polluted the land (Jer_3:2), in that she committed adultery with the Stone and with the Stock. And yet though she was involved in all this guilt (lit. and even in all this.) Perhaps the sin and the penalties of it are identified; and the meaning is: "And yet for all this liability," cf. {Isa_5:25} the Traitress Judah returned not unto Me with all her heart (with a whole or undivided heart, with entire sincerity) but in falsehood, saith Iahvah. "The example of the northern kingdom is represented as a powerful influence for evil upon Judah. This was only natural; for although from the point of view of religious development Judah is incomparably the more important of the sister kingdoms; the exact contrary is the case as regards political power and predominance. Under strong kings like Omri and Ahab, or again, Jeroboam II, Ephraim was able to assert itself as a first-rate power among the surrounding principalities; and in the case of Athaliah, we have a conspicuous instance of the manner in which Canaanite idolatry might be propagated from Israel to Judah. The prophet declares that the sin of Judah was aggravated by the fact that she had witnessed the ruin of Israel, and yet persisted in the same evil courses of which that ruin was the result. She sinned against light. The fall of Ephraim had verified the predictions of her prophets; yet she was not afraid," but went on adding to the score of her own offences, and polluting the land with her unfaithfulness to her Divine Spouse. The idea that the very soil of her country was defiled by Judahs idolatry may be illustrated by reference to the well known words of Psa_106:38 : "They shed innocent blood, even the blood of their sons and their daughters whom they sacrificed unto the idols of Canaan; and the land was defiled with the bloodshed." We may also remember Elohims words to Cain: "The voice of thy brothers blood is crying unto Me from the ground!" {Gen_4:10} As Iahvahs special dwelling place, moreover, the land of Israel was holy; and foreign rites desecrated and profaned it. and made it offensive in His sight. The pollution of it cried to heaven for vengeance on those who had caused it. To such a state had Judah brought her own land, and the very city of the sanctuary; and yet in all this amid this accumulation of sins and liabilities she turned not to her Lord with her whole heart. The reforms set on foot in the twelfth year of Josiah were but superficial and halfhearted; the people merely acquiesced in them, at the dictation of the court, and gave no sign of any inward change or deep-wrought repentance. The semblance without the reality of sorrow for sin is but a mockery of heaven, and a heinous aggravation of guilt. Hence the sin of Judah was of a deeper dye than that which had destroyed Israel. And Iahvah said unto me, The Turncoat or Recreant Israel hath proven herself more righteous than the Traitress Judah. Who could doubt it, considering that almost all the prophets had borne their witness in Judah; and that, in imitating her sisters idolatry, she had resolutely closed her eyes to the light of truth and reason? On this ground, that Israel has sinned less and suffered more, the prophet is bidden to hold out to her the hope of Divine mercy. The greatness of her ruin, as well as the lapse of years since the fatal catastrophe, might tend to diminish in the prophets mind the impression of her guilt; and his patriotic yearning for the restoration of the banished Ten Tribes, who, after all, were the near kindred of Judah, as well as the thought that they had borne their punishment, and thus atoned for their sin, {Isa_11:2} might cooperate with the desire of kindling in his own countrymen a noble rivalry of repentance, in moving the prophet to obey the impulse which urged him to address himself to Israel. Go thou, and cry these words northward (toward the desolate land of Ephraim), and say: Return, Turncoat or Recreant Israel, saith Iahvah; I will not let My countenance fall at the sight of you; {lit. against you, cf. Gen_4:5} for I am loving, saith Iahvah, I keep not anger forever. Only recognise thy guilt, that thou hast rebelled against Iahvah thy God, and hast scattered {or lavished: Psa_112:9} thy ways to the strangers hast gone now in this direction, now in that, worshipping first one idol and then another; cf. Jer_2:23; and so, as it were, dividing up and dispersing thy devotion under every evergreen tree; "but My voice ye have not obeyed, saith Iahvah." The invitation, "Return Apostate Israel!"-contains a play of words which seems to suggest that the exile of the Ten Tribes was voluntary, or self-imposed; as if, when they turned their backs upon their true God, they had deliberately made choice of the inevitable consequence of that rebellion, and made up their minds to abandon their native land. So close is the connection, in the prophets view, between the misfortunes of his people and their sins.
"Return, ye apostate children" (again there is a play on words-"Turn back, ye back-turning sons," or "ye sons that turn the back to Me) saith Iahvah; for it was I that wedded you" (Jer_3:14), and am, therefore, your proper lord. The expression is not stranger than that which the great prophet of the Return addresses to Zion: "Thy sons shall marry thee." But perhaps we should rather compare another passage of the Book of Isaiah, where it is said: "Iahvah, our God! other lords beside Thee have had dominion over us," {Isa_26:13} and render: "For it is I that will be your lord"; or perhaps, "For it is I that have mastered you," and put down your rebellion by chastisements; "and I will take you, one of a city and two of a clan, and will bring you to Zion." As a "city" is elsewhere spoken of as a "thousand," {Mic_5:1} and a "thousand" is synonymous with a "clan," as providing a thousand warriors in the national militia, it is clear that the promise is that one or two representatives of each township in Israel shall be restored from exile to the land of their fathers. In other words, we have here Isaiahs doctrine of the remnant, which he calls a "tenth," {Isa_6:13} and of which he declared that "the survivors of the house of Judah that remain, shall again take root downwards, and bear fruit upwards." {Isa_37:31} And as Zion is the goal of the returning exiles, we may see, as doubtless the prophets saw, a kind of anticipation and foreshadowing of the future in the few scattered members of the northern tribes of Asher, Manasseh, and Zebulun, who "humbled themselves," and accepted Hezekiahs invitation to the passover; {2Ch_30:11; 2Ch_30:18} and, again, in the authority which Josiah is said to have exercised in the land of the Ten Tribes (2Ch_34:6; 2Ch_34:9). We must bear in mind that the prophets do not contemplate the restoration of every individual of the entire nation; but rather the return of a chosen few, a kind of "firstfruits" of Israel, who are to be a "holy seed," {Isa_6:13} from which the power of the Supreme will again build up the entire people according to its ancient divisions. So the holy Apostle in the Revelation hears that twelve thousand of each tribe are sealed as servants of God. {Revelation 7}
The happy time of restoration will also be a time of reunion. The estranged tribes will return to their old allegiance. This is implied by the promise, "I will bring you to Zion," and by that of the next verse: "And I will give you shepherds after My own heart; and they shall shepherd you with knowledge and wisdom." Obviously, kings of the house of David are meant; the good shepherds of the future are contrasted with the "rebellious" ones of the Jer_2:8. It is the promise of Isaiah: {Isa_1:26} "And I will restore thy judges as at the first, and thy counsellors as at the beginning." In this connection, we may recall the fact that the original schism in Israel was brought about by the folly of evil shepherds. The coming King will resemble not Rehoboam but David. Nor is this all; for "It shall come to pass, when ye multiply and become fruitful in the land, in those days, saith Iahvah, men shall not say any more, The ark of the covenant of Iahvah," or, as LXX, "of the Holy One of Israel; nor shall it" (the ark) "come to mind; nor shall men remember it, nor miss it; nor shall it be made any more" (although the verb may be impersonal.) I do not understand why Hitzig asserts "Man wird keine andere machen" (Movers) oder; "sic wird nicht wieder gemacht" (Ew., Graf) "als ware nicht von der geschichtlichen Lade die Rede, sondern von ihr begrifflich, konnen die Worte nicht bedeuten." But cf. Exo_25:10; Gen_6:14; where the same verb is used. Perhaps, however, the rendering of C.B. Michaelis, which he prefers, is more in accordance with what precedes: "nor shall all that be done any more," Gen_29:26; Gen_41:34. But it does not mean "nachforschen." {cf. 1Sa_20:6; 1Sa_25:15} "In that time men will call Jerusalem the throne of Iahvah; and all the nations will gather into it," {Gen_1:9} "for the name of Iahvah" (at Jerusalem: LXX om.); "and they" (the heathen) "will no longer follow the stubbornness of their evil heart." {Jer_7:24; Deu_29:19}
In the new Theocracy, the true kingdom of God, the ancient symbol of the Divine presence will be forgotten in the realisation of that presence. The institution of the New Covenant will be characterised by an immediate and personal knowledge of Iahvah in the hearts of all His people. {Jer_31:31 sq.} The small object in which past generations had loved to recognise the earthly throne of the God of Israel, will be replaced by Jerusalem itself, the Holy City, not merely of Judah, nor of Judah and Israel, but of the world. Thither will all the nations resort "to the name of Iahvah"; ceasing henceforth "to follow the hardness (or callousness) of their own evil heart." That the more degraded kinds of heathenism have a hardening effect upon the heart; and that the cruel and impure worships of Canaan especially tended to blunt the finer sensibilities, to enfeeble the natural instincts of humanity and justice, and to confuse the sense of right and wrong, is beyond question. Only a heart rendered callous by custom, and stubbornly deaf to the pleadings of natural pity, could find genuine pleasures in the merciless rites of the Molech worship; and they who ceased to follow these inhuman superstitions, and sought light and guidance from the God of Israel, might well be said to have ceased "to walk after the hardness of their own evil heart." The more repulsive features of heathenism chime in too well with the worst and most savage impulses of our nature; they exhibit too close a conformity with the suggestions and demands of selfish appetite; they humour and encourage the darkest passions far too directly and decidedly, to allow us to regard as plausible any theory of their origin and permanence which does not recognise in them at once a cause and an effect of human depravity. {cf. Romans 1}
The repulsiveness of much that was associated with the heathenism with which they were best acquainted, did not hinder the prophets of Israel from taking a deep spiritual interest in those who practised and were enslaved by it. Indeed, what has been called the universalism of the Hebrew seers-their emancipation in this respect from all local and national limits and prejudices-is one of the clearest proofs of their divine mission. Jeremiah only reiterates what Micah and Isaiah had preached before him; that "in the latter days the mountain of Iahvahs House shall be established as the chief of mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all the nations will flow unto it". {Isa_2:2} In Jer_16:19 sq. our prophet thus expresses himself upon the same topic. "Iahvah, my strength and my stronghold, and my refuge in the day of distress! unto Thee shall nations come from the ends of the earth, and shall say: Our forefathers inherited naught but a lie, vanity, and things among which is no helper. Shall a man make him gods, when they are no gods?" How largely this particular aspiration of the prophets of the seventh and eighth centuries B.C. has since been fulfilled in the course of the ages is a matter of history. The religion which was theirs has, in the new shape given it by our Lord and His Apostles, become the religion of one heathen people after another, until at this day it is the faith professed, not only in the land of its origin, but by the leading nations of the world. So mighty a fulfilment of hopes, which at the time of their first conception and utterance could only be regarded as the dreams of enthusiastic visionaries, justifies those who behold and realise it in the joyful belief that the progress of true religion has not been maintained for six and twenty centuries to be arrested now; and that these old world aspirations are destined to receive a fulness of illustration in the triumphs of the future, in the light of which the brightest glories of the past will pale and fade away.
The prophet does not say, with a prophet of the New Covenant, that "all Israel shall be saved". {Rom_11:26} We may, however, fairly interpret the latter of the true Israel, "the remnant according to the election of grace," rather than of "Israel according to the flesh," and so both will be at one, and both at variance with the unspiritual doctrine of the Talmud, that "All Israel," irrespective of moral qualifications, will have "a portion in the world to come," on account of the surpassing merits of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and even of Abraham alone. {cf. St. Mat_3:9; St. Joh_8:33}
The reference to the ark of the covenant in the sixteenth verse is remarkable upon several grounds. This sacred symbol is not mentioned among the spoils which Nebuzaradan (Nabuziriddin) took from the temple; {Jer_52:17 sqq.} nor is it specified among the treasures appropriated by Nebuchadrezzar at the surrender of Jehoiachin. The words of Jeremiah prove that it cannot be included among "the vessels of gold" which the Babylonian conqueror "cut in pieces". {2Ki_24:13} We learn two facts about the ark from the present passage: (1) that it no longer existed in the days of the prophet; (2) that people remembered it with regret, though they did not venture to replace the lost original by a new substitute. It may well have been destroyed by Manasseh, the king who did his utmost to abolish the religion of Iahvah. However that may be, the point of the prophets allusion consists in the thought that in the glorious times of Messianic rule the idea of holiness will cease to be attached to things, for it will be realised in persons; the symbol will become obsolete, and its name and memory will disappear from the minds and affections of men, because the fact symbolised will be universally felt and perceived to be a present and self-evident truth. In that great epoch of Israels reconciliation, all nations will recognise in Jerusalem "the throne of Iahvah," the centre of light and source of spiritual truth; the Holy City of the world. Is it the earthly or the heavenly Jerusalem that is meant? It would seem, the former only was present to the consciousness of the prophet, for he concludes his beautiful interlude of promise with the words: "In those days will the house of Judah walk beside the house of Israel; and they will come together from the land of the North" ("and from all the lands": LXX add. cf. Jer_16:15) "unto the land that I caused your fathers to possess." Like Isaiah {Isa_11:12 sqq.} and other prophets his predecessors, Jeremiah forecasts for the whole repentant and united nation a reinstatement in their ancient temporal rights, in the pleasant land from which they had been so cruelly banished for so many weary years.
