Jeremiah 2:26

26. As the thief is ashamed when he is found, so is the house of Israel ashamed; they, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their prophets,

Some render the words in the future tense, “So ashamed shall be the house of Israel,” etc.; and they think that the Prophet is speaking here of the punishment which was impending over the people: but I explain the words as they are, — that the impiety of the people was so gross, that there was no need formally to prove it, as it was so very palpable. Hence the Prophet compares the Jews to open thieves, as though he had said, that hypocrites among that people gained nothing by their evasions and subterfuges, for their impiety was quite public: they were like a thief when caught, who cannot deny nor hide his crime. Hence he says that they were caught, as they say, in the very act; that is, their flagitious deeds were so conspicuous, that whatever objections they might raise, they could not clear themselves, but their baseness was known to all. We now then perceive what the Prophet means. We have before seen that the people had recourse to many excuses, but Jeremiah shews here, that they attained nothing by their evasions, except that they more fully discovered their own effrontery, for their dishonesty was evident to all; it was so manifest that they could not cover it by any cloaks and pretences. ³¹

Nor does he speak only of the common people; but he condemns kings, princes, priests, and prophets, as though he had said, that they were become so corrupt from the least to the greatest, that having cast off all shame, they openly shewed a manifest and gross contempt for God by following their own inventions and superstitions. And yet the Jews no doubt attempted by many excuses to defend themselves; but God here shakes off all those fallacious pretexts, by which they thought to cover their flagitious deeds, and says that they were notwithstanding manifestly thieves.

The Prophet had said before, that the Jews made a different declaration; and now he condemns their effrontery: but there is no inconsistency as to the meaning. The Jews denied that they were apostates and guilty of perfidy, or that they had forsaken the worship of God; they denied this in words; but the Prophet, in now proclaiming their shamelessness, does not refer to words; for they had ready at hand their false pretensions, as it has been already stated: but the Prophet now takes the fact itself as granted, and says that they wickedly and perversely resisted God, so that their wickedness and obstinacy were past all remedy. It now follows —

Jeremiah 2:27-28

27. Saying to a stock, Thou art my father; and to a stone, Thou hast brought me forth: for they have turned their back unto me, and not their face: but in the time of their trouble they will say, Arise, and save us.

28. But where are thy gods that thou hast made thee? let them arise, if they can save thee in the time of thy trouble: for according to the number of thy cities are thy gods, O Judah.

The Prophet here confirms what he had before said of the perverse wickedness of the people. He shews that he had not said without reason, that their sins were extremely gross, and could not be excused by any evasions: for they say, he adds, to the wood, Thou art my father, and to the stone, Thou hast begotten, me By these words the Prophet shews, that idolatry was so rampant among the people, that they openly ascribed to their statues, made of wood or stone, the honor due to the only true God.

But the Prophet points out here what is especially to be detested in idolatry, and that is, the transferring of the honor, due to God, to statues, not only as to the external act by bending the knee before them, but by seeking salvation from them.

And this is what we ought particularly to notice: for the Papists at this day, though they prostrate themselves before their pictures and statues, do not yet acknowledge themselves guilty of idolatry, when such a charge is brought against them. They say that they worship the statues, not with the honor due to God, but with such honor as a servant renders to his master. ³² They think that they thus exculpate themselves. But were we to grant what they allege, they yet cannot deny but that they address prayers and supplications to statues. As then they ask the very statues to save them, whatever sophistry they may adopt, it is altogether nugatory: for the prophets condemn not merely the outward gesture, the bowing down, and other ceremonious acts, as they are called, when they condemned idolaters. What then? They condemned them, because they said to statues, Thou art my Father; that is, because they ascribed the power, which belongs only to God, to statues made of wood or stone. It is indeed certain, that the Jews never sunk into so great a depth of sottishness as expressly to profess that gods of wood and stone were equal to the true God, and they never said any such thing. Yet the Prophet did not calumniate them, in ascribing what is here said to them: but as it is clearly evident from other places, the Prophet regarded their thoughts rather than their words: for the Jews professed the same thing as the Papists of the present day, when they prostrated themselves before their statues; they said that they worshipped the only true God and sought salvation from him; and yet they thought that the power of God was inherent in the statues themselves: hence they said, Thou art my father, Thou hast begotten me The case is the same with the Papists of the present day. When any one prostrates himself before the statue of Catherine or of Christopher, he says, “Our Father.” When he justifies himself in doing this, he says that it is done in honor to the one true God: and yet thou runnest blindly, now to one statue, and then to another, and muttcrest, “Our Father.” There is not the least doubt but that the superstition which now prevails under the Papacy, is even more gross than that which prevailed among the Jews. But to say nothing of the Papists, because they mutter, “Our Father,” before their statues, there is no doubt but that when they present their prayers to statues, they consider God’s power to be in them.

We must now, then, bear in mind, that the Jews were not only condemned, because they burnt incense and offered sacrifices to idols, but because they transferred the glory of God to their statues, when they asked salvation from them. And as this was not done in express words, the Prophet here brings to light their impious thoughts; for they did not raise up their minds and thoughts to God, but turned them to their statues.

It afterwards follows, They have turned to me the neck ³³ and not the face In these words, God again confirms what he had before said, that the apostasy or defection of the people was more manifest than what could be disguised by any colorings. He then adds, Yet (the ו is to be taken here adversatively) in the time of their affliction, they will say, Arise, and save us God here complains that the Jews most strangely abused his kindness; for they came to him when any grievous calamity constrained them. “What have I to do with you?” he says, “Ye are wholly devoted to your idols, ye call them your fathers, and ascribe to them the glory of your salvation, when things go on peaceably with you; but when your idols in time of distress give you no aid, then ye return to me and say, Arise, and save us; but, since idols are your fathers, and ye expect salvation from them, I shall have nothing to do with you; be contented with your idols, and trouble me no more, for I have been forsaken by you.”

And hence he adds, Where are your gods? Here God laughs to scorn the false confidence by which the Jews deceived themselves: Where are your gods, which you have made for yourselves? Let them arise, let us see whether they will help you in the time of your distress. We now understand what the Prophet means: for he shews that the people acted in a most strange manner; for they worshipped idols when they were in safety, and afterwards would have God to be bound to them; and yet they denied the true God when they fell away unto idols. He then shews that they could expect no aid from God; for they robbed him of his own power when they devised idols for themselves. But we must ever remember what he said, that false gods were counted as fathers and authors of salvation by the people.

The same thing is, no doubt, done at this day under the Papacy; for the Papists have their patrons; and when they find that their foolish superstitions can do nothing for them, they would have God to help them, and yet they leave nothing to him: after having taken away all his glory, and divided it as a spoil among dead saints, they would then have God to be their helper. But we see what God’s answer to them is, “Where are your gods?” etc.

Now this truth is of use to us; and we hence learn, that we are not to wait until we are really, and in the last state of despair, compelled to acknowledge that our labors have been useless, while we hoped and prayed for help from idols; but that we ought to come directly to God himself for aid in our distress.

God proceeds farther with the sarcasm or the derision which he has employed, Where are thy gods? Let them now arise that they may help thee; that is, — let them try their utmost whether they can aid thee. According to the number of thy cities have been thy gods, O Judah As the people were not satisfied with one God, every city chose a patron for itself. “Since, then, innumerable gods are invoked by you, how comes it that they do not help you?” We hence see that the unbelief of the people is here sharply reproved; for they did not acquiesce in God alone, but sought to procure for themselves gods without number: there were many cities in the tribe of Judah, and there were as many patrons. The one true God would have been fully sufficient for them, and would have brought them complete deliverance whenever needed; but the one true God they despised, and every city devised a god for itself. “Since ye trust,” he says, “in such a multitude, let them now arise, that they may succor you; for I, who am one, am despised by you.” We now understand what the Prophet means also in this part. It afterwards follows —

Jeremiah 2:29

29. Wherefore will ye plead with me? ye all have transgressed against me, saith the LORD.

Jeremiah concludes here his previous subject: he says that the Jews gained nothing by alleging against God that they were innocent, and by thinking that they could by mere words escape his judgment, and not only by doing so, but also by hurrying on to such a degree of presumption as to challenge God himself, and to seek to prove him guilty. But God answers them in one word, and says, that they were perfidious. The meaning then is, that the Jews ill consulted their own interest in hardening themselves in their obduracy; for God would hold them fully convicted of impiety, so that they in vain alleged this or that as an excuse. ³⁴

Now this passage deserves especial notice: for we know how prone we are by nature to hypocrisy; and when God summons us to his tribunal, hardly one in a hundred will acknowledge his guilt and humbly pray for forgiveness; but the greater part complains, nay almost all murmur against God, and still more, they gather boldness, and proudly dare to challenge and defy God. Since, then, hypocrisy thus prevails in us and is deeply fixed in the hearts of almost all, and since hypocrisy generates insolence and pride against God, let us remember what the Prophet says here, — that all who dispute against God gain nothing by their excuses, because he will at length detect their defection and perfidy. It then follows —

Jeremiah 2:30

30. In vain have I smitten your children; they received no correction: your own sword hath devoured your prophets, like a destroying lion.