"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." If, when we look at the whole course of subsequent events, when we review the history of the Return and of the narrow religious commonwealth which was at last, after many bitter struggles, established on mount Sion; when we consider the form which the religion of Iahvah assumed in the hands of the priestly caste, and the half-religious, half-political sects, whose intrigues and conflicts for power constitute almost all we know of their period; when we reflect upon the character of the entire post-exilic age down to the time of the birth of Christ, with its worldly ideals, its fierce fanaticisms, its superstitious trust in rites and ceremonies; if, when we look at all this, we hesitate to claim that the prophetic visions of a great restoration found fulfilment in the erection of this petty state, this paltry edifice, upon the ruins of Davids capital; shall we lay ourselves open to the accusation that we recognise no element of truth in the glorious aspirations of the prophets? I think not.
After all, it is clear from the entire context that these hopes of a golden time to come are not independent of the attitude of the people towards Iahvah. They will only be realised, if the nation shall truly repent of the past, and turn to Him with the whole heart. The expressions "at that time," "in those days" (Jer_3:17-18), are only conditionally determinate; they mean the happy time of Israels repentance, "if such a time should ever come." From this glimpse of glorious possibilities, the prophet turns abruptly to the dark page of Israels actual history. He has, so to speak, portrayed in characters of light the development as it might have been; he now depicts the course it actually followed. He restates Iahvahs original claim upon Israels grateful devotion, {Jer_2:2} putting these words into the mouth of the Divine Speaker: "And I indeed thought, How will I set thee among the sons" (of the Divine household), "and give thee a lovely land, a heritage the fairest among the nations! And methought, thou wouldst call Me My Father, and wouldst not turn back from following Me." Iahvah had at the outset adopted Israel, and called him from the status of a groaning bondsman to the dignity of a son and heir. When Israel was a child, He had loved him, and called His son out of Egypt, {Hos_11:1} to give him a place and a heritage among nations. It was Iahvah, indeed, who originally assigned their holdings to all the nations, and separated the various tribes of mankind, "fixing the territories of peoples, according to the number of the sons of God". {Deu_32:8 Sept.} If He had brought up Israel from Egypt, He had also brought up the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Arameans from Kir. {Amo_9:7} But He had adopted Israel in a more special sense, which may be expressed in St. Pauls words, who makes it the chief advantage of Israel above the nations that "unto them were committed the oracles of God". {Rom_3:2} What nobler distinction could have been conferred upon any race of men than that they should have been thus chosen, as Israel actually was chosen, not merely in the aspirations of prophets, but as a matter of fact in the divinely directed evolution of human history, to become the heralds of a higher truth, the hierophants of spiritual knowledge, the universally recognised interpreters of God? Such a calling might have been expected to elicit a response of the warmest gratitude, the most enthusiastic loyalty and unswerving devotion. But Israel as a nation did not rise to the level of these lofty prophetic views of its vocation; it knew itself to be the people of Iahvah, but it failed to realise the moral significance of that privilege, and the moral and spiritual responsibilities which it involved. It failed to adore Iahvah as the Father, in the only proper and acceptable sense of that honourable name, the sense which restricts its application to one sole Being. Heathenism is blind and irrational as well as profane and sinful; and so it does not scruple to confer such absolutely individual titles as "God" and "Father" upon a multitude of imaginary powers.
"Methought thou wouldst call Me My Father, and wouldst not turn back from following Me. But" {Zep_3:7} "a woman is false to her fere; so were ye false to Me, O house of Israel, saith Iahvah." The Divine intention toward Israel, Gods gracious design for her everlasting good, Gods expectation of a return for His favour, and how that design was thwarted so far as man could thwart it, and that expectation disappointed hitherto; such is the import of the last two verses (Jer_3:19-20). Speaking in the name of God, Jeremiah represents Israels past as it appears to God. He now proceeds to show dramatically, or as in a picture, how the expectation may yet be fulfilled, and the design realised. Having exposed the national guilt, he supposes his remonstrance to have done its work, and he overhears the penitent people pouring out its heart before God. Then a kind of dialogue ensues between the Deity and His suppliants. "Hark! upon the bare hills is heard the weeping of the supplications of the sons of Israel, that they perverted their way, forgot Iahvah their God." The treeless hill tops had been the scene of heathen orgies miscalled worship. There the rites of Canaan performed by Israelites had insulted the God of heaven (Jer_3:2 and Jer_3:6). Now the very places which witnessed the sin, witness the national remorse and confession. The high places are not condemned even by Jeremiah as places of worship, but only as places of heathen and illicit worships. The solitude and quiet and purer air of the hill tops, their unobstructed view of heaven and suggestive nearness thereto, have always made them natural sanctuaries both for public rites and private prayer and meditation: cf. 2Sa_15:32; and especially St. Luk_6:12.
In this closing section of the piece {Jer_3:19-25; Jer_4:1-2} "Israel" means not the entire people, but the northern kingdom only, which is spoken of separately also in Jer_3:6-18, with the object of throwing into higher relief the heinousness of Judahs guilt. Israel-the northern kingdom-was less guilty than Judah, for she had no warning example, no beacon light upon her path, such as her own fall afforded to the southern kingdom; and therefore the Divine compassion is more likely to be extended to her, even after a century of ruin and banishment, than to her callous, impenitent sister. Whether at the time Jeremiah was in communication with survivors of the northern Exile, who were faithful to the God of their fathers, and looked wistfully toward Jerusalem as the centre of the best traditions and the sole hope of Israelite nationality, cannot now be determined. The thing is not unlikely, considering the interest which the prophet afterwards took in the Judean exiles who were taken to Babylon with Jehoiachin (chapter 29) and his active correspondence with their leaders. We may also remember that "divers of Asher and Manasseh and Zebulun humbled themselves" and came to keep passover with king Hezekiah at Jerusalem. It cannot, certainly, be supposed, with any show of reason, that the Assyrians either carried away the entire population of the northern kingdom, or exterminated all whom they did not carry away. The words of the Chronicler who speaks of "a remnant escaped out of the hand of the kings of Assyria," are themselves perfectly agreeable to reason and the nature of the case, apart from the consideration that he had special historical sources at his command. {2Ch_30:6; 2Ch_30:11} We know that in the Maccabean and Roman wars the rocky fastnesses of the country were a refuge to numbers of the people, and the history of David shows that this had been the case from time immemorial. {cf. Jdg_6:2} Doubtless in this way not a few survived the Assyrian invasions and the destruction of Samaria (B.C. 721). But to return to the text. After the confession of the nation that they have "perverted their way" (that is, their mode of worship, by adoring visible symbols of Iahvah, and associating with Him as His compeers a multitude of imaginary gods, especially the local Baalim, Jer_2:23, and Ashtaroth), the prophet hears another voice, a voice of Divine invitation and gracious promise, responsive to penitence and prayer: "Return, ye apostate sons, let Me heal your apostasies!" or "If ye return, ye apostate sons, I will heal your apostasies!" It is an echo of the tenderness of an older prophet. {Hos_14:1; Hos_14:4} And the answer of the penitents quickly follows: "Behold us, we are come unto Thee, for Thou art Iahvah our God." The voice that now calls us, we know by its tender tones of entreaty, compassion, and love to be the voice of Iahvah our own God; not the voice of sensual Chemosh, tempting to guilty pleasures and foul impurities, not the harsh cry of a cruel Molech, calling for savage rites of pitiless bloodshed. Thou, Iahvah-not these nor their fellows-art our true and only God.
"Surely, in vain" (for naught, bootlessly, 1Sa_25:21; Jer_5:2; Jer_16:19) "on the hills did we raise a din" (lit. "hath one raised";) surely in Iahvah our God is the safety of Israel! The Hebrew cannot be original as it now stands in the Masoretic text, for it is ungrammatical. The changes I have made will be seen to be very slight, and the sense obtained is much the same as Ewalds "Surely in vain from the hills is the noise, from the mountains" (where every reader must feel that "from the mountains" is a forcible feeble addition which adds nothing to the sense). We might also perhaps detach the mem from the term for "hills," and connect it with the preceding word, thus getting the meaning: "Surely, for Lies are the hills, the uproar of the mountains!" that is to say, the high places are devoted to delusive nonentities, who can do nothing in return for the wild orgiastic worship bestowed on them; a thought which contrasts very well with the second half of the verse: "Surely, in Iahvah our God is the safety of Israel!"
The confession continues: "And as for the Shame"-the shameful idol, the Baal whose worship involved shameful rites, {Jer_11:13; Hos_9:10} and who put his worshippers to shame, by disappointing them of help in the hour of their need {Jer_2:8; Jer_2:26-27} -"as for the Shame"-in contrast with Iahvah, the Safety of Israel, who gives all, and requires little or nothing of this kind in return-"it devoured the labour of our fathers from our youth, their flocks and their herds, their sons and their daughters." The allusion is to the insatiable greed of the idol priests, and the lavish expense of perpetually recurring feasts and sacrifices, which constituted a serious drain upon the resources of a pastoral and agricultural community; and to the bloody rites which, not content with animal offerings, demanded human victims for the altars of an appalling superstition. "Let us lie down in our shame, and let our infamy cover us! for toward Iahvah our God we trespassed, we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day, and obeyed not the voice of Iahvah our God." A more complete acknowledgment of sin could hardly be conceived; no palliating circumstances are alleged, no excuses devised, of the kind with which men usually seek to soothe a disturbed conscience. The strong seductions of Canaanite worship, the temptation to join in the joyful merriment of idol festivals, the invitation of friends and neighbours, the contagion of example, -all these extenuating facts must have been at least as well known to the prophet as to modern critics, but he is expressively silent on the point of mitigating circumstances in the case of a nation to whom such light and guidance had come as came to Israel. No, he could discern no ground of hope for his people except in a full and unreserved admission of guilt, an agony of shame and contrition before God, a heartfelt recognition of the truth that from the outset of their national existence to the passing day they had continually sinned against Iahvah their God and resisted His holy Will.
Finally, to this cry of penitents humbled in the dust, and owning that they have no refuge from the consequences of their sin but in the Divine Mercy, comes the firm yet loving answer: "If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith Iahvah, unto Me wilt return, and if thou wilt put away thine Abominations" ("out of thy mouth and," LXX) "out of My Presence, and sway not to" and 1Ki_14:15, "but wilt swear By the Life of Iahvah! in good faith, justice, and righteousness; then shall the nations bless themselves by Him, and in Him shall they glory." {Jer_4:1-2} Such is the close of this ideal dialogue between God and man. It is promised that if the nations repentance be sincere-not half-hearted like that of Judah {Jer_3:10; 2Ch_34:33} -and if the fact be demonstrated by a resolute and unwavering rejection of idol worship, evinced by the disuse of their names in oaths, and the expulsion of their symbols "from the Presence," that is, out of the sanctuaries and domain of Iahvah, and by adhering to the Name of the God of Israel in oaths and compacts of all kinds, and by a scrupulous loyalty to such engagements; {Psa_15:4' Isa_48:1} then the ancient oracle of blessing will be fulfilled, and Israel will become a proverb of felicity, the pride and boast of mankind, the glorious ideal of perfect virtue and perfect happiness. {Gen_12:3; Isa_65:16} Then, "all the nations will gather together unto Jerusalem for the Name of Iahvah"; {Jer_3:17} they will recognise in the religion of Iahvah the answer to their highest longings and spiritual necessities, and will take Israel for what Iahvah intended him to be, their example and priest and prophet.
Jeremiah could hardly have chosen a more extreme instance for pointing the lesson he had to teach than the long since ruined and depopulated kingdom of the Ten Tribes. Hopeless as their actual condition must have seemed at the time, he assures his own countrymen in Judah and Jerusalem that even yet, if only the moral requirements of the case were fulfilled, and the heart of the poor remnant and of the survivors in banishment aroused to a genuine and permanent repentance, the Divine promises would be accomplished in a people whose sun had apparently set in darkness forever. And so he passes on to address his own people directly in tones of warning, reproof, and menace of approaching wrath. {Jeremiah 4:3-Jeremiah 6:30}
William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain On v1 CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.—1. Chronology. Exact date of chapter…
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL NOTES.—1. Chronology. Exact date of chapter uncertain. It naturally divides itself at Jer_3:5, although Dahler, Umbriet, and Neuman contend for the unity of the chapter as a single prophecy. Doubtless there is a continuity of imagery and reasoning (Jer_3:1; Jer_3:8), but the inscription to Jer_3:6 is a difficulty, and their transforence of that inscription to Jer_3:1 is unwarranted. “The Targum,” Vulgate, Jerome, Rosenmüller, Wordsworth, and Henderson regard Jer_3:1-5 as a separate and complete prophecy, and plead that the abrupt commencement “to say” or “saying” (Jer_3:1) is not without parallel (Jdg_16:2), and indicates a Divine message. But Luther, Kimchi, Maurer, Hitzig, Starke, Keil, and “Speaker’s Commentary” connect Jer_3:1-5 with chap. 2 as a completion of that prophecy, and read thus: “The Lord hath rejected thy confidences,” &c. (Jer_2:37), “saying, If a man,” &c. (Jer_3:1). This is preferable.