Some expound the beginning of this verse as though the meaning were, — that God chastised the Jews on account of their folly, because they habituated themselves to falsehoods: but the latter clause does not correspond. There is therefore no doubt but that God here expostulates with the Jews, because he had tried to bring them to the right way and found them wholly irreclaimable. A similar expostulation is found in Isaiah,

“In vain,” he says, “have I chastised you; for from the sole of the foot to the crown of the head there is no soundness.”
(Isaiah 1:6)

There God shews that he had tried every remedy, but that the Jews, being wholly refractory in their spirit, were wholly incurable. Jeremiah speaks now on the same subject: and God thus exaggerates the wickedness of the people; for he testifies that he had tried whether they would be taught, not only by words, but also by scourges and chastisements, but that his labor in both instances had been in vain. He spoke before of teaching, “Keep thy foot from being unshod, and thy throat from thirst.” The Prophets, then, had exhorted the Jews by God’s command to rest quietly. This teaching had been useless and unfruitful. God now adds, that he had tried in another way to bring them back to a right mind; but this effort had been also useless and in vain: In vain have I chastised you; for ye have not received correction

But he speaks of children, in order to shew that the whole people were unteachable: for though lusts boil more in youth, yet their obduracy is not so great as in the old; as he who has through his whole life hardened himself in the contempt of God, can hardly be ever healed and be amended by correction; for old age is of itself morose and difficult to be pleased, and the old also think, that wrong is in a manner done them when they are reproved: but when the insolence and obduracy of the young are so great that they reject all correction, it is more strange and monstrous. The Prophet then shews that there was nothing sound or right in that people, since their very children refused correction. ³⁵

We now perceive his object, — that, as God had sent his prophets, and as their labor availed nothing, he now shews, that not only the ears of the people had been deaf to wholesome teaching, but that they were hard — necked and untamable; for he had tried to correct them by scourges, but effected nothing. It follows, their sword has devoured the prophets But I cannot finish now.

Prayer Lecture 8

Prayer

Grant, Almighty God, that since thou, in thy paternal kindness, daily invitest us to thyself, we may not harden ourselves against thy holy and salutary admonitions: and whenever thou chastisest us with scourges, may we not become obdurate against thee, but learn humbly to submit to thy word, and receive thy chastisement, and so profit by both, that we may not be exposed to the extreme judgment which thou denouncest on the obstinate; but may we, on the contrary, open a way for thy paternal goodness, so that thou mayest kindly deal with us, until thou receivest us into that blessed rest which has been prepared for us in heaven, through Jesus Christ our Lord. — Amen.

Lecture Ninth

IN yesterday’s lecture, God complained that he had spent labor in vain in chastising the children of Israel; for they were of a nature utterly untamable and refractory, incapable of being improved. Hence he says, “I have in vain endeavored by punishments to bring you back to the right way.” But he now exaggerates their crime of obduracy, as they not only had rejected wholesome instruction, but had also shed innocent blood, and persecuted as their enemies the prophets who had been sent to them from above, in order to promote their wellbeing. God then condemns them here not only for perverseness, but also for cruelty; for he says, that he had not gained his object in leading them to repentance, and also, that they had not only been refractory and incorrigible, but that they had besides cruelly raged against the prophets: and Jerusalem, we know, had been a slaughter — house where many of the prophets had been killed.

Some explain the passage of false teachers, as though the Prophet had said, that it was to be ascribed to the wickedness of the people, that prophets, who were false and mendacious, suffered just punishment; and they lay hold on one word, even because they are called their prophets. Hence Jerome says, that they were said to be your, and not my prophets; as though God thus denied that he had given them any commission. But this view is forced and strained.

We must, then, understand the meaning to be what I have stated, — that when God used means to heal the vices of the people, the very prophets, the ministers of salvation, were cruelly slain by the people. And this exposition best suits the expressions which follow, as a devouring lion For God says, that the Jews raged against the prophets, as though they had entered a forest full of lions. It now follows —

Jeremiah 2:31

31. O generation, see ye the word of the LORD. Have I been a wilderness unto Israel? a land of darkness? wherefore say my people, We are lords; we will come no more unto thee?

The prophet assumes the character, no doubt, of one in astonishment, that he might render the sin of the people more detestable: for he speaks as one astonished, generation! The word, דור, dur; as it is well known, means an age. It is then the same as if he had said, “On what time are we fallen? or in what an age do we now live?” We now then perceive the import of the word. Then he adds, See ye the word of Jehovah The word, see, seems not to be suitable; for he ought to have said, “Attend to, “or “hear.” But he bids them to see, and most appropriate is the term; for he does not require the people to hear, but, on the contrary, to know, as though he had said, “See ye yourselves what this is which the Lord declares.” And he emphatically says, אתם ate*m, “*ye yourselves.” For the Jews might have been deservedly condemned by all nations, were they brought into judgment. But the Prophet shews, that however blind they were, they might see with their own eyes what the Lord now says. He does not refer to instruction, but to a fact, as though he had said, “The Lord by me expostulates with you; and though there should not be present any witnesses or a judge or an umpire, ye yourselves are able to understand and know the whole matter.” We hence see how fitly the Prophet speaks, when he bids them to see the word of Jehovah ³⁶

For he immediately adds, Have I been a desert to Israel? He makes the Jews themselves the umpires and judges of the cause, whether they had not experienced the bounty of God and had forsaken him, according to his former complaint, when he said that God was the fountain of living waters, and that they had dug for themselves broken cisterns. Hence he says, “How has it happened that ye have departed from me? Have I in vain promised to be bountiful and kind to you? Did I disappoint you or your expectation, while ye served me? Since then I had not been to you a dark and a gloomy land, a land without the light of the sun; but as abundance of blessings had ever been found in me, how has it been that you have departed from me?”

He afterwards mentions another crime, Why has my people said, We are lords The verb רדנו, redenu, is variously explained by interpreters. Some derive it from ידר, ired, to descend, and think that the י, iod, is supplied by a point. But these differ in their views: some refer to the calamities with which the Jews had been visited, and others to their apostasy. The first give this explanation, “We have descended;” that is, “We have been oppressed with calamities, what then can we gain by calling on God, since our affairs are in so hopeless a state?” The second draw forth another meaning, “We have gone back;” that is, “There is no reason for the prophets to stun our ears by their clamors, for we have once for all resolved never to return to God; we have wholly renounced him; away with him, let him begone together with his exhortations, for we will not attend to them.” Both these expounders think it to be the language of despair: but we perceive how they differ; the first apply “descend” to the calamities of the people, and the second to their perfidy, because they had bidden adieu, as it were, to God, and wished not to have any farther intercourse with him.

But there are others who take the word more grammatically: for רדה, rede, and רוד, rud, signifies to be lord, or to rule. I therefore prefer the view of those who render the word, We are lords Some take the verb in a passive sense, but I know not for what reason: and the comment of others is very diluted, “We have kings and counselors.” I consider it to be the language of pride and of vain boasting: for the Jews thought themselves to be kings, according to what Paul says of the Corinthians,

“Ye are rich, ye have reigned without us, and I would ye did reign.” (1 Corinthians 4:8.)

The Corinthians, being inflated with pride on account of the opulence of their city, despised the simplicity of the Gospel; they looked for refined things, and were much addicted to novelties. Hence Paul, seeing that they despised the grace of God, ironically reproved them, and said, that they wished to be rich and to be kings without him, to whom yet as an instrument they owed everything. The same vice is what Jeremiah now condemns in that people, We are lords, we will not come to thee; as though he had said, “Your happiness has hitherto proceeded from me; for whatever you have been, and whatever has been given you, ought to be ascribed to me and to my bounty: but now without me (for God himself speaks) ye are kings, but by what right and by what title? What have you as your own? Why then has my people said, We will come no more to thee?” We now understand the real meaning of the Prophet.

As to the subject itself, he in the first place, as I have already said, is in a manner astonished at the wickedness of the people, as at something monstrous. Hence he exclaims, O generation! as though he had said, that what he saw was incredible. Then he immediately adds, see ye yourselves the word of Jehovah, This was much more severe, than if he had summoned them before God’s tribunal; for he thus proved that their wickedness was extremely gross; for they had, without any cause, nay, without any pretext, and without shame, renounced God, who had been so bountiful towards them. He also in an indirect manner reproved them, because they refused to be instructed; for he commanded them to look on the fact itself, inasmuch as they were deaf, or having ears they closed them against all instruction; for, as we have said, he calls away their attention from the word to the fact itself, and this is what interpreters have not observed.

Then follows an upbraiding, — that God had not been a desert to them; but, as the Prophet had before shewed, abundance of all blessings had flowed to them so as fully to satisfy them. Since then God had enriched them through his blessing, their sin in departing from him was thereby more increased.