Jer_3:6 onwards to Jer_6:30 gives a lengthy prophecy, forming either one prolonged address (Hend.) or a condensation into one uniform whole of a series of addresses (Keil) delivered during Josiah’s reign.
Read full note →
Date of Jer_3:1-5, the 13th of Josiah; date of Jer_3:6; Jeremiah cf., 17 th of Josiah (Maurer); before the 18th, the year of Josiah’s great reformation (Hend.); after the 18th (Bagster, Blayney, &c.). M. Henry gives the date B.C. 620, i.e., the 21st year of Josiah.
2. Cotemporary Scriptures. With Jer_3:6-6 may agree 2Ch_34:1 to 2Ch_35:18; Zephaniah 1-3; 2Ki_22:1 to 2Ki_23:25; Nahum and Habakkuk.
3. Historic Facts. Josiah, personally journeying through Judah and Israel, continues his purification of the nation; returns to Jerusalem in his 18th year, immediately repairs the Temple for the restoration of Jehovah’s worship therein. Judah’s ostentatious return to Jehovah a solemn mockery (Jer_3:10). (Comp. B. p. 61, “Actual State of Judah.”)
4. Cotemporary History. During these six years, Nabopolassar rebels against the king of Assyria, becomes king of Babylon, and thus founds the Babylonian empire. Cyaxares (Ahasuerus, Dan_9:1) succeeds Phraortes on the Median throne, and begins to make Media a great power (B.C. 625). Psammeticus continues to reign over Egypt at Nineveh.
5. Geographical References. Jer_3:12. “Towards the north,” i.e., to Mesopotamia, Assyria, Media, where the captive ten tribes were located by Tiglath-Pilesar (B.C. 740; cf. 2Ki_15:29; 2Ki_16:7-9; Amo_1:4-5), and Shalmanezar, or rather Sargon, his son (for Assyrian monuments show that Shalmanezar died during the siege of Samaria, and that Sargon carried Israel captive), cir. B.C. 720; cf. 2Ki_17:6; 2Ki_18:9-11. (Comp. A.p. 60, “Facts re Outcast Israel.”)
6. Natural History. Jer_3:3. “Latter rain,” i.e., the vernal rain, which fell about April, perfecting the harvest; the “former” rain came early in November, preparing the earth for cultivation. (Comp. C. p. 62, “The Land Withered by Drought.”)
7. Manners and Customs. Jer_3:1; Jer_3:8. “Divorce.” The law found in Deu_24:1-4. The “bill” was a legal document; it guaranteed legal cognisance of, and justifiable reasons for, the husband’s deed. Jer_3:2. “The Arabian in the wilderness.” The Bedouin lurking and eager for plunder; thus did Israel look out for idolatry as for booty.
8. Literary Criticisms. Jer_3:1. “Yet return again to Me.” “Targum,” Jerome, and A. V. Regard וְשׁוֹב as the imperative. Keil renders it as interrogative, “Wouldst thou return to me!” as being forbidden. “Speaker’s Commentary” takes the verb as an infinitive; “And to return to me!” that is, And thinkest thou to return to Me! “Israel could no more take her place as wife.” Henderson says it is the infinitive absolute, and as such may be used as an imperative. Lange gives as the sense, “Although, in accordance with legal regulations, I ought not to receive you, yet I say, Return to me.” Certainly Jer_3:14; Jer_3:20; Jer_3:22; Jer_4:1, bear out Lange’s sense of the words. (See on Jer_3:14 below.)
Jer_3:5. “Behold thou hast spoken,” i.e., fairly, used devout speeches to Jehovah; but actions have contradicted words; “and hast done evil as thou couldst,” i.e., without self-restraint. Noyes, “doest evil with all thy might.” Calvin, “with incorrigible persistency.”
Jer_3:7. “Her treacherous sister” should be rendered, “and Treacherous, her sister,” as being her appellative. Falsehood, Faithless—not an adjective, but Judah’s name.
Jer_3:9. “Lightness,” as if קֹל were the infinitive of קָלַל, levity. It is rather derived from קוֹל, a cry, noise; the tumult of her idolatrous revelries. Some take it as the cry which rose to heaven against her; but it is here said to “have defiled the land;” therefore “her riotous orgies” is the more correct.
Jer_3:12. “Turn, thou backsliding;” lit., “turn thou that hast turned.” Note the paronomasia שׁוּבָֽה מְשֻׁבָה. “Not cause mine anger to fall.” Lange, “not lower my face against you.” Keil, “not look darkly upon.” Hend., “not continue to frown.”
Jer_3:14. “I am married unto you.” בָּעַל. Hitzig, Umbriet, I will be your lord, master; suggestive of severe domination. Hengstenberg, Lange, Keil, “your husband;” for Jehovah had been, and would ever be, that to Israel. Kimchi, Rosenmüller, De Wette, Gesenius, Henderson contend for the signification, loathing, disdain: “I have rejected you,” since both here and Jer_31:32 is taught that God had abandoned Israel in consequence of her stubborn apostasy. The A. V. is consistent with the prevailing language of this chapter (see above on Jer_3:1). Jerome translates, “quia ego vir vester.”
Jer_3:16. “Neither shall that be done any more,” i.e., the Ark being lost, no effort would be made to replace it. “Neither shall it be made any more.” (Comp. D. p. 62, “The Ark Lost.”)
Jer_3:19. “But I said, How,” &c.; not “but,” as if it were a difficulty; and “how shall I.” The sentence need not be taken interrogatively, but How gloriously will I: with what honours! “Of the hosts of nations; lit., beauty of beauties: צְבִי צִבְאוֹת, not “hosts.” The Hebrew idiom means a heritage of the chief beauty of nations.—Speaker’s Com.
Jer_3:21. “For they have perverted;” rather “because” supplying the reason of their weeping, the burden of their grief.
Jer_3:23. “Truly in vain from the hills,” &c. Umbriet, “Verily a lie is from the hills, tumult of the mountains.” Lange, “As certainly as the hills are false, and mountains an empty sound.” Keil, “Truly the sound from the hills, from the mountains, is become falsehood.” “The Targum” gives as the sense, Delusive and profitless were our idolatrous observances upon the heights. The word הֲמוֹן is rendered the “noise of revelry” in Amo_5:23; and here as “the noisy gatherings for idle worship on the hill-tops.”—Speaker’s Com.
Jer_3:24. “Shame,” וְהַבֹּשֶׁת; lit., the shame, i.e., Baal; comp. chap. Jer_11:13, where the word לַבּשֶׁת is rendered “that shameful thing, even altars to Baal” (cf. Hos_9:10). Gesenius = “an idol which deceives the hope of the worshippers, and puts them to shame.” Calmet says:—“The Hebrews, instead of pronouncing the name of Baal, of which they had a dread, used in its place the name ‘Bosheth’—shame, confusion. Thus: Mephi-Bosheth, for Mephi-Baal.”
Jer_3:25. “We lie down,” i.e., prostrate ourselves in abasement, abashed at the memory of our disgraceful deeds.
HOMILIES AND OUTLINES ON SECTIONS OF CHAPTER 3
Section
Jer_3:1-5.
The verdict of law and the appeal of love.
Section
Jer_3:6-11.
Israel’s divorce: its lessons lost upon Judah.
Section
Jer_3:12-14.
Israel invited to renew her marriage by repentance.
Section
Jer_3:15-20.
Restoration to lost spiritual privileges open to both Israel and Judah.
Section
Jer_3:21-25.
Their penitential return to the Lord their God.
Jer_3:1-5. THE VERDICT OF LAW AND THE APPEAL OF LOVE
Judah, by her idolatry, had broken her marriage vows to God. Her consequent rejection has not been declared by Jeremiah, but Jer_3:1 implies it. She is spiritually divorced from her Husband. God has “put away His wife.” A solemn truth: sin breaks off our relationship with God. The sinner may have “many lovers” (Jer_3:1), but he is “without God;” how will he do, then, on whom call, in calamity, death, judgment? “Return” is indeed desirable, if it may be. Can the guilty one “go in unto the King, which is not according to law”? (Est_4:16).
I. Legal prohibition (Jer_3:1; cf. Deu_24:4). A man may not again marry his divorced wife after she has united herself with another. 1. There are legal penalties to sin. 2. The apostate from God is divorced from Him. 3. It is contrary to law for the guilty to find grace. “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” That is law; no more return to God; but having gone away voluntarily, to “go away” compulsorily and eternally (Mat_25:46).
II. Condemnatory facts (Jer_3:2-3). Declares: 1. Her unlimited abandonment to guilt (Jer_3:2). 2. Her shameless effrontery and persistency (Jer_3:3). Our sins are (1.) not imaginary, but positive; (2.) not difficult to find, but glaring; (3.) not mere indiscretions, but appalling; (4.) not few, but multitudinous. And our apostasy from God has made us (1.) insensible to affliction (“showers withheld”); (2.) hardened in shamelessness. “Sin is not a conjugal, but an adulterous relation.”
III. Conjugal relationship recalled (Jer_3:4). “My Father, Thou wast the Husband of my youth” (cf. Pro_2:17; see also Jer_3:20). 1. God reminds her of what she was in her youth. How have we deteriorated and fallen! 2. God laments her present life of falsity. Backsliding grieves the Lord. 3. God would awaken her from insensibility to penitent reflections. 4. God shows Himself still a loyal, loving Husband. He does not drive the backslider or the sinner away, but mourns, “How can I give thee up?” (chap. Jer_2:2). Yea, He still calls to faithless Judah, “Return to Me” (Jer_3:1).
IV. Desperate trifling with God (Jer_3:5). 1. Judah responds with fair words. “Will he reserve,” &c., is Judah’s soliloquy upon hearing God’s appeal (Jer_3:4). The prophet chides her, “Behold, thou hast spoken!” Such is thine answer to God’s patient and pleading remonstrance. The language shows—(1.) Conscious demerit, “anger;” (2.) dread of punishment; (3.) belief in mercy: that He will not keep it to the end. But there is no cry of repentance and self-abhorrence. Have we only thus spoken? or not rather Job_42:6? 2. Judah persisted in foul deeds. Although “thou hast spoken” thus, yet “thou hast done evil persistently.” To deprecate the continuance of Divine displeasure, and yet by our conduct to “provoke the Holy One of Israel to anger,” is the most solemn trifling. How deplorable the state of a soul which sins on unrestrained by conscience or fear of God’s wrath (Jer_3:5); and more, unmoved by the pathos of love (Jer_3:4).
Jer_3:6-11. ISRAEL’S DIVORCE: ITS LESSONS LOST UPON JUDAH
The kingdom of Israel had been destroyed, and the ten tribes driven into exile as the Divine punishment of idolatry and apostasy. This fact was daily evident to Judah; Israel cast off from God, abandoned to captivity for her criminal impiety. What effect would this produce upon “her sister Judah”?—restrain her? Keep her watchful, loyal? Alas! (Jer_3:10-11).
I. Though both were guilty, there was a distinction and a difference of criminality in their respective sins. 1. The distinction. Israel’s sin was apostasy (Jer_3:6). Judah’s sin was treachery (Jer_3:7). Apostasy, i.e., utter desertion of God, is contrasted with falsehood, i.e., criminal hypocrisy, dissimulation, a show of piety covering the vilest impiety. 2. The degree. Judah had the warning of Israel’s example and ruin. Yet (1.) Israel abandoned herself to impiety (Jer_3:6), and Judah, instead of avoiding her sin, did the same. She “saw it” (Jer_3:7), yet, with open eyes, knowing the doom, she trod the same course; (2.) Israel had gone into exile for her iniquity; yet Judah despised the warning. She “feared not” (Jer_3:8); (3.) Israel refused to return at God’s call (Jer_3:7), but Judah professedly did respond, yet played a false part (Jer_3:10). Feigned a piety she inwardly loathed (Gal_6:7).
II. Hypocrisy calls forth severer reproaches from God than apostasy (Jer_3:11). Judah had knowledge, “saw” (Jer_3:7), yet cared nothing, “feared not” (Jer_3:8), and mocked God (Jer_3:10). Whereas Israel acted blindly, madly, wickedly, but without deliberation or design. 1. Hypocrisy is deliberate, not merely impetuous. 2. Flauntingly insolent, not merely indifferent. 3. Trifling and pretentious, not madly blind. The pharisee worse than the publican; traitor worse than the rebel. A deeper depravity of heart underlies the sin. A greater provocation to God is furnished by the sin. To delude man by a mock piety is bad, but to attempt to pass a counterfeit repentance on God is daringly blasphemous. (Comp. the Saviour’s “anger” and awful “woes” against the pretentious, hypocritical pharisees, Mar_3:5, and Matthew 23)
Jer_3:12-14. ISRAEL INVITED TO RENEW HER MARRIAGE BY REPENTANCE
“Backsliding:” a metaphor taken from oxen which refuse to draw in the yoke put upon them (Hos_4:16).
i. God sends messages of mercy and not of judgment (Jer_3:12). Well might He have cast them off utterly. But He delighteth in mercy, and “willeth not the death of the sinner.” By many prophets did He thus invite them to return (2Ch_36:15); they even “wearied Him” with their obstinacy (Isa_43:24).
ii. God requires that they humble themselves before Him (Jer_3:13). This indispensable. Not consistent with His honour that He should receive them while they hardened themselves against Him. To compensate for their wickedness was impossible, but must confess it, and humble themselves on account of it.
iii. God urges the most affecting considerations in order to prevail upon them. 1. The merciful disposition He felt towards them (Jer_3:12). 2. The relation under which He still regarded them (Jer_3:14). 3. The benefits which He was still ready to confer upon them (Jer_3:14 sq.).—From Simeon.
Jer_3:15-20. RESTORATION TO LOST SPIRITUAL PRIVILEGES OPEN TO BOTH ISRAEL AND JUDAH
Conditional on true repentance (Jer_3:13), God pictures a bright future for His erring people.
i. Suffering a common exile (Jer_3:18) in “the land of the north;” Israel in Assyria, Judah in Babylonia; because of faithlessness (Jer_3:20).
ii. Duration of their banishment limited (Jer_3:16; Jer_3:18). “In those days”—God foresees the dawn. “Seasons are in His power” (Act_1:7).
iii. Simultaneous return from exile (Jer_3:18). “Come together.” Israel went into captivity 100 years before Judah. Redemption simultaneous.
iv. Restoration to the lost inheritance (Jer_3:18; comp. Amo_9:15). Laid waste by conquerors, yet the land was sacred; kept for them by God, for them to reoccupy (Luk_21:24).
v. Enriched with national prosperity (Jer_3:16). “Multiplied and increased in the land.” This is frequently portrayed (see Jer_23:3; Eze_36:11).
vi. Blessed with spiritual privileges (Jer_3:16-17). Transcending the value of the ark and the Shekinah in the Temple.
vii. Sacred relationship again realised (Jer_3:19). “Thou shalt call me, My Father.” The veil upon their heart removed: light and love!
viii. Revolt no more possible. “Neither shall any more walk after evil heart” (Jer_3:17). “Not turn from Me” (Jer_3:19). Loyal: God all in all.
ix. Ruled by wise governors (Jer_3:15). Civil rulers, who will reign righteously, foster righteousness, and encourage the people to piety.
x. Glorified in the esteem of the world (Jer_3:17). Attracting the heathen (Jer_3:19). “A goodly heritage of the hosts of the nations.” Admired and envied throughout the world.
“That this prophecy was fulfilled by the return under Zerubbabel and Ezra is opposed by the fact—(i.) That not even the whole of Judah, while but a few of Israel, then returned; (ii.) That not even Judah had then returned to the Lord, still less were the heathen converted (Jer_3:17). Its fulfilment by the founding of the Christian Church is contradicted by the fact—(i.) That the reunion of Judah and Israel had not taken place (Israel being still lost); (ii.) That Israel in general has rejected the Lord, and refused to enter the Christian Church; (iii.) That though the heathen are being drawn to the Lord and the Jerusalem that is above (Gal_4:26), yet this has not taken place in such a measure or manner as to fulfil Jer_3:17, which predicts the conversion of all nations, and the removal of their hardness of heart. We must, therefore, still wait for the complete fulfilment of this prophecy.”—Naeg. in Lange.
“The fulfilment is accomplished gradually. It begins with the end of the Babylonian exile, in so far as at that time individual members of the ten tribes may have returned into the land of their fathers. It is continued in Messianic times during the lives of the apostles, by the reception, on the part of the Israelites, of the salvation that had appeared in Christ. It is carried on throughout the whole history of the Church, and attains its completion in the final conversion of Israel.”—Keil.
Jer_3:21-25. THEIR PENITENTIAL RETURN TO THE LORD THEIR GOD
In prophetic prevision Jeremiah beholds his nation, broken-hearted for sin, seeking Jehovah with tears, contrition, and shame. The revelries of idolatry are silenced on the heights, and cries of poignant grief sound loud throughout the scene. A nation weeps for her sin: exiles come home with supplications; God’s people are restored to their long-lost rest. Here is fulfilled the condition of the sinner’s forgiveness and acceptance (Jer_3:13). Their case proves—
I. That privileged people may so sin as to necessitate bitterest repentance. Israel and Judah had all sacred persuasions to spiritual fidelity (Rom_9:4-5). We may stand amid religious surroundings and helps, yet may equally fall (Rom_11:20). See the sin of this people: 1. Erring from the right way (Jer_3:21); “perverted their way:” began with inconsistent conduct; turning aside. 2. Neglect of God (Jer_3:21); “forgotten the Lord:” advanced from error and inconsistency into habitual disregard of God; practical irreligion. 3. Positive resistance and disobedience (Jer_3:25); “sinned against the Lord:” no longer negative, but wilful, intentional antagonism. 4. Defiance of Divine remonstrance and appeals (Jer_3:25); “not obeyed His voice:” though He called, they refused; despised His prophets, message, warnings: they would not allow God a hearing. This had become a settled state of things (Jer_3:25); “we and our fathers, from our youth even unto this day.” What a warning that we “take heed lest we fall”! None but may repeat their sins.
II. That most criminal revolt from God may terminate in penitential return (Jer_3:21). If these might, who may not? 1. There is hope for the guiltiest. 2. Those longest in sin may awake to loathe it. 3. True repentance is possible to backsliders. 4. The end of life is not too late for return. “After so long a time,” Israel “arose and came to the Father.” “At evening time light.” Let none close the door of hope, of opportunity, of mercy, on others or on themselves. God keeps it open to the last, and for the worst. (Addenda to chap. 3, Jer_3:25, “Even unto this day.”)
III. That an evil course of life wastes and debases those who follow it (Jer_3:24-25). (Addenda to chap. 3, “Shame,” and “Sin debases.”) 1. Sinners are despoiled of self-respect; “shame.” 2. Sinning is an expensive luxury; “devoured the labour, flocks and herds.” 3. Sinful parents cannot hold back even their own children from destruction; “sons and daughters.” Moloch asks them. Society demands the children of godless parents; and how can they restrain them from sacrificing to pleasure, vanity, vice? 4. Sin lays low all its followers in abasement and confusion (Jer_3:25). Well if it does this ere too late. But the guilty will see themselves vile and foolish; the day must come.
IV. That a voice of gracious expostulation pleads with the guilty to return (Jer_3:22). 1. God’s call pursues men when they desert Him. 2. A Divine pleading is heard in every heart. 3. Even the vilest are conscious that a pitying Father awaits their return. 4. Man’s duty is to act on that thought; “return.” 5. There is “healing” for every wrong in God’s graciousness. 6. Appropriate address from the penitent; “we come to Thee;” for God calls men to Himself, not to ceremonies, and self-improvement, and human remedies. 7. All-sufficiency and perfect welcome assured; “for Thou art the Lord,” therefore “nothing too hard;” “the Lord our God,” therefore He is ready to greet and receive them.
V. That hopes of salvation are found to be delusive until the soul rests in God (Jer_3:23).
1. False hopes: in strong things, “hills and mountains;” in numerous objects, “multitude,” = the many gods and scenes of idolatry.
2. True hope: “truly in the Lord,” &c. “Look unto Me, and be ye saved, for I am God, and there is none else” (Isa_45:22); “neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved” (Act_4:12).
HISTORIC EVENTS INDICATED IN CHAPTER 3
A. Facts connected with the career of outcast Israel (Jer_3:12; Jer_3:14; Jer_3:18). (See Addenda to chap. 3, “The lost Ten Tribes.”)
i. Outcast, yet not lost (Jer_3:12). God knew where they were. Denationalised and exiled; yet God directed a message to them in “the north.” (See Geographical reference on Jer_3:12 above.) Since the first captivity by Tiglath-pilesar, 115 years had passed, and nearly 100 since Sargon (son of Shalmanezar) swept the land clean of Israelites, and bore them away into the northern provinces of Assyria (2Ki_17:18; 2Ki_17:23). Thus outcast, they were to lose all connection with Jehovah, and all recognition of their former history. This was easy; for their habitual idolatry would lead them into speedy surrender of all relics of their religious distinction; and, as their numbers were not vast, they would not long preserve any national distinctness, but become absorbed amid the admixture of peoples which the Assyrian conquests gathered together in the north. But though long lost to themselves, they were not lost to God. He knew where to address them. And He will know where to seek them when the time of their return shall arrive (Isa_11:11; Isa_11:16; cf. Jer_3:18).
ii. Banished, yet still beloved (Jer_3:14). “I am married unto you.” God respects and preserves His relationship to Israel unchanged, although she had been banished a hundred years, and was fading from national existence. This sanctions Paul’s assertion, “God hath not cast away His people” (Rom_11:1-2). And this unchanging relationship and imperishable love are asserted by God in terms of the most unequivocal and solemn character (Jer_31:37).
iii. Destined to local and spiritual restoration. “I will take you one of a city and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion” (Jer_3:14). “In those days the house of Judah shall walk to the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north,” &c. (Jer_3:18). This promise cannot be limited to the return from exile under the edict of Cyrus. The two kingdoms, Judah and Israel, have not yet “come together,” nor have they yet used the language of Jer_3:22. Nor has Israel learned to cry “My Father!” (Jer_3:19). Their joint restoration and conversion to God are therefore yet future (cf. Eze_37:16 to end). God will keep and fulfil His covenant promises.
B. The actual state of Judah under the eye of God (Jer_3:4; Jer_3:10). The words “from this time,” mark the epoch as special. Judah hath “turned unto Me feignedly,” asserts a national show of repentance. For this incident, Judah professedly repentant before Jehovah, we must turn to 2Ch_35:1-19, the national celebration of the passover, which succeeded Josiah’s reforms, and asserted Judah’s restoration to the Lord. That this chapter coincides with that incident is confirmed by the reference to the ark, both in the arrangements for that passover (2Ch_35:3), and in this prophecy (Jer_3:16). Yet, notwithstanding the great parade of national repentance, God declares it to be unreal (Jer_3:10).
Theme: Reformation no guarantee of religion. A ritual piety not necessarily real piety. (Addenda to chap. 3, Jer_3:10. “Ritual” and “Feignedly.”) In Judah’s case it was the result of authority and policy. Josiah ordered it: not spontaneous; therefore not sincere. The king had cleansed the land, and brought the nation to yield a formal homage to Jehovah: the prophet proclaimed it utterly corrupt and hypocritical.
I. External reform may be unattended by spiritual regeneration. Ostensible repentance, external rectitude, these co-existed with a heart withheld from God. Judah had not cried, “My Father,” &c. (Jer_3:4).
1. To rectify evil habits does not prove inward renewal. “Garnished sepulchres” may contain “all uncleanness.”
2. A revival of ritual may not result from revival of religion. The passover observed with ostentatious care was a mockery. Æsthetic ritual cannot argue religious affections, sanctified lives: decorated altars may not imply devotional worshippers. As well urge that “hewed cisterns” guarantee pure and “living water.” Pharisaism in general may be but another name for falsity.
II. The distinctive province of the king and the prophet in the realm of religion. As far as the king went, all was right. He could do no more: effected complete revolution in religious habits of Judah, rectified abuses of Temple, re-established true religion.
1. Royalty can dictate the forms and mode of religion. History often shown this. What then? Are people thereby made religious? Would another “Act of Uniformity” ensure piety throughout England? Can the king rule conscience, sway hearts?
2. Human effort pauses where true religion only begins. God commences with the “heart” (Jer_3:10). Man’s work must stop there: he can carry reform no further than “making clean the outside of the cup and platter.” Hence God sent the prophet to work where the king could not, to arouse the nation’s inward and spiritual response to the royal reform: to appeal to Judah “from that time,” so propitious for a real repentance, “to cry unto Him, My Father.”
III. Reformation without spiritual renewal may prove a perilous delusion. It may quiet and lull. Possibly Judah felt herself religious, having done so much that was pious. Reformed sinners are not easily won to repentance. They fortify themselves in a self-satisfied pride. 1. Outward piety may co-exist with inward sin. A compromise: but loathsome to God, who “looketh not on appearance.” 2. Outward piety is more readily accepted than repentance. It costs no self-humiliations and heart-conflicts; no “crucifixion of the affections and lusts;” no abasement before God. 3. Outward piety is evanescent and worthless. The king’s work was effective: the people responded: Judah became religious. But what ensued? Revulsion when the king died. Nation rushed back to idolatry and vice so soon as the outward restraint was gone. Test such a piety, and it dies. Take the king away who smiled on it, remove the advantages of such a religion, and the thing is gone! Therefore God was still angry with Judah, and doom was not averted.