In the last part of the verse God expostulates with them on their ingratitude, because they thought themselves to be lords. They were indeed a royal priesthood, but it was through God’s favor. They did not reign through their own right, they did not reign because they had attained power through their own valor or efforts, or through their own merits or their own good fortune; how then? only through the favor of another. Though then they were kings only on the condition of being subject to the supreme King, yet they wished to reign alone, that is, according to their own pleasure; and thus trod under their feet the favor of God. It is with this wickedness then that the Prophet charges them. And the end of the verse is of the same import, we will come no more to thee; as though they stood in no need of God’s aid; for they thought that they could supply themselves with whatever was necessary to support them. As then they were inflated with much pride, they despised the favor of God, as though they stood in no need of the aid of another. It follows —

Jeremiah 2:32

32. Can a maid forget her ornaments, or a bride her attire? yet my people have forgotten me days without number.

God here confirms what is said in the last verse, and would make his people ashamed, because they valued him less than girls are wont to value their ornaments. The necklaces of young women are indeed nothing but mere trifles, and yet we see that girls are so taken with them through a foolish passion, that they value such trinkets more than their very life. “How then is it, “says God, “that my people have forgotten me? Is there to be found any such ornament? Can anything be found among the most valuable jewels and the most precious stones which can be compared with me?”

God shews by this comparison how perverted the minds of the Jews were, when they renounced and rejected a benefit so invaluable as to have God as their Father, and to be prosperous under his dominion; for nothing necessary for a blessed life had been wanting to them as long as they continued the recipients of that paternal favor, which God had manifested towards them, and wished to shew to them to the end. As then they had found God to have been so bountiful, must they not have been more than mad, when they willfully rejected his favor? while yet young women commonly set their thoughts and affections strongly and permanently on such trifles as are of no value. ³⁷ But the Prophet designedly used this similitude, that he might introduce what is contained in the next verse: his object was to compare the Jews to adulterous women, who being led away by unbridled lust, follow wanton lovers. As then he intended to bring this charge against the Jews, he spoke expressly of the ornaments of young women; and hence it follows —

Jeremiah 2:33

33. Why trimmest thou thy way to seek love? therefore hast thou also taught the wicked ones thy ways.

This verse is differently explained: but the Prophet simply means; that the Jews were like lascivious women, who not only despise their husbands at home, but ramble here and there in all directions, and also paint their faces and seek for themselves all the charms of wantonness. He says that the Jews had acted in this way; and hence he says that they made beautiful their ways The verb in Hebrew has a wide meaning: it means to prepare, to conciliate favor. But its import here is, as though the Prophet had said, “Why dost thou disguise and paint thyself like strumpets, who use many artifices to allure young men and to inflame their lusts? why then dost thou undertake so much labor to gain a meretricious hire?” We shall hereafter see why he says this; for he upbraids them for applying to the Assyrians and the Egyptians.

It was a common thing with the Prophets to compare the people to lovers; for the Jews, while they ought to have been firmly attached to God, (like a chaste woman, who does not turn her eyes here and there, nor gad about, but has respect to her husband alone,) thought to seek safety now from the Assyrians, then from the Egyptians. This sinful disposition is then what the Prophet here condemns; and hence he speaks of them metaphorically as of an adulterous woman, who despises her husband and rambles after any she can find, and seeks wanton and silly young men in all places, and subjects herself to the gratification of all. We now then understand what the Prophet means.

The words must be noticed: he says, Why makest thou fine thy ways? But he refers here to the care which a wanton woman takes to adorn her person, as though he had said, “Why dost thou thus prepare thyself? and why dost thou seek for thyself what is splendid and elegant, that thy appearance may deceive the eyes of the simple?” For the Jews might have remained safe and secure under God’s protection, and might have been so without any calamity. As a husband is content with the beauty of his wife, and seeks no adventitious and refined elegancies; so God required nothing from that people except fidelity, like a husband, who requires chastity in his wife. The meaning then is, — “As a wife, really attached to her husband, has no need to undergo much labor, for she knows that her own native beauty pleases him, nor does she labor much to gain the heart of her husband, for the best recommendation is her chastity; so ye might have lived without any trouble by only serving me and keeping my law: but now what is your chastity? ye are like wanton women, who labor to gain the hearts of adulterers; for as they burn with lust, so there is no end nor limits to their attempts to seek embellishments; and they torment themselves, only that they might attach adulterers to themselves. Such then are ye (says God;) for ye spend much care and labor in seeking for yourselves strange lovers.”

He afterwards adds, Therefore thou hast also taught lewdnesses He alludes to the words he had before used, Thou hast made fine (or fair) thy ways: and now he says, thou hast also taught wickednesses by thy ways He declares that the Jews were worse than the Assyrians and the Egyptians, as a lascivious woman is far worse than all the adulterers whom she captivates as her paramours. For when a young man is not deceived, and the devil does not apply the fagot, he may continue chaste and pure; but when an impudent and wanton woman entices him, it is all over with him. The Prophet then says, that the Assyrians and the Egyptians were innocent when compared with his own nation. How so? “Because they have been led away,” he says, “by your allurements, like young men, who are destroyed by the fallacious ornaments of strumpets; for it is the same as though they had fallen into snares: the evil then has proceeded from you, and the fault lies with you. ³⁸

We now understand the Prophet’s meaning: for he condemns the Jews, because they afforded an occasion of evil both to the Assyrians and to the Egyptians, while they of their own accord sought their favor. It now follows —

Jeremiah 2:34

34. Also in thy skirts is found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents: I have not found it by secret search, but upon all these.

The Prophet repeats, as I think, what he had before said, — that the wickedness of his nation was incorrigible; for they repented not when warned, but on the contrary raged like wild beasts against the Prophets and religious teachers. Those interpreters are mistaken who think that the savage cruelty of the Jews in general is here condemned; and all are of this opinion. But the Prophet no doubt enhances this evil, by saying, that the Jews were not only obstinate in their vices, but also raged furiously against the Prophets. Hence he shews again, that God had used all remedies to heal the Jews, but without effect, for what better medicine could have been offered than for the Prophets to reprove the people and to shew to them how wickedly they had departed from God? God then wished thus to correct the vices of his own people; but so far was he from effecting anything, that at Jerusalem and through the whole of Judea, the Prophets were slaughtered, and the whole land was filled with and polluted by their blood.

Hence he says, Even in thy wings has been found the blood of the souls of the poor innocents. He calls the borders of garments wings. He seems to say, that these slaughters were not hid, for the Jews were besprinkled with blood to the very extremities of their garment; as though he had said, “There is no cause for me to deal sharply with you in this instance; for your filthiness is most apparent: ye have not only been rebellious against my teaching, but ye have also cruelly murdered my prophets. If ye ask, Where these slaughters are to be found? Even in your wings, on the borders of your garments; so that your crimes are fully known.” We now perceive what the Prophet means.

We must also notice the import of the particle גם, gam, also, or even. Their cruelty was worse and more nefarious, because they thus rose up against their own physicians; for the prophets, as it has been said, were the ministers of their safety. As then they thus raged against God’s favor so as to murder his prophets, it became still more evident, that they were utterly irreclaimable.

He afterwards adds what serves for a confirmation. They have not been found in digging under Some give another explanation; but their opinion is right who think, that the Prophet alludes to what is said by Moses in Exodus 22:2, — that if a thief should be found in digging under, (or undermining,) he might be killed with impunity: for he who thus breaks through into the houses of others, is equal to a robber in audacity; and he ought to be counted not only a thief, but also as one guilty of manslaughter and felony. God then says, that the Prophets, who had been slain by the Jews, had not been found in digging up, that is, had not been found guilty of any crime, either of robbery or of murder: for he mentions a particular act, instead of the general crime. But it has been on account of all these things; that is, “because they boldly dared to reprove you, because they severely condemned your vices, because they discovered your baseness, because they were enemies to your perfidy and to your sins: as then the prophets had thus by the divine Spirit carried on war with your sins, they have on this account been murdered by you. ³⁹

We see how well the whole passage reads, provided it be applied to the prophets only. It was not indeed the object of Jeremiah to condemn murders generally among the Jews, but to shew that they were the enemies of the prophets, because they were opposed to every good and sound counsel, and were incapable of receiving instruction. The mistake of other expounders is hereby made evident: for in the last clause they touch neither heaven nor earth. It follows —

Jeremiah 2:35

35. Yet thou sayest, Because I am innocent, surely his anger shall turn from me. Behold, I will plead with thee, because thou sayest, I have not sinned.

The Prophet here shews that the Jews were possessed of such a brazen front, that they could not be led by any admonitions to feel any shame. Though then they were like adulterous women, and though they gave meretricious hire to such as they ran to in all parts, and though also they had murdered the prophets and the pious ministers of God, yet they boasted, as persons conscious of no evil, that they were innocent.

Thou hast yet said; that is, “How darest thou to pretend to be innocent, since thou art proved to be guilty, not by allegations, but by manifest and glaring proofs?” In short, the Prophet shews that the condition of the people was past remedy, for they would not receive any admonition; nay, they dared, as it were with the front of brass, obstinately to boast that they were innocent: Thou hast said, (he still speaks of a woman, in the feminine gender,) Thou hast yet said, surely I am clean Thus hypocrites not only excuse themselves, and allege vain pretences, but dare to come forth publicly, and to fly as it were above the clouds, elated by their own self — confidence. “Who will dare to allege anything against me?” Thus hypocrites willfully and impertinently challenge all the servants of God and seek by their own presumption to close the mouth of all. The Prophet now condemns this petulancy in the Jews; for though they were manifestly proved guilty, yet they boastingly asserted that they were innocent. Only (אך, ak, I take here to mean only) depart, etc. The Prophet upbraids the Jews with another crime, — that they said, that wrong was done to them by God in seeking to bring them to a right mind by punishment and by reproofs. For God, as it is well known, had inflicted many punishments on the Jews, and had also added serious reproofs. He tried by these means to find out whether they were capable of being healed. What did they say? “I am innocent; and God is angry with me without a cause. Let him remove his anger from me;” that is, “only let not God deal severely with us, nor use his supreme authority, and we shall be able to prove our innocency.” Thus ungodly men, when urged with severe warnings, vomit forth their blasphemies against God, — “O what can I do? I know that I am not able to resist; God fights with a shadow when he afflicts me; his violence I must indeed bear though he may overwhelm me; yet he doeth me wrong: but were he to deal justly and fairly with me, I could prove that I do not deserve these evils.” Such then was the language of the Jews, — only depart let his fury from me, we could then shew that we are just, or at least excusable.

Now also in this part we perceive the design of the Prophet: it was to shew, that the Jews not only dared dishonestly and proudly to claim innocency for themselves, but hesitated not to contend with God, and to intimate that he with too much severity oppressed them, and did not treat them justly, but announced a cruel sentence for the purpose of overwhelming them.

Behold, he says, I will judge thee, because thou hast said, I have not sinned Some give this version, “I judge, or, condemn thee.” But there is here no doubt a contrast between the fury of God and his judgment. The people said, that God was too rigorous; this was his fury: God now mentions his judgment. “There is no reason,” he says, “for you to allege such a pretext as this, as it will vanish into nothing; for I will in judgment contend with you;” that is, “I will really prove that I am a just judge and not a tyrant, that I execute just punishments and according to the law, and that I am not like a man in anger, who takes vengeance on his enemies and does so precipitantly and rashly: I will shew,” he says, “that I am a just judge.”

We may hence gather a profitable instruction. Let it in the first place be observed, that nothing is so displeasing to God as this headstrong presumption, that is, when we seek to appear innocent, while our own conscience condemns us. Then in the second place observe, that all who thus perversely rebel and strive dishonestly and shamelessly to defend their own vices, contend at the same time with God: for false excuses have ever this tendency — to charge God with unjust severity. But we see what such men gain for themselves; for God shews that he will be at length their judge, and that he will openly discover the vices of those who thought that they could excuse themselves by evasions and by false charges against himself. They then who thus obstinately resist God, must at length, according to what the Prophet declares, come to this end, — that they will be constrained to acknowledge that God has not been too violently angry with them, but has only executed a just punishment. ⁴⁰

Prayer Lecture 9

Prayer

Grant, Almighty God, that since we are loaded with so many vices, and provoke thee so often, yea, daily and in ways innumerable, — O grant, that we may not at last become hardened against thy godly admonitions, but be teachable and submissive and in time repent, lest our wantonness and hardness should constrain thee to put forth thy powerful hand against us; but as we have hitherto experienced thy patental kindness, so may we in future be made partakers of it, and thus become more and more accustomed to bear thy yoke, until having at length completed our warfare, we shall come to that blessed rest, which has been provided for us in heaven, through Christ our Lord. — Amen.

Lecture Tenth

Jeremiah 2:36

36. Why gaddest thou about so much to change thy way? thou also shalt be ashamed of Egypt, as thou wast ashamed of Assyria.

The Prophet goes on with the same subject. He had said before that the people were like an unfaithful wife, who having left her husband rambles here and there to gratify her lusts. For this view he now gives the reason; for he might have appeared to treat the people too severely, had not the fact been pointed out as it were by the finger; and this he does now. He says, that they ran here and there, not in a common manner, but in a way to render evident their shameful levity, such as is seen in strumpets, who without any shame seek either adulterers or fornicators.

But I have already briefly shewn what the Prophet means: When any danger was nigh, the Jews sought aid, now in Egypt, then in Assyria. Yet they knew that this was forbidden them; not that it was in itself an evil or a bad thing to seek help from neighbors; but because it was God’s will that the safety and security of that people should be dependent on him only; for he had taken them under his safeguard. As then the Jews were God’s dependents, they ought to have acquiesced in his protection. When they wandered here and there, it was an evidence of unbelief; and what they attributed to the Egyptians or to Assyrians, they took away from their own God, who had promised that their safety would be the object of his care. Hence he compares these movements to wanton levity; they were like those of strumpets, who ramble in all directions. Now a strumpet must be wholly shameless, when she thus seeks the gratification of her lust: for harlots often wait for the coming of lovers; but when they ramble everywhere, they are altogether abominable. This then is what the Prophet now means, that is, that the Jews ran here and there; and thus it was, that they changed their ways

There remains indeed often in harlots some natural love; but it is a proof of a brutish, shameless, and monstrous lust, when a woman seeks the company of any one she may see, or when a man lusts after any woman he may meet with. When there is such a shamelessness as this, it appears that no modesty remains, nor even what is natural; for as I have already said, it ought to be deemed monstrous, when a woman is inflamed with lust at the sight of any one. And yet this lewdness is what the Prophet reprobates in the Jews when he says, that they ran here and there to change their ways: so that their love never continued, but they lusted after any they met with; nay, they went here and there to allure them. This subject is spoken of oftener and more at large by Ezekiel; and we shall find this comparison used also in other parts of this book. But it is enough for me to mention briefly the design of the Prophet. ⁴¹

He then adds, Ashamed shalt thou also be of the Egyptians, as ashamed thou hast been of the Assyrians Before the time of Hezekiah, the Jews had made a treaty with the Assyrians against the Syrians and the Israelites, as it is well known; and then against the Egyptians; for soon after a war arose between them and the Egyptians, who had been their confederates, and changing their policy, they went for help to Assyria. They afterwards reconciled themselves to their ancient enemies; but this second treaty also turned out unhappily. Hence the Prophet says, that the end would be the same with what they had before experienced. God had indeed chastised their ungodly defection when they went to Assyria. He now says, that no better success would attend the help of the Egyptians than what attended the help of the Assyrians. The Jews, we know, were ever subjected to plunder, and suffered more loss from their associates than from their open enemies. It was the just reward of their impiety and defection. God then declares that he would be the avenger of this second defection, as he had been of the former. It follows —

Jeremiah 2:37

37. Yea, thou shalt go forth from him, and thine hands upon thine head: for the LORD hath rejected thy confidences, and thou shalt not prosper in them.

He expresses more clearly what he had said of the shameful character of his own nation, — that the Jews, who thought that their safety would be secured by the Egyptians, were seeking their own entire ruin. This seemed to them indeed incredible; for as the Egyptians were neighbors, and as the Jews then only feared the Assyrians and Chaldeans, who were afar off, they thought that they had the best prospect: “What! our enemies are distant from us twenty or thirty days’ journey; and those who are prepared to help us will be soon with us at the shortest warning.” Hence the Jews thought, as we have said, that they were quite safe. But the Prophet here declares, that they were greatly mistaken; for on account of this wickedness, that is, because they trusted in their unlawful and accursed treaty, and promised themselves peace from their enemies, or thought that they could easily overcome them; on this account, he says, thou shalt go forth: but nothing could have been less credible to the Jews than what the Prophet said; for as the Egyptians opposed themselves as a wall against the Chaldeans, and were deemed unassailable, who could have otherwise thought but that the Jews would be preserved quiet in their own country? But he says, Go forth shalt thou, and thine hands on thy head ⁴²

By this gesture he means extreme despair; for women did either strike or extend their arms when any great calamity happened, as we see it done often in the present day; for when a woman, not able to keep within due bounds, either loses a husband, or expects some very great calamity, she beats her breast, or raises up her hands, according to what is said here. Jeremiah then mentions this gesture as an evidence of extreme despair; as though he had said, “The treaty which fills the Jews with so much confidence shall be so far from being advantageous to them, that it will, on the contrary, bring on them utter ruin and disgrace. ⁴³ But the reason which follows ought especially to be observed, because abhor does Jehovah thy confidences The Prophet here shews why he had spoken so severely. It might have appeared that he spoke hyperbolically when he said, that the people were like an abandoned harlot, who rambled here and there in all directions: but the reason here given ought to have been sufficient to take away all evasions, and that is, that they foolishly trusted in those fallacious helps which they knew were condemned by God. Had this been permitted by God, they would not have been so severely reprimanded; but as God had forbidden them to flee to the Egyptians, it was in the first place a disallowed confidence; and in the second place, they thus despised the aid of God, and cast aside, as it were, all his promises: for as their hearts were fixed on the Egyptians, and as they thought that their safety would be secured by them; so their prayer to God became not only cold, but almost wholly extinguished.