C. The land withered by drought because of sin (Jer_3:3). “Therefore the showers withholden, no latter rain.”
Clearly affirmed that fertility of the land dependent on conduct of the people (cf. chap. Jer_9:12-13; Lev_26:19-20; Deu_28:23-24). The “latter rain” was formerly essential to the beauty and fruitfulness of the country: these have been permanently withdrawn; hence the sterility of the land as it now lies, so markedly in contrast with the ancient accounts of its teeming productiveness and delightful richness. Usually this is accounted for by the reduced population and neglect of culture. They may be the effect rather than the cause: cultivation discouraged and population minished in consequence of a disadvantageous change in the climate and seasons. Observe that rain and consequent fertility were promised conditionally (see Deu_11:13-15); the people’s faithfulness was therefore essential to their being enjoyed and retained; that gone, these have ceased. This a question of fact, certified by competent authority. The physical condition of the climate, the seasons, and the soil have been tested with a view to agriculture. Grass seed, carried from England and sown there, would perish the very first summer. The harvest is marred and impoverished because of drought. Vegetables cannot keep alive; flowers cannot blow and yield their sweets. The land has lost, what it must formerly have enjoyed, “the latter rain.” God has, as it were, turned the key upon the refreshing and fructifying bounties of the skies. He has commanded the clouds that they rain not as formerly upon the inheritance of His disobedient people. Only in this way can be explained the present state of the heights, which were once mountains clothed with grass, but have become bare rocks. The grass must have perished under the hot sun, which now burns from April to November, the soil become loose and pulverised, unable to resist the high winds of the summer and the floods of winter. This, repeated year after year, would soon lay bare the rocks. All this is to be remedied; promises portray the land again fruitful, the mountains rich with produce. It will require no miracle to do this; only the restoration of “the rain in its due season.” (Cf. Kitto’s Bible Illustrations on this text.) The temporary withholding of all the rains for three and a half years during Elijah’s ministry (1Ki_17:1; Luk_4:25) has become permanent as respects the vernal rain; sin being the occasion in each case.
D. The Ark lost in the Babylonian Captivity (Jer_3:16). (Comp. Literary Criticisms on Jer_3:16.)
Manasseh removed the ark from its place in the Temple to make way for the “carved image” which, in his reckless idolatry, he reared in the holy place (2Ch_33:7). This explains its reinstatement by Josiah (2Ch_35:3). In all probability this ark was carried away or destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar (2Es_10:21-22); for it disappeared together with the two tables of stone it contained at the Babylonish captivity, when the Temple was plundered and destroyed. Jewish authorities all are agreed that it was never restored, or replaced in the second Temple. The Jews think it will be restored when Messiah appears, but this verse dissipates the delusion.
HOMILIES ON SELECTED VERSES IN CHAPTER 3
Jer_3:4. Them: GOD’S TENDER EXPOSTULATION WITH THE YOUNG.
I. The particulars of the proposal.
1. That you should make God your “Father.” Not merely call Him so, but that you become His children. By disobedience you have put yourself out of His family, like the prodigal. How can you become His children? (Gal_3:26; Joh_1:12). By faith we are made one with Christ, and admitted into “the household of God” (see Gal_4:6).
2. That you should choose God for the “Guide of your youth.” This implies that you regard His authority, follow His will, comply with His directions: these are made known to us:
a. By His Word. “Lamp to our feet,” &c.: reveals Christ as “the Way. Truth,” &c. “Follow me.”
b. By His Spirit. Enlightens and directs our conscience, influences our hearts and desires. “Grieve not the Holy Spirit of God.”
3. That you do these things without delay. “From this time.” A sad propensity to answer with Felix, “Go thy way for this time,” &c. But God counsels that no time is so favourable as the present. “To-day, if hear His voice.”
II. The motives for compliance.
1. The grace and condescension of the proposal. “What manner of love!” (1Jn_3:1). Can you refuse to be drawn by these “cords of love”?
2. The reasonableness of such a proceeding. Your own interests urge your compliance. Where find a Father like God? Numberless evils from which He alone can save you. No other Guide can conduct through intricate paths to eternal rest.
3. The seasonableness of the proposal. Opportunities lost are gone for ever. Present time is your own. “Now is accepted time.” “Wilt thou not from this time cry,” &c.?
“From this time:” perhaps this is a special date with you: of affliction, deliverance, rejoicing. Perhaps conscious now of a secret desire to give yourself up to God.—Rev. Ed. Cooper, “Practical Sermons,” 1816.
Theme: YOUTH’S GRACIOUS HOUR; GOD’S TIMELY CALL.
Enticements and appeals fall around the young. “Take me as your guide!” cries Pleasure, Society, Gain, Sin in gay form, Vice with smooth lips. Around none so many calls; mature and aged heard same voices in their youth, but silent now to them. Within none so many cravings: as young life unfolds expectation awakes, curiosity impels; hence snares surround and seducers are alert. Falls a voice from heaven on the young: text. (Addenda to chap. 3, Jer_3:4, “The guide of my youth.”)
I. Youth’s reckless wanderings. “From this time cry to Me.” Had not done so hitherto: other voices heeded and followed: Vanity; Fancy; Indulgence; Avarice; Scepticism. How few young have made God their Guide! Tread “broad road to destruction.”
II. Youth’s eminent value. Young life more coveted than mature. Splendid triumph for Satan when ruins a young character! What a history a young man or woman may mark out; may go through the years like angel of light; or a firebrand. God values young life. “Remember Creator in days of youth.” What a salvation is effected when young soul is gathered into grace!
III. Youth’s urgent need. “Guide.”
1. Way of life is beset with dangers. Evil examples; evil counsellors. “Compass sea and land to make proselyte.”
2. Young are themselves readily deceived. Through their own wayward propensities and inexperience. Hence easily fall into temptation. Certainly ill adapted to hold the rudder of their own life, and steer amid the hidden rocks.
IV. Youth’s precious opportunity. “From this time; my youth.” Young life most easily guided. Call the mountain wanderer back ere he fall! Young—1. Not yet fettered in the captivity of habit. 2. Not enthralled by settled companionships of life. 3. Not lost the sacred influences of early teaching. 4. Not yet insensible to Divine influences. 5. Not forfeited opportunity of grace. “From this time cry.”
V. Youth’s happy resolution. “My Father, Thou art my Guide.”
The resolve indicates: 1. Discrimination; 2. Decision; 3. Distinction; for he will “come out from among them, be separate,” &c.
Who now ready with the cry? Be resolved. “Be not like dumb driven cattle.” “Choose ye this day.”
Jer_3:5. Theme: THE SINNER’S DESPERATE DEPRAVITY. “Behold thou hast spoken and done evil as thou couldst.”
Men are as depraved as they can possibly be in present circumstances. Charge made by the infinitely Holy One against every member of the human family. Substantiated by considering:
I. That God, in His providence, has surrounded the sinner with many circumstances operating powerfully to modify human character.
1. Education. 2. Human law has a similar effect. 3. The law of God. 4. The troublesome supervision of conscience. 5. The whole Gospel, interfering with the sinful pleasures and follies of men. 6. All the Gospel institutions. 7. The desire in man for heaven. 8. The fear of hell. 9. The expectation of judgment. 10. Public sentiment. 11. The domestic affections. These are all so many golden chains, restraining the sinner from wrong. Ought-to thank God for these modifying circumstances. A man’s state is hopeful in proportion as he is held by these moral bonds.
II. By these circumstances every sinner is actually restrained in his wickedness, and held back in his downward career. In proof of which, observe:
1. Men are uneasy under these circumstances, which shows them to be restraints. 2. Men are constantly trying to alter their circumstances. 3. When men succeed in altering their circumstances in any of these respects, they usually show out a worse character. 4. When these restraints are all removed, men are uniformly far more wicked than if they had not been imposed.
III. That every sinner does make the attempt, and succeeds, as far as God will let him, to sunder these ligatures that would hold him fast to reason, hope, and heaven. Trace his steps, and see how he breaks over and breaks through the restraints of—1. Education; 2. Human laws; 3. God’s laws; 4. Supervision of conscience; 5. Institutions of the Gospel; 6. Thoughts of heaven and fear of hell; 7. Public sentiment; 8. Domestic affections.
Such is the obstinacy, rebelliousness, ingratitude of the sinner. Must he not then be “born again,” have new heart and right spirit, or never enter kingdom of God?—“Preacher’s Treasury.”
Comments: Jer_3:6-10. Judah the guiltier sister.
The two kingdoms are described as sisters in iniquity. In Ezekiel (Eze_23:4) the same metaphor is applied to the two metropolises of those kingdoms, Samaria and Jerusalem: “Aholah and Aholibah.” (Addenda to chap. 3, Jer_3:7, “Falsity.”)
Israel is stigmatised as Apostasy and Judah as Falsity: but the heavier sin is laid to Judah’s account. Her criminality is marked as having three stages: (1) she “saw” Israel’s sin, yet repeated it herself; (2) she “feared not” the penalties with which she beheld Israel punished; and (3) she “feigned” a piety when her practices were impious. Hence she is called “Falsity:” and her threefold sin is most solemnly emphasised.
“She sinned against greater convictions.”—W. Lowth.
“Aliorum tormenta aliorum remedia sunt.”—Jerome.
“Though the reform of Josiah was only a pseudo-revival, it furnishes us with the means of judging how deep a genuine revival ought to go. Mar_9:43-48.”—Lange.
This external renovation of Judah, which swept the land of abuses, was uncomprising and severe. Yet was not enough. God was not content. How then will they do who profess and believe themselves Christians, whose lives are not self-denying and pure? God requires “truth in the inward parts,” and thoroughness in religious conduct. “No fellowship between light and darkness;” no accommodating our piety to convenience, circumstances, and sinful ease.
Jer_3:10. “Judah hath not turned to me with her whole heart, but feignedly,” i.e., in falsehood.
i. False repentance. 1. Its ground—servile fear. 2. Its effect—external reform.
ii. True repentance. 1. Its ground—love to God. 2. Its effect—honest fruits of sanctification.—Lange.
Jer_3:11. Theme: COMPARATIVE CRIMINALITY.
This subject may not be used for self-preference and self-complacency, or incalculable injury may ensue (2Co_10:12). Both had sinned grievously: Israel more openly; Judah in a more covert way. God declared Judah’s criminality exceeded that of Israel. Let me
I. State this decision of the Lord.
Israel, from the time they became a distinct nation, cost off God; therefore given into Assyrian captivity and divorced by God.
Judah had retained the worship of God, but revelled in idolatry at the same time, and paid divine honours to idols (Zep_1:5).
Because of their apparent superiority, Judah would scarcely own her relationship to Israel (Eze_33:24).
Though their sins were ostensibly less, they were committed with tenfold aggravations; for their advantages had been greater, larger number of prophets sent them, enjoyed stated ordinances, presence of God was in their midst (in Temple).
Despising and abusing all these, their guilt was greater.
We argue that any religion is better than none; that the appearance of regard for God is better than avowed contempt. God pronounces other: the form without the power of godliness is more offensive than entire impiety. Therefore text.
II. Confirm this decision of the Lord.
Specious insincerity is worse than open profaneness, because
1. It argues a deeper depravity of heart. Sin is committed against conscience, against the motions of God’s Spirit within.
2. It casts more dishonour upon God. A sinner openly casts off God’s yoke; but the hypocrite professedly says, “I am God’s servant, know my duty and perform it!” It degrades holiness, the name of God is blasphemed, and the way of truth is evil spoken of.
3. It does more extensive injury to man. His example encourages sinners in sin, and gives the ungodly a reason to contemn true Christians as being “righteous over-much.” He thus offends God’s people, and casts a stumbling-block before the guilty. Address:
(1.) Those who are careless about religion. You justify yourselves on the ground that you are not hypocrites and make no profession. Yet think of the judgments which fell on Israel.
(2.) Those who profess religion. God will have “your whole heart;” no feignedness. Christ said to Laodicea, “I would thou wert cold or hot,” &c. Be not “lukewarm,” but wholly the Lord’s—Rev. C. Simeon, M.A.
Comments:
Jer_3:11. To what reflections should the declaration of Scripture give rise, that the Divine judgment is determined by the comparison of men with each other? 1. We should reflect that it is impossible for us to institute this comparison with perfect justice ourselves. 2. We should therefore draw from comparison with others occasion neither for despair nor false comfort. 3. We should rather allow this comparison to be a motive to severe self-discipline.
Jer_3:12-13. God’s call to repentance. 1. Its ground (I am merciful). 2. Its object (to obtain grace). 3. Its condition (acknowledge thy sin).—Lange. (Addenda to chap. 3 Jer_3:13, “Acknowledge thy sin.”)