We hence see that the Prophet did not exceed due limits when he spoke against the Jews with so much displeasure, and condemned them in such reproachful terms; for they had transferred the glory due to God to the Egyptians, when they considered them to be the authors of their safety; and they had thus despised the promises of God, so that there was no attention given to prayer: Abhor, then, does Jehovah thy confidences ⁴⁴

He then adds, Thou shalt not prosper in them. It ought to be carefully observed, that whatever we resolve to do that is not approved by God, cannot possibly succeed; for God will subvert all our hopes. Let us then know that here is set before us the punishment of all unbelievers, who, being not content with God’s protection, wander after vain and false objects of trust, and prefer to have men propitious to them rather than God himself. Now follows —

---

← Jeremiah 1 · Contents · Jeremiah 3 →

Footnotes

1. Though most of modern commentators, Grotius, Gataker, Blayney, Scott, Adam Clarke, etc., give the same view of this verse with Calvin, yet the probability is, and something more than the probability, that the sense in which it was taken by the ancients is the correct one; which is the sense given in our version, and adopted by Henry. A literal rendering of the verse is sufficient to shew its meaning, — 2. Go and cry in the ears of Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith Jehovah, — I remember, with regard to thee, The kindness of thy youth, The love of thy espousals, Thy coming after me in the desert, Through a land not sown. “Thy coming, or, walking after me,“ stands in the same relation to “remember” as the two preceding words: this is plainly the construction; and this construction determines the meaning of the foregoing lines. Our version is quite wrong in rendering לך, “thee;” it ought ever to be rendered as above, when the verb, as here, is followed by an accusative case. See Leviticus 26:45; Psalm 79:8; Psalm 106:45 What has led commentators, no doubt, to divert this passage from its right meaning was their impression that more is here ascribed to Israel than their history warrants. But this is not the only instance in which their former conduct is contrasted with their latter conduct. This is done in Malachi 2:5, as to the priests. The object here is to set forth the difference between the people when brought out of Egypt, and following God’s guidance in the wilderness, and their conduct at the time of Jeremiah. They were indeed very far from being what they ought to have been in the first instance, but their deportment in Jeremiah’s age was incomparably worse. — Ed. ↩

2. Blayney considers this verse as referring to Israel in ancient times, and as spoken by God: hence he renders the last words, “said Jehovah.” The first part seems to declare what Israel was, and the other appears to be the language of God respecting them, — Holy was Israel to Jehovah, The first-fruits of his produce: “All his devourers shall be deemed guilty, Evil shall come to them,” said Jehovah. The verb אשם is rendered “πλημμελήσουσι — shall offend,” by the Septuagint, as in our version, and by Grotius; “trespass,” by Gataker; and, “guilty of a trespass,” by Blayney. The contradiction of guilt is what is meant, as the punishment is announced in the next words. See Psalm 105:14, 15. — Ed ↩

3. The literal rendering of this verse is as follows, — 5. Thus saith Jehovah, What have your fathers found in me? Oppression? For they have gone far from me, And have followed after vanity, And have become vain. The word שול, oppression, injustice, or tyranny, is so placed in the sentence that it cannot be construed with “what.” The word “vanity” means often an idol, and it is so considered here by the Targum, by Piscator, Grotius, Gataker, and others. It is often found in the plural, “vanities,” as it is here in the Septuagint; see Deuteronomy 32:21; 1 Kings 16:26; Psalm 31:6: but it is here the poetical singular. They “became vain,” that is, foolish, sottish, having no more sense or reason than their idols, as idolaters are represented in Psalm 115:8. Their senselessness is set forth in the next verse. An idol is especially called “vanity,” because it can do no good and avails nothing: deluded imagination alone gives it all its efficacy and power. Samuel gives a true account of idols, 1 Samuel 12:21. But as long as the devil deceives and deludes the world, idols and images will be in repute, though they are in themselves wholly useless and worthless, while yet they prove ruinous to the souls of men. — Ed ↩

4. Though the general import of this verse is given, yet the version is not very accurate. I offer the following- And they have not said, “Where is Jehovah, Who brought us up from the land of Egypt, Who led us in the wilderness, Through a land of waste and of the pit, Through a land of drought and of the shadow of death, Through a land in which no man traveled, And no human being dwelt there?” The word “pit” is used poetically, the singular for the plural, and correctly rendered “pits” in our version. It is probably an allusion to the practice of digging pits and covering them over, in order to catch wild beasts; and the word is used here only to express hidden dangers. “The shadow of death” means a barren dreariness. After “land,” in the last line but one, אשר is supplied by three MSS., and by the Septuagint, though by no means in character with the Greek language; but the idiom of the Hebrew requires it, and is no doubt the true reading. I have rendered אדם in the last line, after Blayney, “human being.” The five last lines are thus given by the Septuagint, — *Who conducted you in the wilderness, In a land unknown and inaccessible (ἀβάτῳ) In a land without water and barren (*ἀκάρπῳ — fruitless) In a land through which no man passed, And no son of man inhabited there. The word “barren” is rendered more literally by Theodotion, “σκιασ θανάτου — of the shadow of death.” — Ed ↩

5. That the word means a fruitful field or country is evident from Isaiah 10:18; Isaiah 16:10; Jeremiah 4:26, etc. there was also a city bearing this name, situated in the tribe of Judah, Joshua 15:55, and also a mountain belonging to the tribe of Manasseh, Joshua 19:26. — Ed. ↩

6. “And ye came” is left out. The same verb in a causative sense is used at the beginning of the verse, rendered, “I brought.” It would be more striking to retain the same verb, and not to use “but when” in the latter instance, as in our version, — And I caused you to come into a fruitful land, To eat its fruit and its rich produce; And ye came and polluted my land, And made mine heritage an abomination. The whole runs thus much better, and has the conciseness of poetry: and the idea intended to be conveyed is more apparent — God caused them to come, and they came. — Ed. ↩

7. It appears that the Prophet has already condemned the people in the foregoing portion of this chapter. In Jeremiah 1:18, we find the different classes thus arranged — kings and princes, priests, the people of the land. At the beginning of this chapter, he addresses the people-the whole community, and here he names the priests, and the pastors, i.e., in the state, including kings and princes. Thus he reverses the order according to the common usage of Scripture: but to these are added here, prophets, because they were the spiritual pastors, as kings and princes were the civil. — Ed. ↩

8. Perhaps no better word can express the verb here used than that of our versions., “handle” —”they that handle the law,” that is explain and teach it. To “handle the harp,” is to play on it, Genesis 4:21; to “handle war,” is to carry it on, Numbers 31:27; to “handle the oar,” is to ply with it, Ezekiel 27:29; and to “handle the bow,” is either to use it, or to know how to use it, Amos 2:15. They who handled the law were evidently those who undertook to explain and teach it to others. To lay hold on, seems to be the primary meaning of the verb, and that either for a good or a bad purpose. “The Scribes,” observes Scott, “who undertook to expound the Scriptures, did not understand them.” — Ed. ↩

9. Some say that idols are referred to; and others, as Calvin think that the false gods are intended: the meaning is the same; only the context seems more favorable to the latter idea. The Septuagint have a neuter adjective, “After what is profitless-ἀνωφελοῦσ — have they gone.” The verb for profit is plural; and if we take לא only as a negative, both the antecedent and relative are omitted: but לא here, and in Jeremiah 2:11, and in other places, is evidently a noun or a pronoun, signifying none or nothing: and like neb*,* none, in Welsh, it is either singular or plural, according to the verb in connection with it. It precedes here a verb in the plural number, and in Jeremiah 2:11, in the singular. The relative is often understood both in Hebrew and in Welsh before future verbs, and in both languages especially when the present time or act is intended. In the present instance, both languages may be considered to be literally the same. The Hebrew, word for word, may be thus rendered in Welsh: Arol neb a lesant y rhodiasant. After none (who) profit have they walked. That is, After none who can do them good have they gone. — Ed. ↩

10. Gataker thinks that it was verbal pleading: “It is as if he had said, ‘I have argued the case with your forefathers already, let me debate the matter a little further with you, and let your posterity also consider well what I now say,‘ (see Deuteronomy 31:19, 21.) And so is the same word afterwards used for debating the case or pleading, verse 29 (Jeremiah 2:29).” Henry, Adam Clarke, and Blayney, take the same view; but Scott seems to agree with Calvin The verb רוב, followed as it is here by את, ever means a verbal dispute or contention. See Numbers 20:13; Nehemiah 13:11, 17; Proverb 25:9; Isaiah 45:9. — Ed ↩

11. Parkhurst doubts whether the word איים, rendered islands, has ever strictly that meaning. He renders the singular, אי, a settlement, a habitation, and refers to Job 22:30; Isaiah 20:6; and says, that the plural, in Isaiah 42:15, ought to be rendered “habitable places,” and not “islands,” as in our version. It may be rendered here, “countries,” as by Blarney. — Ed ↩

12. “Their glory” are by some considered to be God himself, and not the glory, that is, the honor, dignity, and greatness which he bestowed on the people, as Calvin here intimates: but the latter is more consistent with what follows, which literally is, “for nothing that profits:” for the לא here, as in Jeremiah 2:8, is evidently a noun, or a pronoun. The comparison here is between what God gives and what false gods give; the comparison before was between God himself and the false gods. God gives glory, renders his people great and illustrious; but the false gods give nothing that profits, that really benefits, or does any good. — Ed ↩

13. Blarney, following the Septuagint, renders the verbs as in the third person plural. “The heavens are astonished,” etc.; but it is better to take them as being in the second person in the imperative mood, as both Aquila and Symmachus do. Similar passages are so construed, see Isaiah 1:2. There is alliteration in the two first words, as though we said in our language, “Heave, ye heavens:” and there is a gradation in the expressions — be astonished — be horrified — be wholly wasted, or consumed, or dried up, — Astonished be ye, the heavens, for this, And be horrified, Be ye wholly wasted, saith Jehovah. The alteration in the last verb, in accordance with the Syriac, חרדו, which means to “tremble,” instead of חרבו, though proposed by Secker and approved by Horsley, is by no means necessary, and countenanced by no MSS. Nor is the emendation of Blarney, in conformity with the Septuagint, to be at all approved. These alterations are not only unnecessary, but destroy the expressive and striking character of the passage. Learned men are sometimes led too much by an innovating spirit. — Ed ↩

14. Blarney innovated here, because he seemed not rightly to distinguish between the two words that are here used. Both are rendered “cisterns” in our version; but they are two distinct words, though they are similar, and mean similar or the same things. The first is בארות, pits, and the other is בארת in our received text, but ought evidently to be ברות, or, as in one MS., בורת, which means “wells” or pools. The first is a feminine noun, the last is a masculine noun; and hence we find that the adjective added here to the last word is masculine, as in other places, see Deuteronomy 6:11; 2 Chronicles 26:10; Nehemiah 9:25; while the first is accompanied with adjectives in the feminine gender. The verse may be thus rendered, — For two evils have my people done, — Me have they forsaken, the fountain of living waters; In order to dig for themselves pits, Broken wells, which cannot hold water. It is singular that Adam Clarke should say that these cisterns were “vessels in put together,” since they were pits dug in the ground to receive rain-water. — Ed. ↩

15. The difficulty of understanding this passage has arisen from not considering the questions in a negative sense, as implying a strong denial-”Is Israel a servant (or, rather a slave)?” No, by no means. “Is he one begotten in the house,” that is, in a state of bondage? No, by no means. Then the following question comes naturally; since he is neither a purchased slave, nor a slave born in the house, “why has he become a prey?” That there were two sorts of slaves of this kind is evident from many parts of Scripture. See Genesis 17:12, Genesis 17:23, Genesis 17:27; Exodus 21:4; Leviticus 22: 11. This is the view taken evidently in our version, by Jun and Trem., Piscator, Gataker, Grotius, Henry, and Scott. Blarney renders the two first lines thus, — Is Israel a slave? or if a child of the household, Wherefore is he exposed to spoil? He considers “the child of the household” to be the son and the heir, as Isaac was, and refers to Galatians 4:7. Horsley coincides with him. But the usus loquendi gives no countenance to this view, while it confirms the other. To refer to filiusfamilias in Latin is to no purpose. “The child of the house,” as the expression literally is, and similar phrases, ever mean in Scripture those who were born slaves in a family. — Ed. ↩

16. The verse literally is as follows,- Over him shall young lions roar; They have uttered their voice, And have made his land a waste; His cities are grown over with grass, Without an inhabitant. The verb in the first line is future, the other verbs are in the past tense; and Blarney thinks that they are so put to denote the certainty of what is said, as it is often done by the prophets: and this is rendered probable by what is contained in Jeremiah 4:7, where the same judgment is spoken of. The verb נצתה, in the received text, ought evidently to be נצתו, according to the Keri and twenty MSS.; and so we find it in Jeremiah 9:10. Our version and Calvin give it the idea of “burning;” but according to Leigh and Parkhurst, its meaning is, to shoot forth, to produce grass, or to grow over with grass, as the case is with ruined cities; and the words connected with it here and in other places seem to favor this meaning. It is rendered in our version, “laid waste,“ in Jeremiah 4:7, and “desolate” in Jeremiah 46:19. — Ed ↩

17. There have been many expositions of this latter clause, which may be seen in the Assembly’s Annotations, which were written, as to Isaiah and Jeremiah, by the learned Gataker. He gives the preference to the idea, that the crown of the head means the best and the principal part of the land, and to break the crown means the plunder of this portion. See Isaiah 28:4. This seems to correspond in meaning with the previous verse. It was the opinion of Blarney that an allusion is prophetically made to the slaying of Josiah by the Egyptians. The words literally are, — They shall break thee, the crown of the head. “The crown of the head” seems to be explanatory of “thee;” it might then be rendered, — They shall break thee, even the crown of thy head. The Septuagint mistook one letter for another, and took the verb to be, ידעוך, “they knew thee,” instead of ירעוך “they shall break thee;” but what they made the last word to be, it is hard to know, for they rendered it, “and searched thee.” The Vulgate has followed the Septuagint; and the idea is a very indecent one: and there is nothing in the context to favor it. The Targum’s paraphrase is this, “They shall slay thy brave men, and plunder thy riches;” which countenances the idea evidently conveyed by the figurative terms of the Hebrew. The next verse literally rendered is as follows, — Is not this what thou wilt do for thyself, By thy forsaking of Jehovah thy God, At the time he was leading thee in the way? The first verb is no doubt future, whether it be rendered in the second or third person. The sentence may be rendered in Welsh without “Is,” or the relative “what,” and word for word, — Ai nid hyn a wnai i’th hun? And the future is understood as the present. Blayney’s version is, — Shall not this be done unto thee, Because thou hast forsaken Jehovah thy God, At the time that he led thee in the way? — Ed. ↩

18. No doubt this is the peculiar import of the passage, as though the Prophet had said, “What good to thee is to travel to Egypt to drink the waters of Sihor, a muddy river, (as the word imports;) and what good to thee is to travel to Assyria to drink the waters of the river, while thou hast at home a fountain of living, pure and perennial waters?” So Gataker considers the drift of the passage: — “To drink the water of Nilus in Egypt is put here for to seek help and relief there: but he delivereth it in these terms, as if he should say, that they could have nothing to do there, or no errand thither, unless it were to drink of the puddle water of that river, when they had, or might have had, as good, yea, far better than that, nearer at hand, at home. See Jeremiah 18:14; so 2 Kings 1:3.” Then the plainest version would be thus, — And now, what hast thou to do with a journey to Egypt, That thou mightest drink the waters of Sihor? And what hast thou to do with a journey to Assyria, That thou mightest drink the waters of the river? The comparison evidently is between the waters of Sihor and of the river Euphrates, and the living waters. As in other parts of Scripture the Euphrates is no doubt meant by the river, though here, as in Psalm 80:11, and Isaiah 7:20, the article ה is not prefixed to it. — Ed ↩

19. Blarney renders it “adversity.” That the word sometimes means that, is true, but most commonly wickedness; and this is the sense required by the context: it must be that which corresponds in character with the word that follows — apostasy, or turning aside. “Wickedness” is the meaning sanctioned by all the early versions, as well as modern. — Ed. ↩

20. The word is singular in all the early versions. It is rendered “apostasy — ἀποστασία,” by the Septuagint, and, “turning aside — aversio,” by the Vulgate Though there is no MS. in favor of the singular, yet the verb connected with it is in that number. The true reading no doubt is according to the versions, confirmed as it is by the number of the verb. — Ed ↩

21. The verse literally is as follows, — 19. Chastise thee shall thy wickedness, And thy apostasy, it shall correct thee; Know then and see, That evil and bitter shall be Thy forsaking of Jehovah thy God; And my fear is not in thee, Saith the Lord, Jehovah of hosts. The future is spoken of. They were warned; they were to know and see, or consider, that the forsaking of God, “the apostasy,” would be afflictive and bitter: and then the cause of the “wickedness” first mentioned is stated, no “fear” of God. How “wickedness” was to chastise them, and “apostasy” to correct them, is signified, — they would turn out to be “evil” — afflictive — hurtful, and “bitter” — grievous — painfully distressing. Hence Grotfius’s exposition cannot be right —”Thy wickedness shall be a proof that thou art justly punished.” The reference is to the very evils and miseries to which their “wickedness” and “apostasy” would inevitably lead them. Their foreign alliances were eventually the means of their degradation and misery; and in seeking them, they forsook God as their protector; and by adopting idols, they forsook him as the object of their worship. — Ed. ↩

22. The received Text has עבד, to serve, and the Keri, עבר, to transgress. In favor of the latter there are about 30 MSS., while the rest of those examined by Kennicott (in all 198, 71 examined throughout, and 127 on particular parts) retain the former verb, and also all the early versions, the Septuagint, the Syriac, the Arabic, and the Vulgate The Targum only has the latter. Piscator, Jun and Trem , Capellus, Blarney, and Horsley decide with Calvin in favor of the former; while Munster and Gataker side with our version and that of Geneva, in which the latter has been adopted. Clearly the former has the weight of authority: and the contrast, too, is striking, “I have broken thy bonds of slavery; but thou hast refused to serve or obey me.” The former part of this verse is of the same purport with Jeremiah 2:6, and the latter with Jeremiah 2:25. The verse begins with כי, rendered “for” in our version, by Calvin, and many others, but “surely” by Blarney, and “verily” by Horsley It is omitted in the Vulgate. Were it rendered “though,” the meaning would be more evident, — Though from old time I had broken thy yoke, I had burst thy bands asunder; Yet thou hast said, “I will not obey:” For on every high hill and under every green tree Thou ramblest, playing the strumpet. — Ed. ↩