Jer_3:13. Theme: TAKING SIDE WITH GOD AGAINST OURSELVES AND OUR SIN. “Only acknowledge thine iniquity.”
Just as the publican, abhorrent with himself, and ashamed of long resistance of God, bowed in abasement and confession. Holding out against God no longer; hiding sin from God—refusing to own it—no longer. Return to God might be through misery—not regret for the sin which caused it; or from policy—desiring escape from evils and gain of benefits, without heart-grief or spiritual surrender.
I. What God asks of the sinner.
“Acknowledge;” which means—1. Capitulation of his pride; realises himself vile. 2. Contrition within his heart; laments and upbraids his folly and rebellion. 3. Confession upon his lips; all covered with shame, coming back prodigal-like, publican-like to God. “Acknowledge;” “If we confess our sin, God will forgive,” &c.
II. What God arrays before the sinner.
“Only acknowledge that,” &c.
1. Spiritual relationship violated. “Transgressed against the Lord thy God.” It is the sin of faithlessness; not of one who never knew the Lord.
2. Spiritual prostitution practised. “Scattered thy ways to strangers.”
3. Spiritual independence asserted. “Hast not obeyed;” resented God’s control.
These three aspects of sin, as God regards it, show the course of evil to be an outrage, debasing, defiant against all law and all love.
III. What God assures to the sinner. Elsewhere in His Word are given precious assurances to the soul who confesses sin (Luk_18:14; 1Jn_1:9).
Here:
1. Reception to His unalienated love (Jer_3:14.) “I am married.” Israel’s disloyalty had not estranged Him. God keeps the door wide open for the wanderer.
2. Reinstatement in the covenant privileges of Zion (Jer_3:14). Her wandering had surrendered all—far off, in oppression; but “made nigh,” brought again “to Zion.” (Addenda on Jer_3:13, “Acknowledge iniquity.”)
Jer_3:14. TO BACKSLIDERS.
God, the loving Husband. Sin, spiritual adultery. He hates “putting away,” and invites return (Jer_3:1).
I. The nature of backsliding. It is going back—1. Easily; 2. Gradually; 3. Silently.
Backsliding is generally preceded by—1. Pride (Pro_16:18); 2. Vain confidence (Mat_26:33); 3. Negligence (Mat_26:58).
A man may be—
1. Enticed by sinful pleasures (2 Samuel 11).
2. Led back by sinful companions (1 Kings 11).
3. Driven back by sinful fears (Mat_26:69-74).
II. The misery of backsliding.
1. Heavy losses. (1.) His self-respect. (2.) Tender conscience. (3.) Sweetest enjoyments. (4.) Brightest hopes.
2. Severe disappointment. His holy expectations are lost (of what he might have been, and done for Christ, and the after rewards).
3. Terrible disgrace. (1.) Before the world, as a hypocrite. (2.) Before the Church, as “the thief” (Jer_2:12). (3.) Before God (Psa_51:3-9).
III. The remedy for backsliding. “Return,” &c.
1. Immediately. (1.) Delay makes your case worse. (2.) God is willing to pardon. (3.) The Church is waiting to receive you.
2. Humbly. (1.) Confessing sin. (2.) Abhorring sin (Hos_14:8). (3.) Forsaking sin.
3. Believingly. Remember—(1.) The love of your espousals. (2.) The individuality of your relationship. (3.) The love of your Husband. (4.) Your own duty.—The Study.
Comments: Jer_3:14.
On “I will take you one of a city,” &c., Dr. Blayney remarks: “This passage relates to their call into the Christian Church, into which they were brought, not all at a time, nor in a national capacity, but severally as individuals, here and there one” (cf. Isa_27:12).
On “I am married to you,” the Rev. F. D. Maurice, M.A., writes: “These words affirm that a mysterious bond, which no sin of theirs had been able to break, united even those tribes which were gone into captivity to the God of Abraham; that He was still holding intercourse with them (Jer_3:12), and seeking to bring their hearts back to Himself.”—Prophets and Kings.
“God keeps His covenant, which men have broken by their sins, as strictly and securely as though they had never broken it.”—Starke.
Jer_3:15. “Pastors;” refer to notes on Jer_2:8. Not military usurpers, such as Israel had herself preferred (Hos_8:4), but men “after God’s heart” (1Sa_13:4).
“The evangelical pastorate—i. Its standard; ‘after My heart.’ ii. Its task; to feed them with doctrine and wisdom.”—Lange.
Jer_3:16-17. Theme: A BRIGHT AND BLESSED VISION. “It shall come to pass in those days.”
It was an outlook beyond the Captivity; beyond even the return which Cyrus granted,—the prophet’s eye saw a glory which excelled the gladness of that event: the Messianic age. “Those days” point definitely to Christ’s advent and kingdom (cf. chap. Jer_33:14-16).
In a lower and lesser sense these predicted events may have been verified in the return from Babylonian captivity, but were fulfilled in Christ.
I. The spiritual kingdom: a vision of joyous prosperity (Jer_3:16.) “Multiplied and increased in the land.” The “little flock” shall have and “possess the kingdom.” “Little one become a thousand,” &c.
“Far and wide, though all unknowing,
Pants for Thee each mortal breast;
Human tears for Thee are flowing,
Human hearts in Thee would rest.
Saviour! lo, the isles are waiting,
Stretched the hand and strained the sight.”
—A. C. COXE.
The realisation of the world’s hope is in the kingdom of Jesus.
II. The spiritual kingdom: symbols and external forms abandoned.
“They shall say no more The Ark of the covenant,” &c. (Jer_3:16). The Ark was but a shadow of Christ—in Him dwelt the law; on Him rested the Shekinah. The real displaces and abrogates the sign; and hearts no more rest in signs when the real has come. Who would longer bend over a portrait of a child, when lo! the long-absent boy is now returned and in the home? From the picture the heart turns to embrace the living one. (Addenda to chap. 3 Jer_3:16-17, “Symbols.”)
III. The spiritual kingdom: loving allegiance to the Lord.
Jer_3:17. Gathering to and around “the throne of the Lord” = binding themselves loyally to Him: the heart fixed on Him: no God but Him: His “throne,” or rule, drawing men into happy subjection (cf. Mat_11:29-30).
IV. The spiritual kingdom: inward love manifested in holy life.
Jer_3:17. “No more walk after evil heart.” Loyally adhering to God, the life shall be free from self-will and pursuit of selfish delights, walking in the Saviour’s steps, following the Lord fully. This Christian walk will be the outward evidence of the inward allegiance to God’s throne.
Comments:
Jer_3:17. Not the Ark “shall be called the throne of the Lord,” as formerly it had been, but “Jerusalem,” i.e., the Christian Church (Rev_21:2; Gal_4:26; Zec_2:10-11).—Speaker’s Commentary.
The Ark had just been restored to its place in the Temple with much solemnity and jubilant celebration by king, and priests, and people. What a sublime and far-reaching vision was this of the prophet’s, which descried an age when the Ark would be counted as nothing! And how much more glorious that age!
“They will have the true Ark in Christ. When the prophet says that the Ark will no longer be remembered, and yet Jerusalem will be called the throne of the Lord (Jer_3:17), he means that the whole Levitical economy—of which the Ark was the centre and the key—would pass away, and be succeeded and consummated in the presence and glory of the Lord in His Church.”
“Jerusalem” (the Church), will receive all nations into her bosom: where Christ is enthroned as king (Heb_12:22).—Wordsworth.
Jer_3:16. Theme: CHRIST, THE TRUE ARK OF THE COVENANT.
i. A most alarming and unwelcome announcement. That the Ark would disappear, and another not made. “It was the most costly jewel of the people, the central point of their whole existence.” Overlaid with gold, overshadowed by glory (Heb_9:4-5), visible symbol of Divine presence: borne by priests around Jericho: national amaze when it was taken by Philistines, joy when restored: disasters befell nation in Saul’s days because Ark neglected; prosperity under David because honoured and a “resting-place” provided; and, finally, the display of Divine glory when Solomon transferred Ark to the Temple.
All this taught Israel that their safety and prosperity were connected with Ark of covenant. Called “Ark of God’s strength” (2Ch_6:41).
By some regarded with superstitious awe rather than reverential fear; yet by all as of incalculable value to the nation.
ii. A bitter and irreconcilable loss.
1. Prophecy soon fulfilled. After destruction of Temple by Nebuchadnezzar, the Ark was no more seen. Absent from second Temple, which was built soon after return from Babylon. This a solemn and perpetual intimation to them of the approaching removal of the whole typical system.
2. Loss deeply lamented. These returned Jews did not cease to remember the Ark, but fondly hoped for its restoration. This prophecy, that an age was nearing when the Ark “would not come to mind,” remained, therefore, unfulfilled in them.
iii. A surpassing compensation predicted. The prophecy, that the Ark would be no more remembered or sought, implied a compensation which would far exceed their loss; so that what they once deplored as a privation, they would rejoice and glory in as an unspeakable gain.
1. The prediction must have seemed incredible at the time; yet afterwards proved consolatory. For in their loss of the Ark, this prophecy assured them God had better things in store.
2. How was the prediction fulfilled? In the appearing of Christ, the antitype of the Ark, Himself “the brightness of the Father’s glory,” God manifest in the flesh.
iv. The realisation in Christ of all the Ark symbolised.
1. The Divine nearness. 2. The Deity bending mercifully over men: for the mercy-seat was overshadowed. 3. The helpful and healing grace of God.
1. Israelites who early became Christians, and enjoyed the presence of Christ on earth, must have readily surrendered and forgotten the Ark in the realisation of Jesus and His tender grace.
2. Believers, though now not realising Christ bodily among them, experience His Spirit’s indwelling, revealing Christ within. So that 1Pe_1:8.
3. Contrite sinners can rejoice in the tenderness, lowliness, and compassion of Christ. None need any awful visible token of the Divine nearness.
All can come with boldness to the throne of grace: “having boldness to enter the holiest by the blood of Jesus.”
Arranged from Dr. Gordon’s “Christ as made known to the Ancient Church.”
Jer_3:17. THE CHURCH CHRIST’S THRONE. (Addenda to chap. 3. “Jerusalem, God’s throne.”)
a. Jerusalem had been of old the throne of God: the symbol of God rested on the Ark. Hence called the “city of the Great King.”
b. Jerusalem became the throne of God as never before when Emmanuel visited her. “Thou art the Son of God: Thou the King of Israel.” Yet she rejected her King.
c. Christ by His death founded a kingdom in which His Church has become the true throne of God. This is Zion, on which God hath set His King. There He sways kingly power.
I. In the conversion of sinners the kingly power and authority of Christ is manifested. Each case is a victory of Christ over the “enmity” of the carnal mind and the resistance of hellish foes. Soul delivered “from power of Satan unto God.”
II. In maintaining His ascendancy over the lives and affections of His converts. “Law in their members” at war with Him. The world strives to wrest them from His rule. Satan strives to recover his lost power. But they are held “in obedience to Christ,” and “kept by the power of God unto salvation.”
III. In governing the world providentially for His Church’s advantage. Christ reigns as Mediator: “works all things for our good” and His glory; and by, and for, and from His Church He puts forth His power, that shall subdue all enemies under His feet. How does Christ’s rule affect individual members of His Church?
1. To what extent can and may they enjoy personally the presence of their King? Sits enthroned in their heart and affections individually.
2. Christ must hold unrivalled and unlimited sway and sovereignty over their lives. His kingship absolute: their affections undivided: they habitually and entirely under the constraining influences of His love.
3. They will recognise that His care extends to every individual believer, sending expressions of His kindness and love to each, and never—save in faithfulness—afflicting them.
In proportion as they are thus subject unto Christ in everything do they enjoy the liberty of the sons of God.—Idem.
Jer_3:18-19. Theme: DIVISION AND REUNION
As the separation of the kingdoms, Israel and Judah, might indicate the denominational divisions in Christendom, so the reunion here promised may suggest the method and basis of all true union. This must rest on a double negative and positive basis:
i. On the fundamental return of both from the false ground on which they have been standing (typified by the exit of both tribes from the north country, the land of captivity).
ii. On unreserved, sincere devotion to the Lord, who is for both the only source of life and truth (typified in the words, “Thou shalt call me, My Father”).
iii. The result of this will be a condition of glorious prosperity in the Church (typified in the first clause of Jer_3:19).—Lange. (See Addenda to chap. 3 on “Denominationalism.”)
Jer_3:19. Theme: THE TRUE SOURCE OF SALVATION
By Jeremiah God speaks as if at a loss how to exercise towards them the mercy He was inclined to bestow.
I. How the obstructions to the restoration of the Jews shall be surmounted.
1. God Himself presents to them the formidable difficulty. Jews always had been perverse. In wilderness: when in promised land: till at length He gave up ten tribes into hands of Assyria, and the other two into hands of Chaldeans. After restoration from Babylon, still as rebellious: at last filled up the measure of iniquity in the murder of their Messiah. Now, though scattered 1900 years over the earth, as obdurate as ever. How restored to the favour of God? (1.) Extent of their wickedness forbids it. (2.) Honour of God forbids it. To admit rebels to privileges encourages rebellion. Appear an excess of generosity subversive of all moral government.