23. The word means not only the seed of vegetables, but whatever forms that from which anything grows. It is applied as a verb to the planting of shoots or cuttings in Isaiah 17:10. The proper rendering here would be, — The whole of it a genuine plant (or shoot). What is rendered “choice vine,” שורק is the yellow vine; the best was so called, because it produced wine of that color. — Ed ↩

24. Much difference exists as to the literal meaning of this clause, though the general meaning is quite evident. None of the early versions are the same. The word סורי is rendered, “into bitterness — εἰς πικρίαν,” by the Septuagint; “thou hast rebelled,” by the Syriac; “into what is corrupt — in pravurn,” by the Vulgate; “thou hast declined from my fear,” by the Targum Blarney takes it as a verb in the imperative mood, and renders the two lines thus, — Yet how I find thee changed! Depart, O vine of spurious growth. But there is a harshness and incongruity in this version that renders it inadmissible. Besides “vine of spurious growth” is not the meaning of the words used, for it is “a foreign vine,” that is, a heathen vine; which contains an allusion to the idolatry which had been imported from heathen nations. It is most probable that סורי, or in full, סורים, means degenerate shoots or branches, as Parkhurst thinks. To turn aside, to decline, to degenerate, seems to be the most common meaning of the verb. There would in this case be a congruity in the whole verse, — And I myself had planted thee a choice vine, The whole of it a genuine plant; How then art thou become to me The degenerate shoots of a foreign vine? The plant was of the best kind, but the shoots or the branches had become degenerated, such as a foreign or heathen vine produced. — Ed. ↩

25. What we call “nitre” is different from the “nitron” here mentioned. The verb, from which the noun is derived, means to loosen, to set free: and hence the article called nitron dissolves in water, and loosens and washes away spots and stains. Borith was an herb, which, being burnt, and its ashes dissolved in water, had a strong cleansing power. — Ed. ↩

26. The verb rendered “stamped” is only found here in Niphel, but, as a participial noun, it seems to mean gold stamped or marked to shew its genuineness. See Psalm 45:9; Proverbs 25:12. A stain or spot is not what it signifies, as given by the Septuagint and the Vulgate, nor “blot,” according to Blarney; but it refers to the stamp or mark imprinted on a hard metal, such as gold: and this idea alone corresponds with the other parts of the verse. A stain, a spot, or a blot, might be cleansed by abstergents, but not a mark stamped on a metal, — But thou washest thyself with nitron, And multipliest for thyself fuller’s ashes: Stamped is thine iniquity before me, Saith the Lord Jehovah. — Ed. ↩

27. “The Jews, it seems,” says Loath, “had found out distinctions, whereby to reconcile the worship of the true God with those religious rites which they paid to the deities of the heathen, called here Baalim. These, they pretended, were only inferior demons or spirits, or the souls of men departed, and might be worshipped in subordination to the supreme God.” Scott adds to this quotation this just remark, “This, and nothing better, can the Papists urge in excuse of their manifest idolatry in worshipping saints and angels” — Ed. ↩

28. The grammatical anomalies at the beginning of this verse are satisfactorily removed by Parkhurst, and what he has proposed is approved by Horsley. He considers פרה to be the female dromedary, he derives למד from מד, measure, or extent, with a ל prefixed, and regards נפשה as the true reading, being that of the Keri, and of the largest number of MSS. This verse and the preceding are to be thus connected, — 23. How canst thou say, “I have not been polluted, After Baalim have I not walked!” See thy way in the valley, Know what thou hast done, — Like a swift dromedary which winds about her courses, — 24. A female which, in the wide space of the wilderness, Through the desire of her natural instinct, Snuffs up the wind she meets with: Who can turn her back? All who seek her, Let them not weary themselves; In her month they shall find her. By “winding about her courses,” or tracks, or ways, is meant running in this and in that direction, and not in a straight course. The word, as a noun, denotes the string or latchet by which the ancients fastened their sandals, and which they twined round the feet. “The wind she meets with,” is literally, “the wind of her meeting.” The Septuagint and the early versions have departed widely from the original; the Vulgate comes nearest to it; nor is the Targum far off — Ed. ↩

29. That the word means to be barefooted, or without shoes, is clear from Isaiah 20:2-4, and also from 2 Samuel 15:30: and it is nowhere else found except here. It being here a noun, it signifies literally barefootedness. They are here exhorted not to travel for aid to foreign lands, so as to wear out their shoes and thus become barefooted. This was said in contempt, in order to pour ridicule on their folly in seeking foreign aid. — Ed. ↩

30. It has been disputed whether the negative “no,” refers to the advice given at the beginning of the verse, or to the immediately preceding word. The latter is the most natural. The word נואש is a participle, as in Job 6:26. The verse may be thus rendered, — 25. Keep thy foot from being bare And thy throat from thirst; But thou hast said, “Hopeless! No; For I have loved strangers, And after them will I go.” The first part implies that they were pursuing a useless course. The insolent answer was, “Is it hopeless? By no means.” The Septuagint omit the negative, and have only “ἀνδριοῦμαι — I will act manfully;” and this version has been followed by the Syriac and Arabic The Vulgate has, “desperavi, nequaquam faciam — I have despaired, I will by no means do so.” The most literal rendering is given above, and affords the best and the most suitable meaning. To confess that it was a hopeless thing to attempt to reform them, is not so appropriate, as to deny it to be hopeless to have recourse to foreign alliances: which seems to be the import of the passage. This is the view which Gataker seemed most inclined to take; and he mentions this rendering, “Should I despair? No.” To the same purpose is the version of Jun. and Trem. But Grotius, Henry, and Adam Clarke, agree with the explanation of Calvin. — Ed. ↩

31. The verb rendered “is ashamed,” is in the past tense in Huphal, and means “made ashamed,” or, “confounded,” as rendered, by the Targum and the Vulgate. The Septuagint have converted it into the future tense, and so have the Syriac and the Arabic, which have been followed by most modern versions, and by commentators. If we rightly view the whole passage, we shall see reason to take this verb as we find it, in the past tense. The verse is an answer, as it were, to what is contained in the latter part of the previous verse, by a reference to what had already taken place as to the people of Judah; and the 30th verse (Jeremiah 2:30) countenances the past tense. This and the following verse may be thus rendered, — 26. As a thief is ashamed when he is found out, So made ashamed have been the house of Israel, They, their kings, their princes, Their priests and their prophets; 27. Who have said to the wood, “My father art thou,” And to the stone, “Thou hast begotten me.” Though they have turned to me the back and not the face; Yet in the time of their calamity, They say, “Arise and save us.” The participles in Hebrew are regulated as to their tense by the verbs in the passage. Hence אמרים in Jeremiah 2:27, is to be in the same tense with the previous verb. The future in the last line is to be in the present, as it expresses what was commonly done. Then what was usually said to them is mentioned in the following verse, — 28. But where are thy gods, which thou hast made for thyself? Let them arise, if they can save thee In the time of thy calamity: For according to the number of thy cities Have been thy gods, O Judah. Blayney has kept to the past tense as to the last line, and also as to the beginning of Jeremiah 2:26. — Ed. ↩

32. The words employed by Calvin are the technical terms, latria and dulia*,* the fictions of the Papists. The first means specifically worship, and the second, service, obedience. The verb δουλεύω in the New Testament is never used in the sense of worshipping or adoring, but of serving and obeying: but to bow to images or to kiss them, is an act of adoration, and not of service. — Ed ↩

33. The “neck” here means evidently the hinder part, for it is in contrast with “face;” and the word generally means the hinder part. Hence it is properly rendered here “back” in our version and by Blayney, and so by the Targum and the early versions, except the Syriac, which retains the hinder part of the neck. We have no single word, except it be nape, which denotes the back part of the neck. There is one in Welsh, “gwegil,“ and so in Latin, “cervix,“ and in Greek, ἀυχὴν But the Septuagint have adopted here “νῶτα — backs.” — Ed ↩

34. The verb rendered “plead” in our version, is followed by אל, against or in opposition to. There are two other instances, Judges 21:22; Job 33:13. Our version in Job is, “Why dost thou strive against him?” The most suitable rendering of this passage is, Why should ye contend against (or, with) me? Then follows a fact sufficient to put an end to all contention, — All of you have rebelled against me, Saith Jehovah. The primary idea of פשע is, to go, to pass, to march on. See Isaiah 28:4. Its meaning depends on the preposition which follows it. Followed by על, over, it means to transgress, it being a going or passing over the limits set by the law, Hosea 8:1, — by מ, to go from, to revolt, to apostatize, 2 Kings 8:22,-and by ב, to go against, to rebel, as in this passage. Hence the noun has attained various meanings-transgression, apostasy, and rebellion. Its precise meaning in any case is to be determined by the context. Gataker and Blayhey render the verb here the same, — All of you have rebelled against me, saith Jehovah. The early versions vary. The Septuagint have “ἠσεβήσατε — ye have acted impiously,” the Syriac, “ye have denied me,” — the Arabic, “ye have sinned against me,”-and the Vulgate, “ye have forsaken me.” The general idea is the same, but the specific one is that of rebelling against God. — Ed ↩

35. Blayney renders the word “instruction.” The Septuagint have “παιδείαν — discipline: “the Syriac, Vulgate, and the Targum are the same; but the Arabic has “instruction — eruditionem.” The strict meaning of the word מוסר, is restraint, check, discipline, correction. Not to receive restraint or correction, is not to be thereby improved or reformed, but to proceed in the same course, see Jeremiah 5:3. The word has also a secondary meaning, instruction, as the effect of correction, see Zephaniah 3:7. But here it clearly means correction. — Ed ↩

36. The beginning of this verse literally is “The age, ye,” that is, “Ye of this age,” or generation. He was speaking before more especially of the preceding age. He now appeals to the people of that generation, — Ye of this age, see, spoken hath Jehovah, — Have I been a wilderness to Israel, Or a land of darkness? Why have they said, even my people, “We have ruled, we will no more come to thee?” The above rendering of the latter part of the first line is favored by the *Septuagint, “*Hear ye the word of the Lord; thus saith the Lord.” The Arabic is the same. The Vulgate has, “See the word of the Lord,” — and the *Syriac, “*Hear the word of the Lord.” Blayney renders thus, “Behold ye the cause of Jehovah.” Gataker takes “see” in the sense of considering, “See,“ or seriously consider, “the word of the Lord.” The particle אם after ה, may be rendered “or,” as in the Syriac See Joshua 5:13. The word מאפליה is found in two MSS., מאפילה, which seems to be the true reading, countenanced by the Targum, and all the early versions, except the Vulgate, which has “serotina — lateward.” Darkness is a common metaphor for wretchedness and misery “We have ruled” is the literal rendering of רדנו, and there is no other reading. The Septuagint gives the same meaning, though the form is different, “We shall not be lorded over — οὐ κυριευθησόμεθα.” The Arabic is the same. It is the language of proud independence. The Targum, the Vulgate, and the Syriac have mistaken the verb for ירדנו, which means, to descend, to come down, to bring down. Blayney gives the correct idea, “We are our own masters, “which Horsley approves. The preterite in Hebrew often includes the present; so the full meaning is, “We have ruled and do rule.” — Ed ↩

37. The second word, כלה, is rendered “sponsa — a bride,” in our version, by Calvin and Blayney, and so by the Vulgate, Syriac, and the Targum, but by the Septuagint, “παρθένος — a virgin:” and Parkhurst says that it never means a bride. The version then ought to be, — Can a maid forget her ornaments, A virgin her bands? That the word קשרים means bands of some kind is evident, as the verb signifies to bind, to join closely. Bands or bandage for the breast — στηθοδεσμίδα, is the version of the Septuagint; the Arabic and the Vulgate are the same. Parkhurst considers that “head-bands” are meant. The word is found also in Isaiah 3:20; where the Septuagint render it “δακτυλίοις-rings,” and the *Targum, “*murenulas — chains,” which were of gold, and worn around the neck. For any practical purpose it is only necessary to know that they were embellishments which young women delighted in: and women in every age are too fond of such things, and men too; but the case is introduced here only for the sake of illustration. — Ed ↩

38. The exposition of this verse is no doubt materially correct. The words have been variously rendered, On the first clause there is a general agreement, The verb “taught” in the second, is in the first person in the received text; and to this reading Blayney gives the preference, and thus renders the line, — Therefore also have I taught calamities thy ways. That is, “that God had directed calamities where to find them.” But this is rather a remote idea. In favor of the second person, “thou hast taught,“ are several MSS., all the early versions and the Targum; and it is what has been by most adopted. “The wicked ones” of our version is a rendering not countenanced by any of the ancient versions, nor by the Targum; all render it evil or evils or wickednesses. — Ed. ↩

39. Our version of this text seems on the whole the best. “Blood,” דם, is to be taken here in a collective sense, as the verb to which it belongs is plural. Instead of “poor innocents, “it ought rather to be “the innocent poor,“ as the noun in Hebrew generally precedes its adjective. “Found” is in the first person, and there is no different reading, and it is so in the Septuagint, and the Vulgate, though the Syriac and Arabic give the second person, and the Targum the third person plural, as Calvin does. The last word is rendered “these” in the Vulgate and the Targum; but “oak” in the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic, and adopted by Blayney, but disapproved by Houbigant and Horsley As to the word, rendered in our version, “secret search,” the early versions have pit, pits, or ditches, and so the Targum Blayney renders it “a digged hole,“ of which Horsley approves; and he refers, as an illustration, to Leviticus 17:13, and to Ezekiel 24:7. The word means digging, and seems to be used here metaphorically for searching; there is no need of adding “secret” to it, — Also in thy skirts has been found The blood of the souls of the innocent poor: Not by searching have I found it, But upon all these (i.e., skirts.) The reference is to what is said in Jeremiah 2:30, where the Jews are charged with the killing the prophets. As to “the blood, “we find a similar passage in Ezekiel 24:7, 8. — Ed. ↩

40. The literal rendering of this verse is as follows: — 35. And thou hast said, “Verily I have been innocent; Surely turned away has he his anger from me:“ Behold I will contend in judgment with thee, On account of thy saying, “I have not sinned.” The Septuagint have rendered the second line, “Let his anger be turned away from me;” the Vulgate and the Arabic are the same. The Syriac is, “therefore he turns away his anger from me.” “Turned away is his anger,“ is the Targum, Piscator, Jun. and Trem. Blayney renders it, — Surely his wrath shall turn from me. There is no reason for construing the verb in the future tense, or in the imperative mood. It is in the past tense, and there is no other reading. The claim of innocency is made on the supposition that God had turned away his displeasure. Hence the declaration that follows — that God would contest the matter — would bring it as it were into trial, as the verb here when in Niphal means. — Ed. ↩

41. The idea of gadding, or of running here and there, is not countenanced by any of the early versions. The notion of vileness or degradation is what the versions convey. The Vulgate is, — Quinn vilis factus es nimis, iterans vias tuas! How extremely worthless art thou become, iterating thy ways! The other versions are nearly of the same general import. Blayney’s version is, — Why wilt thou make thyself exceedingly vile, In repeating over again thy ways? Modern critics have considered the verb to be אזל, and not זל. It no doubt may be either. As shame is threatened at the end of the verse, the latter verb is the most suitable, — Why shouldest thou become wholly degraded By repeating thy course? Even by Egypt shalt thou be put to shame, As thou hast been put to shame by Assyria. “Course,” or way, means here a proceeding, and to repeat it is to pursue a course similar to what had been previously adopted. — Ed. ↩

42. There are three other expositions of the words rendered by *Calvin, “*on this account.” One is that of our version, “from him;” the second is, “from hence,” i e , from Egypt, adopted by Piscator, Grotius, and Blayney; and the third is, “from here,” i e , from this place, their own land; which, as Gataker says, is probably “the genuine sense:” it is a threatening, that they were to be led into captivity. The rendering of the Septuagint is, “ἐντεῦθεν — from hence,” or from this place; of the *Vulgate, “*ab ista — from that,” meaning, evidently Egypt; of the Syriac and *Targum, “*ex hoc — from this;” and of *Arabic, “*illinc — from thence.” The particle זה is “this,” and not “that.” — Ed ↩

43. “The gesture” mentioned here, a striking example of, we find in 2 Samuel 13:19. Many consider the ו here as having the meaning of “with,” and render the line as Blayney does, — With thy hands upon thy head. But more consistent with the genius of the language is to regard the auxiliary verb to be understood, — And thy hands shall be on thy head. There is a similar phrase in Isaiah 35:10, which ought to be rendered thus, — And everlasting joy shall be upon their heads. — Ed. ↩

44. The verb for “abhor” is מאם, which means to reject, that is, with disdain and contempt; and the same when followed by ב, though often rendered “despise” in our version. It is rendered “reject, “without the ב, in 1 Samuel 15:23; Jeremiah 7:29; and “despise” being followed by ב in Judges 9:38; Jeremiah 4:30. The early versions and the Targum mostly differ, and none of them give the specific meaning of the verb, except that the Septuagint give its meaning when not followed by ב, “ἀπώσατο — has rejected.” The whole verse may be thus rendered, — 37. Also from this place shalt thou go forth, And thy hands shall be on thy head: For rejected has Jehovah those in whom thou trustest, And thou shalt not prosper by them. It is not correct to render מבטחיך, “thy confidences;” for the word means “thy confided ones,“ it being a Huphal participle. The Syriac renders it, “those who afford thee confidence — fiduciam tibi praebentibus.” Blayney’s version is, “the objects of thy trust;” and he translates the verb, “reprobated.” That this is its meaning when followed by ב is evident from Jeremiah 6:30. — Ed ↩