2. These obstacles, though formidable, shall be surmounted. God had expressed His desire for their reconciliation. “Wilt thou not cry, My Father?” (Jer_3:4). Now He determines to effect it by His almighty power. “Thou shalt cry, My Father.” This will overcome every obstacle. “If God will work, who will let it?” Vain was the resistance of Pharaoh, the sea, the wilderness, the united nations. As God spake the universe into existence, so will He form the “new creation.”
II. How alone the difficulties in the way of our salvation can ever be overcome.
1. There are immense difficulties in the way of our salvation. Our wickedness equals or exceeds the Jews’. If they “crucified the Lord of glory,” have we not “crucified Him afresh”? Jews of Christ’s day were more criminal than Sodom, &c., because they had greater light; but we have far greater knowledge and advantages than even they. Yet Heb_10:29.
2. But these shall be overcome. If we looked to ourselves, salvation hopeless; but are to look to Him. He will interfere for us in a way of sovereign grace and by the exercise of His almighty power. (a.) His grace is His own, to dispense as He will. Says, “Thou shalt call me, My Father.” (b.) And His power will perform it. “Thou shalt not turn from me” (Isa_46:10).
i. To those who question the possibility of their own salvation. God is able.
ii. To those who have entertained no such fears. You think salvation easy; but only Christ’s blood could atone for such sin as yours; only the Divine Spirit could renew your depraved heart.
iii. To those who profess to have been brought into the family of God. Obey and trust Him as your “Father;” let nothing lead you to “turn away from Him.”—Rev. C. Simeon, M.A.
Note: God does not (Jer_3:19) raise difficulties into sight; it is not a cry of amazement but of admiration; not a contemplation of obstacles, physical, moral, or spiritual, in the way of His plans, but a joyous outlook on the gracious purposes He cherishes; not an allusion to the demerits and crimes of Israel banished, but to the splendours, blessedness, and exaltation of Israel, by Divine grace restored. “How will I put thee?” (So all modern commentators.)
The words “Thou shalt call me, My Father,” &c., do not furnish an answer to a foregoing inquiry as to obstacles; they are a continuance of the strain of admiring contemplation.
Jer_3:20. “Surely as a wife treacherously,” &c. The remembrance of Israel’s past conduct rises unbidden in the mind to cross, like a dark cloud, this bright hope of Israel’s return to God, of its consequent restoration to its place as a child, and of its filial love to Jehovah. The prophet brushes away the passing doubt, and a vision of penitent Israel opens before his gaze.
Jer_3:21-25. TRUE REPENTANCE
1. It proceeds from the inmost heart; the weeping (Jer_3:21) and their shame Jer_3:25) evince this.
2. It is free from all dissimulation, which might originate in a spirit of compromise, or be prompted by alarm at consequences of wickedness. Its principle is sorrow at having grieved God by the abuse of His love (see Jer_3:21).
3. It is made known by the honest fruits of repentance; i.e. apostasies healed (Jer_3:22), detestation of evil (Jer_3:24), and yearning for the Lord (Jer_3:25).
i. Its form: “weeping and supplications” (Jer_3:21). ii. Its subject: (a.) Forgetting God and sinning against Him (Jer_3:21; Jer_3:25). (b.) The destruction resulting from sin’s deceptions (Jer_3:23 sq.). iii. Its object: salvation in God (Jer_3:24).—Homily by Origen; comp. Lange.
Prayers and tears well become those whose consciences tell them that they have “perverted their way” (Jer_3:21).
1. They come devoting themselves to God as theirs (Jer_3:22).
2. They come disclaiming all expectations of relief and succour but from God only (Jer_3:23).
3. They come depending upon God only as their (true and rightful) Lord (Jer_3:23).
4. They come justifying God, judging themselves for their sin (Jer_3:24-25).—M. Henry.
(See Addenda to chap. 3 Jer_3:24-25, “Shame.”)
Jer_3:25. Theme: PROSTRATE IN ABASEMENT.
Guilt wastes the sinner’s substance (Jer_3:24), as it did the younger son’s when he rushed into prodigality.
But that is not the worst: it works devastation of the soul; spoils the character and dignity of the man. How dreadful that God’s living “image” on earth, God’s own nourished and beloved child, should thus “lie down in shame!”
I. An awakened sinner’s self-abhorrent attitude.
1. Appalled at the heinousness of his sin.
2. Horrified at the indignity done to God.
3. Alarmed at the doom he has merited.
4. Overwhelmed by the grace he has experienced.
II. An adoring sinner’s lowly approach to the Saviour.
1. To hide his whole past life in his forgiveness and atonement. For all his whole career “from youth even to this day” plagues him. He must quench the burning fire of his own memory in the “fountain opened for sin and uncleanness.”
2. To draw all his hope for the future from Christ. Having all along “not obeyed,” his long-continued sinfulness has enslaved him; he cannot do the good he would. He must be saved from himself. “Lord, save me, or I perish.” “Can the Ethiopian change his skin?” &c. (chap. Jer_13:23). (Addenda to chap. 3 Jer_3:25, “We lie down in our shame.”)
ADDENDA TO CHAPTER 3 ILLUSTRATIONS AND SUGGESTIVE EXTRACTS
Jer_3:3. “No latter rain.” “Because we obstruct God’s access to us, His beneficence does not reach us. We throw heaven and earth into confusion by our sins. For were we in right order as to our obedience to God, doubtless all the elements would be conformable. But as our lusts tumultate against God, as we provoke Him by our pride, perverseness, and obstinacy, it must needs be that all things above and below should be in disorder. This is to be ascribed to our sins.”—Calvin.
Jer_3:4. “The guide of my youth.” Are we walking through life as directed by our own mind and heart, or by the Word, Spirit, and providence of God? 1. We are all travellers—(a.) as to time; from youth to age: (b.) as to place; from cradle to grave: (c.) as to circumstances; from wealth to poverty or the contrary: (d.) as to mind; from ignorance to knowledge: (e.) as to character; improving or otherwise: (f.) as to destiny; to heaven or hell. 2. We need a guide who will cheer, sustain, protect, direct us on our way. God the only safe guide for the youthful traveller (Psa_25:9; Psa_31:3; Psa_32:8; Isa_58:11).
Jer_3:7. “Treacherous Judah.” Falsity; hypocrisy.
“Satan was the first
That practised falsehood under saintly show.”
—MILTON.
“An evil soul producing holy witness
Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
A goodly apple rotten at the core.
Oh, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!”
—SHAKESPEARE.
“The dial of our faces does not infallibly show the time of day in our hearts; the humblest looks may enamel the former, while unbounded pride covers the latter. Unclean spirits may inhabit the chamber when they look not out at the window. A hypocrite may be both the fairest and the foulest creature in the world; fairest outwardly in the eyes of man, foulest inwardly in the sight of God. Unclean swans cover their black flesh with white feathers.”—Secker.
Jer_3:10. External reform; ritual.
“We make beautiful churches more often than we do beautiful Christians. We carve marbles, and rear fine proportions in stone; we decorate walls and altars; but these are only physical representations, material symbols, while the quality of beauty is in holiness. The beauty of love in all its infinite inflections, the beauty of justice and of truth, these languish.”—Rev. H. W. Beecher.
“We are not to judge a man by the loudness of his profession. The one determining question is not ‘Have you a label outside?’ but ‘Have you the grace of God in your heart?’ ”—Dr. Joseph Parker.
“Feignedly.” “It is possible for a man to have a pulpit, and to have no God; to have a Bible, and no Holy Ghost.”—Idem.
Jer_3:12. The lost Ten Tribes. The Beni-Rechab, sons of Rechab, still exist as a distinct and easily distinguishable people, in number about 60,000. They boast their descent from Rechab, profess pure Judaism; all understand Hebrew; live near Mecca.—Comp. Grey’s “Topics.”
There is a vast population in Afghanistan, of very evident lsraelitish origin, their customs, traditions and names giving proof. The Jews of Bokhara themselves suggest that the Ten Tribes will be found in the vast interior of China.
Sir W. Penn traces them in the American Indians; others have recognised them in the Nestorians of Oroomiah, the Falashahs of Abyssinia. In British India there are many indications of their presence; e.g., the Karens of Burmah, distinct from the Burmese, possessing traditions of the Fail, the Flood, and the Divine anger against their nation for worshipping idols.
Dr. Smith, however, remarks in his “O. T. History,” that “The very wildness of the speculations of those who have sought them at the foot of the Himalayas and on the coast of Malabar, among the Nestorians of Abyssinia and the Indians of North America, proves sufficiently the hopelessness of the attempt.”
“Like the dew on the mountain (Hos_13:12),
Like the foam on the river (Jer_10:7),
Like the bubble on the fountain,
They are gone, and FOR EVER.”
Jer_3:13. “Only acknowledge thine iniquity.” “Pardon can only be secured by the consent of both parties. I may have offended you. You may come to me and say, ‘You have deeply grieved me; but I forgive.’ I can snap my fingers in your face and say, ‘Take your forgiveness away; I don’t want to be forgiven by you.’ Observe, therefore, that you have not the power to forgive me. You can forgive the crime, but you cannot forgive the sinner. But if I come to you and say, ‘I have injured you; I see I must have given you pain; I did you wrong; I am sorry in my heart,’ and you then say, ‘With my heart I forgive you;’ then the transaction is based on moral principles. It is so with God. God cannot pass an act of universal amnesty: He cannot open all the prison-doors of the universe and say to the criminals, ‘Come forth; I forgive you all.’ But if they in their condemned cells would but heave one sigh of penitence, and utter one cry for God’s forgiving mercy, every bolt would fall off, every lock fly back, and there would be no prison in all the universe of God.”—Parker.
ANCIENT HYMN, BY JOHN MARDLEY, 1562, on Jer_3:12-25.
“O Lord, turn not Thy face away
From them that lowly lie (Jer_3:25),
Lamenting sore their sinful life
With tears and bitter cry (Jer_3:21).
“Thy mercy-gates are open wide
To them that mourn for sin (Jer_3:13),
Oh, shut them not against us, Lord,
But let us enter in (Jer_3:12).
“We need not to confess our fault,
For surely Thou canst tell;
What we have done and what we are
Thou knowest very well (Jer_3:20).
“Wherefore to beg, and to entreat,
With tears we come to Thee (Jer_3:21-22),
As children that have done amiss
Fall at their father’s knee (Jer_3:19).
“Mercy, O Lord, mercy we seek,
This is the total sum:
For mercy, Lord, is all our prayer,
Oh, let Thy mercy come”! (Jer_3:22).
Jer_3:16-17. Symbols of the spiritual. “The time is coming when institutionalism shall be lost in spirituality; for the seer said, ‘I saw no temple therein.’ … Why should we have the sign when we have the substance? for He Himself is the Temple, and there needeth no outward building, no outward light. He is Temple, He is Light;—and when we stand before Him, all that is material, visible, and most helpful by the way, will be no longer necessary.”—Parker.
“Jerusalem, God’s throne.”
“Lord, Thou didst love Jerusalem,
Once she was all Thine own;
Her love Thy fairest heritage,
Her power Thy glory’s throne:
Till evil came and blighted
Thy long-loved olive-tree,
And Salem’s shrines were lighted
For other gods than Thee.
“Then sunk the star of Solyma,
Then passed her glory’s day,
Like heath that in the wilderness
The dight wind blows away.
Silent and waste her bowers
Where once the mighty trod,
And sunk those guilty towers
Where Baal reigned as God.”
—MOORE.
Jer_3:18. Denominationalism.
“I do not want the walls of separation between different orders of Christians to be destroyed, but only lowered, that we may shake hands a little easier over them.”—Rowland Hill.
Jer_3:24-25. “Shame,” cf. Jer_3:3, “refuseth to be ashamed.”
“Shame is a great restraint upon sinners at first; but that soon falls off; and when men have once lost their innocence, their modesty is not like to be long troublesome to them. For impudence comes on with vice, and grows up with it. When men have the heart to do a very bad thing, they seldom want the face to bear it out.”—Tillotson.
The legend says, that a sinner being at confession, the devil appeared, saying that he came to make restitution. Being asked what he came to restore, he said, “Shame: for it is shame that I have stolen from this sinner to make him shameless in sinning; and now I have come to restore it to him, to make him ashamed to confess his sins.”—Dictionary of Illustration.
Jer_3:25. Sin debases the soul. As Josiah in God’s name desecrated and polluted the idolatrous altars in the land by burning dead priests’ bones thereon (2Ch_34:5); so do transgressors against God degrade their spiritual nature, and profane the altar within their hearts which God intended for His homage and resting-place.
“Even unto this day.” “As it is never too soon to be good, so it is never too late to amend: I will, therefore, neither neglect the time present, nor despair of the time past. If I had been sooner good, I might, perhaps, have been better; if I am longer bad, I shall, I am sure, be worse.”—Warwick’s “Spare Minutes.”
“We lie down in our shame.”
“Weary with my load of sin,
All diseased and faint within,
See me, Lord, Thy grace entreat,
See me prostrate at Thy feet;
Here before Thy cross I lie,
Here I live, or here I die.
“I have tried and tried in vain
Many ways to ease my pain;
Now all other hope in past,
Only this is left at last;
Hare before Thy cross I lie,
Here I live, or here I die.”—
WADE ROBINSON.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Sermon Bible 1900 · Public Domain On v1 I. The Creator, the Preserver, the Benefactor, the Lover,…
Jer 3:19
I. The Creator, the Preserver, the Benefactor, the Lover, of us all must be, in no common sense, the Father of us all. But infinitely nearer are those in whose hearts the grace of God has wrought its wondrous transformation. In them there are two things which make God a Father indeed. (1) The first is that mystic, incommunicable process, by which every believer is become an actual part of the body of Him, the one only Son of God, who alone has any right, by virtue of His own inherent nature, to say those words, "My Father"—and that union is the Christian’s living of eternal childhood. (2) That new spirit—the spirit of adoption—every believer has received out of his oneness to the Lord Jesus Christ, by which he can now say, not as a dogma, not as an abstract part; but personally, devoutly, livingly, lovingly, "My Father."
Read full note →
II. The happiness and the strength of the opening year will depend upon the measure of the communion which you are able to sustain with the unseen. I know no way to sustain prayer like that which Christ adopted in His own prayers—the remembrance that it is with a "Father" that you have to do in prayer. There will be times when prayer will want the assurance of that thought. He will not seem near. He will answer you strangely. He will turn His face away from you. The more you try to grasp Him, the more you will lose your hold. And what is your escape? In the fact well laid home to your heart of hearts, "He is my Father." He cannot be indifferent. He cannot deceive. He cannot disappoint us.
J. Vaughan, Fifty Sermons, 6th series, p. 151.
References: Jer 3:19.—Spurgeon, My Sermon Notes: Ecclesiastes to Malachi, p. 268; G. Brooks, Outlines of Sermons, p. 349. Jer 4:2.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. xviii., p. 340.
The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain On v6 Jeremiah's Third Prophecy. The Fate of the Ten Tribes…
Jeremiah's Third Prophecy. The Fate of the Ten Tribes a Warning to Judah
In this prophecy, as in the last, idolatry is denounced under the figure of unfaithfulness to the marriage vow. But as a marked distinction, God here invites to repentance, and on this there hinges pardon.
Read full note →
6-20. Israel and Judah have both forsaken their Divine Spouse, but forgiveness will follow repentance.
7-11. Samaria, the capital of the kingdom of the Ten Tribes, after a stubborn resistance had been captured by Sargon, king of Assyria, 722 b.c., and more than 27,000 of its inhabitants deported. The isolation and comparative poverty of Judah helped her to survive her northern sister for well over a hundred years. But failure to take advantage of the warning thus afforded her brought its inevitable results. Moreover, in spite of greater privileges, she had added to apostasy treachery, by hypocritically feigning still to pay homage to Jehovah under cover of idolatrous rites. She had rejected Josiah's reforms, and this rejection sealed her fate. 'It is not by the act of its government that a nation stands or falls; Ahaz and Manasseh lent the weight of their influence to the cause of idolatry; Hezekiah and Josiah to the cause of truth: but the nation had to determine which should prevail' (Speaker's Commentary).
8. I saw] some read, 'she saw.' Bill of di vorce] i.e. exile.
11. Justified herself more] for Judah had even more warning than Israel.
12. Toward the north] to Assyria, the place of Israel's captivity.
14. One of.. two of, etc.] A 'city' might be a mere village. A 'family,' i.e. descendants of a common ancestor, suggested a larger number. There were, e.g., only four or five families in the whole tribe of Judah. The reference here is to the return from the exile to Palestine.
16. The blessings of repentance and obedience. Even the ark with the mercy seat on which the brightness which marked Jehovah's presence rested shall be forgotten, for Jehovah shall no longer be confined to one place or one people. All nations shall serve Him; His dominion centred in Jerusalem shall extend to the ends, of the earth.
17. Imagination] RV 'stubbornness.'
19. The Lord tells of His affection for Israel. But] rather,'and.' How] i.e. In what honourable position? The children] the nations of the earth, all of them God's children, as created by Him.
22-25. An acceptable prayer of repentance.
23. The multitude of mountains] RV 'the tumult' (RM 'the noisy throng') 'on the mountains': the orgies and clamorous supplications of idolatrous crowds at the high places.
24. Shame] RV 'the shameful thing,' i.e. the god Baal: cp. Jer_11:13. Hath devoured] hath consumed in the form of sacrifices the fruits of our toil.
Jer_4:1-4. The assurance of forgiveness. 1. Then shalt, etc.] RM 'and wilt not wander.'
3. Break up, etc.] As the farmer is careful to clear the soil of weeds before sowing his seed, so with Israel. The sowing of repentance must be serious and real.
4. Circumcise] Circumcision was a dedication of self to God's service, and a removal of imperfections.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On v6 The Lord said
The Lord said
The general character of the second message to Judah is:
Read full note →
(1) of reproach that the example of Jehovah’s chastening of the northern kingdom 2Ki 17:1-18 had produced no effect upon Judah, e.g. Jer 3:6-10.
(2) of warning of a like chastisement impending over Judah, e.g. Jer 3:15-17.
(3) of touching appeals to return to Jehovah, e.g. Jer 3:12-14.
(4) of promises of final national restoration and blessing, e.g. Jer 3:16-18.
Israel
"Israel" and "Ephraim": names by which the northern kingdom (the ten tribes) is usually called in the prophets. When by "Israel" the whole nation is meant, it will appear from the context.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain On v6 The Call to Repentance and judgment Announced (3:6-6:30)
The Call to Repentance and judgment Announced (3:6-6:30)
CHAPTER 3
Read full note →
1. The contrast between backslidden Israel and treacherous Judah (Jer 3:6-11)
2. The call to return and the promised glory (Jer 3:12-18)
3. The future true repentance predicted and anticipated (Jer 3:19-25)
Jer 3:6-11. The message which begins with the sixth verse was given to Jeremiah during the reign of Josiah. There is then, first of all, a contrast between Israel (the ten tribes) and her sister Judah. (Compare with Eze 23:1-49.) The house of Israel, the northern kingdom was judged first by the Lord. She played the harlot; after she had done so, the Lord said, “Turn thou to Me.” She refused, and her treacherous sister the house of Judah saw it. And when the Lord dealt with the house of Israel in judgment and they were carried away, Judah did not fear but played the harlot. The tenth verse proves conclusively that the reformation under Josiah was not a true spiritual revival: “And yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah hath not returned unto Me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the LORD.”
Jer 3:12-18. Here is a message to be proclaimed toward the north, calling on backsliding Israel to return. He promises mercy to them. One hundred years before, the house of Israel had gone northward as captives. The Lord knew where they dwelt and sent them this message of mercy. He knows today where the house of Israel is, the ten tribes, and at some future time the gracious offer given here will be consummated in their return. These verses are prophetic. They speak of the time when the chosen people will return. Then Jerusalem will be called “the throne of the LORD.” Israel will be converted. All the nations will be gathered unto the Name of Jehovah; the house of Judah with the house of Israel will be reunited. That will be when the King our ever blessed Lord comes back.
Jer 3:19-25. What the future true repentance of the people will be is here predicted and anticipated. There will be weeping and supplications. They will acknowledge that true salvation is in the Lord. They will confess their sins and their disobedience.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv1, 6 The Possibility of Return
The Possibility of Return
v. 1. They say, literally, "Saying," God Himself being the subject of the sentence. If a man put away his wife, and she go from him and become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? Such dismissals were sometimes practiced among the Jews, but it was then unlawful for a man to take back his former wife, Deu 24:1-4. Shall not that land be greatly polluted? on account of the abomination connected with such practices. But thou hast played the harlot with many lovers, none of them being her lawful husband; yet, in spite of the fact that it is not in accordance with legal regulations, return again to Me, saith the Lord, for He was ready to show mercy even under such adverse conditions.
Read full note →
v. 2. Lift up thine eyes unto the high places, the scene of her former idolatries, and see where thou hast not been lien with, in spiritual adultery. In the ways hast thou sat for them, like a common prostitute, Gen 38:14-21; Pro 7:12, as the Arabian in the wilderness, who lies in wait to attack travelers; and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness.
v. 3. Therefore, as a punishment for such idolatrous behavior, the showers have been withholden, and there hath been no latter rain, which was absolutely necessary for maturing the crops in Palestine, Cf Lev 26:19; and thou hadst a whore’s forehead, showing brazen boldness, thou refusedst to be ashamed, to feel shame and repentance over the course which she had pursued. On the contrary, Israel speaks in a confident and presumptuous voice to the Lord, even in a tone of gentle rebuke for the undeserved severity exhibited by Him.
v. 4. Wilt thou not from this time cry unto Me, My Father, Thou art the Guide of my youth!? She uses the endearing term "Companion of my youth," in speaking to the Lord, as though to win Him back.
v. 5. Will He reserve His anger forever? Will He keep it to the end? Israel implies that her misfortune, by which she was receiving an everlasting mark, was due entirely to the Lord’s unreasonable anger. But the answer of the Lord is, Behold, thou hast spoken and done evil things as thou couldest. While speaking these words of pleading endearment, Israel had continued on the way of wickedness. Such is ever the way of hypocrisy, to profess an affection for the Lord which these false people are far from feeling.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 3, 6, 8, 11 General Information:
General Information:
Yahweh continues speaking. This is part of the prophecy that he starts revealing to Jeremiah in Jeremiah 2:1.
Read full note →
will he return to her again?
God uses this question to remind the people that a man would never return to his wife if another man marries her. This question can be translated as a statement. AT: "he would not return to her again." (See: Rhetorical Question)
Would that land not be greatly polluted?
God uses this question to remind the people that a married man would not return to his wife if she married another man, because he knows that the land would become ceremonially unclean. This question can be translated as a statement. AT: "He knows that if he did, the land would be greatly polluted." (See: Rhetorical Question)
greatly polluted
This is a metaphor for being terribly unacceptable to God. AT: "completely unacceptable to God" (See: Metaphor)
You have lived as a prostitute who has many lovers
God speaks of Israel worshiping many idols as being like a woman having sex with many men. AT: "You have given your love and trust to idols the way a prostitute gives her body to men who are not her husband" (See: Simile)
and would you return to me?
God uses this question to show the Israelites that because they worshiped idols, they should not think that God would allow them to return to him. This question can be translated as a statement. AT: "yet now you want to return to me!" or "yet you think that I should allow you to come back to me!" (See: Rhetorical Question)
this is Yahweh's declaration
Yahweh speaks of himself by name to express the certainty of what he is declaring. See how you translated this in Jeremiah 1:8. AT: "this is what Yahweh has declared" or "this is what I, Yahweh, have declared" (See: First, Second, or Third Person)
Lift up your eyes
Here "your eyes" represents looking at something. AT: "Look up" (See: Metonymy)
Is there any place where you have not had illicit sex?
God speaks of Israel worshiping idols as if they were a woman who had sex with many different men. He uses this question to tell the Israelites that he knows that they have worshiped idols everywhere. This question can be translated as a statement. AT: "There is no place where you have not had illicit sex!" or "As a whore sleeps with many men, you have worshiped your idols everywhere!" (See: Metaphor and Rhetorical Question)
By the roadsides you sat waiting for your lovers
God speaks of his people being eager to worship any idol as being like a prostitute waiting by the road for any man to come along. AT: "Like a prostitutes waiting at the roadside for her lovers, you were eager to worship any idol you learned about" (See: Metaphor)
as an Arab in the wilderness
God speaks of his people being eager to worship any idol as being like someone in the wilderness waiting for anyone to come along so he could rob them. AT: "like an Arab in the wilderness waiting for people he might rob" (See: Simile)
an Arab in the wilderness
An Arab is a person from Arabia. Some Arabs lived as nomads in the desert and would rob others who came near them. AT: "a nomad in the wilderness" or "a robber in the wilderness" (See: How to Translate Names and Translate Unknowns)
translationWords
divorce
prostitute
lover
Yahweh
barren
desert
evil
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 3:1-5 Adultery was solid grounds for divorce (Deut 24:1-2;…
3:1-5 Adultery was solid grounds for divorce (Deut 24:1-2; Hos 2:1-5; 9:1). Judah committed spiritual adultery, smugly assuming that God would have no objections (Ezek 16:26; Zech 1:3).
3:1 The law prohibited a man from marrying a woman he had previously divorced who had then married another man (Deut 24:1-4). A woman who had many lovers was even less likely to be received back.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.